Kick-Starting Your Prayers

Prayer is a necessary part of the joyous and full Christian life.  Jesus taught his disciples how to pray (Matthew 6:5-13) and we see Jesus praying often--maybe most intensely in the Garden of Gethsemane.  It is the act of talking with God and the Bible records many men and women praying.  (Some of those prayers are even written down.)

God wants us to talk with him often, always in fact (Luke 18:1, Acts 10:2, 1 Thessalonians 5:17, and 1 Timothy 2:8 for example). Yet, many Christians find themselves in seasons where it is difficult to pray.  As surprising as that may sound, it might be a result of unresolved spiritual conviction but it could also be due to a lack to a strong understanding of prayer or a lifestyle of habitual prayer.  The best way to work through spiritual conviction, especially that of unconfessed or hidden sin, is to pray!  And the best way to develop a better understanding of prayer comes through studying the Bible and engaging in a regular routine of prayer.  Regular prayer is about a submissive attitude, faith, and habit and there are seasons where these things don't come easy. 

One tool I've found to help me in my prayer time is a prayer book.  No, this is not a journal, nor is it a Puritan book of pre-written prayers, although both of these things are good.  (When it comes to journaling,  I've often struggled to write my down prayers, and I would almost never look back to review my prayers at a later date.  This is not to say that journaling is bad, it's just not something I personally do well or find as useful.)    

Instead, I have a prayer book that serves as a kick-starter for my prayers.  It's a reminder and makes it easy to pray in dry seasons (and when I haven't yet fully woken up with a good cup of coffee).  Here's how I've organized my prayer book, but if you're going to use a prayer book, your book really aught to be customized to your needs and preferences.  You really need to make it your own.

On the opening page of my book, I've written 2 Corinthians 10:4, as a personal reminder of the importance of prayer.  There are many passages that could serve as a reminder, but this one was on my mind when I made my most recent prayer book.

The first section of my prayer book is a list of lost people who I pray for often.  My list has grown ever sense reading Concentric Circles of Concern by Dr. Oscar Thompson so I typically pray for 10 to 15 people by name each day.  The list however, helps me remember lost people to pray for and keeps them in front of me and on my heart.  It is also a place where I can add the names of new people I meet who are in desperate need of Christ.  (At it's thrilling when I can cross a person's name off on this list because they become found!)  I've also written some scriptures in this section that serve as an encouragement to me.  They remind me that God cares more than I do and they help shape my thinking about the importance of praying for the lost, which is why they are penned in the first section of my book.

The next section is pages of scriptural passages that I like and often pray through.  Many of them serve as an encouragement but some are the prayers of others written in the Bible that I have found  particular significant in my own life.  Many are from the Psalms, but not all.

The next section opens with some Scripture that moves me, followed by some simple one-line prayers that I could (and should) pray for the rest of my life.  They are prayers of thanksgiving, praise, worship, and life-long petitions such as a request for wisdom as outlined in James 1:5.

The final section in my prayer book is a list of all the praises, thanksgiving, and petitions that are more timely.  These include the many intersessions for my family, church, and many others.  I have the names of our church's community group leaders, lists of friends, other pastors laboring all around the world for the gospel, special projects, and the specific requests made by others.  I also have many of my own prayer needs and praises written in this section.  I put a date by all the listings.  When I cross them off, I date them again and write a brief explanation of why I'm crossing the item off.  For example, I'm praying regularly for a young woman who has embarked on a year-long mission trip around the world.  When she returns safely, I'll cross off that prayer item and praise God for his provisions.

My book has pages and pages of people, praises, petitions, Scriptures, thoughts, and other things I can be talking with God about.  It also has lots of blank pages for more to be added.  I don't have to pray for everything in the book but it's nice to have the tool to prime the pump when I feel like I'm praying on empty.  It's interesting just how quickly my prayers start flowing without the book only a short time after I get started by using the book.  It's also worth noting that this book has greatly helped me form a more regular habit of personal prayer.

Here's a short video with a little more info about my little prayer book and how one may help you in your prayer life:

If you'd like to start a prayer book, it's easy.  All you need to get started is some kind of notebook and a pen. Then start praying!

*'Child at Prayer' by Eastman Johnson, circa 1873 is in the public domain. 

Difficult Matters for the Church

We recently concluded a Salt Believer Unscripted podcast series called "Difficult Matters for the Church."  Sean Patrick, Tina Pelton, Adam Madden, Jason Benson, and an interned named Ben Pierce joined Jared Jenkins and I as we set out to allow the listener to eavesdrop into our conversations on these topics.  If you haven't subscribed to the iTunes feed or you missed this series, you can subscribe here or listen to past episodes below.

