Staying on Track With a Purpose Stament

Preventing Ministry Failure: A ShepherdCare Guide for Pastors, Ministers and other Caregivers by Michael Todd Wilson and Brad Hoffmann is a great book. About a month and a half into my full-time ministry at Risen Life Church (rather than the part-time I was previously doing), I’ve come to see the real value of this book.

In this first couple of months of this full-time ministry, I noticed my working hours steadily increasing. Between all of the various activities I was engage in, I had pushed my work week to an unhealthy 55-60 hours. I say unhealthy because some (but not all) of this work was outside the the areas where I’m called and gifted. By not maintaining strong boundaries, my days lost focus. Where I once had a solid hour of prayer and Bible study built into my day, everyday, I now saw that time steadily drop to a rapidly passing few minutes. Sadly, my prayer and reading time with my wife and kids did the same. My seminary schooling has took a back seat. Rest was nonexistent. And all of this I’ve did in the name of ministry that was not as healthy or effective as it should have been. Yikes, how backwards that is; but also how common!

When Paul discusses the ministry gifts and how they function in the Church, it’s important to see that not only should the eye not tell the hand, “I have no need of you” (1Cor 12:21), but also that the eye can’t tell the hand that the hand needs to do the work of the eye. And the eye can’t tell the hand that the hand needs to work in the same way as the eye. We have different strengths for a reason, and when we work too far outside these strengths, we aren’t doing the Church any favors.

But this is not to say that the eye and hand work completely separate of one another. How hard is it to tie your shoes when you can’t see? How about cooking a grilled cheese sandwich? Typing a paper? And how easy are these tasks without hands? In the Body, we work as teams. Team ministry means we work in unison but we don’t necessarily do the same job in the same way. Instead, we work together to accomplish the mission to which God has called us.

As a hand, I think I may have gotten off task when I first started. I was trying to be a foot or an eye, or a belly button. During a couple days of rest and reflection (after achieving temporary burnout), I realize that I am best suited as a hand and should do my best to function as one. I think it’s best we all remember this because if we do, the Body will function better.

To help myself, I wrote a personal ministry purpose statement. I believe this will help me better remain on my course, and remaining on the right course will be better for me, my family, and my church. If you're curious, here’s my purpose statement:

God created me and has called me to know him better and love him more. Nothing is more important. As I make this life-long journey, I am also called to teach and encourage others to do the same—that is, to know God better so they can love him more. It starts with my family then extends to others. God determines how I am to do this and I will always prayerfully seek from him the most effective means to reach his desired results. I am his servant; an instrument in God’s hand. I will not allow pride to hinder my relationship with God and his mission for me. Daily, weekly, monthly, and annually, I will take appropriate time to study, pray, and rest. As I engage in ministry, I will continually ask, “Are my actions at this very moment the best way available to teach others about God so they can love him more?” If the answer is “no,” I will return to prayer. If the answer is yes, “I will thank God.” And in all things, the Glory is always God’s alone.

Soli Deo gloria!

*The photo used in this post is in the public domain.

The Dead Sea Scrolls Are For Everybody

One of the greatest archeological discoveries of the 20th century, if not the greatest discovery ever, the Dead Sea Scrolls, is now more accessible than ever before.  Thanks to computer technology and the Internet, anybody with an Internet connection can view and explore the Dead Sea Scrolls.

To see the scrolls for your self, visit http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/.

Into the Hands of the Living God: An Examination of Hebrews 10:26-31

INTRODUCTION

The author of Hebrews offers some frightening language in the tenth chapter, verses 26-31. Here, the author states that if we continue to sin, deliberately, after receiving the knowledge of truth, the consequences on the Day of Judgment are extreme. Few commentators argue with the severity in which God punishes those who sin yet do not, through grace, have upon themselves Christ’s blood of his merciful atonement. However, this passage raises both alarm and debate about both the identity of who this deliberate sinner might be and the nature of the sin committed. Is this one who at some point embraced and accepted Christ as his or her savior and now rejects that grace? Or has then person never been a regenerate believer. Or maybe this passage is this about post-baptism sin? The author of Hebrews says, “For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth. . . .”¹ Does the word “we” refer to the possibility of the audience and even the author? Clearly, this passage could have serious ramifications on one’s understanding of the security of the believer. And it may shape one's thoughts about unpardonable sin. There are many differences of opinion regarding this passage. Therefore, this post will merely scratch the surface in an attempt to examine the passage as well as the views of Donald Hangner, F. F. Bruce, and George Guthrie.

OVERVIEW OF HEBREWS 10:26-31

Verse 26 serves to introduce the subject and action in question. The author writes, “For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth. . . .”² The subject is simply 'we' and the action is the willful engagement of sin after the deliberate sinner has received a knowledge of the Truth. For this, the author says there is no sacrifice to cover the sin, and in fact, all this person has to expect on the Day of Judgment³ is a “fury of fire.”⁴ In addition, this punishment is even worse than if the deliberately sinning person had violated the Law of Moses. “Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of who or three witnesses,” writes the author, “How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?”⁵ It seems this deliberate sin after the receipt of Truth and in some way is spurns or tramples upon Jesus and the the new covenant, and a greatly angers the Spirit of grace. The specifics of this sin raise many questions, but it seems clear that 'deliberate' and 'after' are significant to this problem. To strike fear in his readers, the author quotes portions of Deuteronomy 32:34 and 35. It might be worth noting that in the same manner earlier in the chapter, the author quotes two passages from Jeremiah regarding the new covenant where the law will be written on his peoples' hearts and God will remember their sin no more. The paragraph concludes with the statement, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”⁶

APPROACH OF HAGNER

There are many aspects of this passage that shape how one views the remainder of the text. Hagner's primary avenue of approach is via sin nature, which in this case specifically includes a falling away.⁷ He sees the deliberate sinner as an apostate, or one that once had the knowledge of Truth. “But,” writes Hagner, “for those who have turned their backs on the sacrifice of Christ—the sacrifice to which all other sacrifices pointed and upon which they depended for their temporary efficacy—then no sacrifice for sins is left. One who rejects the sacrifice of Christ (v. 29) will find no other answer to the problem of sin.”⁸ Significant in his statement is that he holds that these individuals once depended upon Christ's sacrifice, suggesting that he concludes that these deliberate sinners were once believers. Taking this further it seems that Hagnar holds that there is a way for a believer to fall away so far that for them there is no longer any hope of salvation. Hagner states, “With resources exhausted, such a person must face the prospect of God's wrath against sin (cf. 2 Pet. 2:21).”⁹

Hagner makes it clear that rejecting the Law of Moses is serious; “But transgressing the law of Moses, grievous though that may be,” he argues, “is not as serious an offense as rejecting the work of Christ, once a person has received it as the truth.”¹⁰ This is so serious in fact, that Hagner argues that it is the unforgivable sin mentioned in Matthew 12:31ff. It is apostasy, which he points to the Scripture to say that this sin deserves to be punished more severely than any of the punishments found within Mosaic Law.¹¹ And it is in this severe punishment that one might see and understand why the author of Hebrews would say that it is fearful to fall into the hands of the living God.

APPROACH OF BRUCE

Bruce examines what he sees as the early incorrect understanding of this passage. Post-baptism is a problematic consequence of miss interpretation and Bruce appears rather concerned. Where Hagner only includes a post note on the topic of post-baptism sin, Bruce uses a large portion of his commentary of this specific text to deal with the matter. “This passage,” writes Bruce, “was destine to have repercussions in Christian history beyond what our author could have foreseen.”¹² Walking through some early history, Bruce explains that eventually, some came to understand this passage as dealing with sin after baptism. However, in light of other teaching in the book of Hebrews, Bruce argues that the author “would probably have thought it preposterous that his stern words of warning should in due course give rise to a penitential procedure so similar to that which he dismisses as forever superseded.”¹³

For Bruce, like Hagner, this passage deals with outright apostasy, that is, the deliberately abandoning reliance upon the perfect sacrifice of Christ.¹⁴ The sin here is not merely sin, or even sin after baptism, it is like the egregious act of sinning with a high hand, which Bruce points out there is no pardon. “To have received the knowledge of the truth and then reject it,” argues Bruce,” is to give up the only way of salvation.”¹⁵ Once a believer has done such a thing, there is no further option and no other source for salvation. Much like Hagner, Bruce sees this passage as dealing with the regenerate believer who fell to the point of outright rejecting Jesus, having flagrant contempt for him to the point of spurning or trampling Jesus and the new covenant he ushered in. Bruce states, “The author is not given to wild exaggeration,” so when the authors says it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, the deliberate sinner should be highly concerned.

APPROACH OF GUTHRIE

Where Hagner and Bruce are in agreement as to the identity and nature of the deliberate sinner, Guthrie starts from a different approach. For Guthrie, the issue appears to be the meaning of receiving the knowledge of Truth. Guthrie makes light of this stern warning, seeing the idea of receiving not as some kind of full acceptance and taking upon, but instead he sees it as “receiving a knowledge of the gospel's truth.”¹⁶ Therefore, the deliberate sinner was never a believer in the first place, but instead one who heard the gospel message and rejected it. “What the author has in mind,” writes Guthrie, “is a deliberate, sinful lifestyle of high-handed rebellion against the gospel,” but this gives no indication of the salvation state of the person in rebellion. The only difference for Guthrie is between one who has never heard the gospel and one who has, with both cases focused upon the unregenerate person. Guthrie continues, “The distinction between those who sin in ignorance, wandering off the path (5:2), and those who radically rebel against the Word of God may be seen in Numbers 15:27-31, where the latter course is said to be blasphemy.”¹⁷ Guthrie does not address the “we” in verse 26.

