A Pastor and His Staff

A pastor is a leader, but not just to his1 congregation; he is a leader for his staff, whether they are financially compensated or volunteer. The pastor has, if the church structure allows for it, the responsibility to select the right staff. He then must organize them, develop relationships with them, lead them with vision and direction, see that they grow personally and professionally, and he must compensate them for their service. Pastor—from the Greek work, poimēn—generally means ‘shepherd.’ And although it only appears once in the New Testament in reference to a church officer, there are numerous analogies of a leader as a shepherd and the church as a flock (Grudem 1994, 913). Therefore, the pastor as the shepherd of the flock must also ensure that his staff properly looks after and protects the flock.

According to Criswell, “The qualifications of a good staff member are what they would be in the secular world of teaching, administration, education, business, public relations, personality, appeal, and all the rest, with this one additional accompaniment—the staff member ought to feel a real affinity for the work of the Lord, ‘called’ of God to do the task if at all possible” (Criswell 1980, 85). However, Criswell almost seems to say that calling is a secondary matter. It must be the first in the selection of a staff. It is the responsibility of the pastor as a leader to gage potential staff members for calling, because if indeed they are called, the rest of the attributes may not be what they seem. Jesus called a tax collector and a band of fishermen, and none of them used their secular skills much for the Church once they were called.

Once on staff, the individual staff members must know how they fit within the organization and the vision. In order to understand each person’s strengths and weaknesses, the leader must be familiar with his people, and do to his, he must form relationships with them. He must know them. And they must know the leader and his vision. Clearly defined roles and regular staff meetings will help the leader accomplish this communication necessity. “They are ready to follow, to work, to build, to go,” writes Criswell, “if they have a man of God and a man of vision to lead the way” (217). The pastor is and must be a visionary leader for the staff.

A leader must be one who can generate future leaders within (and even outside) the church. To do this, he must see to it that the staff is growing, learning, and reaching their full potential. Each person must be in the word of God and in prayer; both things the pastor should highly encourage. Also, sending staff members to conferences, is not only a good way to see them receive more training, it is also a good way to show appreciation for them as staff members. Occasionally, volunteers will give an enormous amount of time to the church. Sending them to a conference is a good way to compensate them, but also remembering the birthdays and major events of the staff members’ lives is one way to show them the pastor cares about them. And it is important that the staff is compensated well; First Timothy 5:18 says, “For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages’” (ESV).

And finally, the pastor is also the protector of his staff. David, the great shepherd of the Old Testament carried a sling to defend his sheep from hungry lions. Jesus, drawing on imagery the shepherd would understand said to his disciples, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Mat 7:15, ESV). The pastor must guard against false doctrine and poor theology. It can be more destructive if false doctrines are being taught to the congregation from a staff member. Therefore, the pastor must train up his staff correctly, but also be watching for incorrect theology and deal with it immediately. The staff is also charged with the care of the flock. And the flock as well as the staff depends upon the pastor’s courage and leadership.

Reference List
Criswell, W.A. Criswell's Guidebook for Pastors. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press, 1980.
Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester,
England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

_______
1 It is not my intention to engage in a debate about women in ministry. So given my position on women serving in as elders or senior leaders in the church, and considering that the great majority to senior pastors are men, I will refer to the pastor as a male throughout this paper. If the senior pastor is a woman, the same principles apply. 

* This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.  

** Photo is registered under a Creative Commons License.  

Priceless by Tom Davis

Tom Davis is committed to the less fortunate, the widows and orphans, and as is apparent by reading Priceless: A Novel on the Edge of the World (David Cook), victims of the sex-slave industry. Articles and books on this horrific topic are many, but with his use of the novel Priceless, Davis shines a light directly on the face of what tries to remain hidden in the shadows. The characters come alive and the reader feels the fear, pain, concern, and joy.

Priceless tells the story of Stuart Daniels, a photojournalist sent on assignment to Russia.  "Once there," says the synopsis on Amazon.com, "Daniels is persuaded by an old friend to help save two girls from a desperate situation. Soon he becomes a key player in a dangerous campaign to rescue helpless women trapped in the sex-slave trade. What Daniels encounters during his journey will shake his faith, test his courage, and even threaten his life. Yet as Daniels gets deeper and the stakes get higher, he will discover that hope can be found in the darkest of places."




I received a free copy of Priceless for the specific purpose of review. It was my hope to review the book for Burnside Writer's Collective, but Carole Turner beat me to it (and she provided a great review).  Then my wife informed me that she wanted to read it, so I thought I'd wait to get her perspective before posting a review.  As soon as she finished the book she was laboring through, she picked up Priceless and couldn't put it down.  Three days later, we were sitting at the dinner table discussing the novel.  And now I'm offering my thoughts here.

Priceless is a quick read. While the story is not a literary masterpiece, it's a great story that must be told. In some aspects, the references to popular culture leave the story feeling fixed and dated; but it is obvious that Davis' objective with this book is to deal with big, real issues in the here and now, rather than a classic novel that transcends time. He is dealing with real problems, real slavery, real horror, and his novel is not for entertainment, it's to stir hear from comfortable to action.

As I've contemplated the novel over the past couple weeks, I can't help but think about the appropriate response.  This book does demand a response, but not the trendy, "let's talk about the sex-trade atrocities but do nothing" response that seems so prevalent today, especially among the young American church.  I admit, I have done next to nothing to make a difference in this matter. I can't simply tweet about the the sex-trade on Craig's List to assuage my lack of actual action.  I have to do more, so I pray, often.  But I also need to do something that bleeds, not for the mere sake of social justice throughout the world, but out of love for Jesus Christ and my gratitude for his love for me.  Tom Davis' novel has birthed something in my mind that seem unable to go away.  Yes, it's that kind of book. 

This novel puts me as close to the sex-trade industry as I have ever been, or ever want to be.  It's believable.  It's almost too real.  I have not been to Russia, but the geography and history seemed credible, and certainly believable, too. I did run across one instance of mistaken terminology where a `revolver' turned into a semi-automatic handgun, complete with a magazine and slide, but this was a single minor occurrence and not representative of the book. Overall, I felt like I was there in Russia, cold and concerned, silently hoping for Stuart Daniels and the young girls he was trying to rescue.  I could feel the cold, the evil.  

The story is gut wrenching. Nobody should be able to read this story without feeling called to action at some level.  The comfortable is not as comfortable after reading this book.  I have been thinking about it for some time.  Do I save my money and go overseas to smuggle girls away at the risk of my life?  Do I raise money? Awareness?  What do I do?  Just as one would expect of Tom Davis, there are some ways to engage listed at the end of the book.  Specifically, Davis encourages his readers to visit www.sheispriceless.com.  As Tom always does with his books, he has provided some resources and action steps for those like me who feel compelled to action.  (Honestly, I find it hard to believe anyone could read this book and then do nothing.)

I loved this book.  Not because of the subject material, but because it exposed me to something we all need exposed to.  Because it reminded me that we live in a world that needs Christians to be the hands and feet of Jesus.  And maybe because it became a distraction from my schoolwork; like my wife, I couldn't put it down. I highly recommend. It is age appropriate for teenagers and above. Also, it would make a great choice for a book club.  Pick up a copy today.


*As also stated in this review, I received a free copy of this book for the specific purpose of review.  I was under no obligation to provide a positive review and I have no material connection to this novel.

Just Fed Up: When the truth is a Lie

I recently read the following in A Long Obedience in the Same Direction by Eugene H. Peterson (IVP, 1980):
"A person has to be thoroughly discussed with the way things are to find the motivation to set out on the Christian way.  As long as we think the next election might eliminate crime and establish justice or another scientific breakthrough might save the environment or another pay raise might push us over the edge of anxiety into a life of tranquility, we are not likely to risk the arduous uncertainties of the life of faith.  A person has to get fed up with the ways of the world before he, before she, acquires an appetite for the world of grace" (p 25). 
And a couple pages over he writes, "Christian consciousness begins in the painful realization that what we had assumed was the truth was in fact a lie" (p 27).  Peterson has touched upon a deep truth.  It is not when we place all of our hope in government, or the Bill or Rights, or the next promotion, or any other "it will be better when. . ."; but instead, it is when we finally realize that it will never be better without the grace of God. 

I realize that most of the readers of this blog already know and walk in relationship with Jesus, but I am always happy to chat with you about this should you have any questions.

*I have no material connection to this book. 

On non-Christian Prayer

I was recently asked what I think about "non-Christian prayer."  I thought that discussion might be valuable to share here.  But before we can address non-Christian prayer, I think some terms and ideas need defined and understood. 

For starters, what is prayer?  People all over the world pray.  I would think prayer, at the simplest level, is the communication of a person or group of people to an entity, higher power, being or group of beings, or some other object of worship or faith.  In addition, I think the person or group offering the communication believe that in at least some way the communication will yield a result.

The Triune God of the Bible, that is, the Old and New Testaments, is living and engaged with his creation (for clarity he may also be identified as Yahweh).  He is omnipresent and therefore hears and knows all communication--in speech, thought, and action--of all people, whether they believe and worship him or not.  He is sovereign over his response and personal revelation and can choose to communicate with the person praying or not; he can take action or not, whether they are intentionally praying to him or not. 

