Healthy Church: Biblical Leadership

Who leads the local church? Is the pastor supposed to make all the decisions? Should a board of deacons oversee the pastor? What about elders? Churches have adopted all kinds of leadership structures, often borrowing more from the corporate world than from Scripture. But if Christ is the head of the church, shouldn't we be asking how he intends his church to be led?

In this episode of Salty Believer Unscripted, Josiah Walker and Bryan Catherman continue our Healthy Church series with the seventh of Mark Dever's Nine Marks of a Healthy Church: biblical church leadership. They discuss the biblical offices of elders and deacons, the relationship between pastors and elders, and why these distinctions matter. While churches may use different titles and organizational structures, Scripture gives us important instructions about who should shepherd the flock and how the church should be served.

Biblical leadership is about much more than organizational charts, budgets, and decision-making authority. Elders are called to shepherd God's people, teach the Word, and protect the flock. Deacons serve the practical needs of the congregation, helping free elders to devote themselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word. Bryan and Josiah also share lessons from church planting and pastoral ministry, including how a plurality of elders and faithful deacons can make a significant difference in the health of a congregation. When church leaders understand their biblical responsibilities and work together, the entire church benefits.

What does faithful biblical leadership look like, and how does it help a church grow healthier? Join us as we discuss biblical leadership and the healthy church on Salty Believer Unscripted. Listen wherever you get podcasts or listen here:

Salty Believer Unscripted Healthy Church: Biblical Leadership

Download

Subscribe to Salty Believer Unscripted wherever you listen to podcasts, or visit the Salty Believer Unscripted podcast page for subscription options and the full episode archive.

Healthy Church: Biblical Discipleship

Christians know they're supposed to do discipleship, but many aren't sure where to start. Does it require a curriculum, a formal program, or special training? What does biblical discipleship actually look like, and why is it essential to a healthy church?

In this episode of Salty Believer Unscripted, Josiah Walker and Bryan Catherman continue their Healthy Church series with the sixth of Mark Dever's Nine Marks of a Healthy Church: a biblical concern for discipleship and growth. Looking at Matthew 28:19–20 and 2 Timothy 2:2, they discuss why discipleship involves more than gaining biblical knowledge. Christians should grow in obedience to Christ and help others do the same.

They also offer practical suggestions for discipling others, including one-on-one Bible reading, intentional relationships, and family discipleship. Whether it's encouraging your spouse, reading Scripture with your children, or meeting with another Christian over coffee, discipleship doesn't need to be complicated. They also recommend David Helm's One-to-One Bible Reading as a helpful resource.

Join us as we discuss discipleship and Christian growth on Salty Believer Unscripted. We also get a little sidetracked by candy corn and bad illustrations of the Trinity. Listen here:

Salty Believer Unscripted Healthy Church: Biblical Discipleship

Download

Subscribe to Salty Believer Unscripted wherever you listen to podcasts, or visit the Salty Believer Unscripted podcast page for subscription options and the full episode archive.

Is It Really Christianity? Five Questions to Test What a Preacher Teaches

Plenty of preachers, teachers, and religious leaders claim to be Christian. They talk about Jesus, quote the Bible, use Christian language, and claim to represent God. But they don’t all teach the same things. In fact, some of their teachings directly contradict one another. So how can we tell which preachers faithfully teach biblical Christianity and which ones lead people astray?

This question matters because the Bible repeatedly warns us about false teachers. Jesus warned his followers about false prophets who come in sheep’s clothing but are actually ravenous wolves (Matthew 7:15–23). The Apostle Paul warned the Galatians about those preaching a different gospel, declaring that anyone preaching a gospel contrary to the one they received should be accursed (Galatians 1:6–9). John instructed Christians to test the spirits because many false prophets had gone out into the world (1 John 4:1–3). Clearly, God expects his people to exercise discernment. False teaching is dangerous because it can lead people away from the true Christ and the salvation found in him.

But how do we determine what’s true? We can’t assume a preacher is faithful because he’s popular, has a large church, earned a theological degree, or knows how to quote Scripture. Our standard must be God’s Word. Second Timothy 3:16–17 teaches that all Scripture is breathed out by God and is sufficient to equip his people for every good work. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were commended for examining the Scriptures to see whether Paul’s teaching was true. Jesus also rebuked religious leaders who elevated their traditions above God’s commandments (Mark 7:8–13). We must examine what a preacher teaches and compare it with what God has said in his Word.

Of course, not every theological disagreement makes someone a false teacher. Faithful Christians disagree about important secondary matters, such as baptism, church government, and spiritual gifts. But essential doctrines define biblical Christianity. Denying the deity of Christ, rejecting the Trinity, or preaching salvation through something other than Christ strikes at the foundation of the Christian faith. We need to know the difference.

I’ve found that five questions provide a helpful framework for examining a preacher’s teaching. I call them the Four Ws and an H. These questions don’t address every theological issue, but they help us focus on Christianity's essential truths.

Five Questions to Test What a Preacher Teaches

1. Who Is God?

Who is the God being preached? Is he the one true God revealed in Scripture? Does the preacher teach the Trinity, that there is one God who eternally exists in three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? What does he teach about Jesus Christ? Is Jesus fully God and fully man, the eternal Son who became flesh, or is he merely a created being, a prophet, or an exceptional religious teacher? Jesus' identity is central to Christianity. If we get Jesus wrong, we get the gospel wrong. Examine Deuteronomy 6:4; John 1:1–14; Matthew 28:19; and Colossians 1:15–20.

2. Who Is Man?

What does the preacher teach about humanity? Are people basically good and simply in need of improvement, or are we sinners who need to be rescued? The Bible teaches that human beings are created in God’s image and therefore possess inherent dignity and worth. But Scripture also teaches that all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. We’re guilty before a holy God, and apart from his saving work, we’re spiritually dead in our sins. If a preacher doesn’t understand the problem of sin, he won’t correctly explain why we need a Savior. Read Genesis 1:26–27; Romans 3:10–23; and Ephesians 2:1–3.

3. Where Do We Come From?

What does the preacher teach about creation and our relationship to God? Christianity teaches that God is the Creator of all things, including humanity. We exist because he created us, and we’re accountable to him. Genesis also explains how sin entered the world through Adam’s rebellion against God. The biblical account of creation and the fall helps us understand why we’re here, why the world is broken, and why redemption is necessary. These truths are foundational to understanding the rest of Scripture. Examine Genesis 1–3; Acts 17:24–26; and Colossians 1:16–17.

4. Where Are We Going?

What does the preacher teach about death and eternity? Is death the end, or will there be a resurrection and final judgment? Does everyone eventually experience the same eternal destiny? The Bible teaches that death is followed by judgment and that Jesus Christ will raise the dead. Those who belong to Christ will enjoy eternal life in the new creation, while those who remain under God’s judgment will face eternal punishment. Christianity offers a glorious hope, but it also gives a serious warning. What we believe about eternity shapes how we understand God’s justice, his promises, and our need for salvation. Read Hebrews 9:27; John 5:28–29; and Revelation 20–22.

5. How Do We Get There?

This question takes us to the heart of the gospel. How can sinners be saved from God’s judgment and receive eternal life? Does the preacher teach salvation through Jesus Christ alone, or does he offer another way to God? Does he teach salvation by God’s grace through faith in Christ, or must we earn our salvation through good works, religious ceremonies, or obedience to certain rules? The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the only Savior. Through his sinless life, sacrificial death, and resurrection, he accomplished everything necessary to save sinners. We receive salvation by grace through faith, not by earning it through our works. Genuine faith produces repentance and good works, but those works don’t earn salvation. Jesus saves us. This is the heart of the gospel, and we must get it right. Examine John 14:6; Acts 4:12; Ephesians 2:8–10; and Galatians 1:6–9.

Test Everything by Scripture

These five questions provide a starting point for examining what a preacher teaches. They aren’t intended to address every doctrinal issue, but they can help us recognize whether someone is proclaiming the essential truths of biblical Christianity or teaching something contrary to Scripture. Our purpose isn’t to find fault with everyone who disagrees with us or to win theological arguments. We want to know the truth, protect ourselves and others from false teaching, and remain faithful to Jesus Christ.

This requires some work. We need to listen carefully, understand what a preacher actually teaches, and examine his claims against Scripture. We also need the humility to examine our own beliefs by that same standard. None of us stands above God’s Word. The Apostle Paul wrote, “Test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). That’s good instruction for every Christian, whether you’ve followed Jesus for decades or have only recently come to faith.

Many people claim to speak for Christ. Some faithfully proclaim his Word. Others distort his identity, diminish the seriousness of sin, or offer a gospel that cannot save. We must know the difference. And the best way to recognize false teaching is to know the truth of God’s Word.

Healthy Church: Biblical Church Discipline

Church discipline. Hearing those words can make some Christians uncomfortable. For many, the idea brings to mind harsh confrontations, embarrassing public announcements, or people being kicked out of church. But is that really what Jesus intended? What if biblical church discipline is actually an expression of Christian love and essential to a healthy church?

In this episode of Salty Believer Unscripted, Josiah Walker and Bryan Catherman continue our Healthy Church series with the fifth of Mark Dever's Nine Marks of a Healthy Church: biblical church discipline. They spend much of the conversation working through Matthew 18, looking at the larger context of Jesus' teaching. Before Jesus gives instructions about confronting a brother in sin, he talks about humility, the seriousness of sin, and the shepherd who goes after a wandering sheep. And after those instructions, he teaches about forgiveness. That context matters.

Church discipline is about much more than removing someone from church membership. Christians should help one another recognize sin, repent, and grow in holiness at all times. That's part of discipleship. Sometimes that means having difficult conversations. Sometimes it means confronting persistent, unrepentant sin. But the goal should always be repentance, forgiveness, and restoration. A healthy church takes sin seriously because God takes sin seriously. And a healthy church loves people enough to help them fight against it.

