James vs. Paul?

James 2:14-26 is a really tough text.  Actually, it’s really not except for how we want to balance things Paul has said with the things James has said.  There area few ways we can approach this.  

1.  The first way we can look at this is to say either Paul or James is wrong.  Martin Luther took this approach, suggesting that James was a lesser book in the Canon or Scripture, or maybe didn’t even belong in the Bible.  This is really not a good approach.  If I were to take this approach, every book that contains a verse about sin I want to commit would be removed from the Bible.  Leaving me with about two books.  This is what people often what to do with Old Testament books; that is, they reduce them to a lesser authoritative position.  Others will elevate the quotes from Jesus’ earthy ministry above the rest of the biblical books, forgetting that Jesus is indeed the Word. I do not recommend this approach and would encourage you to avoid this false dichotomy. 

2.  The next approach is to get loose with the words or historical facts.  “Well, one person really means this and the other person really means that.”  I’ve been guilty of this at times (especially with this section of James.)  This is how society will try to change the meaning of homosexuality, among other things in the Bible.  Or if the words aren’t toyed with, sometimes the historical reality is changed.  This is how we get some far-fetched story about a gate called the Needle Gate that was short and narrow.  As this urban legend goes, people would have to unload their camels to get through the needle gate. Archaeologists have never found the needle gate.  In addition, Jesus was making an impossible point about something that couldn’t happen at all, not something that was simply an inconvenience.  I think we need to be careful not to do this with words like Faith, Works, Justification, and Salvation as Paul and James discuss them.  Let’s be honest with the words and context (although this doesn’t mean there may be some difference.  It just means, let’s be honest.) 

3.  Or we can approach this as it is.  James and Paul are in agreement, as they were both inspired by the same Holy Spirit.  Any confusion on this matter is likely found on our part. But how can this be?  I’ll see if I can get to the heart of the confusion.

First, let’s look at the Scriptures that seem to be in disagreement.  

James 2:24.  “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

James 2:26. “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.”

(Paul) Romans 3:28. “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart fro works of the law.”

(Paul) Romans 4:2-5.  “For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but now before God.  For what does the Scripture say?  ”Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness."  Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.  And to the one who does not work by trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,"

(Paul) Ephesians 2:8-9.  “For by grace you have been saved through faith.  And this is not your own doing; it is a gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

There is an apparent conflict, isn’t there?  Is there?  Are you sure?  We make the same trouble with our language too (especially if we hold a reformed theological view of salvation.)  Let me see if I can show you.  

How often do we say, “There’s nothing you can do to earn your salvation?”  (This would be a correct statement.)  But then we tell the person who said the ’sinner’s prayer’ and never, ever, not even once, did another thing regarding God or demonstrated a changed life, “that’s not enough.”  (This would also likely be a correct statement.)  The person would say, but if I have to do more, aren’t I doing some kind of work?  From an outside perspective, we have contradicted ourselves.  Or have we?    

The difficulty with the Paul vs. James contradiction is that we often start from Paul’s viewpoint.  We read Paul and think we understand what Paul is saying.  (Peter warns us that Paul can be hard to understand in 2 Peter 3:16.) Then we try to read James into our understanding of Paul’s position.   I would like to suggest that we instead try starting from James' position (which is much easier to grasp) and see if our understanding can be read back into Paul’s position.  

What is James’ position?  That the believer should demonstrate some kind of changed life that would likely demonstrate belief and faith. He’s arguing against cheap grace and easy-believism.  Is that so much of a stretch?  After all, didn’t Jesus often talk about baring fruit?  Your remember?  "You will recognize them by their fruit. . . " (Matthew 7 and Luke 8). ‘The ax is already at the root of the tree that doesn’t bare fruit. . . (Matthew 3).  Or what about that fig tree that didn’t have any fruit (Mark 11).  But Jesus (or James or Paul for that matter) is not saying you have to produce fruit in order to be saved.  Instead, it should be expected that a justified, saved, person of faith produces fruit. They go together as part of the definition. 

James is a simple writer, so it helps to get a grasp of faith and salvation from this position.  Now read James’ position and definition into Paul’s argument?  

If we understand that Paul has the same justified, saved person who produces fruit in mind when he talks about salvation, it becomes clear.  Still, he’s not saying we have to do work to earn salvation, but he does seem to believe that the believer does stuff as a result of his or her regeneration.  This is how Paul can get away with all those imperative statements he makes about how a believer should live.  And look again at one of the above verses with this in mind and in the proper context

“For by grace you have been saved through faith.  And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.  For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."  (Paul, Ephesians 2:8-10, emphasis added.)    

I hope this helps clarify the apparent controversy.  

And what should we take away from this?  There is a great question in the application section of the Serendipity Study Bible on this text.  It reads, 

“If you were arrested for being a Christian, what evidence would be used to prove the point?”  

Does your life reflect Jesus in such a way that you might be accused to live as a Christian?  Or will people say, “He talks a good game but he doesn’t walk the walk.”  

The Reformed View of Salvation and our Role in Evangelism

If you've read the "This I Believe" page on this site, it shouldn't be a surprise that I hold a reformed view in my soteriology (the study of salvation).  While I don't believe a Christian is required to hold this view and the church I pastor doesn’t require that one hold this view of the order of salvation or the mechanics of how God does such a thing, I thought it might be helpful if I share my view.  It does tend to come out from time to time in my writing, teaching, and preaching ministries.  I also don't spend much time thinking or arguing about this because that is really unhelpful in the advancement of the Kingdom.      

To start, what is “order of salvation”?  