For the purposes of this post, I will call Christian-prayers those communication attempts made by Christians to communicate with the Triune God.  Christian prayers are generally understood as being made through, and in the name of Jesus Christ.  The person praying a Christian-prayer professes Jesus as Lord and Savior; fully human and fully God; concieved of the Holy Spirit; crucified, dead, and risen as a propitiation of our sins; and part of the Triune God; however, there is some room for a person to not fully understand these aspects of Jesus and the Triune God, but they may not deny them.

Many people offering prayers are attempting to communicate with Yahweh even if they do not know or believe in Jesus, especially the Jewish people.  These prayers are not specifically Christian prayers, but this does not mean that God does not hear them, and potentially even answer them.  Before a person believes in Jesus, he or she may pray for greater faith to believe or for help understanding the Scriptures.  God, in his sovereign ways may very well answer these non-Christian prayers by his common grace and love for mankind.  The man who for the first time cries out to Jesus, "Lord, I can do nothing; save me," was not a Christian when his cry started but in fact was regenerated to new life, through grace, by the very act of this "non-Christian" prayer.  

However, when a person prays to anything or anyone other than Yahweh (which includes Jesus), he or she is praying to a false god or false idol.  God still hears these prayers but they are not pleasing to him considering that throughout the Bible we are warned not to worship false idols.  In fact, Paul warns in 1 Corinthians 10:19-21 that food sacrificed to false idols is actually being sacrificed to demons.  Prayer to false idols could, like the sacrifices, be made to demons. 

In the case of public prayers or invocations, it is not absolutely necessary that specific names be mentioned, but it is a better witness if the prayer is clearly addressed to the God of the Bible and absolutely prayed in Jesus' name.  This cannot always be the case given our society.  God will know the intentions and hearts of those saying, engaging, or agreeing with the prayer.  Now, a prayer that is vague in name is one thing, a prayer made to a false idol is another.  Never, should a prayer be made to a false idol or an incorrect identification of God.   

To provide some practical application, I have some in-laws that are LDS (Mormon).  To be clear, I do not believe that the LDS god is the God of the Bible, therefore, he is a false idol.  I do not believe that their understanding of Jesus is inline with what the Bible teaches about Jesus (and it's really all about Jesus!); therefore, the "Jesus" they understand is not the same as the Jesus of the Bible. However, when we are together for a meal, a prayer is offered before we dig in.  When one of them prays to their "heavenly father," I can pray in my heart to Jesus or my Heavenly Father, and that is okay.  Or I can pray a different prayer in my mind.  But I am always intentional about the object of my prayers--Jesus the Living God.  And when I am asked to pray (which is almost never), I have two options.  The first option is that I can choose to cause a problem by intentionally praying in such a way that becomes offensive to them.  This could hurt my future witness with them and make for poor family relationships.  [I understand that should one of them read this post, there will be challenges to their faith, but they won't be made in front of the rest of their children or the rest of the family.  If I am challenging your faith, I am always happy to discuss this with you.] The second option is that I can choose to pray in such a way that affords them the opportunity to join in my prayer to God or--as much as I want otherwise--they can place their false idol as the object of their prayer.  This is not to say that I am compromising and praying in some way that is not correct to God.  For example, they believe that addressing their deity as "god" is taking their lord's name in vain.  They do not even do it this their prayers.  While I am okay to address God with the title "God," I am also okay to call God "Heavenly Father" or "Lord."  These latter two terms are not offensive to them, which makes these titles a more appropriate choice.  They pray using King James language, feeling it holds greater reverence.  I do not do this because I am not practiced in this vocabulary and will probably unknowingly make up incorrect King James words. But more importantly, it is because I feel that coming before God as something other than myself is fake.  I believe God knows us better than we know ourselves, is approachable, and loves us as his children; therefore, I will not pray as if I am trying to appease him or superficially respect him with my language. (In many ways, how I pray with these LDS in-laws can be a witness of my love-relationship with my Creator.) 

In conclusion, I must say that I believe all prayer should be Christian prayer.  Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life, creating the only bridge to the Father.  Any other prayer to any other god, higher power, or anything else is a waste of time and offers no hope of salvation.  The Bible declares this to be true, and in this I am certain.


*This photo is by David Shankbone and is registered under a Creative Commons License. 
**This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website. 

Alcohol and the Christian

Imagine a group of Christians from a variety of denominations together for a nice dinner, when the waiter brings over a bottle of wine and the wine list?  Depending on the group, it could be an awkward moment.  Alcohol is a touchy subject in the Church, at least in the American Church.

CNN has reported the findings of the National Association of Evangelicals' top leaders.  The article, "Most U.S. evangelical leaders don't drink, survey finds" posted by Richard Allen Greene, found that of the top leaders of the NAE's members, sixty percent choose not to drink.  I don't think we should find this number surprising.  And we need to understand that the reasons vary but do not (and should not) include the idea that alcohol consumption in-and-of-itself is a sin.

Below are three arguments why Christians choose not to drink.  The first being absurd, and the other two being somewhat more common.  Right upfront, I'll say that I believe this is a personal matter of voluntarily restricting our own freedom in Christ, but in no way should be a legalistic rule placed involuntarily upon others.  (It needs to be said that "freedom in Christ" is NOT the freedom to do what ever hedonistic, glutinous thing one wishes, on this I must be clear).  I also hold that the Bible clearly teaches that drunkenness (over consumption) is a sin. And, I'd like to say for those who struggle with this temptation or are enslaved to alcohol in anyway, alcohol is not for you.

The Extreme Arguments. There are three arguments I commonly hear about the prohibition of drinking.  The first comes in a variety-pack, but all of the flavors fall into the same category of extreme.  The extreme arguments use poor exegesis to claim drinking is an outright sin.  These arguments usually are very selective in which Scriptures they seek for support.  They also seem to overlook many Scriptures that show evidence of drinking that wasn't condemned as a sin.  Wine was used in the drink offering of the Old Testament.  Jesus and his disciples seem to have drank alcoholic beverages, namely, wine.  There were many Godly men with wine presses.  Parables of wineskins bursting likely would have required the gas of fermentation.  And Jesus uses wine to symbolize his shed blood and new covenant in the Lord's Supper.  But I also must say, while the Bible does not outright prohibit drinking, it does offer many stern warnings about drunkenness.  Often, wine is the symbol of God's wrath.  And the Bible cautions that wine and alcohol can, like money, be a source of real temptation and disaster.  I'll say it again: for those who struggle with this temptation or are enslaved to alcohol in anyway, alcohol is not for you.

Now, even though the Bible does not prohibit drinking, there are two arguments that are reasonable so long as they are not pushed to the extreme of legalism. 

Don't Cause Others to Stumble. The first argument is the Romans 14, "do not cause anyone to stumble" position.  This argument follows in line with Paul's teaching.  He instructs that there is no unclean food, but there will be some around us that still see some foods as unclean.  He goes on to say, "Do not for the sake of food, destroy the work of God.  Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats.  It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble" (Romans 14:20-21, ESV).  The most obvious application to this Text is don't drink around an alcoholic!  But there is so much more to this.  A pastor may choose not to drink to prevent the immature from using him as an example specifically to drink.  Or the pastor may choose not to drink because he leads a flock of older, traditional believers who might greatly struggle with their pastor drinking.  Or he may drink only among select and trusted friends that share his view and beliefs and he knows are not going to stumble because of his dietary choices.  Or in a place like Utah, a pastor may choose not to drink coffee when he meets with Mormons.  The key here is that while the pastor has freedom in Christ, he voluntarily chooses to restrict one or more freedom--as he sees best fit--in an effort to prevent people from stumbling.  This is a valid, Biblical argument that all Christians should live by; and it includes food, drink, and actions.  Where this argument goes wrong is when it becomes a hard rule of "no drinking," pressed upon all people. The beauty of the passage is that Paul can freely choose to restrict his freedom in Christ and pick it up again in different circumstances; therefore, this opportunity should be extended to all who have this freedom.

Playing with Fire.  The other argument I hear (although not as credible as the position just discussed) is the "playing with fire" argument. This argument says that because alcohol could potentially get out of hand and become an addiction, it is best just to avoid it all together.  I'm not sure the reasoning is great.  The same could be true of money, but pastors still have and use money.  However, with the heavy stress placed upon pastor, and the increased attacks of Satan's army, it's reasonable that a pastor would willingly limit is freedom in Christ for his own sake.  There are many denominations the require complete sobriety of their pastors for this very reason.  The down side to the argument is that many fall into the idea that a restriction should be placed on everybody and that those who drink even a little are somehow sinning or unholy because they are flirting with a greater potential.

This is a controversial issue within the Church, even causing church splits and inter-denominational fighting.  But it does not have to be this ugly when we remember what the Bible teaches on the matter. 

*Photo is the property of flikr.com user "stoicviking" and is registered under a creative commons license.