Starting from a position that the deliberate sinner was never a believer directs the rest of the interpretation toward the idea that the deliberate sinner will have a greater punishment than any other sinner who never comes to a position of repentance and acceptance with Jesus, but both will receive punishment. This deliberate sinner has no sacrifice that saves because Jesus is the only sacrifice with the power to save.¹⁸ Guthrie says that those who have turned away from the new covenant are worse off than the apostates of the Old Testament, but he never addresses those who may have accepted the new covenant only to later turn away and greatly, deliberately reject. It is almost as if this is not an option that Guthrie would consider. At one point, he states, “Inherent to the argument is the assumption that those who have heard the message of the gospel have had a greater opportunity and greater resources for a response of obedience (2:3-4).”¹⁹ He also argues with examples of those that rejected Jesus during Christ's earthly ministry. And for those who rejected Jesus, and maybe even attributed his power to Satan, Guthrie stipulates that they have blasphemed the Holy Spirit by denying the gospel's true origin and importance. In doing this, according to Guthrie, “They have committed a sin with eternal implications.”²⁰ And it is for this reason that they should be fearful to fall into the hands of the living God.

CONCLUSION

If one were to interpret the willful sinning in verse 26 as anything other than a complete rejection of Christ and his saving power, it is easy to see the slippery slope that may develop. If this is passage is warning of one kind of sin (other than apostasy), why might it not be another? There is no indication of degree, so might it be any sin? Once the first step is taken, one should be able to see how the idea of unforgivable post-baptism sin might have crept into the Church. We should have sympathy for those who desired to delay their baptism²¹ out of fear of eternal damnation. Just one sin could do a believer in. However, Bruce makes a sound argument against this incorrect understanding of Hebrews 10:26-31. Clearly the author of Hebrews is not discussing just any sin, but the willful or deliberate act of sin. And it seems that the committing an undefined sin is the problem, but rather the sin is the act of spurning or trampling on the saving power of Jesus. The author seems to identify the sin as profaning the blood covenant. The blasphemy is found in the apostasy. This is where it seems Hagner and Bruce are in agreement. 

Guthrie on the other hand, seems to see any sin without the salvation of Christ as the topic of the warning for those who have heard and rejected the gospel message. He neglects that the author hints that the readers (presumably believers) and even the author him or herself could fall into the scenario of which the author warns. But what Guthrie fails to address is why this warning is any different than any other call to repentance and faith in Jesus for salvation. Why the purpose for the passage at this point in the book? And what happens to one who turns away from Jesus after accepting the salvation found only in the gospel of Christ. Guthrie, it seems has skirted the bigger questions by way of making this passage about non-believers. 

As difficult as it may be, this passage appears to discuss deliberate sin so serious that it warrants the wrath of God, for which there is no sacrifice left. There is a suggestion of the unpardonable violation in the Law of Moses that was total rebellion or apostasy. And apostasy is not simply a rejection of something one does not have, but a falling away of something already obtained. It seems this warning is directed to the believer. In this regard, it seems Hagner and Bruce do a better job approaching this difficult passage. Guthrie seems to have missed something in the interpretation, causing his approach to view such a stern warning written to believers something of which they need not worry. This author agrees with the compelling approach of Hagner and Bruce. 

For believers this is a serious matter. The warning is dramatic and serious and should not be taken lightly. That being said, there is more than one way to view this passage. Careful consideration and prayer should be dedicated to this text if understanding is to be found. There are many other commentaries and journal articles written on this topic, some very technical, some more pastoral. It is the hope and prayer of this author that the Scripture is examined in greater detail and additional commentaries are consulted before conclusions are drawn. This author recommends, William Lane's technical work on Hebrews as well as that of Paul Ellingworth, and for a pastoral perspective Leon Morris's work found in the expositor's bible Commentary is worth consultation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. The new international commentary on the New

Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1990.

Guthrie, George H., Hebrews. The NIV application commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich:

Zondervan, 1998.

Hagner, Donald A. Hebrews. New international Biblical commentary. Peabody, Mass:

Hendrickson, 1983.

1 Hebrews 10:26a, English Standard Version (ESV). Italics added for effect. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotation will be taken from the English Standard Version.

2 Hebrews 10:26a.

3 Hanger asserts that “the Day” in verse 25 “naturally leads to future judgment.” Donald Hagner, Hebrews, New international Biblical commentary (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1983), 169.

4 Hebrews 10:27.

5 Hebrews 10:28-29.

6 Hebrews 10:31.

7 Hanger 1983, 169.

8 Hagner 1989, 169.

9 Hagner 1989, 169.

10 Hagner 1989, 170.

11 Hagner 1989, 170.

12 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The new international commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1990), 261.

13 Bruce 1990, 264.

14 Bruce 1990, 261.

15 Bruce 1990, 261.

16 George H. Guthrie, Hebrews, The NIV application commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 1998), 355.

17 Guthrie 1998, 355.

18 Guthrie 1998, 356.

19 Guthrie 1998, 357.

20 Guthrie 1998, 357.

21 Hagner 1989, 171.

* Photo by Thomas Hank 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.

A Pastor's Need for Intimacy with God

Wilson and Hoffmann argue that there are three different types of intimate relationships—those with friends, a relationship with a spouse, and our relationship with God (26). And to define these relationships, they state, “Intimate relationships are those in which others truly understand us, even if they don’t agree with us. [. . .] They know the real us that exists below the mask we wear when we’re ‘on-stage’ in ministry. They know our hurts, our struggles, our private victories and the things at the top of our prayer list” (34). Defining intimacy itself they write, “[. . .] a simple but effective way of describing intimacy might be ‘any relationship where we know another fully and where we are also fully known’” (35).

All three of these types of intimate relationships (with the exception of the spouse for those who are unmarried) are necessary for ministers, especially an intimate relationship with God. Romans 8:15 says, “For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’” (ESV). Here we can see that believes were not just brought onto a task or commission alone. It is not as if pastors were hired on by God to work for his Kingdom. Instead, we have been adopted into the family. We are a part of the family business but it does not end there. We are adopted into the family—this is language of love, relationship, and intimacy. God wants this intimacy with all of his children.

If a ministry gets so busy as to neglect this relationship, he or she might as well pack it up and close up shop. It is all about this relationship. Ministry is helping people foster stronger, better intimate relationships with God. A pastor may be able to lead others into this relationship for a time, but soon enough, if he or she does not have an intimacy with God, it starts to look like nothing but an employment contract and in the Kingdom of God, employment contracts are not what God is looking for. He wants to hear ‘Abba, Father!’ from his children.

___
Wilson, Michael Todd, and Brad Hoffmann. Preventing Ministry Failure: A ShepherdCare Guide for Pastors, Ministers and Other Caregivers. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Books, 2007.

* Painting by Nikhil Kirsh and used by permission. 

The Variety of Gifts

The spiritual gifts can often be a source of controversy in the Church.  The topic is one of those that is treaded upon lightly.   How do we handle the lists?  Are all of the gifts still operative or did some cease? Do believers only get one gift or many?  Are they only for a time?  How do we know what are gifts are?  What are they for?

These questions make for very good conversation and they should drive us to the Bible for answers.  That being said, it is very important to understand that the diversity of the spiritual gifts should be celebrated.

 As you survey the people among the body of believers you attend (if you are attending church), take joy in the way God brings these people together and uniquely gifts us all.  We are a tapestry by design and it is in this diversity that the beauty of God and his Church is seen.

This video and others like it are available in the Resources section of this website. Please check it out regularly as more content will be added often.


Subscribe to the Salty Believer iTunes Podcasts: Video | Audio
(Non iTunes: Video | Audio)
* While there may be some overlap, the content of the Video and Audio Podcasts are not the same. 

Contextualizing the Gospel

Sometimes it's hard to embrace change when it comes to how we do church.  But I have to think we are not alone in this.  In the Bible we see that the early church had to deal with change.  The nearly all-Jewish New Testament Church quickly reached out to Gentiles.  And when they did, there were some that struggled with this change, to include Peter.  There was a time when the Apostles had to figure out a new way to distribute bread so it was done efficiently and fairly.  When this happened, it is possible that there was a small handful of folks that struggled with the idea of a deacon.

When Constantine legalized Christianity in the Roman empire, there were likely some that felt that church should still be done in hiding, in the catacombs and under persecution.  It sounds strange, but it happens often.  It is easy to mistake how we minister the gospel for the gospel itself.

We all contextualize the gospel into a specific culture in a specific time.  The gospel does not change, but how we share it may (and should).  God's Church is his people with Christ at the head, so really we don't do church, we are the church; but that does not mean we should become overly chained to how we were introduced to the Church and the way a local church has always done church.  We latch on to what's comfortable but that might mean we are not being as effective as we should be.  And at times we reject the newest technology or the ideas that may bring with them a change for the better. (This is not to say that all change is good or we should change just for the sake of change.)

I would like to suggest that every church today uses what was once the newest technology of some year.  Everybody uses the newest technology, even if it is very old.  They have, at some point, embraced the change.  They have contextualized the gospel into some year and culture.  For example, any church using a printed Bible has taken advantage of the printing press.  And there was a time when the King James Bible was the new thing, the change.  Electricity--I wonder if there were churches that refused to install lights?  And how would you like to attend a church that refuses to accept and embrace indoor plumbing.  And what about when the organ first came out?  Every hymn was, at one point, as new as the newest contemporary worship music of today.  In 1984, the NIV was the new translation on the block.  Remember when worship was projected with the overhead projectors that required clear, plastic transparencies that a person had to manually change?  What a blessing the new projectors that work with computers have been!  Yet, even today, there are still changes happening within the Church.

Technology is not to be feared if it can (and is) being used for God's Glory.  Technology is for the use of the Church if it can advance the Kingdom.  Often the use of technology is an effort to contextualize the Gospel into the present year and culture or something close.  Where is most of America and the West communicating with the world?  Facebook, Twitter, and blogs.  Shouldn't the church be reaching into these areas--where the people communicate--and make disciples?  In 1991, how many people had a Bible on them nearly every moment they were awake?   Considering the capabilities of the smartphone, how many have at least one Bible on them in 2011?  Smart phones shouldn't be feared, especially when they make it possible to carry hundreds of different translations of the Bible and any time.  Even now you are reading this over the internet.  How helpful has the internet been in promoting the Gospel and teaching people more about theology?  How many people have found a church or even met Jesus because of a website?