Looking at the order of salvation helps us understand our view of the mechanics of salvation.  Much of the debate (but not all) has to do with how we order these mechanics, that is, how we think it happens.  It’s important to remember that how ever we think it happens, the most important thing is that it does indeed happen.  In addition, this view does not remove man's responsibility to repent and turn to God nor does it say God has no control in the matter.  God is totally sovereign. The Bible shows us that all of these parts are involved in the process in some way or another, but the differences re found in the order they happen.  Here’s the reformed view of the order of salvation as Wayne Grudem orders it in his book, Systematic Theology: 

1. Election (God’s choice of people to be saved)
2. The gospel call (proclaiming the message of the gospel)
3. Regeneration (being born again)
4. Conversion (faith and repentance)
5. Justification (right legal standing)
6. Adoption (membership into God’s family)
7. Sanctification (the process of growing into right living)
8. Perseverance (Remaining a Christian)
9. Death (leaving this stage of life and being with the Lord)
10. Glorification (receiving a resurrection body)

A couple things probably need to be said about this list.  First, this list is probably an oversimplification.  Second, many of these things happen simultaneously. Third, perseverance does not suggest that you can lose your salvation (because that’s not biblical) but that being a Christian all the way to the end proves your were indeed a true Christian. And finally, the in the big picture, the order is a man-made list to try to understand what is happening from the biblical information.  This is God’s business to sort out.  

What does this mean in light of how other religions look at salvation.  Well, this question has to do with what we must do to be saved.  Is it that we must do all the right stuff and then God will determine we are good enough for salvation?  No.  God’s Word says we can’t earn our salvation.  In fact, if left on our own, we would all reject God.  But God ‘elects’ or intercedes to save some in order to show his glory, and he determined who they would before he created the world. . . which was way before any of us existed.  The bottom line: you can’t do good works to save yourself any more than you can sit cross-legged on a folding chair and then lift yourself and the chair off the ground.

But does this mean the he selected others to be damned? No.  Man's sin nature and our personal sin is why we are damned.  God selected to save some.  Yet many will say that's unfair, and they'd be right.  The fair thing to do would let each and every person face the consequences of sin, which is death.  But God send his son, Jesus Christ, so that all who would believe would have salvation.  That's not far, but it's amazing grace--an undeserved gift.   On the other hand, some think God should save everybody, but that would be inconsistent with his justice.  

What is our role and what is God’s role in evangelism and making disciples? Why bother sharing the gospel if God already determined who would be given a regenerate heart and turn to him? 

Here’s how that works.

A proclamation is made to the entire world to turn to God.  Nobody is exempt from responding.  As ambassadors of God, our job is to present that universal proclamation to the entire world.  God's Word says that people need to hear the gospel in order to be able to respond to it.  Now, some will answer “yes” to that call if God has changed them.  After God has regenerated them, giving them a new heart, they will be able to convert (but not before).  But that part is not up to us.  Our part is to proclaim the universal call to the entire world. We also have a part in walking with our brothers and sisters in the process of sanctification and perseverance.  That’s a solid part of discipleship.  God does these parts through his people, which was made possible through Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection as well as the Holy Spirit.  It's very cool that we get to be a part in the process through evangelism, which it is why evangelism grows us and brings us joy.  Joy?  Yes!  It is exciting to see people into into the new life of Jesus Christ.  

So while I believe it is up to God who will turn to him and be born again, it is up to me to continually make the call to repent and believe.  That’s what God asks us to do.  Some will be saved and some won’t, but that’s not my role. In addition, part of that universal call is that there is no work that man can do to save himself.  It is only by God’s design, will, and power that man can be saved, by faith and grace alone, because of Jesus Christ.  

Life as a Polygamist (An Interview with the Dutsons)

Photo of 50 of the estimated 70-80 wives of Warren Jeff, August 2011. 

On March 15, 2016, a mission team from First Baptist Church of Cushing gathered in a private home to listen to Enoch and Jennie Dutson discuss what is was like growing up in a polygamist home.  Jennie's grandpa was the former FLDS prophet.  

I recorded the interview for Salty Believer Unscripted.  It's a 3-part series.  If you'd like to listen, you can do so by following the links below. 

Life as a Polygamist  (An Interview with the Dutsons)
-- Part 1 audio
-- Part 2 audio
-- Part 3 audio

Apostles' Creed (Life Guide Bible Study) by Alister McGrath

McGrath, Alister. Apostle's Creed (Life Guide Bible Series) Dower's Grove, Ill: IVP Connect, 2016.

 Alister McGrath's study of the Apostle's Creed is simple, which is what makes it perfect for newer believers or those who have never studied the biblical basis for the Creed. (IVP actually calls each chapter a separate study, so this thin little booklet is actually identified as 6 studies.)  This little study guide is meant to accompany his book, I Believe although the study guide does well to stand alone.   

In the study guide, McGrath divides the Creed into 6 sections and then looks at the Scripture that supports each section. He also includes an introduction to the Creed that includes 3 reasons why it's important, a brief history, and a road map for personal or group study. Each chapter includes discussion questions and prayer prompts. In the back, there's a guide for group leaders that includes lesson plans and additional discussion prompts.

Apostle's Creed is a Life Guide Bible Study from IVP Connect. IVP sent it to me to consider for review.  When it arrived, I had my doubts.  I thought it might end up being cheeky, but the information (although short) was good.  The questions were open-ended and drove me into deeper thinking.  This is my first Life Guide Bible Studies study guide, but I really enjoyed it as a personal study.   As a pastor, I can also see how this could make a great study for small groups (or even a teaching or preaching series if you do topical studies).

I highly recommend this study guide for group or personal study.  I'm considering picking up additional studies from Life Guide the next time I lead a small group at Redeeming Life Church. This series from IVP has hundreds of studies in biblical books as well as hundreds more on various topics (although they are each their own chapters, so probably dozens of multi-chapter books).

You can purchase this book on Amazon.com by following this link. 

The Long Train of Clauses

Have you ever noticed the length of some of the sentences in the Epistles? Some of them are packed with commas and clauses.  What's going on?  Is there an easy way to make it clear? 

To get our head around this, lets look at the benediction of Hebrews 13:20-21. Take a moment and open your Bible to Hebrews 13:20-12.  Read it a couple times. It will take less than a minute. 

What's the main point?  Among all those clauses we might be tempted to gravitate to our favorite parts.  Our pet theology and doctrines might not make it easy for us to see anything else. Some may love that it says God is the God of peace.  Some might like that Jesus is Lord and he's the great Shepherd of the sheep. Or maybe you're all about the blood of the eternal covenant and that all glory belongs to Jesus.  Or maybe you like that this benediction is to Jesus (which is kind of rare) and that the author is praying that you might be equipped to do God's will.  It might make you smile that doing God's will is pleasing to God.  But what is the main point of this little unit of thought?  