Why is biblical church discipline so difficult for many churches? What does Matthew 18 actually teach, and how should Christians respond when someone confronts them about sin? Join us as we discuss biblical church discipline and the healthy church on Salty Believer Unscripted. Listen wherever you get podcasts or listen here:

Salty Believer Unscripted Healthy Church: Church Discipline

Download

Subscribe to Salty Believer Unscripted wherever you listen to podcasts, or visit the Salty Believer Unscripted podcast page for subscription options and the full episode archive.

Healthy Church: Biblical Membership

What does it mean to be a member of a church? Is membership simply having your name on a list somewhere? Is it attending a particular church regularly, or does biblical church membership require something more? Some Christians are hesitant to become church members because they've been hurt by a church in the past. Others simply don't want to make that kind of commitment. But what does the Bible say about belonging to a local church?

In this episode of Salty Believer Unscripted, Josiah Walker and Bryan Catherman continue our Healthy Church series with the fourth of Mark Dever's Nine Marks of a Healthy Church: a biblical understanding of church membership. They discuss the difference between belonging to the universal Church and being a committed member of a local church. Every Christian belongs to Christ and his Church, but the New Testament also shows believers gathering together in identifiable local congregations where they worship, serve, encourage, and care for one another. Membership is about much more than having your name on a church roll.

Biblical church membership also involves accountability. Hebrews 13:17 teaches that church leaders keep watch over the souls of those entrusted to their care and will give an account to God. But who are those people? And who are the pastors responsible for shepherding? Meaningful membership helps answer those questions. It establishes a relationship between pastors and the people they shepherd, as well as between brothers and sisters who have committed to pursuing Christ together. This is why church covenants, mutual accountability, and meaningful commitment matter for a healthy church.

Unfortunately, our culture often treats commitment as something to avoid. It's easy to approach church as a consumer. It’s easy to attend when it's convenient, moving elsewhere when preferences aren't met, and resisting the kind of relationships where other Christians might speak into our lives. But the biblical picture is different. The church is a body, and its members belong to one another (Romans 12:4–5). We need the local church, and the local church needs its members.

Why should Christians take membership seriously? What should meaningful membership look like in a healthy local church? Join us as we discuss biblical church membership and the healthy church on Salty Believer Unscripted. We also give an unscripted, unsolicited, and unsponsored shout-out to Christopher Ash's Not Old, Not Young, Not Done and Jen Wilkin's Dust to Dust.

Listen wherever you get podcasts or listen here:

Salty Believer Unscripted Healthy Church: Biblical Membership

Download

Subscribe to Salty Believer Unscripted wherever you listen to podcasts, or visit the Salty Believer Unscripted podcast page for subscription options and the full episode archive.

Four Views of the End Times: What Does the Bible Actually Teach?

Christians have debated the end times for nearly 2,000 years. When will Jesus return? What is the millennium? Will there be a great tribulation? What about the rapture? Will the gospel eventually transform the world, or should we expect things to get progressively worse before Christ returns? And what about Israel?

These are good questions. The Bible says much about them. Unfortunately, Christians sometimes spend more time defending their preferred end-times position than examining the Scriptures that inform it. We can become so committed to a particular system that we read every passage through that system, even when the passage might challenge our conclusions. Sometimes, we’re content to do gymnastics with God’s Word.

I’ve written about this before. Eschatology, the study of the last things, can become a point of Christian partisanship. Some people are convinced their position is the only possible way to understand the Bible. Others have seen so much disagreement that they’ve decided the subject isn’t worth studying at all.

I don’t think either approach is helpful.

In an earlier post, I offered an oversimplified explanation of the major end-times positions. I want to take that discussion a little further by looking at four significant views, what makes each position compelling, and where each faces difficulties. (Technically, it’s three views, with one having a shoot-off.)

The goal isn’t to convince you to join a theological camp. I hope you’ll open your Bible, examine the passages, and think carefully about what God has revealed.

What Do Christians Agree On?

Before getting into the disagreements, we should consider what the Bible clearly teaches. Christians agree much more on the end times than our debates sometimes suggest.

Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. His resurrection guarantees the future resurrection of those who belong to him (1 Corinthians 15:20–23). Jesus is also reigning now. Following his resurrection and ascension, he was exalted to the right hand of the Father and given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18; Acts 2:32–36; Ephesians 1:20–23).

Jesus will return. His return will be personal, visible, and bodily. Acts 1:11 says that the same Jesus who ascended into heaven will return. The dead will be raised, and God will judge humanity (John 5:28–29; Acts 17:30–31). Satan will be defeated, evil will end, and death itself will be destroyed (1 Corinthians 15:24–26; Revelation 20:10–14).

God will also bring about the new heavens and new earth. Revelation 21:1–5 describes the glorious future of God’s people, when death, mourning, crying, and pain will be no more. This is the Christian hope. We’re looking forward to the resurrection of the body and life with God in his renewed creation.

These truths aren’t up for debate among the four positions we’re considering. The primary disagreement is about how the events fit together. When does the millennium happen? Does Jesus return before it or after it? Are the resurrections and final judgment closely associated with his return, or are some of these events separated by a thousand years?

Revelation 20 describes a one-thousand-year period, often called the millennium. The three major millennial positions are amillennialism, postmillennialism, and premillennialism. However, premillennialism has two significantly different forms, so we’ll consider four positions.

1. Amillennialism

The first position is amillennialism. The name can be misleading because the prefix “a” suggests that there is no millennium. But amillennialists don’t deny Revelation 20 or the reign of Christ described there. Rather, they believe the thousand years symbolically represent the present period between Jesus’ first and second comings.

In this view, Jesus is reigning now. His kingdom has already been inaugurated, Satan has been bound in the specific sense described in Revelation 20:3, and the gospel is advancing among the nations. Christians who die are with Christ and reign with him in heaven. At the conclusion of this present age, Jesus returns, the dead are raised, final judgment takes place, and the new heavens and new earth begin.

One of the strongest arguments for amillennialism comes from passages outside Revelation. In John 5:28–29, Jesus describes an hour when those in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, some to the resurrection of life and others to the resurrection of judgment. The passage seems to bring the resurrection of believers and unbelievers together. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 15:23–26, Paul connects Christ’s return, the resurrection of his people, the destruction of his enemies, and the final defeat of death.

This raises an important question. If Jesus returns, raises his people, and defeats death, why should we expect another thousand years of human history in which people are still dying?

Amillennialists also argue that Revelation doesn’t always move forward chronologically. The book repeatedly portrays judgment, conflict, and victory from different perspectives. Therefore, Revelation 20 may return to the beginning of the present age rather than describe what happens chronologically after Revelation 19.

This interpretation also accounts for Jesus’ teaching about Satan. In Matthew 12:28–29, Jesus describes binding the strong man in connection with the arrival of his kingdom. John 12:31–32 also connects Christ’s first coming with Satan's defeat and the drawing of people to Christ. Revelation 20:3 says Satan is bound so he cannot deceive the nations as described there. It doesn’t say Satan is completely inactive.

However, amillennialism has a significant difficulty. Revelation 20:4–6 describes certain people who “came to life” and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. Then it speaks of the rest of the dead who did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. The repeated language seems to suggest two bodily resurrections separated by the millennium.

Amillennialists understand the first resurrection differently. Some believe it describes the believer’s entrance into life with Christ after death. Others understand it as spiritual life through regeneration. Those interpretations are possible, but they require careful explanation. Amillennialists must also show why Revelation 19 and 20 should be read as overlapping visions rather than as events that occur one after another.

I think amillennialism's strongest feature is how it brings Revelation 20 into conversation with the rest of the New Testament. Its greatest challenge is explaining the specific language and apparent sequence of Revelation 20.

2. Postmillennialism

The second position is postmillennialism. The prefix “post” means after. Postmillennialists believe Jesus will return after a millennial period marked by extraordinary gospel success worldwide.

Like amillennialists, postmillennialists believe Jesus is reigning now. His kingdom is already present and advancing. However, postmillennialists expect the gospel to spread until Christian faith and righteousness characterize much of the world. This doesn’t require everyone to become a Christian, nor does it mean sin and suffering disappear completely. Rather, the expectation is that the kingdom’s influence will spread more and more widely before Jesus returns.

Postmillennialists find strong support in Old Testament promises about the Messiah’s kingdom. Psalm 72 describes a king whose dominion extends throughout the earth. Isaiah 2:2–4 pictures nations coming to the Lord to learn his ways. Daniel 2 describes a stone that becomes a great mountain filling the whole earth. These passages portray the worldwide triumph of God’s kingdom.

The question is when and how these promises will be fulfilled.

Postmillennialists believe we should expect substantial fulfillment within human history before Christ returns. They also look to Jesus’ kingdom parables in Matthew 13. The mustard seed begins small but grows into something large. Leaven works its way through the dough. They argue that these pictures of kingdom growth give us reason to expect remarkable gospel success.

The Great Commission is also central to their argument. Jesus declared that all authority in heaven and on earth had been given to him and then commanded his disciples to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:18–20). Postmillennialists see this as a mission backed by Christ’s sovereign authority that will produce extraordinary results in history.

This expectation is compelling. Christ really does have all authority. The gospel really is the power of God for salvation. And God’s promises concerning the nations are much larger than the success of a few individual churches.

But here’s the difficulty. Do these passages actually promise an extended period of widespread Christian influence before Jesus returns? Or do they describe the kingdom's growth in this age and its ultimate fulfillment in the new heavens and new earth?

Jesus also warned about suffering, persecution, deception, and opposition. The New Testament repeatedly prepares believers for tribulation. Postmillennialists must account for these passages while maintaining their expectation of a period of remarkable gospel success.

Postmillennialism's strength is that it takes the worldwide promises concerning Christ’s kingdom seriously. Its difficulty lies in showing that these promises require the particular historical development postmillennialists anticipate.

3. Historic Premillennialism

The third position is historic premillennialism, sometimes called classic premillennialism. The prefix “pre” means before. Premillennialists believe Jesus will return before the thousand-year reign described in Revelation 20.

Historic premillennialists generally expect the church to experience tribulation before Christ returns. When Jesus comes, he will raise his people and establish his kingdom on earth. The saints will reign with him during the millennium. Afterward, Satan will be released, there will be a final rebellion, and God will bring about the final judgment and the new heavens and new earth.