Let's think of this another way.  What would we think of someone who refused to upgrade his television because he had just always had a black and white model that required the tubes to warm up?  Or what about the photograph.  While old photographs are cool, how many people would be willing to give up color photos and cameras built right into their phones?  Who thinks everybody should just go back to film?

Nobody wants to be stuck, but most of us are, if we are honest with ourselves. And why then at times does it seem acceptable that some people are stuck in a long past year when it comes to contextualizing the gospel? Why are there some who oppose any kind of change in how the Church functions?  Might it be because they have hitched what they are comfortable with to the gospel itself?  In what year have they become stuck?  1984?  1884?  1584?

While we do not change the gospel, it is at times necessary to change the way we bring it into a specific culture and time. We must not be afraid of change if that change will make the Church more effective in making disciples.  Are you fearful of change?  Are you stuck? Let's become more effective makers of disciples of Jesus.



*The photo associated with this post is the property of Megan Brown.  It is used by permission.  In this photo are William and Lena Kottke. Kids are William, Eva and Augusta (left to right). Augusta is Megan Brown's Great-Grandma. The photo was taken in 1898.

Spiritual Life by John Westerhoff

Westerhoff, John H. Spiritual Life: The Foundation for Preaching and  Teaching. Louisville, KY: Westerminster John Knox Press, 1994.

John Westerhoff was Professor of Theology and Christian Nurture at Duke University Divinity School. During this time, that he “discovered that laity and clergy across the country were more interested in [his] lecturing on issues related to the spiritual life than in any other subject in pastoral theology” (ix). One of many results of this discovery is his book, Spiritual Life: The foundation for Preaching and Teaching. Much of the material found in the book came from lectures Westerhoff gave as a conference held at the College of Preachers in 1992 (xv). Westerhoff has authored many other books, including Living Faithfully: As A Prayer Book People (2005), Will Our Children Have Faith? (2000), and Liturgy and Learning Through the Live Cycle (1994), but Amazon.com lists Spiritual Life as his best selling work. Westerhoff also served as the Director of Institute of Pastoral Studies at St. Luke’s Episcopal Church in Georgia.

Westerhoff sets out to instruct and encourage his readers to have a spiritual life, that is, one in which our identity is found in God, where we can draw closer toward God to know and love him more. In making this instruction, he must start with an explanation of what a spiritual life is and its importance. Understanding the spiritual life means setting our actions and understandings on firm foundation. A correct image of God is a critical first step, and then finding an openness to grow in God’s agape love is the natural extension in that. One way to measure this growth, according to Westerhoff, is to observe the outpouring of the Fruit of the Spirit. Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. This is one fruit and by it we might see and understand our spiritual growth. Furthermore, a spiritual life is a journey we are on with God.

Next Westerhoff moves to a specific objective of spiritual formation for teachers and preachers. If one is to teach and preach faith in a knowable God, it seems only reasonable that they themselves would experience that God in a significant way. They should regularly and intestinally approach God in meaningful ways that promote and develop their own spiritual lives. One way is through creativity. “The imagination,” writes Westerhoff, “is foundational to the spiritual life” (21). And in addition to an imagination, teachers and preachers should seek to embrace specific mysteries, as well as specific aspects of the human experience such as understanding suffering and embracing it. One must also learn to live in silence, if even for a time because in this solitude, one might hear from God rather than always talking at him. As teachers and preachers, we must also understand what it is to truly teach. One must be seeking and searching and through this, the teacher and preacher should be ready to embrace not only truth the teacher may present, but also the truth that might be learned from the student. As people who are indwelled by Christ, we are all teachers as well as leaners and we all can learn from each other.

As if something of a conclusion, Westerhoff offers some thoughts and guidance on engaging in a spiritual life. First, he takes his readers through a history of the topic and the various schools of thought—although he quickly warns that the various schools go slightly too far and end up in danger of heresy. Each of the school place their focus in a specific approach to the spiritual life; they are those focused on the sacramental, charismatic, mystical, and the apostolic. How one views these schools will also dictate how they may pray and engage in various aspects of the spiritual life. And then to conclude the book, Westerhoff addresses some methods and techniques to assist people in a growing spiritual life—timing and location, preparation, presence with God, journaling, having a spiritual community, lectio divina, and finally, living a life of discipline. Ultimately, Westerhoff argues, “A discipline is something we practice, an exercise,” and the final chapters are like an exercise instruction manual (65).

Westerhoff had hoped to provide a book to assist clergy, those responsible for the church’s education ministry, and even volunteer church-school teacher to understand the spiritual life and lead others to a strong spiritual growth in their daily lives. He achieved this goal and so much more. In something of an awkward book for teachers and preachers, Westerhoff has presented an argument that should be for everybody. Therefore, to assume this book should only be for teachers and preachers is what makes it awkward. The book is already small at less than 80 pages, but the approach toward the middle of the book for teachers and preachers should have been replaced with a chapter specifically for pastors, teachers, and preachers AND a chapter for any student of the Bible and lover of God. This book is for everybody. The spiritual life is a necessity for all who desire to soundly approach God to love him more and love him better.

Understandably, Westerhoff writes to an audience he feels is already burned out, drained out, or rusted out. He is seeking a way to revitalize their pastoral lives and even their ministries. However, it is highly likely that many seminary students are reading this book before they face the symptoms of any of these ministry problems. Should they learn to engage the spiritual life as Westerhoff encourages, they will likely avoid the pitfalls. In addition, they will likely live a rich life as they walk well with God. But does it not stand to reason that if this preventive approach is good for seminary students it would also be good for the layperson that deeply wants to know God better? Do these people not also experience burnout, drain out, and rust out? Spiritual Life is a fantastic book for teachers and preachers, but with some minor restructuring, it could be extremely valuable with believers and extremely popular in our age where people are thirsty for a deeper relationship with the Creator of the Universe.

Putting aside the critical view that the audience of this book is too narrow, Westerhoff’s book Spiritual Life: The Foundation for Preaching and Teaching should be read and practiced by any student of the Bible who wished to take the theological knowledge gained through deeper study and approach God with greater ease. This book should be read and practiced by anyone prepared to have a love affair with the Living God.


* 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.

Are you Known?

Anymore, it seems we live in a world where we create our profiles.  We carefully design our image.  We communicate who we are with caution.  Who we are is now a product of our own creation and we are careful how we present our profiles and to whom.  But our profiles are not the real us.  Through relationships with others, the real us can come out if we allow it.  But how many times do we prevent anybody from knowing who we really are?  Is it that we are afraid that people will judge us?  Probably.

We are so afraid of the judgement of our peers that we quickly misquote Matthew 7:1-2: "Judge not, that you be not judged.  For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you" (ESV).  Some like to use this verse to say that you can't exercise wisdom and you can't assess character or actions.  But Jesus called the religious people of his day a "brood of vipers," so he obviously had to judge their actions and character.  And Paul provides some criteria for selecting elders and deacons.  This too obviously requires judgement.  This passage in Matthew serves as more of a warning about how and why we judge, not that we judge at all.  That's the purpose for the explanation in verse 2. 

It seems that as people start to look deeper into our attitudes and character, they begin to know us.  The profile becomes just a page while we become real to them and them to us.  And when people really know us, they can help us grow.  But more importantly, it is when we are known and we know others that we develop meaningful relationships.

Michael Rasmden of RZIM says,

"I can promise you, even if you're the most popular person in the city, if nobody truly knows you, if no one knows your shorting comings, your weaknesses, and your failings, you're one of the most lonely people right now.  I can also promise you that if there is a small group of people around you, whether it's a spouse, or family, or siblings, or friends who know you, the real you, all of your shortcomings, all of your weakness, all of your failings, all of that, and yet they love you, those are the most meaningful relationships you have.  Whenever something great happens, and whenever something terrible happens, they are the first ones you turn to.  Because love doesn't exist in the absence of judgement.  True love only exists in the presence of it.  For the words 'I love you' to be meaningful, the person who speaks them must truly know you."

I think he's right.  Are you known?  Are you loved?  If not, there may be a reason for that.  Desire to know others and be known by them.

* The photo is in the public domain.

On Staff with Risen Life

It was a tough day when Lisa and I came to understand that the best thing we could do for a church plant in downtown Salt Lake City was to pull out, but it was right.  We're a mini-van family and we don't wear knitted hats in July. 

As that planting project was getting going, I knew Lisa, my kids, and I still needed a place to corporately worship Jesus and grow closer to him. 

I had served with Pastor Robert Marshall some years before and I had been listening to his preaching via pod-casts for over a year.  And Holladay Baptist Church (now called Risen Life Church)--where Robert and Kevin Lund serve as pastors--was just up the street from us and we had a connection; therefore, it seemed like a good place to visit for a while as the church plant was still making their way to town.  It was a great fit and we loved it. 

After attending Holladay Baptist Church for about 3 months, I wrote a post about it.  (Read it here.) While the name is now changed to Risen Life Church, I still believe this post is true about this great body of believers. I pray it is true of Lisa and I too, considering that this is our body.

And as we decided to steer our mini-van away from the church plant and toward an established church that holds the Bible in high view and teaches from it Sunday after Sunday, it seemed only right that we would point our van to Holladay Baptist.  We loved it and settled in easily and quickly.  This family quickly became our family.  We both found places to serve, started a community group in our home, and made friends.  And we have seen it grow, physically and spiritually.  And we got to take a part in its name change.

And now I am thrilled to share that I have accepted a full-time position as the pastor of mobilization and community at Risen Life Church!  This position will allow me to serve side by side with other staff members.  I will be looking for ways to get people connected with one another, places for service and outreach, opportunities to teach the Bible, and so much more.  I'm teaching classes, leading community groups, developing opportunities, and serving this body.  In addition, I'm laboring in a very dry part of the Lord's Vineyard.  (Only about 3% of the Utah population is evangelical Christian.)

I'm blessed to have such an opportunity; however, I'm asking for your prayers and support.

Soli Deo gloria!

Bryan Catherman

Get to Know Your Neighbor

Matthew, Mark, and Luke record an exchange between Jesus and a lawyer.  The lawyer wanted to test Jesus so he asked him which law was the greatest.  Jesus told him that he is to love God and love his neighbors.  Interestingly, the lawyer tried to split hairs about who his neighbor might be.  In Luke, this transitions the conversation to the parable of the Good Samaritan.  