The epistles tend to get really packed with thoughts and most of the sentences end up crashing together in such a way that we might miss the main point.  Diagramming or mapping the paragraph helps.  If you can, diagramming in the original language might make it even clearer.  But you don't often need to go that far to get to the main point.  

Phrase diagramming is a tool that helps you map out the clauses.  And once you map them out, you get a better idea what each phrase and word is modifying.  After doing some phrase diagramming, you can walk through Hebrews 13:20-21 and get a better idea of what the author is getting at. 

What is the main point?  If I boiled all the modifying clauses off, what would I have left? 

"May the God of Peace equip you to do his will. Amen."

Now, what if I started adding the modifiers back into the thought.  To do this, the thought still has to remain complete.

Here's what's next.  

"May the God of Peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus equip you with everything good that you may to do his will. Amen."

As we can see, the God of Peace brought Jesus back from the dead.  We also see that what God equips us with do do his will is good, not bad, and by saying 'everything' we get the idea that it's complete. 

But now it's going to get a little more tricky.  Is the next clause modifying the original statement or the newest clause?  (Paul loves to continue modifying the modifiers! It's not so tough in Hebrews.) There is where lines and maps might help, but we can probably see it in this paragraph without lines and a map.  

 "May the God of Peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good that you may to do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight. Amen."

The 'great Shepherd of the sheep' is not pointing to the God of Peace but to Jesus, who is mentioned in the previous modifying clause.  It's a way of bringing even more clarity or praise.  The 'working in us that which is pleasing in his sight' clause is a description of how we will do God's will --Jesus or the God of Peace working in and through us.  

"May the God of Peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, equip you with everything good that you may to do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ. Amen."

The next clause, 'by the blood of the eternal covenant,' gives us a means.  How and maybe even a little why.  This clause points back to a great deal previously discussed in the book as a reminder, but it also is clarifying what is being said and connects it to the next part of the idea.  This is the final modifying clause before we move into the next part of the main idea (which you saw in the first pass above).  Interestingly, the modifying clause in the second part of the statement, 'through Jesus Christ,' is also an explanation of means.  This clause tells us how we are about do do God's will and why it is pleasing to God--because it is through Christ. 

Now the final modifier. 

"May the God of Peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, equip you with everything good that you may to do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen."

This last clause is a form of worship that brings the benediction into a form of a prayer and worship of Jesus and it is attached to the mention of Jesus in the previous modifying clause.  It's saying, this entire paragraph prayer is meant to glorify God forever.  

Now, I'll ask again. . . what is the main point?  Go back up to the first pass.

"May the God of Peace equip you to do his will. Amen."

This is an important prayer and statement.  As you start to ask questions such as who's will, why, how, and so-on, the modifying clauses help to provide you with more answers. However, those answers all must work within the confines of God equipping you to do his will. 

I hope you found this helpful.  And I pray that the God of Peace equips you to do his will!  

A Lesson from Hudson Taylor

A friend of mine is a church planting catalyst.  He helps other pastor-planters get churches stared where there are very few, or none.  He's a missionary who helps other missionaries.  When I first met him, he drove a sporty car, talked up a football team from another area, and looked like he could easily fit in on a college campus, which isn't surprising since this PhD guy worked on a campus for many years prior to taking this new role in Utah.   He moved into a rapidly growing area of the Salt Lake valley that had little Christian presence, if any.  This city didn't have a single Christian church.  So he helped a church get off the ground there.  

I recently met my friend for coffee.  I hadn't seen him in person in a while, so you might imagine my surprise when he pulled up in a pickup truck (with a brush guard).  He was wearing (boots of the cattle rancher variety) and a cowboy hat.  When I asked him about it, he told me he realized there was an entire segment of people in his community that nobody was reaching for the gospel.  Sure, there was that church he helped get started, but they have a specific style and flavor that might not appeal to another large group in his area--the blue collar cowboy.  My friend decided he would give up the lifestyle of his preference and adopt a lifestyle that might better help him connect with these folks.  And when he can connect, he might have more opportunities to share the gospel.  And when he has more opportunities to share the gospel, he might have more opportunities to make disciples and gather them into a church -- a cowboy church!

Now, it's not as if my friend has adopted a fake persona.  I honestly always thought this side of him was buried down deep within him.  And it turns out, it was.  He grew up in the South and has had an interest in the things of this lifestyle--guns and hunting, trucks and adventure for years.  As he looked around his community, he came to realize that God had already given him the keys to this mission field years before he arrived.  They were like that one weird key on the key ring that you forget what it fits.  You keep it because you're just not sure.  Then one day, you stand in front of a locked door and remember.  

When I think about my friend, I can't help but think of Hudson Taylor, a missionary to China.   The following is adapted from the Editor's of Christian History Magazine's 131 Christians Everyone Should Know (Holman Reference, 2000), pages 251-253:

    In September 1853, Hudson Taylor, a gaunt and wild-eyed 21-year-old missionary headed to a country that was just coming into the Christian West’s consciousness.  (Only a few dozen missionaries were stationed there.)  Almost immediately after he arrived, Taylor made a radical decision (at least for Protestant missionaries of the day) to dress in Chinese cloths and wear the same hairstyle as Chinese men.  His fellow missionaries were either incredulous or critical.  Taylor didn’t care.  He had a heart to see inland China impacted by the gospel and was in deep despair for the millions of Chinese who were dying without the hope of the gospel.   

     Taylor, seeing a serious need to expand the mission efforts, to China started the China Inland Mission (CIM).  CIM missionaries had no guaranteed salaries nor could they appeal for funds—they simply would have to trust God to supply their needs.  Furthermore, missionaries would adopt the dress of the locals and then press the gospel into inland China.  Westerners highly criticized Taylor’s decisions. 

     In 1876, the 52 CIM missionaries made up one fifth of all the missionaries in China.  In 1881 Taylor prayed for another 70 missionaries.  By 1884 72 more were added to their ranks.  In late 1886 he prayed that God would provide another 100 missionaries within the next year.  In November of 1889, Taylor announced that CIM had approved another 102 candidates for service. 

     Taylor’s faithful service inspired thousands to forsake the comforts of the West to bring the gospel message to China.  CIM still serves in China today, although it is now called Overseas Missionary Fellowship (International).   