Training Programs: Sunday School, Small Groups

Throughout the New Testament, believers are warned of false doctrine and charged with the responsibility to make, train, and encourage disciples.  Jesus, after instructing the eleven disciples to, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” told them that they must also, “[teach] them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt 28:19-20, ESV).  Too often it seems that preachers will preach on a passage and follow it up with an invitation for non-believers to accept Christ as Savior, right then and there; not after years of training to understand all that Jesus commanded those eleven disciples.  There is nothing wrong with this, but it is extremely limited in its training extent.  Therefore, it seems that the believer’s journey with the preacher or teacher is not done.  And if a Christian is to understand what is good and what is false doctrine, a process of biblical education is necessary.  Traditionally, disciples spent a lifetime listening to elders teach on the Scripture, and they (if they could read or had access to scriptures) would keep a regular routine of Bible reading.  Eventually, additional training programs were implemented, generally called "Sunday school."  In recent years among some churches, this training has shifted to a mid-week gathering in members’ homes.  Although the name (and the format) has changed, the principle remains—“teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt 29:20, ESV).

For the sake of brevity, only a brief offering of scripture will be offered here.  In Acts 17:11, Luke, the author, praises the brothers in Berea for “examining the Scriptures daily” (ESV).  Paul instructs Titus in Titus 1:9 that an elder or overseer “must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also rebuke those who contradict it” (ESV).  To Timothy, Paul suggests that elders should be able to teach (1 Timothy 3:2) and discern the difference between sound and false doctrine (1 Timothy 1:10, Timothy 6:3). In Ephesians 4, Paul suggests that a poor understanding of doctrine is like a child “tossed to and fro by the waves” (Ephesians 4:14, ESV). Training is expected of the members of the Church, as Paul sees teaching as a gift given by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:28); and it is a reasonable assumption that in teaching, he means teaching the Word of God and sound doctrine.  And remember, Jesus warns that false prophets will come in sheep’s clothing, but will be recognized by their fruits (Matthew 7:15-16). It is clear even from these few selected passages that the Church must understand correct doctrine and to do so requires teaching from those able and spiritually gifted to teach. In the modern church, Sunday school programs and small groups fill this role, in part.

W. A. Criswell sees Sunday school programs as an evangelistic tool. He writes of Sunday school, “This is the great outreaching arm of the church. This is our primary instrument of visitation, soul-wining, and Bible teaching” (Criswell 1980, 176). While this may have been true some years ago, and it might be (or was) happening in Criswell’s church, my observations in my area suggest something different.  And based on the Scripture provided above, evangelism and training differ in that one is a starting point and the other is lifetime of teaching and learning.

In the church today, Sunday school and home group programs serve to build up the body.  As members learn the teaching of the Bible, they grow.  As they grow, they tend to become bold.  As they understand the gospel and doctrines of the Bible, and as they become bold, they become powerful evangelists in their circles of influence, such as in their places of work and circle of non-believing friends.  It is in this way that Sunday school programs and small groups strengthen evangelist work.  But that is not where it should end.  Leaders do have a responsibility to build up the believers.  Sunday school programs and small groups are also are inline with the scriptures directing members to know doctrine.  Classes, taught by believers that are gifted with the ability to teach, help build the foundation, under girding, and framework that the Holy Spirit uses to bring about spiritual formation in the lives of the believes.  Therefore, Sunday school is a natural extension of Jesus’ instruction to teach all that he commanded.

References:
Criswell, W.A. Criswell's Guidebook for Pastors. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press, 1980.

* I have no material connection to this book. This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website. 

** Photo taken by Flickr user Old Shoe Woman and is registered under  Creative Commons License. 

Caner's Stumble

Dr. Ergun Caner will no longer be the Dean and President of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary; but he is being retained as a professor for the 2010-2011 school year.  For some, this seems unfair or unjustified.  But others are still on the offensive, thinking Liberty has not done enough--they want blood.  In reality, it seems like a good decision by the school and a good demonstration of one aspect of the gospel. 

Long before the Christianity Today article, I was thinking about the claims made regarding Caner's dependencies.  On the one hand, they were compelling claims, presenting potential problems.  On the other hand, it seemed as if some people were zealously hoping to bring down Caner and run a sword through his heart, placing one foot victoriously on his chest.  I saw trouble on both hands.

As the problem continued to play out publicly, things spiraled downward.  Those on the offensive grew vicious.  They dedicated hours and hours to videos, tweet after tweet on Twitter, and thousands upon thousands of words to blogs about the problem.   It some cases, it seemed to consume them.  And there were those who blindly defended Caner, attempting to ignore or hide potential sin issues.  They would make ad hominem attacks arguing that the claims couldn't be true because they were being brought to light by a non-believer.  It got even worse when they attacked Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism rather than dealing with the issue at hand.  And by behaving in this way, they told the world that dealing with sin and seeking sanctification and restoration with God is not what Christianity is about.  

However, Christianity is about restoration to God through grace from God.  And in that, we too are to call people to repent of sin--which requires us to identify sin, including our own.  And we also must show others the love and grace in Christ.  We should seek restoration and forgiveness for those who have wronged us just as God shows grace and restoration for those who have sinned against him.  Of course this is not some kind of automatic thing, there is repentance AND forgiveness in restoration. Liberty's board looked into the allegations and now Caner has been removed of his leadership role.  However, it appears he is being given an opportunity for repentance and restoration.  He is not being completely cast out but also not remaining in his leadership role.  There is opportunity for others come come along side and help him walk the bumpy, messy, dirt path of sanctification.  We should be thankful these issues came into the light and are being dealt with--that is how sin is put to death.  Let us watch and pray for this situation, that it might bring us all a little closer to Jesus.

And we can all learn from Dr. Caner and Liberty University.  The most important thing is our relationship with God, not our egos or reputation; not who is right and who is wrong.  This means that we search ourselves for any sin and repent.  From every little exaggeration to any blatant lie, and our desire to tear down another or build ourselves up, and any other sin that the Holy Spirit shows us.  I know that daily I have much to repent of, but I am thankful that God is bringing me closer to him through this process.  And we must seek restoration in the body of Christ through grace and love.  This is my prayer for me, Dr. Ergun Caner, and for all of us.

Deuteronomy 22:1-4, Helping your Neighbor

Jesus instructed his followers to love their neighbors (Mark 12:28-31, John 13:34-35).  What does loving your neighbor look like?  It could be something like caring for the mugged Samaritan man (which today might look something more like caring for an illegal immigrant in need). It could be something as simple as taking your neighbors a meal when they are ill or have faced a disaster, or it might be sharing the gospel and praying for them.  There are many ways to show love for your neighbor.  In the book of Deuteronomy, Moses tells us one way to care for our neighbors:    

“You shall not see your brother's* ox or his sheep going astray and ignore them. You shall take them back to your brother. [2] And if he does not live near you and you do not know who he is, you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall stay with you until your brother seeks it. Then you shall restore it to him.  [3] And you shall do the same with his donkey or with his garment, or with any lost thing of your brother's, which he loses and you find; you may not ignore it. [4] You shall not see your brother's donkey or his ox fallen down by the way and ignore them. You shall help him to lift them up again."  [Deuteronomy 22:1-4, ESV]

So keep an eye out.  Your neighbor probably doesn't own any farm animals, but look for ways to help care for your neighbor's stuff.  Maybe he left his lights on--save him from a dead battery in the morning.  Maybe it's raining and the UPS driver left a package out where it can get wet.  Maybe you've found the neighbor's family dog that has gotten out.  Helping your neighbor in a time of need may provide a great opportunity for you get to know him or her better; and it's a great way to show love as Christ instructed us to do.


*On a technical note, there's some discussion as to the word translated as 'brother' in the ESV version above.  The Hebrew word can mean brother or kinsman or potentially even neighbor. Some argue that this level of care should be reserved for family; however, I would argue that the familial use of brother is not the best way to think about brother in this passage. Look at verse 2.  Notice that there is a possibility that you might now know the owner of the ox or sheep.  Therefore, you are told to care for the animal until the owner is determined.  It would be challenging to reserve this kind of care to family if you don't even know who the owner of the animal is.  I would think then, this passage is calling us to help all those around us, potentially everybody we come in contact with.

**Photo is registered under a creative commons license: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stignygaard/ / CC BY 2.0

Tithing: It's About Heart

Introduction.  In First Corinthians, Paul writes (in part) to the church in Corinth about a collection that is being taken up (16:1-4).  The money will support and care for the believers in Jerusalem who were likely in hiding during a time of persecution.  Malachi 3:10a says “Bring the full tithe to the storehouse.”  Twice Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4, that “you shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading the grain” (ESV), and in his first letter to Timothy he says, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching” (ESV), making an argument that ministers of the gospel should be paid.  While all of these passages are used in support of giving or tithing to God through the Church, the means of ministry funds is not what God is after.  God, as the Bible teaches, is after the believer’s affection.   Giving the first fruits, be it money or otherwise, is more a work happening within the believer than anything else.