The strongest argument for this position comes from Revelation 19 and 20.

Revelation 19 describes Christ's triumphant return. He comes as the victorious King, defeats his enemies, and judges the beast and false prophet. Revelation 20 then describes Satan being bound, the saints coming to life and reigning with Christ, and Satan’s final defeat after the thousand years. If these chapters are intended to describe a continuous chronological sequence, historic premillennialism seems to be a natural reading.

Revelation 20:4–6 is particularly important. John describes believers coming to life and reigning with Christ. He calls this the first resurrection. He then explains that the rest of the dead do not come to life until the thousand years end. Historic premillennialists argue that the same language should be understood consistently, pointing to two bodily resurrections separated by the millennium.

Some premillennialists also find support in Old Testament prophecies describing a future kingdom characterized by extraordinary peace and blessing, but where death still appears to exist. Isaiah 65:17–25 is sometimes read this way, though the passage introduces the promise as the creation of new heavens and a new earth. That presents an interpretive challenge.

Historic premillennialism has a strong argument from the apparent sequence of Revelation 19 and 20. I also think its reading of the two resurrections deserves serious consideration.

But the position has difficulties.

First Corinthians 15 seems to associate Christ’s return with the defeat of death and the consummation of his kingdom. John 5 appears to bring the resurrection of the righteous and wicked together. Second Peter 3:10–13 connects the day of the Lord with judgment and the new creation.

How do these passages fit with a thousand years after Jesus returns?

If Christ has come, raised his people, and established his reign visibly on earth, why would sin, death, and rebellion continue for another thousand years? Historic premillennialists have explanations for these questions, but the difficulties are substantial.

The position’s greatest strength is its straightforward reading of Revelation 20. Its greatest difficulty is fitting that reading with other passages that appear to bring Christ’s return and the final consummation together.

4. Dispensational Premillennialism

The fourth position is dispensational premillennialism. Like historic premillennialism, it teaches that Jesus will return before a future earthly kingdom. However, it also includes a distinctive understanding of Israel, the church, and the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises.

Dispensational premillennialism developed as a distinct theological system in the nineteenth century, particularly through the influence of John Nelson Darby. It became especially popular in American evangelicalism through prophecy teaching, study Bibles, and later books and films about the rapture and tribulation.

Traditional dispensational premillennialism teaches that Jesus will gather his church before a seven-year tribulation. During this period, God will carry out his purposes in judgment and in relation to Israel. At the conclusion of the tribulation, Jesus will return publicly to establish a thousand-year earthly kingdom. After the millennium, the final judgment and the eternal state will come.

Not every dispensationalist agrees on the timing of the rapture. However, the pretribulational view has been especially influential.

A significant feature of dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the Church. Dispensationalists emphasize God's promises to Abraham concerning the land (Genesis 15), the Davidic kingdom (2 Samuel 7), and the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah (Jeremiah 31). They argue that God’s specific promises to national Israel require future fulfillment in that nation.

Romans 11:25–29 is especially important because Paul speaks of Israel’s future and God’s irrevocable gifts and calling. Dispensationalists see this as support for their understanding of God’s continuing purposes for national Israel.

This is a serious biblical concern. God is faithful to his promises. We shouldn’t dismiss what he promised through Abraham, David, and the prophets simply because the fulfillment is difficult to understand.

However, Christians who reject dispensationalism also believe God will faithfully fulfill his promises. The disagreement concerns how those promises are fulfilled in Jesus Christ and how the New Testament understands the relationship between Israel and the Church. Even a belief in a future significant conversion of ethnic Jews does not, by itself, establish dispensationalism.

The rapture is another important distinction. First Thessalonians 4:13–18 clearly teaches that believers will be caught up to meet Christ when he descends. The question is whether this gathering happens seven years before his public return or as part of that return. In addition, people disagree about what this rapture specifically refers to.

Pretribulationalists point to passages such as Revelation 3:10 and 1 Thessalonians 5:9, which promise protection from trial and deliverance from God’s wrath. They also understand Daniel 9:24–27 as including a future seventieth week, identified with the seven-year tribulation.

But these passages don’t explicitly establish the entire sequence. First Thessalonians 4 says believers will meet Christ at his coming. It doesn’t say they will spend seven years in heaven before returning with him. Matthew 24:29–31 seems to link the gathering of God’s people to Christ’s visible return after the tribulation. Even Luke 17:20–37, which is sometimes brought into discussions of people being taken and others left, raises questions about whether those taken are being rescued or taken in judgment.

The greatest strength of dispensational premillennialism is its commitment to taking God’s covenant promises at face value and accounting for biblical teaching on tribulation and deliverance. Its greatest difficulty is establishing the proposed sequence from Scripture itself, especially the distinction between a pretribulational gathering of the church and a later public return of Christ.

I find this position the least compelling of the four, primarily because of its understanding of Israel and the Church and the difficulty of establishing a two-stage return from the biblical text. Still, those conclusions should be tested by Scripture rather than accepted simply because I’ve stated them.

What’s Really Behind the Disagreements?

We’ve considered four positions, but a few central questions drive much of the discussion.

First, does Christ return before or after the millennium? This is the primary division between premillennialism and the other two positions. Revelation 19–20 is central, but so are passages such as John 5:28–29 and 1 Corinthians 15:23–28. How we understand the relationship between these passages matters.

Second, how far will Christ’s kingdom advance before he returns? This question is especially important in the disagreement between amillennialism and postmillennialism. Both affirm Christ’s present reign and the gospel's advance. But does Scripture promise an extended period of extraordinary gospel success before Christ returns?

Third, how will God fulfill his promises concerning Israel, and how does the gathering of believers relate to Christ’s return? These questions are especially important when considering dispensational premillennialism. We need to examine the Old Testament promises, their fulfillment in Christ, Romans 9–11, and passages about Jesus' return.

I’ve spent considerable time working through these questions, and my understanding has changed over time. I’ve been sympathetic to historic premillennialism, and I still believe it makes some strong arguments. More recently, I’ve found the amillennial interpretation increasingly compelling, especially when I consider how the New Testament connects Christ’s return with the resurrection, final judgment, and the destruction of death. I see recapitulation in Revelation. I prefer the clearer passages in the Epistles, which carry more weight, over the less clear passages in Revelation, which use much symbolic and difficult language. In the final analysis, however, I don’t think it’s wise to speak with more confidence than the biblical evidence warrants.

That doesn’t mean every interpretation is equally correct. God has communicated truth in his Word, and our theological preferences and tradition don’t determine Scripture's meaning. Our responsibility is to study carefully, examine our assumptions, and follow Scripture's evidence wherever it leads.

We should also be willing to recognize a strong biblical argument even when it comes from someone who holds a different position. If the only arguments we know about another end-times view are weak, we probably haven’t studied it carefully enough.

Don’t Miss the Point of the End Times

One thing concerns me about these discussions. Christians can spend hours debating the sequence of end-times events while paying little attention to why God revealed them in the first place.

The Bible wasn’t written to satisfy all our curiosity about the future. God has revealed what we need to know to trust him, obey him, and live faithfully while we await Christ’s return.

Consider Paul’s conclusion to his teaching about the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. After explaining Christ’s victory over sin and death and the future resurrection of believers, Paul doesn’t tell the Corinthians to start drawing timelines. Instead, he tells them to remain steadfast, immovable, and always abound in the work of the Lord because “in the Lord your labor is not in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:58).

The certainty of the resurrection should change how we live today.

The promise of Christ’s return should encourage holiness, perseverance, worship, evangelism, and faithfulness. We should be prepared to suffer for Christ. We should proclaim the gospel to the nations. We should be looking forward to the day when the King returns and makes all things new.

We should also remember that many faithful Christians who hold different millennial positions agree on the most important truths. Jesus is risen. Jesus is reigning. Jesus is coming again. He will judge the world, destroy death, and dwell with his people forever. These are glorious promises!

I’m not suggesting that the other questions don’t matter. They do. We should study them, discuss them, and pursue the truth. But we shouldn’t let disagreements about the sequence of events overshadow our agreement about the King who will bring all things to their appointed end.

The most important question isn’t whether Jesus returns before or after the millennium. It’s whether we’re ready for his return.

“Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” (Revelation 22:20)

Healthy Church: Conversion and Evangelism

What does it mean to become a Christian? Is conversion simply the moment someone prays a prayer, walks an aisle, or gets baptized? Those things may accompany conversion, but a healthy church needs a much more biblical understanding of what happens when God saves someone. Much more.

In this episode of Salty Believer Unscripted, Josiah Walker and Bryan Catherman continue our Healthy Church series with the third of Mark Dever’s Nine Marks of a Healthy Church: a biblical understanding of conversion and evangelism. They discuss why conversion cannot be reduced to a one-time decision followed by business as usual. When God saves someone, he changes them. The Christian life begins with repentance and faith and continues as a life of following Christ, growing in holiness, bearing fruit, and persevering in the faith.

A biblical understanding of conversion also changes how we think about evangelism. Evangelism is not merely getting someone to repeat the right words so we can count another decision. We want people to know who Jesus is, understand the gospel, repent of sin, trust Christ, and follow him. Then we want to walk with them as brothers and sisters in the local church. Healthy evangelism is concerned with making disciples, not merely producing decisions.

What does genuine conversion look like, and how should that shape the way a healthy church evangelizes, baptizes, and disciples people? Join us as we discuss conversion and evangelism and the healthy church on Salty Believer Unscripted. Listen wherever you get podcasts or listen here:

Salty Believer Unscripted Healthy Church: Conversion and Evangelism

Download

Subscribe to Salty Believer Unscripted wherever you listen to podcasts, or visit the Salty Believer Unscripted podcast page for subscription options and the full episode archive.

Who Are the Nephilim?

Some passages in the Bible are difficult or weird because the argument is complicated. Others are challenging because they tell us something strange and then move on before answering all the questions we want to ask. Genesis 6:1-4 is one of those passages.