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.   


-- Difficult Matters for the Church -- Introduction audio
-- Difficult Matters for the Church -- Same-sex Marriage audio
-- Difficult Matters for the Church -- Divorce audio
-- Difficult Matters for the Church -- Church Discipline (Part I) audio
-- Difficult Matters for the Church -- Church Discipline (Part II) auido  
-- Difficult Matters for the Church -- Social Justice audio
-- Difficult Matters for the Church -- The Para-Church audio 
-- Difficult Matters for the Church -- Politics audio
-- Difficult Matters for the Church -- Liberalism audio 
-- Difficult Matters for the Church -- Roles of the Sexes  audio
-- Difficult Matters for the Church -- Women in Ministry audio 
-- Difficult Matters for the Church -- Mormonism audio

* Photo by Dirk Klein is registered under a creative commons license and used by permission.

No Sex Outside of Marriage, Really?

In our society, especially in the West, sex is a really big deal.  It seems to define many relationships, although it is usually the act of sex that is important rather than the relationship itself.  But the Bible says the relationship comes first and places an extremely high view of marriage. Some however, have a difficult time seeing marriage for what it is; and others  even say that as long as the couple is monogamous, it doesn't matter if they are married.

Genesis 2:23-25 shows us a picture of the ideal and it looks fairly different than the arguments of society.  God provides the ideal and principle for marriage, even calling the woman the man’s “wife.”  This first marriage is a union far superior than simply a sex act.

As we read further in the Old Testament, we find many positive instances of man and women being joined in marriage and then they have sex.  Sex comes as a result of marriage, not a precursor to it. We also see many negative instances of men having sex with women whom they are not married to. The former is written about positively and the latter is viewed negatively and sinful.

However, it is the New Testament epistles that provide the clearest instruction on this matter for Christians today.

1 Corinthians 7:1-5 demonstrates that sex apart from one in a covenant relationship with his or her spouse is wrong. The idea is that because people cannot control themselves outside of marriage (and it would likely prove too difficult to abstain entirely as it seems the Corinthians may have inquired of Paul), a man should have a wife and a woman a husband so they can fulfill their passions in a moral way rather than in a way that is sexually immoral.  If a husband or wife is required to have moral sex, than a marriage must be required to have husband or wife.  A monogamous sex partner is simply not enough.  The wedding, not sex, that is the process of making the covenant. Sex is the consummation of the covenant as seen repeatedly in the Old Testament.

Hebrews 13:4 says that the marriage bed should not be defiled but honored. God judges the sexually immoral and adulterers. Adultery is not only defined by cheating on someone, but sex outside of marriage. And given the picture of the great love between a man and wife in the Song of Solomon, it would seem that sexual immorality would be more about those having sex outside of the loving, caring, consensual, beautiful, God honoring marriage.  The act of sex is not the thing that honors God, but the marital relationship itself. And within this marital relationship, sex can honor God as well.  Outside of a marriage bed, sex is a defiling act.

It must also be noted that God repeatedly condemns sexual immorality and both Hebrews 13:4 and 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 define any sex outside of a marriage covenant as sexually immoral. (Examples of God commanding his people to remain free from sexual immorality include: Acts 15:20, 1 Corinthians 5:1, 1 Corinthians 6:13, 1 Corinthians 6:18, 1 Corinthians 10:8, 2 Corinthians 12:21, Galatians 5:19, Ephesians 5:3, Colossians 3:5, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, and Jude 7.) Therefore, sex is only acceptable to God inside the marriage covenant.

*Photo of rings taken by Flickr.com user, FotoRita and is licensed under  a creative commons license.

Hebrews Relationship with the Old Testament

INTRODUCTION

It is difficult for a student of the New Testament to miss the significance of the Old Testament. These two sections of the Canon are like two acts of a play that depend upon each other for the proper presentation of the plot, conflict, and resolution. Character development—a necessary tool for any successful play—usually spans from the first raised curtain to the final curtain call. To properly understand the conclusion, one must understand the beginning. Like the two-act play, the New Testament depends upon the foundations set in the first act, which is typically called the Old Testament. Hebrews, probably more so than any other New Testament book is a second-act book that is highly dependent upon the first act. Its author demands that the reader know the Old Testament in order to fully understand the claims made by the book.