God does not NEED your money It is a mistake to think the work of God’s desire will not happen if we, the Church, do not raise the money for his will.  While reflecting on God and his own life, Job said, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return.  The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD” (Job 1:21, ESV).  Job understood that he came into the world with nothing.  All that he had and all that he lost was a blessing from God, but he did not have a greater claim than God to any of it because it was all God’s to give and take.  Leviticus 27:30 teaches that every tithe, whether it is willfully given to God or not belongs to God, and the rest of Malachi 3:10 says that withholding this tithe is actually stealing from God.  Psalm 50:8-12 reads, "I have not complaint about your sacrifices or the burnt offerings you constantly offer.  But I do not the bulls from your barns or the goats from your pens.  For all the animals of the forest are mine, and I own the cattle on a thousand hills.  I know every bird on the mountains, and all the animals of the field are mine.  If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for all the world is mine and everything in it" (NLT).
   
When the King Ahasuerus’ edict demanded to have all the Jews killed, Mordecai asked Esther to appeal to her husband, the king, in order to save the Jews from genocide.  In verses 4:13-14, Mordecai says to Ester, "Do not think to yourself that in the king's palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews.  For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father's house will perish.  And who knows whether your have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?”  (Esther 4:13-14, ESV, emphasis added)  Mordecai understood that God will have it his way whether it works through Esther or through some other avenue or person, but Esther had the opportunity in that moment to be faithful and obedient to God.  Giving to the Church is much the same way—we can be obedient to the Bible and give or not, but our disobedience will not keep our Sovereign from accomplishing his will.  However, this is not a reason not to give our tithes and offering to God as he as instructed. 
 
It is about the heart.  In the 18th chapter of Luke (also Matthew 19 and Mark 10), a rich man asked Jesus what he must do to have eternal life.  Jesus asked him if was he had kept the last five Commandments.  The man had since his youth.  But then Jesus went after the real issue—the man's idol, that is, the love of his great wealth.  The rich man had placed his love of money above his love of God, thus violating the First Commandment.  Every sin we commit can generally be tied back to placing something above God, worshiping an idol rather than the living God.  One of the most prevalent idols in the West today is money. 
 
Money itself is not bad; but both Hebrews 13:5 and First Timothy 6:10 say that the love of it is.  Like the rich man, the believer must strip away the idolatry and the love of money if he is going to follow Christ.  This, at times, comes with resistance.  Criswell writes, “The true gospel preacher is confronted today by a new-time antinomian. . . . Where stewardship of money is concerned they are antinomians; elsewhere they are satisfied to preach the moral code of Jehovah” (Criswell 1980, 148-149).  However, the gospel preacher must continue to call men and woman to give cheerfully, not because God needs the money, because God wants the heart. 

References:
Criswell, W.A. Criswell's Guidebook for Pastors. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press, 1980.

*Photo is licensed under a creative commons license.  This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.

What is the Gospel?

There are many different presentations that attempt to answer the question, "What is the gospel?"  I like this presentation, especially in that it incorporates C.S. Lewis' idea that the only way Hamlet, a character of a Shakespeare play, could know the author is if the author were to write himself into the play.  And that is what God did in human history.  He did this so we can know him.  He wrote himself into creation as Jesus, the God-man who lived a sinless life, died on the cross for the propitiation of our sin, and rose again on the third day.  He ascended into Heaven to sit at the right hand of God the Father to intercedes on our behalf.  And he's coming back!

The Bible teaches that all those repent of their sin and confess Jesus as Lord will find salvation and everlasting life in Christ Jesus. 


If you have any questions or comments, or if you would like to know more about Jesus, this presentation, or you just want to chat about any other subject, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Martin Luther: Before the Door

INTRODUCTION

     Standing before the castle door at Wittenberg, Martin Luther—the man once so terror-stricken that he called out to a dead saint for physical salvation1—was unknowingly witnessing his last day of obscurity. It was on the eve of All Saints’ Day, 1517,2 nearly thirteen years after he had vowed to become a monk in exchange for his life. He had written 95 statements that he desired to argue in academia, mostly against the sale of indulgences. Nailing his Theses to the door was nothing out of the ordinary; that was how one signaled the desire for a debate.3 However, even written in Latin, something in Luther’s words were explosive. Something in what Luther had to say was worth wide distribution, printed in the language of the German people. “Luther’s Theses differed from the ordinary propositions for debate,” states Bainton, “because they were forged in anger.”4 In his Theses, Luther attempted to verbally cut down the indulgence sellers; but in the process, he provided a glimpse of salvation through the gospel of faith and grace—a gospel most had never heard.

     As Luther walked away from the castle door, he could not likely have predicted the eruption that was soon to ignite. He likely did not suspect that he eventually would be excommunicated from the Catholic Church, for much of his life condemned to live as a wanted man or die by the flames reserved for heretics.5 All he knew was that he was justified to confidently stand before God, saved by grace through faith, because the Word of God declares it so. The Martin Luther that entered the Augustinian cloister at Erfurt, trembling at the fear of his Creator and Judge, confessing for hours, was not the same Martin Luther that walked away from the castle door on October 31, 1517. The change came through God’s Word, over time. In what follows, this post will examine Luther and his clarification of theology leading up to the Ninety-Five Theses.

     Turning to his friends before entering the Black Cloister, Luther proclaimed, “This day you see me, and then, not ever again.”6 It was July 17, 1505. He was 22 and a student of the law. Two week before, Luther was traveling outside of Stotternheim when a great storm overtook him. Bainton writes, “A bolt of lightning rived the gloom and knocked the man to the ground.”7 Alone in a field, Luther cried out not to God, but to St. Anne, the patroness of miners and the preferred saint of Hans Luther, his father. “St. Anne help me!” pleaded Luther, “I will become a monk.”8

     Friends speculated the cause for sudden change of course in Luther’s life. One friend believed it was rooted in “the melancholy he displayed after the death of two friends.”9 Another acquaintance believed a supernatural spirit had visited Luther.10 Hans, furious that the investment in his future security via his son’s education, said of his son’s decision, “God grant it was not an apparition of the Devil.”11 Years later, Luther told his father that it was out of fear of death and of God’s judgment that forced the monastic vow. He called it a ‘calling by the terrors of heaven.’12


THEOLOGY OF SUPERSTITION

     It is no wonder Luther would fear death and judgment, turning to bargain with St. Anne and the religion of the day—a hybrid of German paganism and Christian mythology.13 As already mentioned above, Luther’s father, an ore worker, regularly turned to the patroness of miners. His mother, Margaretta, although a woman of prayer, believed that pagan spirits “played such minor pranks as stealing eggs, milk, and butter.”14 The “untutored folk” of the German countryside unquestionably held superstitious notions. “For them,” writes Bainton, “the woods and winds and waters were peopled by elves, gnomes, fairies, mermen and mermaids, sprites, and witches. Sinister spirits would release storms, floods, and pestilence, and could seduce mankind to sin and melancholia.”15 Bainton argues that Luther was never fully free of such ideas.16

     The religious fervor of environment and pagan practices also contributed to the superstitious understanding held by Luther upon his entry into the congregation of Augustinian monks. Even from childhood, Luther was taught sacred songs. He “learned by heart” says Bainton, “the Sanctus, the Benedictus, the Angus Dei, and the Confiteor.”17 Luther was taught to sing psalms and hymns, he attended mass, and he took part in processions on holy days. Every town resided in the shadows of tall steeples and spires, churches and cloisters; they lived in the echoing rings of church bells. Priests and monks were everywhere. Religious processions cut through the streets. Priests proclaimed indulgences and superstitious relics of Christian folklore proliferated daily life. People sought cures at shrines.18 “Daily at Mansfeld the sick were stationed beside a convent in the hope of a cure at the tolling of the vesper bell. Luther remembered seeing a devil actually depart from one possessed.”19 Even in light of the Renaissance, Luther’s university had yet been affected by its grip. Luther still learned that storms, earthquakes, and other natural events still might hold to a divine cause.20 Regardless of the degree, all training worked through a religious monocle. According to González, “The theme of salvation and damnation permeated the atmosphere in which [Luther] lived.”21 Bainton contends, “The entire training of home, school, and university was designed to instill fear of God and reverence for the Church,” and this training found tremendous success in the life of Martin Luther.22 So the vow of a young man believing he was a dead man should come at no surprise.