As mankind multiplied on the earth, “the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose” (Genesis 6:2). A few verses later we meet the Nephilim, the “mighty men who were of old, the men of renown” (Genesis 6:4). Then the story moves directly into the wickedness of man and God’s judgment in the Flood.

Naturally, we want to know who these people were. Who were the sons of God? Who were the Nephilim? Were they giants? Were they angels? Were the Nephilim the children produced by these strange marriages? And if they were destroyed in the Flood, why does Numbers 13 mention the Nephilim again? Social media is having a field day with these questions.

Christians have offered several answers. Some are more convincing than others, but Genesis does not give us enough information to answer every question with certainty. That makes this passage a good opportunity to do more than solve a Bible mystery. It also gives us a chance to think about how we should read difficult passages in the first place.

Here are seven questions that can help.

What Does the Text Explicitly Say?

Before trying to explain the passage, we should pay attention to what it actually says. Genesis tells us that mankind was multiplying and daughters were being born. The “sons of God” saw that the “daughters of man” were attractive, and they took wives from any they chose. The Lord then declared, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years” (Genesis 6:3).

Then Genesis tells us, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward.” The sons of God went in to the daughters of man, and children were born to them; these are connected with “the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown” (Genesis 6:4).

Already we need to slow down. We often hear that the Nephilim were children born from the union of the sons of God and the daughters of man. That may be what the passage means, but the wording isn't as explicit as we sometimes make it. Genesis says the Nephilim were there in those days and also afterward. Then it speaks about the children born from these unions and the mighty men of old. These things are closely related, but the passage does not pause to define every relationship for us.

That matters because Bible study can go wrong remarkably early. We make an inference, repeat it often enough, and eventually forget the Bible never actually said it. Good interpretation starts by keeping those categories separate.

What Does the Immediate Context Tell Us?

Genesis 6:1-4 comes immediately before one of the Bible’s strongest statements about human depravity. “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5). God decides to judge the earth, while Noah finds favor in the Lord's eyes.

That should govern how we read the strange material immediately before it. Whatever is happening with the sons of God, the daughters of man, and the Nephilim, this passage is part of the Bible’s movement toward the Flood. The world God created good has become deeply corrupt. Human rebellion has spread. Something is badly disordered, and judgment is coming.

Genesis 4 and 5 have already been moving us in this direction. Cain murders Abel. Violence increases. Lamech boasts about killing a man. Humanity multiplies, civilization develops, and sin grows with it. By Genesis 6, wickedness has become so pervasive that God brings judgment upon the world.

That does not answer the Nephilim question, but it tells us where the author’s emphasis falls. Moses does not give us Genesis 6:1-4 so we can construct an elaborate theory of supernatural beings and then forget what happens in verse 5. Whatever view we adopt has to fit the argument Genesis is actually making.

Does the Rest of Scripture Give Us Any Additional Information?

This is where the discussion gets more interesting.

The phrase “sons of God” appears elsewhere in the Old Testament. In Job 1:6, “the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD.” The same thing happens in Job 2:1. Job 38:7 uses the expression in the context of creation, when “the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.” In these passages, the expression refers to heavenly beings. That is important evidence and one of the strongest reasons some interpreters believe the sons of God in Genesis 6 are also heavenly beings.

The Nephilim appear again in Numbers 13. The spies who returned from Canaan said, “And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim)” (Numbers 13:33). That introduces another difficulty. If the Nephilim lived before the Flood, what does it mean that they were also present afterward? Did some survive? Did the same kind of people appear again? Were the spies using the term more generally? Genesis does not stop to explain.

We should also remember that Numbers 13 records the report of the frightened spies who were discouraging Israel from entering the land. Their report becomes increasingly fearful and exaggerated. That does not mean we dismiss what they said, but it should make us cautious about building an elaborate doctrine on one line from their report.

Two New Testament passages are also often connected with Genesis 6. Second Peter 2:4 speaks about angels who sinned and were cast into judgment, then moves almost immediately to the ancient world and Noah. Jude 6 speaks of angels “who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling.” Those connections are certainly worth considering.

But there is an important difference between saying that a passage may illuminate Genesis 6 and saying that it certainly explains Genesis 6. Neither Peter nor Jude explicitly identifies the sin of these angels with the events of Genesis 6:1-4. We should use Scripture to interpret Scripture, but we should not make a connection more certain than the Bible makes it.

What Are the Major Reasonable Interpretations?

Three views deserve serious consideration.

The first understands the sons of God as heavenly beings, usually fallen angels who transgressed God’s established boundaries by taking human women. The strongest argument for this view is straightforward: “sons of God” refers to heavenly beings elsewhere in the Old Testament. This interpretation also has ancient roots and may fit the references to sinning angels in Jude and 2 Peter. It also helps explain why this episode sounds so unusual.

But the view raises difficult questions. How would angelic beings reproduce with human women? Jesus says that the angels in heaven “neither marry nor are given in marriage” (Matthew 22:30). Does that settle the question, or was Jesus speaking about the normal state of the angels in heaven rather than what rebellious spiritual beings might attempt? Genesis does not tell us. Some try to solve the problem by suggesting demonic possession of human men, but that introduces another idea Genesis itself never mentions.

A second view understands the sons of God as descendants of Seth. Genesis 4 traces the line of Cain, while Genesis 5 traces the line from Adam through Seth. On this reading, Genesis 6 describes the breakdown between the godly line of Seth and the ungodly world around them. The sons of God marry the daughters of man, and the result is further corruption.

That fits some of the literary movement from Genesis 4 through Genesis 6, and it keeps the entire event within human relationships. But it also has difficulties. Genesis never calls these men Sethites or identifies the women as descendants of Cain. More importantly, the expression “sons of God” is not clearly used elsewhere in the Old Testament as another name for the descendants of Seth. The view may fit a larger theme in Genesis, but the specific words of Genesis 6 still need to be explained.

A third view understands the sons of God as powerful kings or rulers. Ancient kings sometimes claimed divine status or a special relationship with the gods. The statement that these men “took as their wives any they chose” could describe tyrants using their power to seize women. The later reference to mighty men and men of renown may also fit a world of famous warriors and rulers.

This view makes good sense of the abuse of power, but Genesis never actually identifies the sons of God as kings. Much of the case depends upon what we know about kingship in the ancient Near East. That background may be useful, but historical background should help us understand the Bible, not quietly supply the information the Bible itself never gives.

What Does Each Interpretation Explain Well, and Where Does It Struggle?

This step matters because we are usually much better at spotting problems in someone else’s interpretation than in our own.

The heavenly-being view has a strong argument in the Old Testament use of “sons of God.” It may also explain why this short episode is so unusual and could connect naturally with Jude and 2 Peter. But it has to explain the nature of the union between heavenly beings and human women, and Genesis gives us almost no help doing that.

The Sethite view fits the movement from the genealogies of Genesis 4 and 5 into the widespread corruption of Genesis 6. It also avoids the difficulties of supernatural beings producing human offspring. But it must explain why “sons of God” should suddenly mean descendants of Seth and why “daughters of man” should refer specifically to women outside that line when the text never says either thing.

The ruler view can explain the language of men taking whichever women they chose and may fit the presence of mighty, renowned men. It also fits what we know about ancient rulers claiming divine standing and abusing their power. But the passage does not identify the sons of God as kings.

Every view explains something. Every view also carries some baggage. This does not mean all interpretations are equally strong. It means we should be willing to make our preferred interpretation answer the difficult questions too.

What Can We Conclude Confidently?

We may not be able to settle every question about the Nephilim, but that does not mean Genesis 6 tells us nothing clearly.

Something has gone terribly wrong. The events of Genesis 6:1-4 belong to the growing corruption that reaches its summary in verse 5. God sees that human wickedness is great and that the thoughts of the human heart are continually evil. Judgment follows.

We can also say the Nephilim were real figures associated with this period, and that Genesis connects them in some way to the mighty men of old, the men of renown. We may debate exactly who they were or how they related to the sons of God, but Genesis presents them as part of the real world it describes.

Beyond that, our certainty should probably begin to decrease.

That is not a weakness in our doctrine of Scripture. Inerrancy does not mean the Bible answers every question we can think to ask. Sufficiency does not mean exhaustive information about every person, event, or mysterious creature mentioned in the biblical story. Scripture tells us everything God intends to tell us for the purposes for which he gave it. Sometimes we want details he did not choose to give.

A mature reading of Scripture should be able to say, “This is clear,” “This seems likely,” and “I don’t know.” Those are three different conclusions, and we should not be embarrassed by any of them when they honestly reflect what the Text gives us.

What Are We Tempted to Conclude That the Bible Never Actually Tells Us?

This may be the most important question in the entire discussion.

The Bible does not tell us exactly how tall the Nephilim were. It does not say that every giant mentioned later in Scripture was a Nephilim. It does not identify Goliath as a Nephilim. It does not tell us that fallen angels manipulated human DNA, produced a genetically corrupted race, or that the main purpose of the Flood was to wipe out angel-human hybrids. It does not explain how the Nephilim were on the earth “also afterward.” It certainly doesn't explain how people walking around today have Nephilim ancestry.

People have developed theories to answer many of those questions. Some of those theories may attempt to connect genuine biblical observations. Others have traveled a very long way from Genesis 6. Either way, we need to remember something simple: a theory may explain a question the Bible leaves unanswered without therefore becoming something the Bible teaches.

That is where difficult passages can expose something in us. We do not like unanswered questions. We want every loose end tied up. When Scripture gives us four strange verses, we are tempted to supply the missing chapter ourselves.

But our task is to receive what God has given us, not to improve upon it.

Study the Nephilim. Compare the views. Pay attention to the words Genesis uses. Look at Job, Numbers, Jude, and 2 Peter. Wrestle with the strengths and weaknesses of the various interpretations. It's fine to reach a conclusion about which view seems most likely.

Just remember where the Bible stops.

We should be confident where Scripture is clear, careful where the evidence is limited, and quiet where God has chosen to remain quiet. That is not avoiding the hard work of Bible study. It is part of doing the hard work well.