There's a joke about American church planters.  They all wear flannel shirts and hip shoes.  They have an obsession for coffee and often look different than their community.  They have a twisted lust for large beards.  I don't think Hudson Taylor would approve, unless the planter was in a heavily saturated hipster community.  Of course a Christian should stand out, but not because of insignificant cultural matters, trends, and fads.  Dress and style should not define the missionary church planter.  His definition should come from the One who transcends all this nonsense.  He should stand out because he is marked by the King of Kings, and he must live accordingly.  

A Pulpit Built for More

I believe in team ministry.  It's better for the Kingdom when ministry isn't built around anybody but Jesus.  It's even better when multiple people who love Jesus can serve together and actually love one another.   It's not easy. 

The shared pulpit is one place where team ministry can be really good for a congregation.  And my a shared pulpit, I don't mean one guy writes all the sermons for the campus to deliver.  I mean more than one person fills the pulpit at a local church.  Someone other than the senior pastor preaches when the senior pastor is in the building.  Seriously, the lead pastor is not off on vacation, he's sitting in the pew learning from the guy preaching that week.  

I've been involved in a shared pulpit at two churches now.  The first was at Risen Life Church, where I was on staff.  At one point, we had four guys in the preaching rotation.  The two more senior guys (who were also Elders) preached about 75% of the weeks and Jared and I split the others.  

Now I'm the senior pastor at a church that values a shared pulpit.  Redeeming Life Church.   Even as I'm typing this, I'm thinking about a young man who will be preaching tomorrow.  I'm not on vacation; I'll be there to sit under his teaching.  Not only do we believe in team ministry, we believe in multiplication and we want to see if this guy might be a future church-planter or pastor.  Pastor Brett Ricley preaches about once a month at Redeeming Life as does Pastor Jared Jenkins (who's on loan to us from Risen Life).  

There are some really good things that come from a shared pulpit. 

A shared pulpit gives the church a good diversity in the preaching and teaching.  There is a different view point offered, although this is not to say a different theology.  (For this to work, the preachers must agree on the major doctrines.)   The listeners hear the sermon fresh because it's harder to pick up the style of  a single preacher.   The Holy Spirit is working as he will, only through a couple different preachers. The pastors get more time to work on sermons as well as do other ministry when they are not preparing a sermon.   And it's just really fun to sit around a table with other skilled preachers to talk about the Bible, key themes, and major ideas.  

But there are some really difficult things that a shared pulpit brings too.

It can be really hard not to compare yourself to the other preachers in an unhealthy way.  The church can, but not always, struggle with a larger preaching staff.  Sometimes differences in approaches and theology can become really problematic when ego and swagger clash.  And it often confuses other churches who have never seen a team ministry approach with a shared pulpit. 

Not too long ago, Jared Jenkins and I sad down and recorded a podcast for Salty Believer Unscripted on this topic.  We share the pros and cons, the easy and the hard things.  

Listen to that podcast episode here.

If you are thinking about jumping into team ministry or trying out a shared pulpit, I recommend you check out the podcast.  Or if you're just really curious how this works, it's worth the time.    

Interested in other SaltyBeliever.com posts on this topic? 
Team Ministry and the Shared Pulpit
Sharing the Pulpit

Pastor-Teacher? Making Sense of Ephesians 4:11-12

Controversies in the Church are usually fought over opinion.  Sometimes translation, but usually opinion.  There is a great deal of opinion in one of the few controversies found Ephesians 4:11.  

The Question: Is the pastor and the teacher two separate gifts to the church or are they the same?  In other words, should it be "pastor-teacher" as some translate this text or is it "pastors and teachers" as others see it?  

To help us answer this question, it might be helpful to look at a clue in the original Greek.  You can see it even if you don't know Greek. (Note the repeated word.)

τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας, τοὺς δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους

There is a pattern that hinges around τοὺς.  It's the article, the "the."  (There's also an argument that it might be some; but either way, it still helps us understand the pastor/teacher question.)  The apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors. . . wait.  The article is not present before the teacher.  Instead, it's καὶ, which is "and."  Pastor and teacher. Harold Hoehner says this pattern "is to mark out distinctly different gifted people without implying a contrast as it would have in earlier Greek" (Ephesians, 2002).   Hoerner also argues that Paul is not listing offices, but gifts.  But I might suggest that they are gifts to the church, not necessarily in the same grouping as the gifts given to believers by the Holy Spirit.  But this is not to say that apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors (and maybe even teachers) are not empowered by the Holy Spirit. 

Now, it should be pointed out that there is a reasonable argument that the article is different between pastors and teachers because these might be the more regular and normative persons of the local church unlike the other roles, thus setting these two gifted persons in a different category.  And there is yet another argument that says all pastors are required to be teachers as well, but not all teachers are required to be pastors.  Therefore, the pastor does both jobs but the teacher does not pastor.  The same might be said of the evangelist.  Wouldn't an evangelist need to teach in order to share the gospel?  The argument suggests that this distinction allows for the role of teacher alone.  

There have been hundreds of pages written on this controversy.  The scary part is how many other parts of this verse cause God's people to argue.  The irony is how much God's people are to live and dwell in unity in the previous verses. 

There was a time when I thought it was important to know if pastor and teacher were one in the same or two distinct things.  But what changes depending on the answer?  

If you are feeling the Lord lead you to teach or pastor, just do it.  Having a clean, distinct box to put your calling in really is not inline with any of the called men (and women) in the Bible.  Do what you're called to do and don't worry if it's being a pastor or a teacher by title.  Titles are meaningless in the Kingdom.  Teach if you can and the Holy Spirit has gifted you to teach.  Or pastor those God has called you to pastor.  Or do both if that's your calling.  After all, the point of this text is not about these roles, but about the saints who should be dong the work of ministry and growing into maturity.  

Church Planting Near Military Instalations

They travel around the world on the government's dime.  Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, Sailors, and their families.  These men and women, if believers in Christ, could be missionaries taking the gospel every place a military installation exists.   

As a former military man, I've always believed we need more churches near military posts.  Missionaries travel to college campuses the world over; yet there is likely an even greater potential for a military ministry. 