Hebrews, written to an audience with an old covenant background, makes heavy use of the Old Testament. George Guthrie writes of the book, “Thirty-five quotations from the Greek translation of the Old Testament and thirty-four allusions work to support the development of Hebrew’s argument. In addition, the writer offers nineteen summaries of Old Testament material, and thirteen times he mentions an Old Testament name or topic, often without reference to specific context.”[1] Carson and Moo write, “[T]he author cites the Greek Old Testament as if he assumes his readers will recognize its authority.”[2] Clements believes that the original readers are “men and woman who are assumed to be fully familiar with the scriptures of the Old Testament, although they themselves are Christian.”[3] Regardless of the exact identity of the original readers (which will be discussed below), George Guthrie argues, “The author assumes his audience has an extensive knowledge of the Old Testament. Of all the writings of the New Testament, none is more saturated with overt references to the Old Testament. The author so filled his discourse with Old Testament thoughts and passages that they permeate every chapter.”[4]

The Hebrews author exhorts that the new is better than the old. “His line of approach,” according to Donald Guthrie, “was that everything in fact was better – a better sanctuary, a better priesthood, a better sacrifice, a better covenant. Indeed, he aims to show that there is a theological reason for the absence of the old ritual, glorious as it may have seemed to the Jews.”[5] And Scott contends, “The Epistle to the Hebrews clearly affirms that because the final age (‘these last days,’ Hebrews 1:2) is present, the new covenant has made the former obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear; (Hebrews 8:13).”[6] Thus, to understand the thing that is better, it seems that the reader must have some familiarity with the former.

In an effort to understand the exhortation of author of Hebrews, this post will examine the author’s of use of the Old Testament. First, a brief discussion of the potential identity of the author and the most likely original audience should serve to provide an appropriated backdrop for the author’s Old Testament usage. Once the background is set, specific passages will be explored; however, for the scope of this post, not every reference to the Old Testament will be mined for additional understanding. In concluding this post, attempts will be made to understand how dependent the book of Hebrews is upon the Old Testament. Can the key points of Hebrews be understood by a reader with no previous knowledge of the Old Testament passages cited or alluded to in Hebrews? Does Hebrews require further study of the old covenant or does the author provide enough background information that right new covenant understanding can come from the book of Hebrews alone? How should a present-day teacher or preacher approach Hebrews in light of the examination of this post?

AN AUTHOR AND HIS READERS

The author of Hebrews is a mystery. Most introductions contain convincing arguments on why the author was not likely Paul, who wrote Romans and many other Epistles, despite that P46 places Hebrews behind Romans in the Pauline corpus.[7] And it may have been an Eastern Church belief that Hebrews was associated with Paul that allowed it its inclusion in the Canon. Even with the support of Jerome and Augustine, after the forth and early fifth centuries the idea of a Pauline authorship was drawing fire.[8] Today, Carson and Moo write, “The Greek of Hebrews is more polished than that of Paul, and the consistent quality of the rhetoric is quite remarkable.”[9] Hagner points to Hebrews 2:3 as proof that Hebrews was not written by Paul because the author claims to have only second-hand knowledge of the gospel but in passages like Galatians 1:12 and 1 Corinthians 9:1, Paul claims to have learned directly from God.[10] And Davies contents, “It would be very unusual to find a modern scholar holding this view, for there are no positive reasons for it, and strong reasons against it.”[11] But if Paul is not that author, who might the author be?

Luther first proposed that Apollos might be the author. Hagner provides a case for this authorship pointing to Acts 18:24, which states that Apollos was a “learned man” and held a “thorough knowledge of the Scriptures.” And Apollos would know Timothy enough to reference his release from prison (Hebrews 13:23).[12] Tertullian supported Barnabas as the author. Hagner lists that Barnabas was a Levite and would be interested in the livitical system, he was from Cyprus, and was likely influenced by Hellenistic culture.[13] Other suggested authors include Clement of Rome, Priscilla, Jude, Philip, and Silvanus.[14] Presently however, only aspects of the author can be gleaned from the text but there is still no clear evidence—internal or external—that leaves scholars with any solid suspects.