Jesus Preached to Spirits in Prison?

Some verses in the Bible are so easy the first time we read them. First Peter 3:19 is probably not one of them. Peter says that Christ “went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison.” What spirits? What prison? When did Jesus go there? What did he proclaim? This is one of the more difficult statements in the New Testament.

Before trying to sort out the spirits in prison, it helps to look back at what Peter says about Noah and the Flood. The Flood is not an isolated Bible story. It fits into a pattern that appears throughout Scripture. Human beings rebel against God. God announces judgment. He shows mercy to some and preserves them through the judgment. Then a new beginning follows.

We see the pattern with Noah. Genesis says that human wickedness had become great upon the earth, so God announced judgment. Yet Noah found favor with God. The Flood came and destroyed the wicked world, but Noah and his family were preserved through the water. They came out of the ark into a new beginning.

Genesis gives us something similar with Sodom. Wickedness grows, judgment is announced, Lot receives mercy, and God rains judgment on the city while rescuing Lot. The similarities between the Flood and Sodom are striking, and the New Testament puts the two events together. Jesus compares his future coming in judgment to both the days of Noah and the days of Lot in Luke 17:26-30. Peter does the same thing in 2 Peter 2:5-9. God judged the ancient world while preserving Noah, and he condemned Sodom while rescuing Lot.

Judges 19 adds a disturbing development to the pattern. The events in the Israelite city of Gibeah strongly resemble the events in Sodom. Travelers enter the city. A man offers them hospitality. Wicked men surround the house and demand that the visitor be brought outside for sex. The host protests, women are offered to the mob, and the situation ends in horrific sexual violence. The comparison is difficult to miss. Israel has become like Sodom. The people God rescued from wicked nations are now behaving like the wicked nations.

This creates a much bigger problem. It is not enough for God to rescue his people from wickedness around them. Something must be done about the wickedness within them. Judgment may destroy a wicked world, but Noah still sins after the Flood. Lot escapes Sodom, but sin follows his family out of the city. Israel is rescued from Egypt, yet eventually an Israelite city looks like Sodom. The Bible keeps showing us that we need a greater rescue.

This is where Peter takes us in 1 Peter 3. He begins with Jesus: “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18). The pattern reaches its fullest expression in Christ. Judgment against sin really falls, but the righteous one bears it for the unrighteous. Jesus dies and is raised to life.

Then Peter points back to Noah. Eight people were “brought safely through water,” and Peter immediately connects this with baptism (1 Peter 3:20-21). Peter does more than notice that the Flood involved water and baptism involves water. Baptism pictures our union with Christ in the same pattern. We are united with Christ in his death and raised with him to new life. Paul makes the same connection in Romans 6:3-4, saying that those baptized into Christ were baptized into his death, buried with him, and raised so that we might “walk in newness of life.”

So Peter has connected the suffering and resurrection of Christ with Noah, judgment, rescue, and baptism. Then, right in the middle of the argument, he says that Christ “went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison” (1 Peter 3:19).

What does that mean!?!

There are three major ways Christians have understood this verse.

One view is that Christ preached through Noah to the people living before the Flood. In this interpretation, Christ spoke through Noah as Noah warned his generation. Those people rejected the warning, died in the Flood, and are now “spirits in prison.” There may be something to this. Elsewhere, Peter calls Noah “a herald of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5), and 1 Peter already speaks about the Spirit of Christ working through earlier prophets. The difficulty is that Peter seems to describe Christ himself as going somewhere and making a proclamation.

A second view is that Jesus went to the realm of the dead after his crucifixion and preached to human beings who had died in Noah’s day. Some versions of this interpretation have even suggested that Jesus offered them another opportunity for salvation. I find that interpretation difficult to accept. Peter does not say that Christ offered salvation to these spirits, and the rest of Scripture gives us no reason to look for another opportunity for repentance after death. Hebrews 9:27 says that “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.” Even if this was a one-time deal for the people of the Old Testament, that doesn’t line up with the rest of the Bible.

The third view is that the “spirits in prison” are rebellious spiritual beings and that Christ’s proclamation was an announcement of his victory. I think this view best fits the passage.

Peter uses similar language elsewhere. Second Peter 2:4 speaks of angels who sinned and were committed to gloomy darkness to be kept until judgment. Jude 6 likewise speaks of angels who rebelled and are being kept “in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day.” Both passages appear in contexts that reach back to the events surrounding the Flood. That sounds remarkably similar to spirits being kept in prison. Reading 2 Peter 2:4 and 1 Peter 3:19 is compelling.

The end of 1 Peter 3 strengthens the connection. Peter does not finish with Christ merely surviving death. Jesus has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, “with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him” (1 Peter 3:22). The passage moves from Christ’s suffering, through his resurrection, to his triumph over every hostile power.

That is why I think the proclamation of verse 19 is best understood as a proclamation of victory rather than an evangelistic sermon to dead humans. The risen Christ announces his triumph to rebellious spiritual powers. The powers that opposed God have not won. They are subject to King Jesus.

This also fits Peter’s larger purpose. He writes to Christians who are suffering and may feel small and powerless in a hostile world. Noah probably understood that feeling. Eight people were preserved while the world around them stood under judgment. Yet God knew exactly whom he was rescuing, and the wicked's apparent strength did not determine the outcome.

Christians have something even greater. Jesus has already passed through suffering and death. He has risen. Every spiritual power is subject to him. Those who are united to Christ share in his resurrection life and await the day when his victory will be fully seen.

First Peter 3:19 is still a difficult verse. My level of certainty about it is very low. Faithful Christians have disagreed about exactly who the spirits are and when Christ made this proclamation. But Peter’s main point is not difficult. God judges evil and saves his people. The Flood showed us the pattern. Jesus fulfills it.

If It’s Legal, Can a Christian Use Marijuana?

“If marijuana is legal, can a Christian use it?”

It is a reasonable question, especially as marijuana becomes legal in more places. But I’m not sure legality gets us very far. The government can tell us whether possessing or using a particular substance violates the law. It cannot finally tell us whether using it is holy, wise, loving, or pleasing to Christ.

Lots of things are legal that Christians should not do. And Christians have obligations that civil law knows nothing about. Paul tells us that although something may be lawful, we should not be mastered by it (1 Corinthians 6:12). He also says that not everything lawful is helpful or builds others up (1 Corinthians 10:23). So the Christian question cannot simply be, “Is this legal?”

We need better questions.

Alcohol gives us an obvious place to begin because the Bible speaks about it directly. Scripture does not treat wine itself as inherently sinful. Psalm 104:14-15 speaks of wine as one of God’s provisions, Jesus turned water into wine at Cana (John 2:1-11), and Paul told Timothy to “use a little wine for the sake of your stomach” (1 Timothy 5:23). Yet Scripture is equally clear that drunkenness is sin. “Do not get drunk with wine,” Paul writes in Ephesians 5:18. Drunkenness is also included among the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:21.

The details matter. The Bible’s concern is not merely with the substance entering the body. Scripture is concerned with what happens to us.

Christians are repeatedly commanded to be sober-minded (1 Peter 5:8). Self-control is a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). Rather than surrendering ourselves to intoxication, Paul tells Christians to “be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18). We should therefore ask what a substance does to our judgment, perception, restraint, and ability to exercise self-control.

This is where marijuana raises an important question that is sometimes missed when it is compared with alcohol. A person can drink a glass of wine with dinner without attempting to become drunk. But if a person uses marijuana specifically because he wants to get high, what exactly is he trying to accomplish?

That question deserves more attention than the simple comparison between marijuana and alcohol. If the recreational purpose is specifically to alter perception, judgment, or mental state, then comparing marijuana use with moderate drinking may not be the right comparison. After all, it’s possible that a marijuana user’s aim is not to get high and may regulate use to avoid that end. (I admit that I’m unfamiliar with this possibility and I don’t want the Google algorithm to go nuts with my question.) The closer comparison may be getting high and getting drunk.

But intoxication is not the only biblical category we need.

Paul says, “‘All things are lawful for me,’ but I will not be dominated by anything” (1 Corinthians 6:12). Something does not have to make us drunk before it becomes our master. Nicotine can master a person. So can food, gambling, pornography, caffeine, work, and plenty of other things that cannot make someone intoxicated. (I am asking if my morning coffee is mastering me right now.)

So we should ask some uncomfortable questions. Can I stop? Do I get defensive when someone suggests that I stop? Am I arranging more and more of my life around this? Am I turning to it whenever I feel stressed, lonely, angry, afraid, or hurt? Am I using it, or is it using me?

Those questions apply to marijuana, alcohol, nicotine, prescription drugs, and many other substances. Christian freedom is never freedom to trade one master for another. We belong to Christ.

Purpose matters too. Morphine can relieve terrible pain following surgery. That same drug can also be abused because someone enjoys what it does to him. The chemical has not changed. The purpose and circumstances have.

The same distinction should enter our thinking about marijuana. Using THC under appropriate medical care for severe nausea or pain is a different moral question from using THC because someone wants to get high. That does not mean every medical use is automatically wise. We should still consider dosage, side effects, dependence, reasonable alternatives, and appropriate medical oversight. But medicine and recreational intoxication are not the same moral category.

This also helps us think about drugs the Bible never names. Scripture does not mention methamphetamine, fentanyl, vaping, or a long list of modern substances. We do not need a Bible verse naming every chemical compound before Christians can judge them morally. Scripture gives us categories to think in: sobriety, self-control, wisdom, freedom from mastery, stewardship, love for others, and the glory of God.

And love for others matters more than our culture of individual liberty likes to admit.

Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 teach Christians to consider how exercising our freedom affects other believers. Paul writes, “It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble” (Romans 14:21). A stumbling block is not simply something another Christian dislikes. Paul is concerned that my exercise of liberty might entice another believer to violate his conscience and fall into sin.

Suppose a friend spent years enslaved to alcohol. You know watching you drink creates a serious temptation for him. You might have the liberty to drink that bourbon. But Christian love may mean leaving it in the cupboard.

Christian liberty asks, “May I?” Christian love also asks, “Should I, here?”