The Send Network wants to see a church planted near every military installation in the world. It seems like a great idea.  So I discussed this plan with Pastor Al Weeks, a man who pastored a church near a military installation overseas for years.   

Listen to the interview here: 
Planting Churches Near Military Installations with All Weeks 

Subscribe to the Salty Believer Unscripted Podcasts:
iTunes  | Non iTunes

4 Years of Salt Believer Unscripted

Four years ago, I pulled the trigger on a crazy idea I had harbored for a few years.  I wanted to record unscripted conversations between people in ministry.  Now to be fair, these weren't going to be secret conversations--the participants would know they were on a podcast. The challenge however, was to get someone to join in the conversation.  Nobody wants to listen to a guy talk to himself. 

Enter Jared Jenkins. 

I pitched my idea to Jared and for some reason he bought it.  Maybe my pitch was more of a trick, but in any case, he sat with me and recorded a podcast.  (We filmed it too, which was really goofy.)  Then he came back and recorded another podcast with me.  Then another.  Soon enough, we started recording series that covered diverse topics.  Now, four years later, Jared Jenkins is a staple on Salty Believer Unscripted. 

On the fourth anniversary of Salty Believer Unscripted we recorded an episode that addressed the same question as our first podcast, only with four years of the pastorate between then and now.  

If you're not subscribed to the podcast, I'd like to invite you to subscribe.

Subscribe to the Salty Believer Unscripted Podcasts:
iTunes  | Non iTunes

If you'd like to listen to our first podcast or the podcast of our four year anniversary, click on the links below.  Or visit the Salt Believer Unscripted page to find all our podcasts.  

-- Seminary with Jared Jenkins  audio (The first podcast!)
-- Four Years of Salty Believer Unscripted audio

Jared Jenkins and Bryan Catherman discuss seminary and entering ministry after seminary. This video is the first podcast in a series without end of unscripted conversations about ministry, seminary, or any number of topics. Most will be audio only and available on the website, SaltyBeliever.com or iTunes.

Whether you've been with for the past four years or you join in somewhere along the way, thanks for listening.  Until next time! 
Bryan Catherman

P.S> Here's that video we made of the first podcast. (There's a reason we stuck with audio after this!) 

Was the Letter to the Ephesians ONLY to the Ephesians?

Paul's letter to the Ephesians may have been much more of a general letter, for wider circulation.  We have a couple reasons to think this.  One is that there is nothing written specifically for that group.  No mention of names except Tychicus, the would-be letter carrier.  No personal greetings at the end of the letter.  No specific problems they needed to deal with like in many other epistles.  

The other reason comes from an interesting textual variant.  Some manuscripts contain the words that we translate "in (or at) Ephesus."  Other manuscripts leave it out.  The Marcion Cannon (a list of all the books he believed were part of the New Testament) called the letter "To the Laodiceans."  

But this sticky problem is not as simple as other textual variants among manuscripts.  In this case, early and late manuscripts include "in Ephesus" and early and late manuscripts just drop it.  Marcion's Cannon is somewhat early, although borderline in the middle of the period in question.  The construction of the sentence is awkward for a greeting if it's just dropped.  What's going on here?

F.F. Bruce, an outstanding biblical scholar, sheds some light on the matter.  He argues that this letter was probably intended to be widely circulated.  The location would be substituted in the spot were it says "in Ephesus."  Bruce cites Zuntz who said this was a rather common practice by government and royal letters during this time period.  (Bruce, 1984, 249-250.)

Think of it like a mail merge form letter that we might use today.  There might be a blank or something like [FirstName] where the substitution is intended to be made.  The only evidence that might counter this thinking is Ephesians 5:21-22 regarding Tychicus coming; but that is very light compare to other Pauline letters. 

So in Paul's original was there just a blank in the place were we read "at Ephesus"?  Not likely.  In the royal letters of this period, we can see that the original would contain a city name or region.  The person copying the letter going to a different city would make the change.  

In the case of Paul'l letter it seems this wasn't widely understood.  Most of his other letters were written to specific places.  People were copying those letters and circulating them widely (and maybe Paul didn't understand the nature of this circulation).  So when Paul wrote a letter intended for wider circulation, people just did what they did with every other letter.  They copied it word-for-word and didn't worry about it.  In the case where someone might have just left it blank, there may have been an effort to realize that the letter was for wider circulation.

What does this mean for us?  

Well, it might be what Christians love about Ephesians.  It was written for a wide circulation so it feels so applicable to every Christian.  Because it doesn't deal with specific issues of one church, it is easier to apply the writing directly to every church.  We don't have to do much to extract the timeless meaning before making application.  We could write, "To the saints who are at This Church or That Church or First Baptist Church of Somewhere, and are faithful in Christ Jesus" and the letter would still make perfect sense (with exception to slaves/bond-servants, but that too will make more sense when we get there).  

As you read this letter, see it as addressed to your local church and you, as a part of your local church. 

From among your own selves?

If you look at Acts 20:30, you will find that men will arise speaking twisted things and draw away the disciples, presumably from the church in Ephesus (based on context).  If that were not concerning enough, these men will come from either the elders with which Paul is speaking or from within the church in Ephesus.  But which is it Paul? 

It is difficult to tell from Luke's account.  

Before peeling back a layer of this less-than-clear sentence, I feel it is worth noting some things about this speech in Acts 20.  It's Paul's only recorded speech to believers and it has some remarkable and expected similarities to Paul's letters.  But at the time Luke wrote Acts, Paul's letters were not collected and would not likely have been available to Luke. Dr. Witherington sees the numerous parallels between this speech and Paul's Epistles as convincing evidence that Luke recorded this speak from Paul.  Likewise, a number of scholars see differences in the writing style of Luke and this speech, which lend to the credibility of the Lukan account and the validity of Luke's witness.  

Now, getting back to Acts 20:30.  

The ESV translates this verse (in part) as, "and from among your own selves will arise men. . ."  The NASB and the KJV do the same.  The NRSV says, "even from your own group will come. . ."  The NIV84 says, "from your own number" and the Holman says "from your number." The NET Bible translates this, "Even from your own group" with a footnote. (But let's be honest, what's NOT footnoted in the NET translation?)  