ANFECHTUNG

     In light of Luther’s institutional fear of God, he committed to a rigorous monastic lifestyle in an attempt appease God’s justice. Luther had been known to suffer bouts of depression and melancholy; however, his first year in the monastery brought him peace and happiness.23 He lived a daily routine of prayer and study. Given that he was accepted into the order after the initial one-year probationary period, it can be assumed that he indeed adapted to the monastic lifestyle.24 Eventually, his abilities were recognized and he was granted the opportunity to become a priest.25 But alas, his terror of God’s wrath returned. Of Luther’s first mass, González states, “he was gripped by terror upon thinking that he was holding and offering nothing less than the very body of Christ.”26 The power of the priesthood in this ritual was ultimately the key to the power of the Church over the state, the people, and even the angels. Luther recalled his thoughts after the moment he said, “We offer unto thee, the living, the true, the eternal God,”

     At these words I was utterly stupefied and terror-stricken. I thought to myself, “With what tongue shall I address such Majesty, seeing that all men ought to tremble in the presence of even an earthly prince? Who am I, that I should lift up mine eyes or raise my hands to the divine Majesty? The angels surround him. At his nod, the earth trembles. And shall I, a miserable little pygmy, say ‘I want this, I ask for that?’ For I am dust and ashes and full of sin and I am speaking to the living, eternal and true God.”27

     And so began what might rightly be called Luther’s Anfechtung, a word with no English equivalent. An anfechtung is something of a trial used by God to test a man, or “an assault by the Devil to destroy a man.”28

     Luther found himself in great despair, wrecked by fear. To overcome his Anfechtung, Luther engaged in a works-based salvation attempt of fasting, prayer, withholding comfort and joy, and rigorous contemplation. He would confess often, fearful that he may overlook a sin, maybe even one he was unaware he had committed. Bainton writes, “Whatever good works a man might do to save himself, these Luther was resolved to perform.”29 For Luther, God’s justice seemed too much for him to bear. And the more he toiled, the worse his Anfechtung became. Luther would never be good enough to safely stand before God.

     In the winter of 1510-11, Luther was called upon to represent the Augustinian order in Rome.30 Given so many relics and ritualistic opportunities for grace, Luther was hopeful he would finally feel worthy of God’s Kingdom. Upon entry to the city, he shouted, “Hail, holy Rome!”31 But over the months he was there, Luther witnessed enough to ensure still more trial and mental anguish. His Anfechtung was still well fed. A sign of his doubt is seen in his words at the top of Pilate’s Stairs, which he climbed on his knees, repeating the Pater Nosters on each step before kissing it, all hoping to spring Grandpa Heine from purgatory. Upon the top of the stairs he said, “Who knows whether it is so?”32 For Luther, the Church was losing its claim as a means of grace. About the entire trip, Luther commented “that he had gone to Rome with onions and had returned with garlic.”33 Upon his return to Erfurt, Luther was sent to Wittenberg to teach at a new university. Although he already held a doctorate of Bible, his father confessor felt that the answer to his Anfechtung may be found in deeper, regular study and teaching of the Scriptures.


FROM THE WORD OF GOD

     In the late summer of 1513, Luther began lecturing on the Psalms. During the fall of 1515, Romans became the topic of his lectures. And in 1516-17, it was Galatians. “These studies,” according to Bainton, “proved to be for Luther the Damascus road.”34 It was gradually throughout this period (1513 through 1517), not in some lightning-strike moment as some would like to think, that Luther’s understanding of God’s justice began to incorporate grace and faith. It is here that salvation by faith alone found deep meaning for Luther.

     First, Luther began to understand that Christ too had Anfechtung. Surely as a monk, Luther would have memorized most, if not all of the Psalter. However, his deeper study of the Psalms was Christological, meaning that at every point the text was speaking from the first-person, Luther took this to be Christ’s words. While this hermeneutic might face challenge in the light of other Psalms, it found traction with Luther at the point of the twenty-second Psalm. It is written in verses 1-2, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest” (ESV). Suffering was not what Luther had believed it to be if indeed Christ too could be forsaken. This was the beginning of Luther’s discovery, but in and of itself, it did not offer him much relief.

     More than likely, Luther’s peace was found in 1515 in the book of Romans. Luther’s most challenging struggle came from his understanding of the ‘justice of God.’ But Romans 1:17 reads, “For in the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith’” (ESV). As Luther has told the story, he struggled to resolve the conflict that the gospel could be both the revelation of God and the justice of God. How could the good news of the gospel be of justice? It did not fit within his understanding of God’s justice or his observations of salvation as taught by the Church. González writes, “Luther hated the very phrase ‘the justice of God,’ and spent day and night seeking to understand the relationship between the two parts of that single verse, which, after declaring that in the gospel, ‘the justice of God is revealed,’ affirms that ‘the righteous shall live by faith.’”35

     Luther found his answer when he looked at God’s justice differently. Justice, it seemed to Luther, was no longer seen as the punishment of sinners, as he had always been taught. In fact, justice and righteousness—nearly synonymous terms—are given as a gift from God to those who live by faith, not because they are faithful but because God grants it as he so desires.36 Regarding this breakthrough, Luther said, “I felt that I had been born anew and that the gates of heaven had been opened. The whole of Scripture gained a new meaning. And from that point on the phrase ‘the justice of God’ no longer filled me with hatred, but rather became unspeakably sweet by virtue of a great love.”37


PAINTING THE CORRECT LUTHER

     Most of what is known about Luther’s history comes from Luther and others, written years after the actual events. It is difficult to view Luther’s understanding of God’s justice, grace, and faith before October of 1517 outside of everything following the Ninety-Five Theses on the Wittenberg door. How firm was Luther’s understanding on grace by means outside of the Church. Did he believe that any grace came by way of relics or ritual? How about his position of Sola Fide, that is, the doctrine of salvation by faith alone? In his book, The Facts About Luther, O’Hare attempts to vilify Luther and repeatedly projects the later-Luther into the early events of Luther’s life. 38 While one might find fault with O’Hare’s methods, it is often the case that this too occurs in favorable treatments of Luther. Hollywood has found it entertaining to paint Luther as a reformer from strike of the lighting bolt rather than a young man trying to fit within the norms of the Church but running into struggles. Many authors have committed this error as well. Wilson raises this issue even within Luther himself, writing,
[W]e do have a problem in understanding Luther’s monastic career. His later writings on the religious life are utterly condemnatory and he came to consider his Augustinian years as worse than wasted. ‘In the cloister I lost both the salvation of my soul and the health of my body.’ But such statements were made after he had turned his back on monasticism. His memories were coloured by that rejection and his combative teaching undoubtedly involved exaggeration.39
Therefore, this study will now briefly turn to three early documents in an effort to seek Luther’s understanding of grace and faith prior to his fame: Luther’s earlier ninety-seven theses, the Ninety-Five Theses, and The Leipzig Disputation.

     The Ninety-Seven Theses. Only a couple months before Luther’s famous Ninety-Five Theses, he penned another list of matters for debate called Disputations Against Scholastic Theology. He had hoped they would create a stir but they untimely fell upon deaf ears.40 Reading the ninety-seven statements designed for academic debate among students, one should notice the surfacing of grace. Numbers seven through nine deal with man’s sinful nature and inability to bring himself to salvation outside of God’s grace. Number twenty-five hints at a works verses grace arrangement, reading, “Hope does not grow out of merits, but out of suffering which destroys merits. This in opposition to the opinion of many.”41 The twenty-ninth statement argues that the sole disposition toward grace is the eternal election of God, and number thirty reads, “On the part of man, however, nothing precedes grace except indisposition and even rebellion against grace.”42 It is false notion to think that man can remove the obstacles to grace, this according to number thirty-three, and thirty-four argues that man does not in himself alone contain the ability to have good will. Forty, which might give the greatest insight into Luther’s understanding by 1517 says, “We do not become righteous by doing righteous deeds, but having been made righteous, we do righteous deeds.”43 And most compelling is that statements fifty-two through the remainder of the document deal with grace and the law. Noteworthy, eighty-nine states, “Grace as a mediator is necessary to reconcile the law with the will.”44 It is clear from reading Disputations Against Scholastic Theology that Luther’s theology was driving strong roots deep in his life, especially considering that the bulk of his Ninety-Seven Theses deal with grace and God’s justice. What is difficult to ascertain from this work is how Luther feels about faith in Christ alone for salvation.

     The Ninety-Five Theses. Much of Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses is targeted at indulgences; however, his thirty-second point states, “Those who believe that, through a letter of pardon, they are made sure of their own salvation, will be eternally damned along with their teachers.”45 Clearly, Luther is stating that the paper pardon offers no grace, but given what we know of Luther’s position before October 31, 1517, it is a safe assumption that Luther would also condemn many other Church instituted means of grace. Thirty-four argues, “For grace conveyed by these pardons has respect only to the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, which are of human appointment.”46 Fifty-two calls the hope of salvation from letters of pardon “vain,” and sixty-eight says that in no way should indulgences be compared to “the grace of God and the piety of the cross.”47 While again, much can be seen of Luther’s idea of grace, at this point, he speaks little if anything about faith alone for salvation.

     The Leipzig Disputation. The Liepzig Disputation is Eck’s account of his debate with Luther in 1519. While little from Eck’s perspective demonstrates Luther’s ideas of grace or Sola Fide, Eck does offer one hint of Luther’s faith in Christ over men or the Church. (It is for this reason that it is included in this analysis.) At one point, Eck reports to the Church that Luther denies that the Church was built upon Peter or any man, instead, according to Eck’s report, “[Luther] would stand alone against a thousand, though supported by no other, because Christ only is the foundation of the Church, for no other foundation can man lay.”48 Clearly, Luther’s faith was in Christ alone.