I wonder what Jesus would think about our behavior today.  We know who our neighbors are, but we don't know them.  And when we don't know our neighbors, it's really hard to love them.

This video and others like it are available in the Resources section of this website. Please check it out regularly as more content will be added often.


Subscribe to the Salty Believer iTunes Podcasts: Video | Audio
(Non iTunes: Video | Audio)
* While there may be some overlap, the content of the Video and Audio Podcasts are not the same. 

The Double Ending Aporia: John 20:30-31 vs. John 21

INTRODUCTION

As the twentieth chapter of the book of John comes to a close, John, as some argue, seems to conclude his Gospel with the reason he wrote the book and a plea to his readers to believe. However, there is still another chapter remaining; and this final chapter recounts an amazing fishing incident, a conversation between Jesus and Peter, and then it actually concludes the entirety of the book. What are students of John to think of this apparent double ending? Is it evidence of John’s growing senility as Renan suggests?¹ Was John clumsy as offered by Meyer, or really just an unskilled author as argued by Bauer?² Might Brown or Cullmann be right in that the book of John is actually a reworking or redaction of John’s original or oral Gospel?³ This difficult passage, or aporia as the technical term identifies it, has been treated differently by a variety of scholars through the centuries. And with so many different ideas, how is a student of John to know the answer to this complexity? If Burge is correct, there should be no reason for alarm. “Discerning readers,” encourages Burge, “can usually come to the apostle John’s defense, urging that aporias usually can be explained.”⁴ In an attempt to understand the double ending aporia, this post will first address the general nature of aporias in John’s Gospel. Once an overview of aporias has been provided—to include a summary of the specific aporia in question—three commentaries will be consulted and compared. Through this examination, this post will hopefully provide some answers to the many questions raised by the double ending aporia of John 20:30-31 and John 21.

WHAT IS AN APORIA?

An aporia—as it is used in this post—is a technical term credited to E. Schwartz’s 1907 and 1908 series of articles titled “Aporien im vierten Evangelium,” which translates as “Aporias in the Forth Gospel.”⁵ Still, Schwartz obviously pulled the term from the Greek word, aporia which appears in Luke 21:25 and is most often translated into English as perplexity. Strong defines this Greek word as “perplexity” or “consternation.”⁶ Perschbacher adds “uncertainty” to his definition.⁷ John’s Gospel uses a similar word, aporeō, in 13:21, which is generally translated as uncertain or at a loss. This similar word, according to Strong, means, “to be puzzled, at a loss, in wonder.”⁸ Whereas, Perschbacher defines it as, “to be without means, to hesitate, be at a stand, be in doubt and perplexity.”⁹ Given this word choice, it is clear that Schwartz was getting at the perplexities of the Fourth Gospel, but not the perplexity that disciples faced when Jesus said one of them would betray him. In fact, Schwartz was not getting at the perplexities of John’s message at all; instead, he went after the presentation of that message.

The technical term, aporia, is essentially referring to what Burge has titled a “literary seam” in the text. “In these instances,” writes Burge, “the chronological, topical, or dramatic flow of the narrative appears disjointed.”¹⁰ These seams or disjointed texts are found in other locations of the Bible, but according to Burge, “John’s Gospel abounds with these in a way that is completely different from the Synoptics.”¹¹ An example is found in John 3:22 (depending on the translation), where the text reads, “Jesus came into land of Judea,” even though 2:23 informs the reader that Jesus was already in Judea.¹² Another example is the lack of transitions showing Jesus’ movement between Samaria, Galilee, Jerusalem, and back again to Galilee. Burge compares this to a friend who writes a letter describing his salmon fishing vacation in Scotland only to write on the next page, “‘and after this, we crossed to the other side of Chicago.’”¹³Obviously, something has been left out.

As suggested above, aporias give cause for some scholars to think that John may have had issues with his writing ability, or maybe he was growing senile.¹⁴ Although highly unlikely, others have argued that John used folio leaves that were somehow shuffled around and accepted in the incorrect order as the final version.¹⁵ There is the possibility that John’s Gospel was originally two separate documents that were poorly edited together to form the single book.¹⁶ Still others believe that John’s Gospel was edited or redacted, even if by John himself. Potentially, this single redactor or a group of redactors may have preformed this edit job after John’s death, or so the argument goes.¹⁷ If indeed there were multiple hands involved in the final production of the book of John, Köstenberger’s argument holds some validity. He writes, “What immediately raises cautions against any such proposals, however, is the fact that John’s narrative is remarkably uniform, as several detailed studies preformed by the scholar E. Ruckstuhl (1951, 1991) have shown. This means, moreover, that any later redactor must have done his work rather clumsily, so that we today are able to identify ‘seams’ that he (unsuccessfully, it appears) attempted to patch up.”¹⁸ In any case, both Köstenberger and Burge demonstrate that most, if not all of the aporias contained in the Forth Gospel can be explained without demanding a stretch away from the idea that John intended to write exactly what he wrote and that each aporia is not much of a literary seam at all.

THE DOUBLE ENDING APORIA

Narrowing the focus to the conclusion(s) of the Forth Gospel, the double ending aporia has received extensive treatment by many scholars and New Testament commentators. For the purpose of this examination however, three scholars—picked for no other reason then the availability of their commentaries—will be summarized below to examine how each approaches this aporia. But before these commentators are introduced, an introduction of the double ending aporia will be offered.

Jesus is resurrected. His disciples have seen him and depending on the interpretation of John 20:22, the Holy Spirit has been introduced to them. Assuming chapter 20 is the end of the book, Jesus has said his last words, specifically to Thomas the Twin: “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”¹⁹ These final words seem to serve as an appropriate instruction to the entire world that will be called upon to believe without seeing. And then (if chapter 20 were the end of the book) John makes his final purpose statement and closing plea for his readers to believe that Jesus is the Messiah. John writes, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”²⁰ On first glance, this appears to be the end of the book; yet, there is still one remaining chapter.

The final chapter opens with another appearance of Jesus to his disciples. John states that Simon Peter, Thomas the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other entirely unnamed disciples went fishing. Jesus appeared to them from the shore but they were unable to recognize him. After a brief exchange, they disciples recast their nets on the other side of the boat as Jesus instructed and to their surprise, they caught 157 fish and could not even pull in the nets. Peter, recognizing the man on the shore is Jesus, jumped from his boat and swam to shore. Once everybody was on shore, Jesus and the disciples eat breakfast and Jesus restores Peter. To conclude the chapter, Jesus and Peter have a brief discussion that involves the Beloved Disciple, presumably John. The author is revealed, there is an awkward “we” statement, and then the final verse reads, “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”²¹

It seems that John 20:30 and 21:25 are rather similar. And the conclusion of chapter 21 almost seems to introduce the editors or Johannine School. Was chapter 21 a later addition? If so, Carson points out that “There is no textual evidence that the book was every published without John 21.”²² How then should this be explained?

AN EXPLANATION FROM THE COMMENTARIES

John Marsh, Saint John. Of the three selected commentaries, Marsh is the commentator most ready to argue that chapter 21 was never intended to be part of the original work. “Ch. 21 is an addition,” writes Marsh, “and its addition was made without that careful attention to the integration of the material with the rest of the gospel which would have been necessary had it been more than an appendix.”²³ Had the book ended with chapter 20, argues Marsh, even the creative person would have had no reason to think there was any more to the narrative.²⁴ That being said, Marsh still accepts that there are theological contributions found in chapter 21, even if he holds that chapter 21 is of little historical consideration.²⁵

Marsh lists a number of reasons why chapter 21 could not have been original to the first manuscript (but he also contends that the addition must have been very early in the life of the book). First, Marsh points out that from the 25 verses of the last chapter, 28 words are found in chapter 21 that are not found anywhere in chapters 1-20. However, he also concedes that many of these words are related to fishing and no fishing narrative is found elsewhere in John.²⁶ Second, Marsh points to what he sees as a different literary style, specifically by word choices and sentence construction. Yet again, Marsh concedes that there are also a number of features of chapter 21 that are distinct to John, even suggesting that John could have been the one to add the epilogue.²⁷ Next, Marsh deals with the numbering of the appearances in John, claiming an inconsistency unless Jesus’ appearance to Mary is not considered an appearance to the disciples. Even overlooking the numbering, Marsh also takes issue with the reaction of the disciples to the resurrected Jesus if indeed this is the third appearance.

Regardless of when the final chapter was added, regardless of who its author may have been, Marsh still holds that because of its theological contributions, chapter 21 is more than an appendix, “it is not less than epilogue and crown.”²⁸ Chapter 21 gives the Body of Christ a view of the expectations of the Church. Marsh points out that after the crucifixion, the disciples returned to secular life. They were back to where they started—fishing. Nevertheless, Jesus finds them in this state, breaks bread and communes with them, and charges them to be fishers of men, tenders of his flock. This, as Marsh’s argument goes, is John’s way to communicate what comes next to those who have accepted that Jesus is the Christ. Therefore, despite Marsh’s view of the historicity of the 21^st chapter, he still believes that chapter 21 is theologically necessary to the book as a whole. It would seem then, that Marsh holds that there are two endings. He sees a literary seam but embraces it as part of the Word of God.

F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John. Bruce spends substantially less time on this aporia than does Marsh. This is likely because Bruce has no need to spend so much time arguing for or against the authorship and date of the addition. First he reminds his readers, “[. . .] there is no evidence that the work ever circulated without [chapter 21].”²⁹ Then, without much support or apology he simply writes, “The actual circumstances of the composition of the Gospel, are concealed from us, but we may picture the Evangelist entrusting his magnum opus to his associates (the ‘we’ of verse 42), who, before publishing it, added this epilogue which they had heard from his own lips, in the form which he had narrated it.”³⁰ While he gives nothing but another source as indicated by a footnote for his idea that John’s closest students wrote down John’s verbal epilogue, Bruce makes no argument why John did not simply include the epilogue in the first place. He does, however, demonstrate that only John or someone close to John could have written the last chapter of the book due to its obvious Johannine style and features, specifically drawing attention to the double use of “Amen,” the construction of verse 19, and his calling the lake the sea of Tiberias.³¹ Bruce clearly sees the first 18 verses of the book of John the prologue and the last chapter the epilogue. They fit together in properly opening and closing the book, and that is enough for Bruce. He sees not further need to deal with the ‘literary seam’ that gives some reason to call the last two verses of chapter 20 and the final chapter of John an aporia. For Bruce, there is no aporia other than who might have added John’s last words to the book before its first publication.

Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John. If Bruce spends little time on the double ending aporia, Morris spends even less. Morris starts by dividing the opinions (as he calls the different views) into two groups. The first group is composed of those that see the 21^st chapter as an “integral part of the Gospel from the very first.”³² The second group are those who feel the last chapter was a later addition; and of this group, Morris categorizes them into two sub groups—“[. . .] those who think that, apart from verses 24f., it was written by the author of chs. 1-20 and those who think of a different author.”³³ And like Morris’ fellow commentators examined for this post, Morris reminds his readers, “If it was no part of the original Gospel it must nevertheless be very early as the manuscript tradition knows nothing of a twenty-chapter Gospel.”³⁴

Morris outlines reasons to think the last chapter was a late addition, but in all of them, he seems to argue against them through his tone. First, he addresses the idea that John was growing old and might die. Given that some thought that Jesus’ return would come before John’s death, John (or someone else) felt the need to correct this matter.³⁵ Regardless of who or when John 21:20-23 was written, Morris argues that this is not the main thrust of chapter 21.³⁶ “It is more concerned with Peter’s reinstatement,” argues Morris.³⁷ The standard of consistency is also brought into question by Morris. “Our ideas of what is proper,” writes Morris, “are not necessarily his.”³⁸ 1 John 5:13 is referenced in support of John’s use of verses 20:30-31 and neither of these statements end John’s Gospel or Epistle, respectively.³⁹

By the way Morris argues, it is most likely that he is among the first group he identified, that is, holds that the last chapter is an intentional part of the original Gospel manuscript. He even confesses “[. . .] to being a little mystified by the certainty of those who regard it as self-evident that this last chapter is a late addition.”⁴⁰ For Morris, chapter 21 is the proper conclusion to the book, giving a confident picture of the mission to the Church and the believer after one has come to accept the argument of the nature of Jesus. He cites Hoskyns in saying, “the first three Gospels all end this way,” implying that it should be no surprise that John does too.⁴¹ Morris sees no aporia, and therefore, little need to defend the passage against those who do.

CONCLUSION

All three commentators weigh in on the authorship of the last chapter; yet they all agree that both tradition and external evidence assumes the original inclusion of the final chapter. Despite their best efforts, none can definitively point to evidence to the contrary. This leaves only the internal evidence from which to draw support for two endings. Again, all three chosen commentators are in agreement and concede that the word choices and sentence construction contained in the 21^st chapter of John lend support for and against its consistency with the rest of the book. On this matter alone, the jury is at a stalemate. 

In looking at the alleged inconsistencies and disjointedness (by our standards), it seems reasonable that there could be a number of portions of any book, even today, that seem different than other portions of that same book; but this should not automatically give us reason to conclude that a different author penned those portions or that there are two endings. The burden of proof lies with the one claiming multiple authors. Furthermore, even this post—with its various sections written over the course of a multiple days—could appear to have differences in each section if deeply dissected, but this should provide no reason to believe Bryan Catherman is not the author. Therefore, all that is remaining is the claim of two endings written by John.

The only evidence that suggests two endings by the same author are the two verses found in 20:30-31, and had these two verses been written at the end of chapter 21 (as Lagrange argues), there would be no hint of two separate endings; but alas, that is not where John placed them.⁴² Thus, this cause for the double ending aporia is not John 21, but John 20:30-31. This is where the answer in understanding the aporia is found.

Morris deals specifically with 20:30-31 and addresses the double ending aporia best. He, believing that John, son of Zebedee is the author of both the Forth Gospel and the epistle titled First John, looks to John’s usage of a similar sentence in both works. In First John 5:13, John writes, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.”⁴³ Following this statement, John gives more practical instruction and only then offers his conclusion at the end of the epistle. Therefore, if Morris is correct (and this author believes he is), it seems that John did not intend verses 20:31-31 to be read as a concluding statement. And if John did not intend to conclude his Gospel with these lines, and if there is no other external evidence found in tradition, than there should be no reason what-so-ever to believe that an actual aporia is present at the conclusion of the book of John. There is but only one ending as the Evangelist intended and that is how it is presented in the Forth Gospel.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1994.

Burge, Gary M. Interpreting the Fourth Gospel. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1992.

Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1991.

Köstenberger, Andreas J. Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2002.

Marsh, John. Saint John. Philadelphia, Penn: Westminster Press, 1978.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1971.

Perschbacher, Wesley J., and George V. Wigram. The New Analytical Greek Lexicon. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1990.

Strong, James, John R. Kohlenberger, and James A. Swanson. The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001.

END NOTES

1   Gary M. Burge, Interpreting the Fourth Gospel (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1992), 66.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid, 67.

4 Ibid, 66.

5  Andreas J. Köstenberger, Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2002), 259.

6 James Strong, John R. Kohlenberger, and James A. Swanson, The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001), 1594.

7  Welsey J. Perschbacher and George V. Wigram, The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1990), 47.

8 Strong, 1944.

9 Perschbacher, 47.

10 Burge, 62.

11  Burge, 62.

12 Quoted from the KJV. Many other Bible translations shed light on this aporia by translating gē as countryside rather than simply land.

13 Burge, 63.

14 Ibid, 66.

15 Ibid.

16  Ibid.

17   Köstenberger, 259.

18   Köstenberger, 259.

19 John 20:29, ESV.

20   John 20:30-31, ESV.

21 John 21:25, ESV.

22   D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1991), 667.

23 John Marsh, Saint John (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978), 654.

24 Ibid, 653.

25 Marsh, 654.

26 Ibid, 653.

27 Ibid, 653-654.

28 Ibid, 660.

29 F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1994), 398.

30   Bruce, 398.

31 Ibid.

32 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1971), 858.

33   Morris, 858.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid.

36 Ibid, 859.

37 Ibid.

38 Morris, 859.

39 Ibid.

40 Ibid.

41 Ibid.

42   Morris, 859.

43 1 John 5:13, ESV.

* 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 was taken by Flickr user Greencolander and is used with permission. 

Fig Tree or Shade Tree? Luke 13:6-9

Jesus often taught via parables.  I've been blessed to preach again on one of the parables shared by Jesus, recorded in Luke 13:6-9.  In this parable, there's a fig tree that has produced no fruit in three years.  The owner of this tree would like it cut down.  It's my hope and prayer that God will use me in his service as you watch this video and you will learn more about God and his Word (the Bible) and then love him more.

This sermon was preached during a Sunday Night Gathering at Risen Life Church on August 8, 2011.

This video and others like it are available in the Resources section of this website. Please check it out regularly as more content will be added often.


Subscribe to the Salty Believer iTunes Podcasts: Video | Audio
(Non iTunes: Video | Audio)
* While there may be some overlap, the content of the Video and Audio Podcasts are not the same. 

Parables

While working in the yard, I found myself thinking about parables.  Jesus used parables to teach the people around him.  What is a parable?

A parable, in it's simplest understanding, is a "story with common human characters that illustrates an  important truth"--or at least that's how Klien, Blomber, and Hubbard stated it [1].  I think this is a good way to view a parable because often times, students of the Bible stretch Jesus' parables way beyond an important truth.  Sadly, sometimes parables get interpreted in ways that were not likely how Jesus intended them to be understood. We should use some caution when interpreting parables.

And there's something else interesting about how Jesus used parables.  For many, they heard a story about a farmer; but for others, they heard more than the story about the farmer.  With the help of illumination from the Holy Spirit or explanation from Jesus, they also were able to make the bigger connection to the important truth contained underneath the surface of the parable. 

Jesus' parables are fun to read and teach us so much.  It it has been a while since you've read the parables, I suggest you make a little time and read some of them.  See the story.


1. William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Thomas Nelson: Nashville, Tenn), 338.

This video and others like it are available in the Resources section of this website. Please check it out regularly as more content will be added often.

Subscribe to the Salty Believer iTunes Podcasts: Video | Audio
(Non iTunes: Video | Audio)
* While there may be some overlap, the content of the Video and Audio Podcasts are not the same. 

Sermon: 1 Peter 4:1-11

Peter was a gifted teacher within the Church.  His first letter was something of an instruction as to how Christians should live.  In the video below, I examine 1 Peter 4:1-11.

This sermon was preached on July 31, 2011 at CrossPoint Church in Utah.

This video and others like it are available in the Resources section of this website. Please check it out regularly as more content will be added often.


Subscribe to the Salty Believer iTunes Podcasts: Video | Audio
(Non iTunes: Video | Audio)
* While there may be some overlap, the content of the Video and Audio Podcasts are not the same. 

John and the Holy Spirit

INTRODUCTION

The Fourth Gospel, that is, the Gospel of John, is often viewed in light of the author’s stated purpose of documenting specific signs “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”[1] In addition, this Gospel is often viewed as providing great evidence of the hypostatic union of Jesus’ simultaneous deity and humanity. And Carson and Moo argue, “The elements of what came to be called the doctrine of the Trinity find their clearest articulation, within the New Testament, in the Gospel of John.”[2] However, while the Fourth Gospel’s main focus appears to be on Jesus, the Gospel also demonstrates the person, purpose, and deity of the third member of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit.