For those who can read the koine Greek or are curious, here's what it looks like in original language (Textus Receptus, NA27, and UBS4): 
καὶ ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν ἀναστήσονται ἄνδρες λαλοῦντες

The difficult part of the sentence is the word for the plural "you."  It's ὑμῶν (humoon).  It's like saying "all ya' all" in the South.  So Paul's saying from all ya' all, some men will rise up and speak twisted things.  

It was probably a little more clear for those who were present.  Have you ever been present at a sermon and then listened to it again on a recording?  There have been times when I've gestured to my Bible and said something like "This is God's Word."  The hearer of the podcast can't see that I'm pointing to my Bible.  Or maybe I've walked to different part of the room to make a point?  Or maybe there's something in the way I say something that might be lost in the recording, or even more so if it were transcribed.   

But before we get lost in translation, we should ask ourselves what the difference could mean. 

It is especially alarming if Paul is meaning that from the group of elders he is biding farewell, more than one will rise up, speaking twisted things that draw people away from the church in Ephesus.  But is it unreasonable?  Have you ever seen an elder of a church speak twisted things and draw disciples away from the biblical church?  

But if Paul is referring to someone else who will come, it is still troubling.  People within the church at Ephesus will begin speaking false things.  Maybe they will start a private meeting.  Maybe they will speak behind the back of the leadership.  Is this unbelievable?  How many bloggers might fall into this group?  How many church splits started because of these men, from within the local church?  

And at the end of the day, people will be drawn away by false-spoken things.  By the time Jesus wrote the letter to the angel of the church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7), the church in Ephesus had already tested people who called themselves apostles and found them to be false.  The letter was to those who were not drawn away, so it might be that those calling themselves apostles were the ones speaking twisted things.  Maybe the Nicolaitans too.  

Paul's warning and charge remain the same regardless if he were referring to someone present at his speech or someone who wasn't.  In verse 31-32 he says, "Therefore, be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears.  And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified" (Acts 20:31-32, ESV).  

This problem still exists to this day.  Men (and women) rise up and speak twisted things that draw people away from the Church.  The way to protect the flock comes from remaining alert, hold tightly to the gospel and admonishing one another to the point of tears, and being built up by the Word of God. 

Travis Kerns on the Send Network and Church Planting

The 19th and 20th Centuries in American Christianity are marked by the great mission movement.  Christians look to many giants of this era, like Hudson Taylor, William Carey, Amy Carmichael, Eric Liddell, Jim Elliot, and many others.  But apart from Native American reservations, nobody would have imagined the movement being needed in America.  The 21st Century is another story.

Today, Dr. Payne reports that there are actually unreached people groups in the U.S. Salt Lake City is one of those places, so I am a part of a movement to reach Salt Lake for the gospel.  One of our partners is the the Send Network of the North American Mission Board.  

Brett Ricley and I had the opportunity sit with Dr. Travis Kerns, the NAMB Send Network coordinator in Salt Lake.  We asked him a number of questions about his job with NAMB, church planting in Utah, and what people thinking about coming to Salt Lake as a church-planting missionary might need to be thinking about.  

And here's a kicker, I was able to put Travis on the spot and ask him about the rumors concerning a merge between NAMB and IMB.  If you know anything about that or are a fan of David Platt, you might find his answer rather interesting. We also chat within him about his forthcoming book, Saints of Zion.    

You can listen to our interview with Travis Kerns here. 

Grow Disciples

Jesus said, "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).  In light of this Scripture, Jared Jenkins, Brett Ricley, and I set out on a journey of discussion that resulted in two podcast series.  23 episodes in all.  

The first podcast series is titled "Make Disciples."  You can read more about that, subscribe, or listen to episodes here.  

We just completed the second series called "Grow Disciples."  In this series, we sent out to interview a variety of pastors, writers, and ministers in an effort to find the best practices in the part where a new believer is taught all that Jesus commanded.  Our guests included some really amazing guys.  You can find this series on iTunes (or the non-iTunes feed) or listen to them here: 

Grow Disciples
-- Part 1, Introduction audio
-- Part 2, The Good, Bad, and Ugly of Discipleship audio 
-- Part 3, Motivating Christians with Dr. Howard Hendricks audio
-- Part 4, Motivating Christians with Dr. Howard Hendricks (continued) audio
-- Part 5, An Interview with Josh Saefkow audio
-- Part 6, An Interview with Dr. Tom Swanner audio
-- Part 7, An Interview with Danny Braga audio 
-- Part 8, An Interview with Bobby Wood audio
-- Part 9, An Interview with Justin Christopher audio
-- Part 10, An Interview with Travis Kerns audio 
-- Part 11, An Interview with Trevin Wax audio
-- Part 12, Conclusion audio

We are grateful for all of our guests.  In addition, you can find more podcasts like these in the Salty Believer Unscripted section of this website. 

Commit to Pray for an Unreached Place in 2016

At this time of year, many people make resolutions.  Often, these resolution are about self-improvement; but they certainly don't have to be so selfish.   Might you be willing to resolve to pray for the mission work in an unreached place?  Maybe just once per month for 1 year?  

I'd like to make this really easy for you.  

J.D. Payne and many others have identified Salt Lake City as an unreach place.  Most studies find that only 2% of the population is evangelical Christian.  I am working as a church-planting missionary in the West side of Salt Lake City and I'm the pastor of a new church called Redeeming Life Church.  It's hard work and I covet your prayers.  Will you resolve to pray for our work for one year?  Even as little as once a month?   

I'm starting a monthly newsletter.  It will include a brief update of what's happening in our mission field and how lives are being redeemed by the power of the Gospel.  It will also give you a good idea how to pray for the work.  When you see it arrive in your inbox, it will serve as a monthly reminder so you won't fail in your resolution this year.  Too easy!  (Click here to sign up.) 

* As an added bonus, I will give away a book each month (starting in January) by randomly drawing from the subscriber list.   The first book is Jeff Christopherson's, Kingdom First: Starting Churches That Shape Movements.  

Sign Up Here! 

Temples Made of Sand

It's funny when magazine articles and blog posts suggest that Christianity is collapsing.  Even funnier when they argue that it has run its course when they see a number of ordained ministers leaving their churches and heading to other churches that take a different view on marriage.  There are entire denominations running to the Shechemites, but that certainly doesn't mean it's the end of Christianity.   