Then there is conscience. Romans 14 teaches that a Christian should not knowingly act against his conscience. “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Romans 14:23). If I genuinely believe doing something would dishonor God and I do it anyway, I have chosen to do what I believe displeases him.

But conscience is not Scripture. A conscience can be too strict or too loose. Culture, family tradition, past experiences, or poor teaching can badly inform it. We should not violate our consciences, but we should not enthrone them either. Our consciences need to be educated and corrected by the Word of God.

All of this makes the marijuana question more complicated than we might like. I cannot simply say, “It is legal, therefore it is fine.” Nor is it enough to ask whether the Bible contains the word marijuana.

We need to ask whether we can remain sober-minded. Are we intentionally surrendering clear judgment or self-control? Is this substance beginning to master us? Are we using it medicinally or pursuing intoxication? How does our choice affect the people around us? Can we do it with a clear conscience? Can we honestly receive it with thanksgiving and do it “to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31)?

Those questions also work remarkably well for alcohol, nicotine, prescription medications, and many other substances.

The Christian life is not governed merely by what we can legally get away with. We belong to Jesus. That changes the question. Instead of asking, “Am I allowed to do this?” we should ask how someone who belongs to Christ ought to use his freedom.

Healthy Church: Gospel Doctrine

What does the gospel have to do with a healthy church? Everything. In this episode of Salty Believer Unscripted, Josiah Walker and Bryan Catherman continue our series on healthy churches by turning our attention to gospel doctrine. Using the marks identified by 9Marks as a roadmap for the series because they give us a helpful framework for getting into Scripture and thinking about what Christ intends his local church to be.

The gospel is certainly the good news we proclaim to unbelievers, but it is not something Christians graduate from after conversion. Nor does the gospel suddenly appear somewhere around Matthew 1. The good news of God’s saving work runs through the entire Bible, ultimately centered on the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. That means gospel doctrine should shape much more than our evangelism. It should shape how we read the Bible, preach, worship, pray, disciple one another, and live together as Christ’s church. A healthy church does not merely know how to explain the gospel. The gospel sits at the center of its life.

They also discussed the CSB Connecting Scripture New Testament, a resource that highlights Old Testament quotations and allusions throughout the New Testament and helps readers see how Scripture interprets Scripture.

What does it look like for a local church to be shaped by the gospel? Join us as we discuss gospel doctrine and the healthy church on Salty Believer Unscripted. Listen wherever you get podcasts or listen here:

Salty Believer Unscripted Healthy Church: Gospel Doctrine

Download

Subscribe to Salty Believer Unscripted wherever you listen to podcasts, or visit the Salty Believer Unscripted podcast page for subscription options and the full episode archive.

What If We Found Another Letter from Paul?

    Imagine archaeologists discover a first-century letter. After years of investigation, the evidence becomes overwhelming. Paul really wrote it. He wrote it to a first-century church. The theology is orthodox. Paul even identifies himself as an apostle of Jesus Christ. Many conservative, credible scholars agree on the origin and authorship of the manuscript.

    Do we add it to the Bible? My first answer is, “Not on Tuesday.” Let’s slow down.

    The question is more complicated than asking whether Paul wrote it. The apostles certainly possessed unique authority from Christ. Paul says that he was an apostle “not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father” (Galatians 1:1). He could even say that anyone who considered himself spiritual should recognize that what Paul wrote was “a command of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 14:37).

    That is serious authority. But does everything an apostle wrote automatically become Scripture?

    Paul almost certainly wrote many things that are not collected in the Canon of Scripture. It seems reasonable that he could write a grocery list without producing inspired revelation, although that’s expensive parchment for groceries. Apostolic authorship would be enormously significant, but authorship alone would not settle the question.

    Paul mentions other letters that we do not possess. In 1 Corinthians 5:9, he refers to an earlier letter he had written to the Corinthians. Second Corinthians 2:3–4 appears to refer to another painful letter. Colossians 4:16 mentions a letter “from Laodicea” that the Colossians were supposed to read. Whatever precisely we make of those references, Paul clearly wrote more than the thirteen letters bearing his name in our New Testament. So discovering another authentic letter from Paul would not, by itself, require us to add another book to the Bible.

    This is where an important distinction helps. The church does not make something Scripture. Neither does apostolic authorship, by itself, make something Scripture. God does.

    Paul writes, “All Scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3:16). Peter says that prophecy was not produced “by the will of man,” but that men “spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). Scripture originates with God.

    That raises another question, however. Did God intend every instance of divine revelation to become permanent Scripture for the whole church? Again, apparently not.

    John tells us that Jesus did many things that were not written in his Gospel (John 20:30, 21:25). Acts records genuine prophets whose prophecies are not preserved for us. First Corinthians 14 describes prophetic activity in the gathered church without suggesting that every prophecy was being added to the Bible. God has spoken truly without preserving every word spoken as permanent canonical Scripture.

    So we have to distinguish several questions. Did Paul write it? Did Paul write it with apostolic authority? Was it inspired? And did God intend it to function as permanent Scripture for his church? Those questions are related, but they are not necessarily identical.

    The early church did not gather together and manufacture a Bible. The church recognized the Scriptures God had given. We can actually see that process beginning within the New Testament itself. Paul commanded that his letters be read publicly and circulated among churches. He told the Thessalonians, “I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers” (1 Thessalonians 5:27). He told the Colossians to have their letter read in Laodicea and to read the letter coming from Laodicea (Colossians 4:16). Even more strikingly, Peter refers to Paul’s letters alongside “the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15–16). Recognition of New Testament writings as Scripture was already happening during the apostolic age.

    That recognition involved several things: apostolic authority, consistency with the apostolic gospel, reading and circulation among the churches, recognition among God’s people, the work of the Holy Spirit, and God’s providential preservation. None of those things gives the Church the power to turn an ordinary document into the Word of God. They are evidence by which the Church recognizes what God has given.

    This is where modern Christians might be tempted to move much too quickly. We like fast answers. We like the microwave more than marinade. We like a committee to meet, issue a statement, and settle the matter before lunch. Church history should make us a little more patient.

    Nicaea and its aftermath give us a way to consider the speed of decisions. The Church did not receive a difficult question on Monday, meet on Tuesday, and have every implication neatly settled by Wednesday. There were months of arguments, councils, faithful pastors, unfaithful pastors, political pressures, careful theologians, false starts, and plenty of mess. Yet through all of it, God preserved his Church.

    We see something similar, though certainly not identical, in our own day. Churches and entire denominations have spent years wrestling with questions surrounding marriage and sexuality. Some have rejected what Scripture teaches about marriage. Others have clarified and strengthened their convictions. Local churches started writing clauses into their faith statements. These things have played out over years and decades, sometimes with churches separating from denominations and institutions changing dramatically. Some churches had answers quickly, and some didn’t, but it took time for the Church to settle on more unified answers. The process is slow because churches are filled with people. We argue, misunderstand, sin, repent, study, pray, and sometimes stubbornly refuse to listen. Yet Christ has not abandoned his church. That gives me confidence when considering our hypothetical letter from Paul.

    I would not expect an archaeologist, seminary, denomination, or even a church council to announce that we now have “Second Romans” and start printing new Bibles. I would expect careful historical investigation, textual study, theological examination, and sustained consideration by faithful churches across traditions and nations. I suspect it would be bumpy. And I would be comfortable letting that process take generations.

    Ultimately, the question exposes where we place our confidence. Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). Isaiah declared, “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever” (Isaiah 40:8). Paul also understood the apostolic deposit as something to be guarded and handed down. Timothy was to “follow the pattern of the sound words” he had heard from Paul and “guard the good deposit” entrusted to him (2 Timothy 1:13–14). He was then to entrust what he had heard to faithful men who would teach others also (2 Timothy 2:2). That sounds remarkably like a God who intends to preserve what his Church needs.

    So would I add our newly discovered letter to my Bible? No. Not yet.

    I would read it. I would study it. I would ask whether apostolic authorship had truly been established. I would examine its relationship to the apostolic gospel already received. I hope I would listen carefully as faithful churches across the world wrestled with it. And then I would like to be content to wait. I can be impatient, but I know the pace is important. Maybe I would die before the question was settled. I’d like to say that’s fine too.

    My confidence in the canon does not finally rest in the brilliance of fourth-century bishops, modern archaeologists, textual scholars, denominational committees, or me. It rests in God. The Church does not create the canon. God gives his Word. And the God who gave his Word is quite capable of preserving it and caring for his church as she recognizes what he has given.

A Look Inside the MacArthur Study Bible

Whenever I talk about study Bibles, somebody eventually asks about the MacArthur Study Bible. It is one of the better-known study Bibles available, and plenty of Christians have used it for years. So what do I think about it?

There is a lot to like. The MacArthur Study Bible includes study notes, cross-references, maps, timelines, charts, book introductions, outlines, and other resources designed to help readers understand the Bible better. John MacArthur also brings decades of preaching and teaching through Scripture to the notes. But readers should understand an important distinction. Study Bibles such as the ESV Study Bible, CSB Study Bible, and Reformation Study Bible draw from numerous scholars, editors, and contributors. With the MacArthur Study Bible, you are largely getting John MacArthur's interpretation and theological perspective. That does not make it a bad study Bible. It does, however, make it a different kind of study Bible.

In this video, I open up a print copy of the MacArthur Study Bible and look at the notes, cross-references, maps, timelines, introductions, and other features. I also show how I use the MacArthur Study Bible notes digitally with Accordance Bible Software.

The goal is not merely to find the right study Bible. The goal is to study the Bible well. Study Bibles are tools to help us with that goal.

Study on!

Healthy Church: Expositional Preaching

What makes a church healthy? In this episode of Salty Believer Unscripted, Josiah Walker and Bryan Catherman continue our Healthy Church series using Mark Dever’s Nine Marks of a Healthy Church as a jumping-off point. They begin with the first mark: expositional preaching.