The audience on the other hand is shrouded in slightly less mystery. From Hebrews 10:23, it is fair to assume that the author had some specific people in mind when writing his Epistle.[15] There is silence on the temple, and the Old Testament is quoted from polished Greek, leaving one to conclude that either author or the audience did not know Hebrew. The audience was either not in Jerusalem or if in Jerusalem, they were most likely Greek-speaking expatriates.[16] And while there is no clear identification of who the original audience was, Hagner argues, “the early church was very probably correct in understanding the first readers to have been Jewish Christians. The vast majority of modern scholars have agreed with this conclusion from analysis of the content of the book.”[17]

EXAMINING THE OLD TESTAMENT IN HEBREWS

As one tries to understand how the Hebrews author uses the Old Testament, one must first ask how the author viewed the Old Testament. Yisa believes that the author was not arguing against the Old Testament, but rather building upon his position with a strong trust and understanding of the Old Testament. He writes, “At surface level, it may seem that the author of Hebrews uses the Old Testament in an allegorical and fanciful way. However, that is far from the truth. A closer examination of the book proves that the author shared the Jewish and early Christian presuppositions and exegetical principles of the literal and natural sense of the text, a high view of Scripture, and the divine inspiration of the Old Testament as the Word of God.”[18] Like Yisak who essentially argues that the author of Hebrews holds to a Christocentric hermeneutic, Hagner writes, “Christ is seen to be the key to the real meaning of the OT as it can now be understood in this era of fulfillment. From this point of view, all of the OT points directly or indirectly to Christ, who is by definition the telos (goal) of God’s saving purpose.”[19] And Yisak rightly points out, “[The author] intended to teach that Jesus is the unifying factor of Scriptures.”[20]

Also worth noting is the source (or sources) from where the author drew his information. “In quotations,” writes Hanger, “the author regularly follows the Greek (LXX) rather than the Hebrew (or Masoretic) text that has come down to us.”[21] Bruce identifies two Greek texts that are in agreement with the author’s quotations (Alexandrinus and Vaticanus), but twice as many quotes are in agreement with Alexandrinus than Vaticanus. Interestingly, some of the quotations agree with neither.[22] Bruce explains, “[The author] may have selected his variants (where he knew more readings than one) for interpretational suitability. These variants were sometimes borrowed from the other parts of the Greek Bible or from Philo, but appear for the most part to have been introduced on his own responsibility. It has been argued on the basis of his use of certain Old Testament quotations that he was familiar with the interpretations of Philo and used some quotations in such a way as to counter these interpretations.”[23] And it may even be argued (as Bruce does) that the author of Hebrews actually influenced other Greek texts.[24]

From the broad background, this post will now adjust the attention to some specific Old Testament passages found in Hebrews. One way to outline Hebrews by major themes is to look at Chapters 1-10 as an argument that Christ is superior. In nearly every case, the inferior items are something argued from the Old Testament. Christ is superior to angels, Moses, the previous priesthood, the previous sacrifices, and even the entire old covenant. The remaining three chapters are centered upon the necessity and superiority of faith. To understand the thing that is better there is a necessity to understand the previous thing, and the author often reminds his readers of the Old Testament to make his case. Examining the book of Hebrews in this fashion will not give equal treatment to every Old Testament quote and allusion found in Hebrews, and in fact, some quotations will be neglected all together; however, this approach should provide enough examples to support the thesis of this post.

Christ is superior to the angels. The book of Hebrews wastes no time with an introductory opening and is quickly arguing that Jesus is superior to the angels. To make this argument, the author appeals to Deuteronomy 32:43, 2 Samuel 7:14, Psalm 2:7, Psalm 45:6-7, Psalm 102:25-27, and Psalm 110:1. Most of the entire first chapter is actually comprised of Old Testament quotes. Davies points out that all the Scripture appealed to in this specific argument is ascribed to God as the speaker, showing the author’s belief of divine authorship of the quoted passages.[25] Also worth noting is how short many of the quotations are. Most of them are one sentence, and of those, the first four quotes are rather short sentences. It is as if they are to serve as merely a reminder rather that a first-time presentation of the material. And the reader must already trust these statements as God’s Word, that is, divine Scripture, or there is no value in using the passages to support the argument for Christ.

Christ is superior to Moses. In Chapter 3, the author compares Jesus to Moses, saying, “For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses […].”[26] And while the author provides a little glimpse of who Moses was in verse 5 when he says, “Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a servant,” he provides very little about Moses the character. It is as if the reader must already be aware of Moses or the author wants to the reader to do some research. In providing commentary on this passage, Bruce discusses aspects of the golden calf, the relationship with Aaron, and even the unfavorable report from spies.[27] None of this is mentioned in the Hebrews passage, but Bruce seems to feel the need to express it to explain the comparison. Guthrie feels that he must do the same thing in order to explain the rebellion in verse 8.[28] In order to see a complete picture of Moses, one must read the Old Testament, and it seems the author understood this and expected it of his readers, just as Bruce, Guthrie and many others have done.