We've been here before.

Inter-marriage was a serious and difficult problem in Nehemiah’s time.  God's people were marrying non-believers and the non-believers were drawing God's people to false gods.  It was how the people were pulled away from God, which led to the exile.  Solomon struggled in this (as Nehemiah points out in Nehemiah 13:26).  Ezra dealt with it (Ezra 9).  And we can find the same drama centered around inter-marriage in Nehemiah's day.   There's a loose string coming from the garment of a man named Sanballat.  Let's give it a tug and see what unravels. 

Looking at Nehemiah 13:28-29, there is a curious thing about the relationship between the the son of the High Priest, Eliashib to Sanballat.  It says the son was also the son-in-law of Sanballat, making this guy’s father (Eliashib) the High Priest and his father-in-law (Sanballat) the governor of Samaria.   This also suggests that Sanballat’s daughter was a Horonite like her father.  

But in Nehemiah 10 they had covenanted not to marry outsiders.  They agreed that they would stand on the truth of God's Word. But this son-in-law married a Horonite.  

Why is this a problem? 

The position of High Priest was handed down through family lines.  So there was a potential that this guy could become the High Priest, if not for Leviticus 21:14-15 (which says of the High Priest, "A widow, or a divorced woman, or a woman who has been defiled, or a prostitute, these he shall not marry. But he shall take as his wife a virgin of his own people, that he may not profane his offspring among his people, for I am the LORD who sanctifies him" (bold added for emphasis).  

Josephus gives us more.  In his writing, Antiquities of the Jews, (Book 11, Ch 8), Josephus states that the son of the High Priest, Manasseh was instructed to divorce his wife or he would be driven away from the altar of the Lord.  (This is still in violation of Levitical law, but it seems they were prepared to make some exceptions.) Josephus continues, 

“Whereupon Manasseh came to his father-in-law, Sanballat, and told him that although he loved his daughter Nicaso, yet he was not willing to be deprived sacerdotal dignity on her account, which was the principal dignity in their nation, and always continued in the same family.  And then Sanballat promised him not only to preserve to him the honour of his priesthood, but to procure for him the power and dignity of a high priest, and would make him governor of all the places he himself now ruled, if he would keep his daughter for his wife.  He also told him further, that he would build him a temple like that at Jerusalem, upon Mount Gerizim, which is the highest of all the mountains that are in Samaria; and he promised that he would do this with the approbation of Darius the king.  

“Manasseh was elevated with this promises, and stayed with Sanballat, upon a supposal that he would gain a high priesthood, as bestowed on him by Darius, for it happened Sanballat was then in years.  But there was now a great disturbance among the people of Jerusalem, because many of those priests and Levites were entangled in such matches; for they all revolted to Manasseh, and Sanballat afforded them money, and divided among them land for tillage, and habitations also; and all this in order every way to gratify his son-in-law.” 

So if Josephus is correct, Sanballat gave his son-in-law a high priesthood in an unholy temple and made him the governor of Samaria.  Then as other priests and Levites married foreign women, Sanballat gave them money and land in Samaria.  

Does this account not seem like some of the actions we're seeing today?  The concerning part is the lasting ramifications of building temples to the god of our own desires. 

Remember the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4?  In verse 20 she references a dispute regarding the most holy hill for a temple.  It’s possibly a reference to Judges 9:7 and it’s definitely a reference to the reality that Samaria had a temple of their own . . . on Mount Gerizim.   

Josephus also states, “Now, when Alexander was dead, the government was parted among his successors; but the temple upon Mount Gerizim remained; and if any one were accused by those of Jerusalem of having eaten things common, or having broken the Sabbath, or of any other crime of like nature, he fled away to the Shechemites, and said that he was accused unjustly” (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 11, Ch 8). 

So it would seem that there was a liberal temple where one could go if he violated God’s Law but still wanted to feel holy and continue to worship the god of self.  It was this same temple that came about because a son-in-law of Sanballat wanted to be God’s high priest but not follow God’s Law.  And it seems nothing has changed today, has it?  

Casting Lots

What is going on when the Bible mentions casting lots?

A simple word study in both the Hebrew and the Greek shows us that the term comes from a variety of different words.  It would be like if we said "draw straws," flip a coin," or "played rock-paper-scissors."  As a reader you get the idea what we were doing even if the procedure was as different as the words we use.  And the practice was as different as shaking arrows to looking a livers (Ezekiel 21:21), to tossing stones in the lap (Proverbs 16:33). 

They cast lots on a few occasions in the Bible.  It's found in both the Old and New Testaments.  Here are a some locations where you can read about lot casting: Leviticus 16:8; Joshua 18:6-10; 1 Chronicles 24:31; 1 Chronicles 25:8; 1 Chronicles 26:13–14; Nehemiah 10:34; Nehemiah 11:1; Esther Esther 3:7; 9:24; Job 6:27; Psalm 22:18; Joel 3:3; Obadiah 1:11; Jonah 1:7; Luke 23:34; John 19:24; and Acts 1:26.

At times, it seems casting lots was acceptable to God, even commanded at times.  (Numbers 26:55; 33:54; 34:13; 36:2).   God allowed it to determine his will.  Remember when the disciples replaced Judas (Acts 1:26)?  Or when the Israelites were dividing up the land (See Joshua 18 for example)?  In Nehemiah 11:1, we read that they cast lots to determine who would live in the city and who would remain out in the country. Dr. Charles Fensham says that Nehemiah might have been practicing leadership wisdom having them cast lots in Nehemiah 11.  In his commentary titled, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (Eerdmans, 1982) he writes, "By casting the lot it is no longer Nehemiah who forces them to live in Jerusalem, but it is the will of God.  So they could not bear a grudge against him" (243).  And we see non-believers casting lots, such as the sailors who wanted to know who caused the storm in Jonah (Jonah 1:7) and the soldiers that divided Jesus garments (Matthew 27:35).  

Should we cast lots today?  