CONCLUSION

     We cannot know what Luther was thinking while he was nailing his Ninety-Five Theses to the door at Wittenberg, but we can speculate that he was confident in his understanding of grace and faith. Through years of struggle and study of God’s word, Luther found security in not only his salvation, but also in his ability to approach his Creator as a beloved child would his perfectly just and perfectly loving Father.

     There have been volumes written by and about Martin Luther and his theology. Given the massive amounts of material, there is much room for more study on Luther’s understanding of grace and faith before his fame. And it might prove interesting to examine his understanding over the course of the reminder of his lifetime. It is the hope and prayer of this author that more research will be conducted and offered to the Church so that there will be continued growth and understanding through the struggles and discoveries of Martin Luther.


BIBLIOGRAPHY


Bainton, Roland Herbert. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. New York: Meridian, 1995.


Bettenson, Henry Scowcroft, and Chris Maunder. Documents of the Christian Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.


González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. Vol I. San Francisco: Harper Row, 1984.


Luther, Martin. Basic Luther. Springfield, Ill: Templegate Publishers, 1994.


Luther, Martin, Timothy F. Lull, and William R. Russell. Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings. Minneapolis, Minn: Fortress, 2005.


Marty, Martin E. Martin Luther. New York: Viking Penguin, 2004.


Oberman, Heiko Augustinus. Luther: Man between God and the Devil. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.


O’Hare, Patrick F. The Facts About Luther. Rockford, Ill: Tan Books, 1987.


Wilson, Derek A. Out of the Storm The Life and Legacy of Martin Luther. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 2007.






1  Roland Herbert Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (New York: Meridian, 1995), 15.
2  Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity, Vol I (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984).
3 Bainton, 60.
4 Ibid.
5 Heiko A Oberman, Luther: Man between God and the Devil (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 22.
6 Martin E. Marty, Martin Luther (New York: Viking Penguin, 2004), 6-7.
7 Bainton, 15.
8 Ibid.
9 Marty, 7.
10 Ibid.
11 Bainton, 32.
12 Marty, 7.
13 Bainton, 19.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid., 20.
18 Bainton, 20.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
21 González, 16.
22 Bainton, 20.
23 González, 16.
24 Bainton, 27-28.
25 González, 16.
26 Ibid.
27 Bainton, 30.
28 Ibid., 31.
29 Bainton, 34.
30 Ibid., 36.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid., 38.
33 Ibid.
34 Bainton, 46.
35 González, 19.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid., 19-21.
38 Patrick F. O’Hare, The Facts About Luther (Rockford, Ill: Tan Books, 1987).
39 Derek A. Wilson, Out of the Storm The Life and Legacy of Martin Luther (New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 2007), 45.
40 González, 19.
41 Martin Luther, Timothy F. Lull, and William R. Russell, Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings (Minneapolis, Minn: Fortress, 2005), 36.
42 Luther, Lull, and Russell, 36.
43 Ibid.
44 Ibid., 38.
45 Martin Luther, Basic Luther (Springfield, Ill: Templegate Publishers, 1994), 12.
46 Luther, 13.
47 Ibid., 15.
48 Henry S. Bettenson and Chris Maunder, Documents of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 212-213.

 *This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.    

** "Martin Luther" by Lucas Cranach the Elder, painted in 1529, is in the public  domain.

Poor, Poor Prosperity Gospel

A mistaken theology has gained a strong foothold in some circles in the western world, and it is consuming Africa.  It's called the prosperity gospel.

Essentially, a preacher will mine the Bible for passages he or she can misuse to support an idea that the more God loves you the more he will bless you with material things.  By being a believer in Christ, the poor gain more money and physical wealth.  The more money one gives to the church, the more God gives back to them.  And in this idea, the most holy people, the people loved the most by God (so they would claim) are those with the greatest monetary wealth.  

Lies!  It's a lie.  This is wrong.  It's bad theology.

However, I'm told that there are many churches in extremely poverty-stricken areas where this idea is taught.  And guess what?  While the poor walk to church, in no shoes and hungry, the preacher shows up in an expensive suit and fancy car.  I hesitate to call this preacher a pastor because a pastor is one who shepherds and protects the flock through the proper teaching of the gospel.

The easiest way to stray from right biblical principles and correct doctrine is by getting away from teaching the Bible.  It is obvious when a pastor skips difficult passages as the congregation is working through a book of the Bible.  When the Bible is preached, book by book, passage by passages, difficult passages will demand their time just as the easy ones do.  Areas of church attitude or practice that are not inline with what the Bible says will quickly be thrust into the light and rebuked by the Word of God.  However, no preacher of the prosperity gospel could possibly be teaching through the Bible--there are too many passages that rebuke this idea that the more God loves you, the richer you will be.  I'll share just one example of what the Bible says about an incorrect focus on riches.  It is found Psalm 49:5-20 (NLT).  I can't imagine how a prosperity gospel preacher would teach on this text.
5Why should I fear when trouble comes,
  when enemies surround me?
6 They trust in their wealth
  and boast of great riches.
7 Yet they cannot redeem themselves from death
  by paying a ransom to God.
8 Redemption does not come so easily,
  for no one can ever pay enough
9 to live forever
  and never see the grave.

10 Those who are wise must finally die,
  just like the foolish and senseless,
  leaving all their wealth behind.
11 The grave is their eternal home,
  where they will stay forever.
They may name their estates after themselves,
12   but their fame will not last.
  They will die, just like animals.
13 This is the fate of fools,
  though they are remembered as being wise.    Interlude

14 Like sheep, they are led to the grave,
  where death will be their shepherd.
In the morning the godly will rule over them.
  Their bodies will rot in the grave,
  far from their grand estates.
15 But as for me, God will redeem my life.
  He will snatch me from the power of the grave.    Interlude

16 So don't be dismayed when the wicked grow rich
  and their homes become ever more splendid.
17 For when they die, they take nothing with them.
  Their wealth will not follow them into the grave.
18 In this life they consider themselves fortunate
  and are applauded for their success.
19 But they will die like all before them
  and never again see the light of day.
20 People who boast of their wealth don't understand;
  they will die, just like animals.  (Psalm 49:5-20, NLT)

*Photo registered under a creative commons license

Christians Converge

As the the Southern Baptist Convention is about to converge on Orlando, I can't help but think about the large gatherings of Christian for conventions.  Each year, hundreds of Christian conventions happen all across the country--some for denominational business, some for training. Pastors, church planters, chaplains, professors, and often scores of laypeople come together for a variety of purposes in a variety of places  in a variety of ways. 

From the attendees' perspective, the convention might be about great training or corporate worship of God.  Or it could be about developing the future of the denomination or dealing with pressing church business or assessing new church planters or chaplains.  Although sadly for most (sometimes myself included), it is about a vacation and seeing big-name speakers so the attendee can go home and say, "When I was at the convention, I saw  __________ (Fill in the blank with Mark Driscoll, Francis Chan, Matt Chandler, Ergun Caner, James White, John Piper, Sam Storms, Wayne Grudem, Rob Bell, Tullian Tchividjian, Beth Moore, Ed Stetzer, Don Miller, Greg Laurie, Tim Keller, Jack Hayford, James McDonald Daniel Wallace, or any other popular pastor, author, or professor.)

From the city's perspective, these groups represent dollars to the community; everything is measured on economic impact and hotel sleeping room count.  (I know because I work in the industry in Salt Lake City.)  Most conventions will generate anywhere from $600 to $1,200 per attendee, which quickly adds up to a good infusion of dollars into the city.  But is this where it should end for the city?

I've seen Christian conferences come to Salt Lake City--a community were only 3% of the population can be found in a Christian (non-LDS) church on any given Sunday--to serve and evangelize the community (in addition to their meetings).  And I've seen other Christian conferences come and be served by the city, making their convention all about themselves, church business, training, vacation, or rest.  Some groups plan for opportunities to feed the local homeless, open their doors for public events, or even engage with people in the surrounding area.  I remember an EFCA youth conventionin 2008 that gave opportunities to the youth to go to the local restaurants, buckets and mops in hand, and ask if they could clean their bathrooms.  Talk about a conversation starter and an interesting witness.

But service to a community (rather than from it) doesn't require planned opportunities from the convention (although I believe convention planners should work to build these opportunities into their conventions), it starts with each individual attendee.  Even before you arrive at your hotel, you come in contact with airline service people, restaurant servers, cab and shuttle bus drivers, and other travelers; and once at your hotel there are even more people you will meet.  Think about the perception of the young woman making thousands of coffee drinks in the hotel Starbucks.  Will she see anything different about your group of Christian convention attendees compared to the commercial or business convention that was there the previous week?  Will the differences be positive or negative?  What are you saying to the host community of your next convention?   


Meeting planners, I am happy to share with you ideas from events I've seen that have made positive attempts to reach and serve their host city.  If you'd like to chat, please feel free to contact me.

*Photo of 2004 EFCA Challenge 2004 at the Salt Palace Convention Center, Salt Lake City, Utah is registered under a Creative Commons License. 

Still to Reach the World?

In the 19th and 20th centuries, there was a new interest to push into foreign, mostly unknown cultures in order to spread the gospel message.  This resulted in all kinds of missionary movements, some of which have even become denominations.