Christ is superior to the Old Testament priesthood. Much like the author’s argument about Jesus’ superiority to Moses, he also argues that Jesus is superior to any present priesthood system. This argument spans from the tail end of Chapter 4 through Chapter 7 with some minor breaks. For this argument, the author specifically only quotes Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:4, but he alludes to the order of the Melchizedek priesthood and even of the high priest system that his readers would likely be familiar with. But unlike the Moses argument, the author provides some background on the mysterious person called Melchizedek. It is as if he expects the readers to be slightly less informed of Melchizedek—maybe aware of the person but not the magnitude of meaning wrapped up in him— because Hebrews 7:1-10 offers an explanation of who Melchizedek was before the author compares Melchizedek and Jesus. One might point out that the author of Hebrews provides enough information that the reader may not need to do additional research to understand the comparison, and this is a valid observation. This demonstrates the author’s awareness of his original audience and his awareness of the common understanding of Moses compared to that of Melchizedek. When likened to the author’s treatment of Moses, there is an indication the author must teach where necessary but depend upon the audience’s knowledge of the Old Testament where he can afford to do so.

Christ is superior to the old covenant. In making the argument that Christ as the new covenant is better than the old covenant, the author appeals briefly to Exodus 25:40 and extensively to Jeremiah 31:31-34. In appealing to Jeremiah, the author cites what might be the largest quotation from the Old Testament found in Hebrews. Hagner suggests that this citation is “of major importance to the epistle,” and “the explicit reference to the new covenant in this text makes it ideal for his purpose.”[29] This Old Testament passage is so useful in the argument in fact, that is quoted again in Hebrews 10. And just as with the previous uses of the Old Testament, little is outlined or summarized of the old covenant. It seems that the original readers must already hold some understanding of the old covenant, or at least the author assumed they did. And there must be some foundational information the author is assuming because the author is making an appeal that Jesus is better than the thing the reader already knows. What is different here compared to previous passages is that the author is using the Old Testament to demonstrate that the new covenant is actually spoken of in the Old Testament. The new covenant is actually inline with previous writings and the author wants his readers to see what they may have missed.

Christ is superior than the old sacrifices. In Chapter 10, the author argues that Christ is the ultimate sacrifice and writes, “Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.”[30] Like the argument about the better covenant the author is using the Old Testament to demonstrate that his point has already been made in the Old Testament. The readers should have seen the perfect and final sacrifice in Jesus. In this section, the author turns to Psalm 40:6-8 and again to Jeremiah 31:33-34. Here, the Old Testament supports the displeasure of the old sacrifices and then commentary is offered by the author. He states, “[E]very priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.”[31] The author finds not only support in the Old Testament, which is treated as if spoken by God, but also boldness from within God’s Word.

So great a cloud of witnesses. The latter portion of the book of Hebrews argues for the superiority of faith. While many Old Testament allusions and quotations may be examined here, the cloud of witnesses proves most interesting. In a single chapter, the author uses 16 characters from the Old Testament as examples of 14 faithful men and two faithful women. This “great cloud of witnesses” includes Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, and Samuel.[32] Some background is provided for some of these figures, but hardly more than a sentence. And Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, and Samuel are lumped together in the explanation. Clearly, the author believes his readers know who these individuals were and need only a simple reminder. But to get a better understanding, the reader could consult Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Chronicles, and Ruth, where the accounts and writings of these individuals are found within the Old Testament. The author also includes many unnamed people who have suffered and then he said of them, “And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.”[33] With the exception of the unnamed and more recent faithful witnesses, it is almost a requirement for one to know at least some of the names listed if one is to truly understand the better thing that God has in store. After all, how can one understand the thing that is better without first seeing the thing it is compared to?

CONCLUSION

John Patrick’s stage play, “The Hasty Heart” (1945), takes place in a World War II allied field hospital. In Act I, the hospital patients learn that a Scotsman named Corporal Lachlan "Lachie" MacLachlan is being transferred to the spare bed in their recovery area. Lachie sustained a wound to his kidney and had to have it removed; however, his other kidney is not functioning properly and within about four weeks, Lachie will die of the toxins in his own unfiltered blood. He has no family and he is a bitter, angry man. The commander in charge of the hospital felt that it would be best if Lachie did not know of his condition. While he informed the other patients in the hospital, he asked them to keep it a secret. He also asked the patients and floor nurse to befriend this lonely transfer patient in an effort to improve the quality of his short remaining life. The drama that unfolds shares a remarkable story of the condition of the heart. However, if a theatergoer were to enter and find her seat at intermission between the first and second acts, there is almost no way she would understand the activities playing out before her. In many ways, the play would make no sense. While many things could be learned about Lachie, Yank, and Sister Parker, the overarching plot and conflict would be rather hazy at best. The development of the characters would be only half the story. The same is true of many New Testament books, most especially the book of Hebrews.