John, the son of Zebedee, walked with Jesus and was his disciple for the duration of Jesus’ earthly ministry. The Synoptic Gospels often record that John was among Jesus’ inner-circle of disciples, regularly present for many special events as an eyewitness. And if John, the son of Zebedee, is the beloved disciple and author of the Fourth Gospel (as this author believes he is), there is clear evidence through the Gospel of John that John had a special relationship with Jesus. In addition, John was present in the upper room at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came upon the small group.[3] And the remainder of the New Testament provides an indication that John experienced many aspects of the faith, being animated and moved by the Holy Spirit, which greatly aided him in his calling as an Apostle to teach the world. This post will examine one aspect of his teaching—the Holy Spirit. First, a discussion of many sections of the Gospel of John and one unique word choice will be offered. Next, this post will examine (and speculate) what John may have understood during the time of his narrative compared to what he understood at the point of authoring his Gospel. Then, before the conclusion, this post will look at what aspects of the Holy Spirit would be unknown without the Fourth Gospel.

A REVIEW OF THE SCRIPTURES

When attempting to understand what the beloved disciple’s Gospel teaches on the Holy Spirit, it is best to look at the evidence from John’s hand. John uses two words when referring to the Holy Spirit. The first is pneuma, which is the more common use for the Spirit throughout John, as well as throughout the New Testament. Fifteen times this word is used in reference to the Holy Spirit in John’s Gospel. Eight times John’s Gospel uses pneuma in reference to the nonphysical part of a person or a person’s soul, and once it is in reference to wind. Looking to John’s other canonical writings, pneuma twice refers to breath, twice to a mood or intention, 12 times to demonic or angelic beings, and 20 times it is used in reference to the Holy Spirit. There are 319 uses of the same word outside the Johannine corpus, all being employed much in the same way as John’s usages. And considering that Klein Bloomberg and Hubbard argue, “[The Septuagint (LXX)] became the Bible of most of the early Christians during the writing of the NT,” there is a possibility that John knew the Hebrew Bible by way of the Septuagint (LXX); therefore, it may be worth noting that pneuma appears 350 times in the Septuagint (LXX).[4] The second word John uses in reference to the Holy Spirit is parakleōtos. This word is used significantly less, only by John, and will be discussed in greater detail below. Attention will now shift to specific passages in John where either one of these two words is used in reference to the Holy Spirit.

The Spirit on Jesus: 1:32-33. John the Baptist, the man who baptized Jesus in the Jordan river, declared that he did not know who the Lamb of God would be, but that God told him he would know when he saw the Spirit descend and remain on him. In addition, John said of Jesus, “I saw the Spirit descent from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him.”[5] The Spirit served as an anointing sign to the Baptist. And through John the Baptist’s witness, John, the Gospel author, is able to provide a sign of Jesus’ anointing for his soon-coming ministry. “The descent of the Spirit on Jesus,” states Bruce, “marked him out as the Davidic ruler of Isa. 11:2ff, of whom it is written, ‘the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him’, as the Servant of whom God says in introducing him in Isa. 42:1, ‘I have put my Spirit upon him’, and as the prophet who announces in Isa. 61:1, ‘The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord as anointed me . . .’”[6]

Baptizing with the Spirit: 1:33. John the Baptist was baptizing with water, but the one who sent him to baptize reviled that another would be coming with a greater baptism. This baptism is different than anything the Baptist could offer, and in fact could only be given by the Son of God. Carson suggests that this Baptism in (or with) the Holy Spirit points forward to a new age when God will pour out the Spirit onto (or into) his people, alluding to Ezekiel 36:25-26 where following a water cleansing, God implants within the person a new heart and a new spirit.[7]

Born of the Spirit: 3:5-8. Jesus introduces and interesting concept to Nicodemus, a Pharisee. He tells Nicodemus that he must be born again and that rebirth is of water and Spirit. Morris suggests a couple meanings of this passage. The first is that the water represents a repentance baptism, such as John the Baptist was administering; and the Spirit is, “namely the totally new divine life that Jesus would impart.”[8] The second meaning of being born of water and Spirit could suggest that being born of water points to a natural birth and then being born of the Spirit is a birth of spiritual regeneration. Either way, Jesus is clear that one must be born of the Holy Spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God, meaning that the Holy Spirit holds a significant role in this second birth and man’s ability to enter the kingdom of God.

Given without measure: 3:34. Fulfilling Isaiah’s prophetic words in Isaiah 11:2, 42:1, and 61:1, the Holy Spirit rests upon the Servant. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is suggested as having an empowering quality. Jamieson suggests that while some human-inspired teachers might have the Holy Spirit to some degree, God has bestowed the Holy Spirit upon Jesus in an unlimited measure.[9]

Giver of life: John 6:63. In this passage, Jesus gives credit to the Spirit as the giver of life. The Fourth Gospel has already shared the words of Jesus stating that the Holy Spirit plays a significant role in the new birth. Now he confirms that it is the Holy Spirit that gives life. Carson claims, “One of the clearest characteristics of the Spirit in the Old Testament is the giving of life.”[10] However, in this verse the Spirit as the giver of life is being sharply contrasted against the flesh. And in the very next sentence, Jesus says that it is the words that he speaks that are spirit and life. If it is in Jesus’ words that life and spirit are discovered, than there is a connection between the Spirit and the words of Jesus. To this idea, Morris suggests,

A woodenly literal, flesh-dominated manner of looking at Jesus’ words will not yield the correct interpretation. That is granted only to the spiritual man, the Spirit-dominated man. Such words cannot be comprehended by the fleshy, whose horizon is bound by this earth and its outlook. Only as the life-giving Spirit informs him may a man understand these words.[11]

Receive the Holy Spirit: 7:39; 20:22. At the Feast of Booths, Jesus declared that for anyone who believes in him, “Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.”[12] John writes that this statement is in reference to the Spirit, “whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”[13] Marsh states, “This is written not only from the perspective of this particular narrative of the gospel, but also from the later perspective of the Church, in which every believer has received the Spirit (at baptism).”[14] The Spirit was not yet present in the form that Jesus was stating, but at a point after Jesus’ ascension, man would be in a position to receive the Holy Spirit. The Greek word behind the translation of receive, is lambanō, which means, “to take.”[15] There is an implication of some level of choice or action of willingness involved. Recorded in John 20:22, Jesus breathes on the disciples and commands them to “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

Spirit of Truth who dwells in you: 14:15-17. It is here for the first time that parakleōtos is used in reference to the Holy Spirit. Jesus is about do depart and he is preparing his disciples for the time when he is gone. But Jesus is not leaving them alone and without a helper or champion; he will ask the Father to send the Holy Spirit, the parakleōtos. But while this coming Helper will dwell among men just as Jesus did, he will also dwell within the disciples. Jesus also declares, “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.”[16] John, it seems, has painted a picture of an amazing union between the Holy Trinity and the believer.

The Teacher: 14:25-26. Jesus has been with the disciples for some time, teaching and training them. He has taught them many things, and soon it will be their responsibility to teach others. However, it seems that at times, the disciples failed to understand what Jesus was attempting to teach them. Understanding did not come until after they received the Holy Spirit (see John 2:22 and 12:26, among many passages contained in the Synoptic Gospels.) But in this text, Jesus promises them a teacher who will “teach [them] all things and bring to [their] remembrance all that [Jesus had] said to [them].”[17] Bruce points out, “Now they are told that when the Paraclete comes, he will enable them to recall and understand when Jesus taught: he will serve them, in other words, as remembrancer and interpreter.”[18]

The Person and Witness: 15:26. There are two significant aspects about the Spirit in verse 26. First, as time moves forward, the Spirit will serve as a witness to testify about Jesus. Here, as elsewhere, the Spirit is given a purpose. (Subsequently, the disciples are also called upon the testify about what happened while they walked with Jesus.) Second, John says, “he will bare witness about me.”[19] Carson argues that it is no accident; John intentionally used the word ekeinos.[20] The Greek word, ekeinos, is a masculine pronoun and Carson demonstrates that its use is inconsistent with the “(formally) neuter status of the preceding relative pronoun.”[21] John is referring to the Holy Spirit in personal, male terms. He is thinking of the Holy Spirit as a person! Incidentally, John uses ekeinos for the Holy Spirit again in John 16:13-14.

The Guide who only speaks what he hears: 16:13-14. This passage specifically demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is not operating by his own authority, but is declaring what he hears, which glorifies Jesus. Theologically, this is one of many demonstrations of the Trinity’s simultaneous unity and equality of being in perfect submission to one another in the service of their unique purposes. “The Holy Spirit never magnifies Himself,” writes Duffield and Van Cleave, “nor the human vessel through whom He operates. He came to magnify the person and ministry of Jesus Christ. Whenever He is truly having His way, Christ, and none other, is exalted.”[22]

Parakleōtos: 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7. In addition to the summary of passages above, there is some value in looking at a special term only John uses for the Holy Spirit. The use of parakleōtos is found only five times in the New Testament—four times in the Gospel of John and once in First John (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7; 1 John 2:1). Incidentally, it makes no appearance in the Septuagint (LXX). Köstenberger states “The translation of this term has proved particularly difficult, since there does not seem to be an exact equivalent in the English language.”[23]

English Bible translations each seem to handle the parakleōtos differently. For example, the English Standard Version (ESV) uses the word “Helper” in all of the Gospel uses and “Advocate” in John’s first Epistle. The American Standard Version (ASV) uses “Comforter” in the Gospel use and “Advocate” in the letter. The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) uses “Counselor” in the Gospel, and once again, “Advocate” is used in First John; and the same is true for the King James Version (KJV). The New International Version (NIV) also selected “Counselor” in the Gospel and simply says “one” in the Epistle. “Helper” is the choice for the New American Standard Bible (NASB) except in the letter, where “Advocate” is the selected word. The New English Translation (NET) uses “Advocate” for every occurrence, as does the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and the New Living Translation (NLT).

Turning to dictionaries and lexicon a variety of meanings for parakleōtos are presented. Perschbacher defines it as, “one called or sent for to assist another; an advocate, one who pleads the cause of another, [. . .] one present to render various beneficial service, and thus, the Paraclete, whose influence and operation were to compensate for the departure of Christ himself.”[24] Strong defines it as, “counselor, intercessor, helper, one who encourages and comforts; in the NT it refers exclusively to the Holy Spirit and to Jesus Christ.”[25]

WHAT DID JOHN KNOW AT THE TIME?