But what exactly is expositional preaching? Is it simply preaching verse by verse, or is there more to it? They discuss why the shape and emphasis of the biblical text should govern the sermon, why preaching the whole counsel of God protects churches from a steady diet of the preacher’s favorite topics, and why faithful preaching is foundational to a healthy church. They also offer some practical thoughts for recognizing expositional preaching and give an unscripted, unsolicited, and unsponsored shout-out to David Helm and Jeremy Meeks’ Persuasive Preaching.

Listen to this episode of Salty Believer Unscripted as we discuss expositional preaching and the healthy church wherever you get podcasts or listen here:

Salty Believer Unscripted Healthy Church: Expositional Preaching

Download

Subscribe to Salty Believer Unscripted wherever you listen to podcasts, or visit the Salty Believer Unscripted podcast page for subscription options and the full episode archive.

Learning to See How the Bible Uses the Bible

One of the best ways to become a better reader of the Bible is to learn to recognize when the Bible is using the Bible. The New Testament regularly quotes the Old Testament. It also alludes to Old Testament passages, themes, events, and language without always announcing it. When we recognize those connections and read the Old Testament passages in context, we are better equipped to understand what the New Testament authors are saying.

There are some good tools to help us do this.

I recently picked up Connecting Scripture: A Study Bible of Biblical Allusions and Quotations, edited by G. K. Beale and Benjamin L. Gladd. I've also used Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, for years. They are both excellent resources, but they serve different purposes. Connecting Scripture makes the connections easy to see. The Beale and Carson commentary helps you dig in and analyze those connections in much greater depth. One is quick and accessible. The other is a big, beefy beast of a commentary.

In this video, I walk through both resources and compare how they work with actual biblical passages. I also spend some time showing why these tools can be especially helpful when studying the book of Revelation. Revelation becomes considerably less mysterious when we stop looking to the news of the day and start looking at the Old Testament.

If you want to train yourself to see how Scripture interprets Scripture, both of these resources are worth knowing about.

Study on!

Getting Started in Ephesians

Ephesians is packed. Election, adoption, redemption, grace, faith, good works, the church, spiritual gifts, unity, marriage, parenting, work, spiritual warfare, and the armor of God are all here. It would be easy to preach any one of those things and still miss what Paul is doing with the letter as a whole.

Before working through the individual passages, we need to grasp the argument and flow of the letter. Hear the melodic line.

God is bringing all things together under Christ (1:9-10), and the church is already a living display of that coming reality. By grace, God takes people who were dead, divided, and far from him and makes them alive in Christ, reconciles them to himself and one another, and forms them into one new people (2:1-22). Therefore, they must live like the people God has made them to be. They are to walk worthy of their calling, grow together toward maturity under Christ, live under his lordship in every relationship, and stand firm against spiritual opposition.

That argument should control how we preach and teach the individual parts.

The Hinge of the Letter

The simplest way to get your bearings in Ephesians is to notice the turn at 4:1.

The first three chapters overwhelmingly tell us what God has done. God has chosen, adopted, redeemed, forgiven, made alive, raised up, reconciled, and brought near a people in Christ (1:3-14; 2:1-22). Then Paul writes, “I therefore, a prisoner of the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called” (4:1).

The “therefore” matters. The commands of chapters 4–6 grow out of the grace of chapters 1–3. The imperatives (commands) of 4-6 describe the life that should flow from the blessings of 1-3.

Paul’s repeated use of “walk” helps us follow the argument. We once walked in sin (2:2). God created us in Christ for good works so that we would walk in them (2:10). Therefore, we are to walk worthy of our calling (4:1), no longer walk as the Gentiles do (4:17), walk in love (5:2), walk as children of light (5:8), and walk wisely (5:15).

God Is Making One People in Christ

Unity is one of the great themes running through Ephesians because it grows directly out of what God is doing in Christ.

God’s purpose is to bring all things together in Christ (1:9-10). We see that purpose already at work in the church. Dead sinners are made alive with Christ by grace (2:1-10). Those who were far off are brought near by Christ’s blood (2:11-13). Christ makes Jew and Gentile one, creates “one new man,” and reconciles both to God through the cross (2:14-18). Together they are being built into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit (2:19-22).

So when Paul tells Christians to be “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit” (4:3), he is telling them to live in light of what God has already done. They do not create Christian unity. God has created it in Christ. And this new people has a purpose beyond itself. Through the church, God makes his manifold wisdom known even to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places (3:10). The church is part of God’s display of what he is accomplishing in Christ.

Christ Builds His Church Through His People

The unity God creates is supposed to grow into maturity (4:7-16).

The ascended Christ gives gifts to his people, including leaders who equip the saints for the work of ministry and the building up of Christ’s body (4:11-12). The goal is unity, knowledge of Christ, doctrinal stability, maturity, and growth (4:13-15). Then Paul gives us a picture of a healthy church. Christ is the head, every member has a part, and the whole body grows and builds itself up in love (4:16).

If 4:1 is the hinge of Ephesians, 4:16 is one of the clearest pictures of where Paul’s argument is headed. Christ does not give leaders to do all the ministry. He gives leaders to equip his people so the whole church serves, matures, and grows together.

The Gospel Comes Home

Paul’s instructions about wives and husbands, children and parents, and bondservants and masters are not a change of subject. Paul has been describing the new life God created in Christ. Put off the old self and put on the new (4:17-24). Walk in love (5:2), light (5:8), and wisdom (5:15). Be filled with the Spirit, giving thanks and submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ (5:18-21).

Then Paul brings all of that home. He addresses wives before husbands (5:22-33), children before fathers (6:1-4), and bondservants before masters (6:5-9). Wives are told to submit, while children and bondservants are told to obey. Then those exercising authority are addressed, and their authority is placed under Christ. Husbands love as Christ loved the church (5:25). Fathers raise their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (6:4). Masters remember that they too have a Master in heaven (6:9).

The new humanity God created through the gospel must become visible in the relationships where Christians actually live.

Don’t Miss Paul’s Prayers

Twice Paul tells us how he prays for these Christians (1:15-23; 3:14-21), and both prayers emphasize knowing and comprehending.

He prays that the eyes of their hearts would be enlightened so they would know the hope of God’s calling, the riches of his inheritance, and the greatness of his power (1:17-19). Then he prays that they would have strength to comprehend the dimensions of Christ’s love and know a love that surpasses knowledge (3:16-19). Before Paul tells them how to walk, he prays that God will open their eyes.

Don’t rush through chapters 1-3 to get to the “practical stuff.” Paul thinks knowing what God has done in Christ is profoundly practical. It shapes our walk. The obedience of chapters 4-6 grows from the realities of chapters 1-3.

Remember Where the Battle Is

The spiritual warfare at the end of Ephesians has also been part of the letter all along. God has blessed us in the heavenly places (1:3). Christ reigns there above every rule and authority (1:20-21). Believers have been raised and seated with Christ there (2:6). God’s wisdom is displayed through the church to rulers and authorities there (3:10). Then Paul tells us that our struggle is against spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places (6:12).

The armor of God is not an appendix to Ephesians. It belongs to the argument. Christ reigns, his church belongs to him, and hostile powers remain. Therefore, God’s people must “be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might” (6:10) and stand firm (6:11, 13-14).

Preaching and Teaching Ephesians

Don’t let the pieces drown out the whole. God is carrying out his great purpose in Christ. By grace he makes dead sinners alive, brings those who were far away near, reconciles enemies through the cross, and creates one new people. That “one new people” must now walk worthy of their calling, grow together toward maturity under Christ, live as the new people God has made them to be, and stand firm in the strength he provides.

This is the flow to keep in view as you preach the individual passages: See what God has done. Walk worthy of his calling. Grow together under Christ. Stand firm in the Lord.

ESV Study Bible vs. CSB Study Bible: Which One Should You Buy?

If you were only going to buy one study Bible and the choice came down to the ESV Study Bible or the CSB Study Bible, which one should you get?

That's a reasonable question. Both are substantial study Bibles. Both contain thousands of study notes, cross-references, maps, articles, introductions, charts, and other resources designed to help you better understand the Bible. I have used both, and some time ago Josiah and I spent several months using them before discussing our impressions on the Salty Believer podcast.

But there was a problem with doing that comparison on a podcast. You couldn't see the Bibles. So I put together a video that does exactly that. I opened both study Bibles and put them side by side. We look at them by the numbers, and then we look at the actual pages.

ESV Study Bible and CSB Study Bible by the Numbers

Both Bibles pack a lot into their pages. The ESV Study Bible advertises 20,000 study notes and 80,000 cross-references. It also contains a large collection of charts, timelines, maps, illustrations, and more than 50 articles.

The CSB Study Bible advertises more than 16,000 study notes. It also contains 368 Hebrew and Greek word studies, 60 timelines, 55 maps, more than 100 photographs, paintings, reconstructions, charts, and 34 articles.

Those numbers tell us something, but they don't tell us everything. A study Bible with more notes is not necessarily more helpful. A map is only useful if it helps you understand the geography of the biblical Text. A cross-reference is useful when it helps you see legitimate connections in Scripture. And a study note is useful when it helps you understand what the Bible says rather than simply giving you another paragraph to read.

That is why I wanted to open these Bibles up. Check out the video to see the page layout, design, maps, notes, cross references, introduction, and so much more.

So Which One Should You Buy?

It depends on how you study. If you want a dense reference tool with extensive notes, cross-references, maps, charts, introductory material, and substantial theological articles, the ESV Study Bible has a lot to offer.

If you prefer a more visual presentation with color, photographs, artwork, timelines, maps, and especially dedicated Hebrew and Greek word studies, the CSB Study Bible has some excellent features that the ESV does not really attempt to duplicate.

I like both. Either one can be a useful tool for serious Bible study. But remember what a study Bible is. The study notes aren't inspired. The articles aren't inspired. The charts aren't inspired. The people who wrote them can be wrong. A study Bible is useful only insofar as it helps us better understand the Bible.

That's the point. Use the maps. Follow the cross-references. Read the introductions. Consult the notes when you're stuck. Learn from faithful scholars who have spent years studying these texts. Then keep reading the Bible.