As much as the author of Hebrews depends on the specific Old Testament passages, he depends even more upon the reader’s understanding of the scrolls from where those quotes were drawn. Like a playwright, the author is expressing the second act of a two-act play. This is where the conflict is resolved, the plot is concluded, and the character’s development is show to its full capacity.

Hebrews teaches the world much about Jesus; but if the student of the book is to gain the understanding the author intended, it is almost demanded of the student to turn back a few pages and examine the Old Testament. The student must see to what the author is alluding. He or she must observe what was before so there is a solid understand of what is better. In most cases, the author does not provide enough of a summary. The original readers were most likely Jewish Christians and it is assumed that they had the background knowledge of the material. This may not always be the case for modern-day readers; which is why pastors and teachers should be prepared to provide the summary that most students need in order to gain the two-act understanding.

Reading Hebrews a number of times and even studying the Old Testament verses will not fully plum the depths of this rich book. In its pages there is much to be learned, applied, and lived. There is an amazing Savior to be loved. Many commentaries provide additional insight into the author’s use of the Old Testament and these may serve as additional material for further study. However, it is the recommendation of this author that further study consist of starting with Hebrews 1:1 and reading line by line. At any point a quote or allusion to the Old Testament is presented, place a bookmark in Hebrews and explore the passage from where the quote came. Once the Old Testament passage has been read and studied to the point that a good understanding is achieved, turn back to Hebrews and continue where the reading left off. When the end of the book is reached, try it again and see what was not seen the first time. Chances are, this will take years and the journey will move the reader through much of the Old Testament. But the reward will be well worth the journey. It is the prayer of this author that this post is not where the investigation ends, but rather, this post has only served as an appetizer to such a rich reading of the book of Hebrews and even of the Old Testament upon which Hebrews depends.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews (Revised). The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans Publishing, 1990.

Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2005.

Clements, Ronald E. "The use of the Old Testament in Hebrews." Southwestern Journal of Theology 28, no. 1 (September 1, 1985): 36-45. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2011).

Davies, J. H. A Letter to Hebrews. The Cambridge Bible Commentary. London, Engl: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

Guthrie, Donald. Hebrews. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, Illi: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983.

Guthrie, George. Hebrews. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zonderan, 1998.

Hanger, Donald A. Hebrews. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1990.

Scott, Julius, J., Jr. Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 1995

Yisak, Suru. “The use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: Understanding the interpretive method of the writer of Hebrews.” Th.M. diss., (2007) Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dissertations & Theses: Full Text [database on-line]. http://www.proquest.com (publication number AAT 1450952; accessed April 24, 2011).

END NOTES

1 George Guthrie, Hebrews, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 1998), 19.

2 D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2005), 610.

3 Ronald E. Clements, "The use of the Old Testament in Hebrews" (Southwestern Journal of Theology 28, no. 1, September 1, 1985: 36-45, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost) [accessed April 23, 2011], 36.

4 Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, Illi: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983), 19.

5 Guthrie, Hebrews, 1998, 32-33.

6 J. Julius Scott Jr. Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament (Grand Rapid, Mich: Baker Academic, 1995), 327.

7 Carson, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2005, 600.

8 Donald A. Hanger, Hebrews, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, Mass: Henderickson Publishers, 1990), 8-9.

9 Carson, An introduction to the New Testament, 2005, 601.

10 Hagner, Hebrews, 1990, 9.

11 J. H. Davies, A Letter to Hebrews, The Cambridge Bible Commentary (London, Engl: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 10.

12 Hagner, Hebrews, 1990, 10.

13 Ibid.

14 Guthrie, Hebrews, 1998, 23.

15 Carson, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2005, 608.

16 Ibid.

17 Hagner, Hebrews, 1990, 2.

18 Suru Yisak, “The use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: Understanding the interpretive method of the writer of Hebrews,” Th.M. diss., 2007 (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dissertations & Theses: Full Text [database on-line. http://www.proquest.com, publication number AAT 1450952; accessed April 24, 2011), 83.