As mentioned above, there are clear indications in the Fourth Gospel that suggest that while John was with Jesus during his earthly ministry, there were many things John did not fully understand. John 2:22 states, “When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.” John 12:16 echoes this same idea. Both of these texts offer strong support for the development of John’s theology, and John 14:25-26 leaves the reader with the impression that the Holy Spirit likely had a profound impact upon John’s understanding sometime after the Pentecost. While it would only serve as speculation to attempt to determine what John learned from Jesus and what he learned from the Holy Spirit, a survey of John’s teaching on the Spirit can be juxtaposed against the Old Testament to determine how much John could have learned from Scripture. And what John teaches that has no counterpart in the Old Testament can then be assumed to have been taught to John either by Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

Before an examination of John’s teaching is contrasted against the Old Testament, it should be noted that there is still a possibility that John was unaware of a specific scriptural teachings on the Holy Spirit; and in fact, it was still Jesus or the Holy Spirit that served to teach John about these things. However, by conducting this examination, it can at least be determined what knowledge might have been available to John prior to encountering Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

John’s knowledge from the Scriptures. Staring with the Spirit being upon Jesus as an anointing power, John may have understood the idea of empowerment of the Spirit upon a person by examples from David and Saul, such as the example in First Samuel 16:13. And he may have understood the idea of the Holy Spirit coming upon the Servant of God as Isaiah’s prophecies dictated (Isaiah 11:2, 42:1, 59:21, and 61:1). However as far as the Spirit dwelling within the believer, the Old Testament showed the Spirit coming on someone for a time to empower him, but there is no indication of the Holy Spirit actually dwelling within a person.

As for a baptism of the Spirit, this concept is only alluded to in Ezekiel 36:25-26; but even with this allusion, it likely would have been difficult to formulate a solid understanding of the Holy Spirit’s role in the cleansing and regeneration of the heart. Joel 2:28 provides a picture of a pouring out of the God’s Spirit that leads to an empowerment, but this picture of empowerment is lacking in the regeneration suggested in Ezekiel. Without encountering Jesus or the Holy Spirit, it is unlikely John would understand the baptism of the Spirit as he writes about it in the first chapter of his Gospel. And if baptism of the Spirit was a difficult concept without Jesus or the Holy Spirit’s teaching, being born of the Spirit would have been even more so. Not even Nicodemus, an educated Pharisee understood what Jesus was teaching at the time.

As John came to understand that the Spirit is in some way the giver of life, his thoughts were likely contrasted against passages that declare that God is the giver of life (like Genesis 2:7 and Psalm 80:18, for example). But in reading these passages, one would probably not concluded that that the Holy Spirit is the giver of eternal life as Jesus was teaching. And John would not likely be alone in this lack of understanding because John’s sixth chapter of his Gospel shows many disciples turning away from following Jesus due to confusion of Jesus’ statements about the life found in the Spirit and the lack of life in the flesh.

Psalm 25:8-9 and Isaiah 54:13 are examples of God being the teacher and instructor to his people. It may have been difficult to understand this teacher as being the Holy Spirit, but it certainly would not be a stretch to know that God does want to teach and remind his people of his ways. In fact, Jeremiah 31:33-34 suggests that God would eventually write his law upon the hearts of the people.

WHAT IS AT STAKE WITHOUT JOHN?

The Fourth Gospel provides some unique contributions to the believer’s understanding of the Holy Spirit. Without John’s Gospel, we would not have the discourse with Nicodemus, which includes a unique picture of being born of water and the Spirit as a requirement to enter the kingdom of God. John is also the only one to use the term parakleōtos, offering a different understanding of the Holy Spirit. Yes, John does use this word once in First John, but that use has legal cogitations, where as the other four uses suggest that the Spirit is a helper, counselor, and assisting presence. John’s use of ekeinos clearly demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is a person and not a thing or force. This is the most articulate argument for the personage of the Holy Spirit; without John, the other arguments may not have led the Church to the same conclusion. And John makes it clear that the Holy Spirit came because of Jesus’ death and glorification. He is present because Jesus has ascended to the right hand of the Father.

CONCLUSION

While John demonstrates the humanity and deity of Jesus, he also teaches a great deal on the Holy Spirit. After reviewing the ten passages of Scripture and reviewing John’s unique reference for the Holy Spirit, it should be clear that John held a strong understanding of the purpose and function of the Holy Spirit. Some of these characteristics of the Holy Spirit are found only in the Fourth Gospel, and given his understanding of the many aspects of Holy Spirit (some demonstrated only by John), the Fourth Gospel should be viewed as a valuable source for teaching on the Holy Spirit. It is the hope and prayer of this author that the readers of this post will be compelled to examine John’s articulation of the Holy Spirit for themselves, so that they will develop a stronger understanding of John’s written demonstration of the person, purpose, and power of the Holy Spirit.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1994.
Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1991.
Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2005.
Duffield, Guy P., and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave. Foundations of Pentecostal Theology. Los Angles, Cali: Foursquare Media, 2008.
Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. OakTree Software, Inc., 1871. Version 2.4. [Acccessed by Accordance Bible Software 9.2.1, March 6, 2011.]
Klein, William W., Craig Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Nashville, Tenn: Thomas Nelson, 2003.
Köstenberger, Andreas J. Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2002.
Marsh, John. Saint John. Philadelphia, Penn: Westminster Press, 1977.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1984.
Perschbacher, Wesley J. The New Analytical Greek Lexicon. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1990.
Strong, James, John R. Kohlenberger, James A. Swanson, and James Strong. The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001.


1. John 20:31, English Standard Version (ESV). Unless otherwise noted, all quotes from the Bible will be taken from the ESV.
2. D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2005), 278.
3. Acts 1:13ff.
4. William W. Klein, Craig Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Nashville, Tenn: Thomas Nelson, 2003), 253.
5. John 1:23b.
6. F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1994), 53-54.
7. D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1991), 152.
8. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans 1984), 216.
9. Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (OakTree Software, Inc., 1871 Version 2.4.) [Acccessed by Accordance Bible Software 9.2.1, March 6, 2011.]
10. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 301.
11. Morris, 385.
12. John 7:38b.
13. John 7:39b.
14. John Marsh, Saint John (Philadelphia, Penn: Westminster Press, 1977), 344.
15. James Strong, John R. Kohlenberger, James A. Swanson, and James Strong (The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001), 2986.
16. John 14:20.
17. John 14:26.
18. Bruce, 305.
19. John 15:26
20. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 529.
21. Ibid.
22. Guy P. Duffield, and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angles, Cali: Foursquare Media, 2008), 295.
23. Andreas J. Köstenberger, Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2002), 157.
24. Wesley J. Perschbacher, The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1990), 308.
25. Strong, 3884. 

* "Ausgießung des Hl. Geistes" pictured in this post is in the public domain.
** 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.

The Rich Man and Lazarus, Luke 16:19-31

A sermon by Bryan Catherman.

Jesus often taught in parables; and on this night, I was blessed with the opportunity to preach about a story of two worlds as recorded in Luke 16:19-31.

This sermon was preached on July 17, 2011 at Risen Life Church.

This video and others like it are available in the Resources section of this website. Please check it out regularly as more content will be added often.


Subscribe to the Salty Believer iTunes Podcasts: Video | Audio
(Non iTunes: Video | Audio)
* While there may be some overlap, the content of the Video and Audio Podcasts are not the same. 

The Changing Landscape and The City

I was recently talking with my buddy, Pastor Sean, about changes in service and worship styles.  He was looking at it like new wine in old wine skins.  It was a great conversation!  After our lunch, my mind kept slow-churning the topic, bringing in other areas where the same thing may apply.

It occurred to me that as the church moves into the future, the tools are changing.  The gospel does not change, but how we engage with culture in a gospel-centric way is regularly on the move.  I can't help but think about those churches who apposed electric sound equipment.  Or how about churches who still put their sermons on cassette tape because they are apposed to upgrading to CD; or even those churches who are apposed to putting sermons on-line as podcasts or streaming audio?  How many churches still run ads in the Yellow Pages and refuse to get a website?

Today we find pastors and churches who still avoid Facebook and Twitter.  There's certainly nothing wrong with this if it's about time addiction or some other personal reason.  But if it is just to avoid the technology for the sake of avoidance, pastors are moving themselves to a back-burner with the culture.  Facebook is where many people communicate and many churches rightly view Facebook, Twitter, and other social media as the yet another marketplace of communication.  Paul took the gospel into the market place of ideas, where he could communicate.  The point is not the location but the approach.  As we follow this model, we shouldn't be afraid to use the tools around us.  Facebook, Twitter, blogs, podcasts, text-messaging, and many other technological tools should be used for the advancement of the Kingdom to the greater glory of God.

I've been looking at a tool specifically made for churches.  It's called The City.  It's not a Facebook or a Twitter or another social media vehicle.  Instead, it serves more as an administrative tool as well as a communication tool for church members and visitors.  It's over the internet and intended to make church work easier.  It's certainly not the traditional database system and I can imaging that some church are probably apposed to this kind of tool.  Here's a overview:  

I'm amazed by the tools available to the Church today.  We are indeed blessed.  Sure, there have been advances in technology in the past--just image the excitement over the microphone and amplification systems when that was new technology?  (And the excitement still exists in this area because I witnessed great joy in the previously mentioned pastor when our church upgraded to a new soundboard.  He's the worship leader; of course he'd be excited!) But we should see the rate of advancement today as something of a blessing.  Even now, I'm looking at G+ and how that may serve as another marketplace of communication.  Yes, at times it's daunting to keep up, but just think of the great need to advance the gospel and reach the culture wherever it may be.

If you're on The City, I'd love to hear your thoughts about it.  Good, bad?  Pros, cons?  Let's chat.

Mission Field: Utah

After a trip to New Mexico, I've been reflecting on what it is to be a Christian in Utah.  I've captured some of these thoughts about missionary work and church planting in this short cell-phone video:

As I've already stated, the above video was made on my cell phone. It was posted via free services, and embedded on this website. It was created by a production team of one.  (I held the camera, shot the video, wrote the content as I was shooting, and edited the footage.)  Most churches in Utah don't have amazing resources to make videos like churches in other parts of the country.  And if we are to be really honest, there are some church video production teams that have much bigger budgets than the total annual budgets of most churches in Salt Lake.  However, that shouldn't stop us in Utah from trying to reach our communities, to include those who first seek us out on-line. 