But in recent years, there seems to be a draw back inward, into the church.  Fantastic Sunday services are, at times, the focus.  Communities of like-minded people who, for the most part, are already believers are cropping up everywhere.  Some of these efforts are driven by the realization that even in the US, Canada, and England, there are large numbers of people that are not believers.  Countries that have traditionally sent missionaries and church planters are now in need of them at home.  But as the pendulum swings back, it's important that American Christians do not lose the mindset of a gospel message to the whole world.   

Why?  Why shouldn't we just focus on our local communities and let the locals in those other areas deal with their local communities?  Because the Bible dictates that the gospel is for the whole world and the disciples are to go to the whole world. There's a large list of passages, but for this blog, I'll stick to a short selection. 

To exclude Matthew 28:19-20 from the top of the list of passages on world evangelism would be a travesty. The passage, often called 'The Great Commission' reads,
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (ESV, emphasis added). 
All though the translation of the Greek word ethnos could suggest foreigners in the land rather than other geographical areas (especially considering the Peter's vision to take the gospel to the gentiles had yet to happen), there is strong reason this command to "go" and "make disciples" is in reference to the whole world both ethnically and geographically. However, to be sure there is no doubt, Acts 1:8 records Jesus' detailed instructions, stating,
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth" (ESV, emphasis added). 
The very construction of this instruction from Christ suggests that the disciples will be witnesses in a geographic area, not just to various ethnic people that happen to be in Jerusalem like the event recorded in Acts 2.  Jerusalem, all of Judea and Samaria, and then the Greek word heos, that is "as far as" the end of the earth.   Clearly the expectation is to evangelize the world.

To be sure this is correct, we can look to Revelation 5:9-10 where John hears in a vision four creatures and 24 elders singing that Jesus, "ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation" (ESV). And in Revelation 7:9, John sees a "great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages" worshiping God (ESV). And if we turn back to Matthew 24:14, Jesus gives us a glimpse of the end of the last days. Here he says that before the end, "the gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations" (ESV). There is little doubt, even looking at only the passages presented here, that Christians are fully expected to take the gospel message to the ends of the earth.  It would seem from reading our Bible, that we can't just stick to our comfortable communities, we must support missions and church planting throughout the whole world.



*Photo is registered under a Creative Commons License: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbcworldservice/ / CC BY-NC 2.0

Sunday Service Format

The following video pokes fun at the contemporary church format.  We might say something like, "it's funny because it's true."



The jab is not at large churches or modern style music, but at the driving force behind a church like the one in this video.  I believe there are are many churches, big and small, "contemprovant" and not, that are producing a church service rather than gathering of believers coming together in order to worship Jesus.  The seeker sensitive model seems to have given way to the rock concert/Hollywood model of church.  Both models are flawed on more than one level.  But I think as we watch this video and laugh, we need to take a hard look at the root of the problem.  Is it because people are not opening their Bibles to learn, study, and hear form God's Word?  Is it because prayer is on the back burner?  Is there a lack of response to God here?  It's easy to say yes.  Who's to blame, the produces of Sunday Morning or the attendees seeking entertainment above Christ?  However, identifying it is not what the believers of Jesus are called to do; making disciples is what Christ had in mind (Matthew 28:18-20).  So that leaves us with the question, what are we to do (if anything) about the "contemporvant" trend in America?

Coffee for Christ

This website has generally been free of advertisements, but as I'm drinking a cup of coffee this Sunday morning, I thought I would interrupt this blog for a brief commercial break.

If you're a coffee drinker and you spend between $0.70 and $0.90 per ounce for your beans, you should consider purchasing your coffee from one of the many organizations selling quality coffee to raise funds for ministry.  The price is typically the same for this coffee as it is for other specialty brands like Starbucks, and usually the flavor and quality is the same, if not better.  The major difference is that rather than the profits going into a commercial corporation's bottom line or to enhance an owner's lifestyle, they go toward ministry efforts.

Two examples include Saint's Coffee (which Tom Davis and I highly recommend) and Acts 29 Coffee (which comes highly recommend by a Danny Braga, a friend).  Saint's Coffee is raising money to care for orphans overseas, mostly in Africa.  Acts 29 Coffee is raising money for church planting in America. 

It may not seem like much of a contribution individually, but when many individuals purchase coffee, the proceeds add up, like the Proverbs ant (Proverbs 6:6, 30:24-25).  Churches that typically serve coffee before, during, and after Sunday services and other weekly gatherings, should consider one of these coffee fund-raising options as another way to support various ministry efforts outside their walls.

There can be a charge for shipping; however, some of these organizations offer free shipping for orders over a certain size.  If you have a little extra space, it might be something worth doing.


* I have no material connection to either of the organizations or products mentioned in this post.  The photos come from the websites http://www.saintscoffee.com and http://acts29coffee.com, and admittedly are being used without permission (Although I am happy to remove them and the links to their respective sites if requested to do so.) 

Here I Stand by Roland Bainton

CRITIQUE OF
Bainton, Roland Herbert. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. New York: Meridian, 1995.

INTRODUCTION
Born on November 10, 1483 in Eisleben to an ore miner and a woman of prayer[1], and dying on February 18, 1546 in the town of his birth, condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, Martin Luther may have lived the most influential 63 years of any individual of protestant church history. Roland Bainton, a Quaker and a “minister, theologian, and Titus Street Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale Divinity School,” has attempted to capture the prominent aspects and driving force behind Luther in his book Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther.[2]  Bainton writes, “. . . this study may appropriately begin with [Luther’s] first acute religious crisis in 1505. . .” and for the remainder of his book, the focal point of Bainton’s work is on Luther’s Anfechtungen, that is, the religious crises of Luther experienced throughout much of is lifetime. Bainton’s work and subject of this review has, for good reason, become an authority on the reformer, Martin Luther.

BRIEF SUMMARY
Here I Stand is thematically divided into two parts. Although subtle, the first part of the work, approximately Chapters 1-11, details Luther’s struggles—first in Luther’s inability to approach God, and second his challenge with the Church’s move away from what Luther saw as biblical teachings. This first half of the book moves through the narrative of Luther’s life much like any biography would, only with a central focus on Luther’s understanding of God. Essentially, Luther had a frightful experience causing a vow to Saint Anne that in exchange for his life he would become a monk. As a monk, he greatly struggled to understand how a finite man can approach an infinite God and still survive. He continued to work at his salvation, pushing himself to extreme measures and mental torment. Eventually Luther was elevated to the position of priest, although this did not alleviate his anguish. His struggles only intensified after a trip to Rome where he witnessed not only how the money from his fellow poverty-simple Germans was being used; but also the lack of earnestness among his fellow priests and a horrid manipulation relics and indulgences.

In 1511, Luther was granted a position as professor at Wittenberg under the direction of Dr. Johann von Staupitz.[3] It was through his teaching on the Psalms and lectures through the book of Romans that Luther came to understand that his theology was flawed—it was only through “faith alone” that he could approach God. Luther felt the Church went astray, mostly in relics and indulgences. Hoping to correct some problematic practices and teaching of the Church, he posted his Ninety-Five Thesis for debate and discussion. This, it seems, was the igniter that set ablaze a movement that would eventually be called the Reformation.

Until a time just after the Diet of Worms, Bainton narrates most of Luther’s history through the lens of Luther’s struggle. It is here that the reader sees events such as Luther’s battle with Tetzel, his debate with Eck, and his receipt of the papal bull as a spiritually challenging life conflict. Then Bainton shifts to telling the remainder of the narrative through the lens of Luther’s theology. This shift occurs slowly between Chapters 10 and 12. It is as if Bainton is demonstrating a shift in Luther’s life as well. The remainder of the book moves through Luther’s theology while explaining events such as the hearings, excommunication, the translation of the New Testament into German, the exodus of monks and nuns, the burning of martyrs, the Peasants’ War, Luther’s marriage to Katherine von Bora, and Luther’s death.

Here I Stand features a detailed time-line in the front of the book, which servers as an overarching guide to the narrative. In addition, the publication displays a number of historical drawings rendered from woodcuttings of the day. The index is well detailed and the bibliography is extensive with nearly 300 entries. The notation system—of which Harris calls “the unpardonable sin,” is somewhat cumbersome.[4] His method, while keeping the manuscript free of distracting superscript notations and footnotes, requires that one counts the lines of the page to determine the location of the specific end note.

CRITICAL INTERACTION OF THE AUTHOR’S WORK
Shortly after its publication in1950, Here I Stand drew the attention of many reviews, mostly positive of Bainton’s work. Harris, for example, was critical of the book’s notational system and Bainton’s trust of Table Talk as an accurate account of Luther’s life and history but he calls the book “superb.”[5] Roth hints that he would have preferred to see more of the social and political undercurrent that influenced Luther’s thinking but still praises the work.[6] Garrison and Campbell also offered positive reviews after the book’s release.[7]

Having read a mid-sized selection of Luther’s work and only a small selection of work about Luther (found in broader history books), this author is hesitant to be too critical of Bainton. Harris suggest that academic debate centered on the historical reliability of Luther’s own accounts might give cause to doubt Bainton’s work; however, it would seem that the exhaustive list of references lends great support and credibility to Bainton’s understanding of Luther. The tone of the narrative and the word choices add flavor to the manuscript, although at times, bring too much of the author into the book. And working through the two themes—those of Luther’s struggle and his theology—add great insight that might not have been present otherwise. The reader is drawn into the Anfechtungen with Luther, forcing one to draw personal application from it. However, by shifting to the theological lens in the recount the remaining narrative, Bainton allows the reader to find answers through Luther’s extensive biblical study and understanding.