19 Hagner, Hebrews, 1990, 15.

20 Yisak, 2007, 62.

21 Hanger, Hebrews, 1990, 15.

22 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Revised), The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans Publishing, 1990), 26.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid., 27

25 Davies, A Letter to Hebrews, 1967, 22.

26 Hebrews 3:3a.

27 F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1990, 91-92.

28 Guthrie, Hebrews, 1983, 102-104.

29 Hanger, Hebrews, 1990, 122.

30 Hebrews 10:18.

31 Hebrews 10:11.

32 Hebrews 12:1.

33 Hebrews 11:39-40.


*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.

Jehovah and the Tetragrammaton

I've not retained as much knowledge of the Hebrew language as I would have liked, and I'm sure I don't represent Dr. Ronald Giese's teaching by forgetting so much.  (Sorry Dr. Giese!) However, I do distinctly remember something from one of his lectures that I think will stay with me forever.  The following discussion is a summary of that lecture.

There are four verses in the King James translation of the Bible where the name JEHOVAH appears (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; and Isaiah 26:4).  The 1901 American Standard Version (ASV) contains 5,761 references of this name and the uses of it in a few other older English translations look much the same.  Who is JEHOVAH and why does this name not appear in most other translations? 

To get to the answer, we need to take a brief stroll through some textual history as well as the history of the personal name of God.

The Hebrew language is one controlled and shaped by the spoken word, unlike English that's driven by the written word.  This generally means that how a word is spoken is how it is written.  In the days of the writing of the original Old Testament manuscripts (originally written in Hebrew) everything was handwritten and both the ink to write with as well as the materials to write upon were scarce.  So the Hebrew words didn't contain as many vowels as one might think.  This wasn't too much of a problem because those who could read and speak the language new how to pronounce the words. But as time passed, the language began to be lost.

As the Hebrew language was disappearing some 7th, 8th, and 9th Century AD Jewish scribes called the Masoretes decided to help preserve the pronunciation of the written text.  They held such a reverence to God's Word however, that they did not want to do anything that could be construed as adding to the text.   Therefore, they came up with a system of dots and dashes above and below the letters that would serve like a road map for pronunciation.  In a way, these markings serve like vowels.  The Mesoretic Text or the Mesorah as it is often called is still used and appreciated to this day.

When the Masorites came across the tetragrammaton they had a decision to make.  The tetragrammaton is the four letter indication for the name so holly that the Jews do not even say it.  It's the name less the vowels.  When the Jews came across it in the text, they would mentally change it and simply say "The Name."  In English this name is YHWH. 

Here is the tetragrammaton in Hebrew:

 The Masorites were concerned that readers may accidentally (or intentionally) read and say this holy personal name of God, even with the vowels missing that they decided to monkey it up even more so it would be unspeakable.   So they enlisted the help of the Hebrew word adonai, the proper noun for Lord.  Here's how it looks:

Pay special attention to the Mesoretic markings for the word adonai.  I'll highlight them:

 They then took the marking for adonai and placed them where they really don't fit--in the tetragrammaton.  Have a look (I had a bit of a font problem so they don't line up perfectly.  Actually, they are monkeyed up and have been ever since updating to a new Mac OS.):

The problem here is that the sound that makes the "a" sound under the letter yod (at the far right) was still pronounceable and too close to the start of the sound Yahweh.  (Remember, the Hebrew reads right to left.)  So they made another change.  They changed the compound sheva into a regular sheva so the sound shifted from an "a" sound to more of a gruntish "e" sound.  Here's how that change looked (yep, the pointing is still messed up, so you Hebrew guys are probably going nuts right now):

Now the word was really goofed up so the reader would see it and be unable to pronounce it--resulting in the holy name being protected. 

But now lets say Germans and Englishmen are trying to translate this monkeyed up tetragrammaton into English.  Even today there is a funny Y-J translation issue and the same was true when early translations like the King James were in the works.  In their best efforts, they came up with the word, "Jehovah."  It's not actually a real word.  Now rather than the name being preserved and unspoken, it had become something warped and freely spoken.  Other translations followed the pattern for a while.  The truth however, is that Jehovah is by no means the personal name of God.  To the best of our knowledge we can say (in the Hebrew) that YHWH is God's personal name and we think it is pronounced as likeYahweh.