Well, if we're honest, many of us already "cast lots" from time to time.  It's like flipping a coin or playing rock-paper-scissors to determine who has to change the baby's diaper or run to the store to get milk.  We don't get too concerned when a referee cast lots to see which team will kick off first or when we roll dice to determine who will go first in Monopoly.   However, we don't see it practiced in the Bible after God sent the Holy Spirit in Acts 2.  In matters of spiritual discernment, we have the Holy Spirit to guide us.  As we seek God's will, we have much more to go on than the flip of a coin or the casting of lots.   

Spirituality of Fundraising by Henri Nouwen

Too often, we don't want to accept that ministry costs money, most ministry anyway.  There are some that grow offended at the mention of money, but I wonder if they take offense when they read what Paul said about it in 1 Corinthians 16:1-3?  Most ministry requires resources and resources often need to be raised. 

I have a deep desire to plant a self-supporting church in Salt Lake, but as Redeeming Life is getting started, we need a little help.  It's like the wire rack around a tomato plant or scaffolding on a building under construction.  So I have had to engage in yet another pastoral necessity that I didn't learn in seminary: fundraising.  Along my recent journey, I was turned on to Henri Nouwen's Spirituality of Fundraising (Upper Room, 2011).  You can purchase it or you might be able to find an electronic copy on the Internet. Either way, if you're in ministry and need to raise support, you need to find this book.   

Nouwen takes the awkward thinking out of the idea of fundraising with biblical explanation.  In addition, Nouwen demonstrates that having money can be just as awkward as asking for money.  Henry Freeman reflects on Nouwen's work in this brief video, "Making Space for Wealthy (and well-known) People at Your Table." 

Reflection on Henri Nouwen's "A Spirituality of Fundraising"

Nouwen's book is short and easy to read.  Missionaries and church planters really need to have this book among their resources.  And if you're a person with money, this book has the potential to help you think about how to best engage in Kingdom work what God has bless you with.  There is a place at the table for you.  I highly recommend this book. 

And if you've stumbled on this page because God has blessed you with resources that you'd like to use to partner with God's mission in Salt Lake (see what I'm doing from the book?), there's an opportunity to help us get a foothold in our mission to see Salt Lake redeemed by the power of the gospel.  Learn more here.  Or if you'd rather support a missionary in Salt Lake, I'd like to encourage you to consider Brett Ricley.  Learn more here. 

Goal Analysis by Robert F. Mager

It would not normally be my practice to discuss books that are difficult to find or out of print on SaltyBeliever.com, but Goal Analysis by Robert Mager is worth mentioning.  It is, from the best I can tell, not written by a Christian, nor is the audience intended specifically for Christians.  It's something of a business book, used in understanding how to evaluate affective goal statements.  I was required to read the 2nd edition as part of a project seminar for my doctoral studies.

But I suppose before I say more about Mager's book, I should clarify what I mean by an affective goal statement.  Mager would say it's something like, "We want our employees to be better citizens in the community," or "our employees are serious about safety" or "we desire to foster creativity within our students."  In church leadership today, a statement might be something like, "Loving God. Loving People," or "Real Life Transformation."  What do these kinds of statements really mean?  When you get right down to it, they are hard to define and even harder to measure.  How do you know your employee is a good citizen?  How do you measure how much a member of your church loves God?  What is the criteria to say a student is creative?  How do you measure an attitude?  

Mager calls affective goals that seek to change or improve attitudes, feeling, and those subjective things you just can't physically observe 'fuzzies.'  They're hard to measure, and that's the bottom line.  

The purpose of Goal Analysis is to turn difficult, unmeasurable fuzzies into well-defined, measurable statements that can be observed and analyzed.  Or put another way, Goal Analysis is a system that aids in getting at what the fuzzy really means and then measuring observable actions that highly lend to thinking the affective goal is happening internally along with the physically observable actions happening externally.  

Why would a church leader want to pick up this book?  Any church that has an affective mission statement or has created a number of fuzzy goals should seriously think about reading this book. In fact, Mager has an example of a church and the church's goals in the book.  They wanted to be a church of "loving service, unselfish devotion, sincere fairness, enlightened honesty, confiding trust, merciful ministry, unfailing goodness, forgiving tolerance, and enduring peace" (100).  If the pastor was to ask six people to provide a list of those in the church that were meeting these objectives and those who were not, what criteria would be provided so all six people could successfully come up with the same list?  How does a church know how merciful they are, and how will they know when they've achieved their objectives?  Mager helps zero it in. 

While the title sounds extremely boring, Mager is an engaging writer and the book is an easy, quick read.  I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to improve goals that are ill defined and fuzzy. 

What is Reformation Day?

Martin Luther, November 10, 1483 - February 18, 1546.

On October 31, 1517 a German monk nailed a list of 95 grievances against the Roman Catholic Church on the door of All Saints Church in Wittenberg, Saxony. The monk was Martin Luther, the grievances are technically called The Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, and October 31, 1517 (Reformation Day) often marks the opening bell of the Protestant Reformation. 

Why was the monk so concerned? First, it should be said that he was also a professor and did a great deal of study.  He studied the Bible in a time when Scripture was often unavailable.  And second, he grew concerned about what he saw because he read his Bible. Studying God's Word, it became clear to Luther that Pope Leo X had steered the Catholic Church far from the doctrines taught in the Bible. For example, ideas of salvation and grace were dependent upon the mercy of Pope Leo X rather than Jesus Christ and his resurrection. We see the error of this false teaching in 1 Timothy 2:5-6, which reads, 

“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.” 

It should probably be said that at the university where Luther taught, it was actually a common practice to nail a thesis for discussion to the large door.  This was a way to signal an intellectual discussion or academic debate.  It is believed that Luther was not originally intending to fire such a bullet but instead start a conversation.  However, the thesis launched much more conversation than Luther intended, possibly because the printing press had recently been invented and allowed a publisher to remove the thesis from the door, print it, and distribute it to a wider audience than the university.   Regardless of the intention, The 95 Thesis launched a discussion that still lives today.  

On this, the 497th anniversary of the 1st Reformation Day, take a moment to ask yourself, first, is Jesus Christ your mediator before God or are you depending upon another (or maybe some specific works)?  Also ask yourself, are you studying God’s Word, reading the Bible like that German Monk who took a step of faith and changed the world?

Happy Reformation Day!  

{This is reposted from from a SaltyBeliever.com post from two years ago, on this same day.}