CONCLUSION
Resting so well between a purely academic work and that of biography fit for mass consumption, Here I Stand it an outstanding choice for any reader interested in the life of Martin Luther. This book appears historically solid without getting marred down by the critical debates commonly found in academia. Bainton’s extensive work warrants his book’s reputation and explains why Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther is still found on the shelves of libraries, professors, pastors, and laypeople some 60 years after its publication.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bainton, Roland Herbert. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. New York: Meridian, 1995.
Campbell, Donald J. “Luther.” Christian Century. vol. 67 no. 40. October 4, 1950, 1168-1169.
Garrison, Winfred Ernest. Christian Century. vol. 67 no. 40. October 4, 1950, p 1169.
Harbison, E Harris. Theology Today. vol. 8 no. 4. January 1952, p 558-563.
Roth, Paul. Lutheran Quarterly. vol 3, no. 2. May 1951, p 224-225.
__________
1 Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (New York: Meridian, 1995), 16-17.
2 Bainton, ii; and, Donald J. Campbell, “Luther” Christian Century (67 no. 40 October 4, 1950, 1168-1169), 1168.
3 Bainton, 39.
4 Harbison, E Harris. Theology Today (vol. 8 no. 4, January 1952, p 558-563), 558.
5 Harbison, 558.
6 Paul H. Roth, Lutheran Quarterly (vol. 3 no. 2, May 1951, p 224-225) 224-225.
7 Campbell, 1168-1169; and Earnest Garrison, Christian Century (vol. 67 no. 40. October 4, 1950, p 1169), 1169.

* I have no material connection to this book. This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.

Deseret Book Stops Printing Mormon Doctrine

First printed in 1958, Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie was (and maybe still is) a staple of the LDS Church.  It is used and quoted in many of the instructional books and teaching manuals.  But now it is being taken out of print.  The publisher, Deseret Book, claims that it's not selling.  However, KUTV 2News in Utah reports that sales are not low and that something else might be behind letting the book's printing life coming to an end.

The KUTV reporter went to a number of book stores in the Salt Lake area, including Sam Weller's and Barnes & Noble, and learned that the book is still a strong seller.  They can't seem to keep it stocked and at Sam Weller's, there is a waiting list for the title.  But the sales of a few local bookstores doesn't say much for overall sales.  Maybe it is just that the book is not selling well in Deseret Book stores?  Aaron Shafovaloff, author of the blog Mormon Coffee is arguing that Amazon sales rankings show the book in a higher position than many other popular LDS books.   Sandra Tanner of Lighthouse Ministries believes removing the book from print is more likely about the various controversies behind the book.  She feels it could be about the LDS Church "trying to have a better control on how their message goes out to the world."

In the KUTV news report, Deseret Book says there is a life cycle to every book and Mormon Doctrine's life cycle is up.  Speaking to an employee in the corporate offices of Deseret Book, I was told that they take books out of print all the time, this is not an unusual practice.  But I wonder, if it is only about sales, would it be a problem for Deseret Book if another publisher started publishing the title? I'm sure there are a few publisher's that would jump at the chance. Could it be that it is not sales that are a problem but content?

Another argument is that the book is simply outdated and that many books like this one are replaced as new titles become more popular.  One could make the argument for many older Christian titles on theology and doctrine, like the Scofield Study Bible and Christian Doctrine by Berkoff--both, I might add, are still in print.  In fact, printing presses are still churning out many older, unpopular titles.  But, if ta title has so fallen out of favor that there is no longer a market to sell the title, they are often made available on-line for free to serve has a historical reference.  All thought I doubt it will happen, I hope that is the case for Mormon Doctrine, a popular (and selling) book now claimed to be not worth the effort to print.


* I have no material connection to the book mentioned in this post.

It Doesn't Matter Which God?

We hear it all the time, maybe not in the same words, but the idea presents itself in our society everyday. It sounds like this: "I don't care what god it is that you worship or what church you go to. We just need to get back in to correct principles" (Glenn Beck, 5/19/10).  The statement plays on an idea that all roads lead to the same god; but it is also saying that no matter which god one serves, there is some universal set of principles to which society should adhere.

However, there's a problem.  Talking to a Christian and a cannibal, you'll find that one holds to a principle of "love your neighbor" while the other has a principle of "eat your neighbor."  If one person props up the god/idol of money another chooses the god/idol of poverty, there will be competing principles.  Some systems of faith encourage people to worship themselves as gods. Principles will collide when selfishness is behind them.

The worshipers of Molech would sacrifice babies on a red-hot stone, picturing their idol/god eating their sacrificed babies as they screamed and died. Leviticus 18:10 clearly prohibited the Israelites, worshipers of Yahweh (the one and only true God), from worshiping Molech.  Obviously it did matter which god they worshiped.  (Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10, that behind every pagan sacrifice there is  actually a demon.)  Some people place their hope and trust in their political parties, making the party of their choice their god.  Others worship the legal courts as god.  And still others say there is no god and simply call whatever it is that they worship by a different name.  (We all worship something; it's how humanity is created.)

With so many competing gods, all of which offering some differing "principles," we must ask which principle-giver (also called a moral-law giver) should we seek in order to know which principles are correct.  This is the flaw of Glenn Beck's argument.  All gods do not offer the same principles.  All systems of faith are not the same. 

So then the person making the statement about getting back to "correct principles" must offer a source for the "correct principles" so we know which principle-giver he is suggesting is correct.  If he does not offer a source, then he is ultimately offering up himself up as the principle-giver and a god for others to worship.  (This seems as if it might be the case for Beck.)

There is indeed a correct and ultimate moral-law giver.  He is the triune God of the Christian Bible: the Father and Creator of all things, Jesus the God-man who gave himself on the cross so that those who turn to God and surrender their own ways to the way of Jesus may be redeemed, and the Holy Spirit who indwells and empowers believers.  (I realize this may be controversial or confusing but I am happy to discuss it further or answer any questions.)  There is indeed a correct principle; however, not all gods, religions, and churches agree on who the giver of the correct principle is or even the principles themselves.  It does matter in which god or gods you believe.  One is God, Creator of the universe and perfect moral-law giver, and all the others are backed by demons.   

*Graphic is in the public domain. 

Social Media and the Church

Written May 12, 2010.

I have some friends that are not on Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media site.  Most of them are Christians and a couple of them are pastors.  I know of some churches that do not podcast sermons.  Many keep static websites, usually outdated looking, like a calendar of events with the last entry dated sometime in June of 2009.  "Why does this matter?" you might challenge.

Answer: Because Jesus told his disciples (and his disciples of today by extension), "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20). 

Now, I realize that you can't baptize someone over the Internet (within the bounds of orthodoxy or reality; although there's probably some whack-o website that does virtual baptisms).  I'd also like to be the first to say that the Internet is no substitute for face-to-face interaction and community.  The Internet, like many other things, holds the ability (when abused) to destroy marriages, families, and even lives.  However, like the printing press, telegraph, telephone, radio, and television, it is a communication tool.  More significantly, as church planters are flocking to the urban areas and missionaries are headed to the third world, there are still millions and millions of people that can be touched in some way via social networking and the Internet.  In some instances, the Internet might be a person's only porthole to any Christ followers. Either way, outside of face to face interaction, the Internet is where people communicate. Please allow me to use this video to demonstrate my point.  (Realize that this information is outdated in just the time it takes to watch the presentation.)    



What does this mean for the Church?

It means there is a communication potential in social media.  It means if the Church doesn't communicate in this medium, it will loose the ability to converse with a generation that has always lived in a world with the internet, laptop, and cell phone.  It is not as if the Internet is the only way to communicate with people, but to neglect social media is to miss a huge opportunity.

However, this does not mean that the church simply takes the old, tired paper tracks and makes them into old, tired websites.  It means the Church needs to ENGAGE people in social media forums, in comments, and with blogs.  This does not mean be the crazy nut-job that simply screams at everyone.  It means converse and share who you are, living with Christ in you.  It means that the Church need not be afraid of opportunities because they might be complicated.  (And if you are not a Christian but are curious, don't be afraid to use social media to interact with Christians.  It's a good place to start finding answers.  You are always welcome to contact me or ask questions.)  

Are you engaging people through this opportunity or are you missing opportunities?

___________
We can discuss this further; connect with me through some common social media sites.


Subscribe to the Salty Believer Podcast!
(Non iTunes click here.)

Subscribe to the RSS Feed or sign up to receive this blog via email with the options in the sidebar  to the right.