Buy the ESV Study Bible:
https://amzn.to/4yluYpL

Buy the CSB Study Bible:
https://amzn.to/467NjuF

Healthy Church: Introduction

What makes a church healthy? And who gets to decide? Christians can have strong opinions about what a church should look like, how it should be led, what should happen when it gathers, and what programs or practices it should prioritize. But our preferences, traditions, and favorite ministry resources do not get the final word. God does. If we want healthy churches, we need to ask what Scripture says a healthy church should be.

In this episode of Salty Believer Unscripted, Josiah Walker and I begin what we expect will be a series of conversations about healthy churches. We use Mark Dever’s Nine Marks of a Healthy Church as a framework, but the point is not to defend the Nine Marks or pretend there is a perfect church model we can copy. The goal is to think biblically about preaching, the gospel, conversion, membership, discipline, discipleship, leadership, prayer, missions, and other aspects of life together in the local church. We also talk about an important danger in conversations like these. Learning what a healthy church should look like can make us impatient with the church we actually have. Healthy churches are not built with a wrecking ball. We should love our churches, serve them, pray for them, and patiently help them grow toward greater faithfulness to God’s Word.

Listen wherever you get audio podcasts, or listen here:

Salty Believer Unscripted Healthy Church: Introduction

Download

Subscribe to Salty Believer Unscripted wherever you listen to podcasts, or visit the Salty Believer Unscripted podcast page for subscription options and the full episode archive.

Chasing Port William

There is a longing in my soul for the unfindable thing Wendell Berry held in his hands. If you’ve never ventured into the world of Port William, you can’t know what I mean. But if you’ve been there even once, Port William has followed you home. I’m unsure how to measure Wendell Berry’s impact on my life, but I’m angry at myself for misunderstanding how to find Port William.

Opening to the first pages of his book, Jayber Crow, I was unaware of what I might find. It turns out Jayber found me. An orphan, an outsider, pressed hard to make a life. It wasn’t a bad life, but something wasn’t there. Eventually, Jayber returned home. He returned to Port William. And somehow, Wendell Berry brought me there too.

As Barnabas was to Saul, Burley Coulter was there for the barber who came from the outside. An anonymous invitation slipped beneath the door of Jayber’s shop, inviting him to a drinking party. He went. There were men there who had been strangers. Before long, they weren’t. You are not a citizen of Port William; you are a member. Over time, Jayber belonged.

Wendell Berry’s words hung with me for weeks after I finished the book. Weeks turned to months. I began looking for Port William. Could there really be a place with rootedness, neighbors, familiar faces, local institutions, and people who stayed? I believed so. Everything I owned went into a truck, and my family moved from a metro area of two and a half million people to a village of five thousand, surrounded by rows of corn.

Most people in Holdrege know each other. People stay. There are institutions with a rich history. The family stories cross generations. Burley Coulters walk these sidewalks. But moving here didn’t make me a member. I had mistaken the conditions surrounding Port William for the thing that made Port William what it was. Farms weren’t it. Population wasn’t it. Knowing the cashier at Tractor Supply wasn’t it. The bricks on Main Street weren’t it.

I wanted a place where my absence would be noticed.

Four million eyes, yet nobody saw each other. We passed one another in traffic, stood beside one another in self-checkout lines, lived behind doors separated by little more than driveways. There were people everywhere. But I was anonymous. I could leave my house, buy bread, fill the car, pick up dinner, and return home without anyone knowing my name, day after day. I couldn’t imagine knowing a child in our church long enough to watch him grow up, marry, have children of his own, and grow old.

Then I moved to a place where people remembered.

They remembered when the grocery store had a different name. They knew whose boy had married whose girl, who had left town, and who had come home. Names on storefronts were the same names on mailboxes and gravestones. The same families lined the streets for the same parade every summer.  Children grew up under the watch of people who had known their parents when they were children.

I loved it. For a while, I thought I had found it.

But I had arrived in the middle of everyone else’s story. They remembered who lived in our house before we did. They had buried people together. They remembered each other as children. They could point to a building that was no longer there and still see it. I could learn the stories, but I wasn’t in them. I had come looking for people who stayed, only to discover that I was the one who came after.

Jayber came after too. Port William already had its stories when he arrived. There were names he didn’t know, histories he hadn’t lived, graves he hadn’t mourned. Burley could invite him to the party, but he couldn’t give Jayber a past. Jayber had to stay long enough to become part of the story. In time, the barber who needed someone to remember him became one of the people who remembered.

For a while, I thought perhaps that was the answer. Stay. Give it enough years. Learn the names. Bury the old and watch the young grow up. Maybe, if I remained long enough, I could finally become part of the story too. There is wisdom in that. But the gospel gives me something better.

Paul writes that “we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.” I had spent years trying to understand how a man becomes a member of a place. Paul told me that, in Christ, I had been made a member of a people.

That changes the order of things. I do not have to accumulate enough years to earn a place among God’s people. Christ had already given me one. The years still matter. Staying matters. Learning names, bearing burdens, forgiving sins, burying the old, and watching the young grow up all matter. But these things do not make us the body of Christ. They are what the body of Christ does because Christ has already made us his own.

And then I thought again of Wendell Berry.

Perhaps he had been telling me this all along. Jayber did not find Port William because he finally found the spot on the map. He found it because Burley opened a door, and Jayber walked through it. Then he stayed. He learned their names and carried their stories. He mourned their dead. He loved people who were difficult to love. The outsider became part of the Membership because, over time, their lives became bound up with his.

Berry had shown me the shape of the thing. I had mistaken it for the scenery. Paul gave me the words for what I had been longing for: “we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.” Members one of another. Maybe that was what followed me home from Port William.

The unfindable thing Wendell Berry held in his hands was never Port William. It was membership. People bound to one another by place, memory, love, obligation, suffering, and time. Berry made me ache for it long before I understood why.

I went looking for it in a small town. I found many of the things that make such a life possible, and I am grateful for them. But the gospel gives me what no town can. In Christ, I can be given a people. I do not share their past, but by the grace of God, I can give them my future.

Perhaps that is what Jayber finally taught me. You do not have to have been there from the beginning. Someone opens the door. You walk through it.

And then you stay.

Persuasive Preaching: Getting God’s Word Across

In their new book, Persuasive Preaching, Dave Helm and Jeremy Meeks devote 103 pages to “that moment in sermon preparation when the preacher turns his attention from the text to today, from getting it right to getting it across—and doing so in a clear and compelling way” (ix). If you’ve read Dave’s previous book, Expositional Preaching: How We Speak God’s Word Today, or attended a Charles Simeon Trust workshop, that goal will bring you a little flutter of joy. This is what’s been missing. If you’ve not read that first book or have no idea what a CST workshop is, you should probably pick up Expositional Preaching first. Then you’ll race to read Persuasive Preaching.

Helm and Meeks “argue that all preaching is persuasion.” It’s the first line of the first page. No surprise there. Agree or not, they make a compelling case in the introduction. From there, they show why persuasion matters and how it works its way into every sermon. The chapters deal with the preacher’s ethos, argument, audience, arrangement, application, and adornment. An illustration of an archer ties it all together, making the material memorable and reproducible.

I read this book in one sitting, cover to cover. I never do that. But that’s how well-written and well-argued this book is. Like good preachers, Helm and Meeks give little recaps and directional cues along the way. You always know where you are and where they’re headed. It makes for easy reading. They’ve organized the material to make a strong, persuasive argument for persuasive preaching. You’d expect that from a book with this title, and they hit the target.

I sat up a little straighter when I reached Chapter 3: Audience. I’ve read a lot of books on preaching, and this chapter still gave me ideas I haven’t read anywhere else. When it comes to knowing the audience, “we have been encouraged to make lists of the various kinds of people who hear our preaching” (36). Some preachers write the names of people in the congregation on their manuscript. I’ve done this. But is this the best way to know the audience? Other preachers offer another suggestion. “They encourage us, when we consider our audience, to press beyond a better knowing of our people and toward a better knowing of their world” (36). I’ve read this elsewhere too, especially in Stott. Helm and Meeks affirm both approaches, but then they add a third. I suspect their addition will find its way into preaching books moving forward. And I’ll surely see the chart at the next CST workshop I attend.

I also appreciated the gracious way Helm and Meeks handle different approaches to illustrations. They gave me more permission to get creative and do what I have to do to make the text’s argument. Their approach isn’t rigid or one-size-fits-all. Instead, it feels like heavy encouragement from a grandpa preacher talking to his preaching grandson. Rather than taking the hard, black-and-white approach to illustrations found in many preaching books, Helm and Meeks evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches and suggest how to get the most out of them. Why? Because Persuasive Preaching is about making a compelling argument, and the preacher should learn to use the tools available to him in faithful service of the Text’s argument.

I have one criticism, although it may say as much about the strength of the book as its weakness. At 103 pages of actual content, Persuasive Preaching moves quickly. At times, too quickly. Helm and Meeks introduce ideas that deserve more development, more examples, and more opportunity to see them worked out in actual sermons. This is especially true because Persuasive Preaching feels like the natural companion to Helm’s earlier Expositional Preaching. The first book helps the preacher get the text right; this one turns his attention toward getting it across. I found myself wishing the two were not merely companion volumes but one larger, integrated treatment of preaching.

That may also explain my admittedly petty complaint about the books themselves. Expositional Preaching is a hardback in the 9Marks Building Healthy Churches series and about half an inch shorter. Persuasive Preaching is still a 9Marks book, but it’s a paperback outside that series. They don’t even look like companions on the shelf. More importantly, they read like two parts of a larger project that has yet to be assembled. Combine them, expand the areas that move too quickly, and add another seventy-five pages of examples showing these principles at work, and Helm and Meeks would have the makings of an outstanding preaching textbook. I finished Persuasive Preaching convinced by what they said. I also finished wishing they had said more.

This book will get a second read before the year is out. It’s that good. Preachers should labor to get God’s Word right. Helm and Meeks make a compelling case that our work isn’t finished there. We should also labor to get it across. I highly recommend Persuasive Preaching to anyone who preaches or who loves preaching.