I bring this up because I keep hearing about one or two week mission trips to exotic, far-off lands.  There is nothing wrong with these missions if the intentions are rooted in the right place.  I wonder, however, how many of those people would be excited to come on a mission trip to Utah?  I'm curious how many churches would be thrilled to support a church plant in Salt Lake, Provo, or Logan.  How many churches are willing to fund a college campus missionary or church planting pastor?  How many big churches would be willing to give just 1 or 2% of their budgets to support the harvesters in the much dryer parts of the vineyard?  Even if it is Utah. . . .

Not too long ago, I was blessed with the opportunity to take lunches to a bunch of kids from California, New Mexico, and elsewhere who came for World Changers.  They came to put roofs on houses and care for the less fortunate in my town.  They came to be missionaries to Utah.  They came to help us out here.  And while it wasn't sexy or exotic, it was ministry.  They prayed with families and we joined them.  They were the hands and feet of Jesus here, for all the right reasons.

Utah is a mission field.  While Utah has a very high rate of people who regularly attend a religious service, only 3.3% of them attend one that is Christian, according to ARDA. (By Christian, I mean those who hold to a trinitarian view of the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit; believe that salvation is by grace alone, and confirm that the 66 books of the Bible are the Word of God and the only source of scriptural divine authority.)  Compare that to Texas at 32.2% or Alabama at 50.4%.  The national average is 23.5%.  Utah County, which includes the city of Provo records only 0.82% Christians and there are three counties in Utah that are so low they are statistically reported at 0%.  If Utah were its own nation, the number of Christians per capita would rank below China (8.2%), and the United Arab Emirates (12.6%).

Therefore, it is my hope that churches will recognize Utah as a mission field.  Nobody has to eat bugs, there is a great airport, and there's hardly any language barrier.  The cost to come to Utah is significantly less expensive than flying overseas and there's no passport required.  Send your missionaries and church planters.  Send resources and support.  And please, be praying for Utah.

This video and others like it are available in the Resources section of this website. Please check it out regularly as more content will be added often.

Subscribe to the Salty Believer iTunes Podcasts: Video | Audio
(Non iTunes: Video | Audio)
* While there may be some overlap, the content of the Video and Audio Podcasts are not the same. 

Southern Rockies Discipleship Camp 2011

This year I was blessed with the opportunity to serve as Camp Pastor for the 2011 Southern Rockies Discipleship Camp.  Lisa and I sent our boys to grandma's house in Boise and launched what would eventually be a 1,700-mile round-trip adventure to the El Porvenir Christian Camp in New Mexico in order to minister and pastor 98 junior and high school-aged campers and 16 staff.  I was responsible for preaching 7 nights of sermons while Lisa's duties included inspecting the cabins.  But as it turns out, we did so much more.  And God's hand in teaching and growing us far surpassed our expectations.

After spending the day driving south to New Mexico, we stopped at the Glorieta Conference Center to spend the night.  We really didn't know what to expected and we certainly were not ready for what we found.  Glorieta is an enormous campus and there was a huge youth camp in full swing when we arrived. Coming from Utah, where there are very few Christians, we were somewhat overwhelmed.  "I've entered another universe," Lisa expressed as she exited the car.  I struggled to count the number of vans with "First Baptist Church" painted on the sides. The vans and their corresponding passengers had come from cities all over the United States.   

The next morning we packed and headed up into the mountains.  The camp was a great little destination on the side of a hill.  About 1/2 mile from our main gathering place (at the dining facility) was Lisa's and my little isolated cabin.  It sits atop a rock bluff with a back patio overlooking a small pond and stream.

Many of the youth that came to this particular camp come year after year; and in order to come, they've had to accomplish some Awana related tasks even though the camp is not officially associated with the Awana program. As the campers were arriving, it quickly became clear to me that this was a great group of young men and women.  It also became apparent that I would be doing far more than preaching each night.

The days started at 6:30am when some of the counselors and staff would meet to pray for day's work and for specific needs of the youth.  The days would end around 10:00pm when Lisa and I would finally return to the cabin to process that day's activities and doze off to a comatose state.  In between, we would sit and chat with campers at meals.  We counseled with the campers and even some of the counselors.  Lisa would inspect the cabins and pick daily winners.  We played games with the campers.  I offered a George Paton-style call to Christian arms on "Millitary Appreciation Day," which was outside my comfort zone as I played a character; however, it was rather fun and served as another opportunity to talk about Jesus with the campers.  Mid-week, I developed an object-lesson teaching opportunity and team building exercise for three days that culminated in a campers verses counselors paintball match (resulting in the camp pastor looking like a polka-dotted mess of welts).  I also participated in a three-day mortification of sin project with the JV Men and their counselors.  The result was a powerful experience that I pray was taken home with the guys and will be remembered for a long time to come.

Lisa and I spent lots of time in prayer with the campers.  When we weren't praying or counseling, we were just hanging out with them, getting to know them.  Oh, and I preached for 30 to 40 minutes each night. (It's my hope that the sermons will be available on this website soon.)  The days were long, but were well worth it.

On the first night, I set the stage for camp.  The camp was to be seen like a mountain top experience.  Like James, John, and Peter who were invited to see Jesus' glory on the mountain during his transfiguration, we too were seeking to see Jesus' glory.  But we also recognized that life is lived in the valley, so the remainder of the time at camp was used to prepare and equip us for life after descending the mountain. I pray it was well received.

Interestingly, God used this camp experience to shape and mold Lisa and I.  Dare I say we were even rebuked a bit.  Before camp, I was unsure of the extent of which I am capable of working with youth.  Could I connect, teach, and foster growth in young people?  But after this camp, I realize that not only can I work with youth, but that I love working with youth!  I was also able to preach with no seminary class grading constraints.  Through others, I've learned that I'm somewhat gifted in this area (and thank God for that because there was more than one night when I had less than an hour to prepare!)  I actually enjoyed preaching and I was surprised how few notes I needed--on two nights I was blessed with the ability to use no notes what-so-ever.  On another night, the clock stopped five minutes after I started and not realizing it, I stretched my sermon out for twice as long as the sermon should have been and nobody noticed I was stretching.  I also was able to get right down in the dirt to minister to young people and adults alike.  I can think of no other thing in my life I would rather do than serve God ministering to his people!

And one more thing came about at this camp.  Lisa, who has been extremely supportive of my calling has herself been called of by God.  She and I now realize the magnitude of our service together, as a team and she is an outstanding support to me and an amazing minister to women.

The camp calendar for a the next few years already has camp pastors lined up, so at this point, it seems unlikely I will have the opportunity to return for some time to come.  I certainly would like to, but I trust that the Shepherd will lead me on the path of his choosing, and I will follow.  That being said, I would love to return to the camp in the future and I hope it's somewhere along the path.  And I truly hope I see some of these young men and women doing big things in the future because they are loved by an amazing God.


To the SRDC 2011 campers and staff:  I can't thank you enough for how much and in how many ways you supported and blessed Lisa and I.  It was a blessing to be your pastor for the week.  Thank you!  And as you walk in the valley be sure to listen for the Shepherd's voice. . . and then say "baaaa."  -- God bless,  Pastor C.

Where and When Did John Write John?

In understanding where and when John wrote his Gospel, it is first significant to understand his purpose. After writing about Jesus’ death, John writes, “He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe” (John 19:35, ESV). Regardless of the debate over the identity of this witness, it is clear that John is giving the account so the reader comes to believe. Believes what is the question? One logical conclusion is so that one believes that Jesus was actually killed and in the manor described, and also so one believes that the events were a fulfillment of Scripture. But John is much more direct roughly 700 words later when he writes, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book, but these are written so that you my believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:30-31, ESV). Not only is John writing so his readers may believe that Jesus is the Christ and Son of God, he is writing so that through that believe, they will have life. John’s purpose is clearly evangelistic.

There is much debate surrounding the date and location where John penned his book; however, I argue that while there is value in understanding a general date period of authorship (especially in academia), knowing the exact place does little more to change the content of the book then knowing that Hemmingway authored For Whom the Bell Tolls from a hotel room in Ketchum, Idaho. That being said, Köstenberger is content with Irenaus’s statement supporting that John published his Gospel while in Ephesus (1999, 25). This is the traditional view but Carson is quick to point out that there is debate around this view (2005, 254). There could be value in understanding what was going on around John at the time of the writing, but so little is known with certainty that much of this is speculation and there is little in the Gospel itself that seems to be addressing only local issues.

The time of authorship is more significant than the location. How much time had passed between the events themselves and the recording of them? Had some of Jesus prophetic words already come to pass or were they yet to be fulfilled at the time John was writing? The destruction of the temple is among the most significant examples. In addition, how much time did John had to reflect on the life of Jesus? And if one holds a very late date of authorship, then the question of authorship becomes even more significant. A wide variety of positions are argued for date, but Carson points out that “almost any date between about AD 55 and AD 95 is possible” (1991, 82). However, I find Carson’s argument convincing and am in agreement with him on a tentative date right around AD 80.

While date and place and providence are interesting and very useful for study, it is difficult to believe that John wrote his Gospel with this end result in mind. In addition, there is a divine author that must also be considered. The document is timeless and its purpose serves just as much today as it did the moment it was written—so that readers may believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that belief in him offers life in his name. One seeking to understand God should be able to find him in the pages of the book of John. And reading John should (at a minimum) challenge one who does not know God or understand who Jesus is. This is likely why John seems to be the most popular single book of the Bible given out as supporting material in evangelistic efforts. The wonderful thing about the book of John is that readers today should have some ability to approach the book just as readers in the late first century did. The only difference might be the type and color of the baggage one brings with him on the journey through John’s claim that Jesus is who he claims he is.

___
Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991.
Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2005.
Köstenberger, Andreas J. Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective. Encountering biblical studies. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2002.
*Picture of "Altarpiece of John the Evangelist" by Hans Burgkmair der Ältere is in the public domain.