Today many Bible translations still make an effort to preserve the tetragrammaton.  Many translations will translate it as LORD in all capital letters.  Other Hebrew words, such as adonai might be translated as Lord but it's best to refer to the introduction in your Bible to find out how the translators render these various words.

It's a little different, but here's how the tetragrammaton looks today in most Hebrew Bible printings (if it includes the Mesoretic markings at all):

The Infusion of Charity into Commercialism

I was recently at Home Depot and passed a cardboard stand full of black and camouflage work gloves.  What caught my eye was the Wounded Warrior Project logo on the display and on the gloves.  I am a fan and supporter of the Wounded Warrior Project so I stopped to check out the gloves.

The gloves run about $14 but the display says that a portion of the profits are donated to the Wounded Warrior Project.  Wow, I could get some gloves AND support this great non-profit organization, I thought for a moment.  The gloves looked sturdy enough, but probably not as durable as the gloves I normally wear.  But then it dawned on me, this is not a good move for me.  See, I typically buy $4 gloves that are very durable and rugged.  As they eventually wear out (or more true to reality get dirty and gross) I can toss them and get another pair.  The same would likely be true of the Wounded Warrior gloves.  But wait, this purchase would be doing some good for the Wounded Warrior Project and I would be able to feel good about myself. I pondered this as I stood before the display.

Still, there was something wrong with this picture.  I could buy a $14 pair of gloves and maybe $1 would go to the Wounded Warrior Project.  I'd have gloves and feel okay about doing something good.  Or I could buy a $4 pair of gloves and send $10 to the Wounded Warrior Project.  I'd still have gloves yet my support to the Wounded Warrior Project would be even greater.  Or better still, I could keep using the perfectly fine gloves I have and send $14 to the Wounded Warrior Project, or I could send them even more money.

At what point did the definition of charity or dare I say, social justice, become more about the giver and what the giver can get than about the one receiving?  Watch the video below and ponder this marriage of charity and commercialism.  Ask yourself if you've been duped.





It seems that what has happened--as with most things--is that we've somehow made doing a good thing about ourselves. Advertisers have found a way to sell coffee and shoes and yogurt and any number of other things by allowing us feel good about ourselves through making the purchase.

Even more interesting is an entire culture of people finding their identity in how they make commercial purchases.  We buy things or don't buy things because of their commitment to other things, or lack of commitment I suppose.  I realize that we vote with our dollars, but this certainly can't be where our charity resides, right?

And might the same be true in the Church.

Might we be making specific purchases because they support a charity, a social justice endeavor, or mission of some kind.  We feel good about ourselves but we allow it to end there, short of what could be better.  Maybe we go to a charity auction and pay a little more for an item than we could find it sold for elsewhere, but we justify our purchase because it helps a good cause. All the while we fail to realize that simply giving the excess money we might have spent would help the cause more, apart from buying an item we would not normally drop dollars on.  How often are we content buying coffee from a charity organization because it might just help us argue ourselves out of actually serving real people face-to-face in real life-changing ways?  (I know I'm guilty of this.)

We discussed this issue on Salty Believer Unscripted not too long ago when we were discussing the popular shift toward social justice within the Church.  You can listen to that here.

So where might we go from here?

I should confess that I didn't buy the Wounded Warrior Gloves but neither did I send them $14.  I would love to support them, among many, many other charities but I didn't have the money in my budget that day.  (Interestingly, I was willing to go short somewhere else in my budget to make a purchase that would help me feel good about myself and nothing more.)  However, as I have room in my budget, I do give to charities and non-profits; but as I think about this, it is my hope that I simply give rather than purchase commercial items that help me feel good about myself.  And I hope my giving habits grow in ways that are not about me at all.

How about instead of buying a particular brand of shoes because the shoe company will do the charity work for you, buy whatever shoes you want and give some money to a mission organization serving in Africa. Or maybe don't even buy shoes you don't need and give even more money?  Or how about saving up some money and giving it to a missionary headed to Africa?  Or how about going to Africa yourself?  And it doesn't need to be Africa.  How about finding a need wherever God is calling you--which could be as close as next door--and selflessly fill that need?  Honestly, you'll probably feel even better about yourself.  That's not really the point, but it does tend to happen.

Imagine how much more good could be done for people as God's Kingdom advances if we could think about selfless giving and service apart from commercialism.  I don't think the proclamation of the Gospel and service to the least of these was ever intended to be wed with the necessity of selling products.  

Hipsters and the Bible Belt

What is it to be a Christian?  Is this title about being part of a social club or is it something more?

Much debate centers around this question and this is not the first time this topic has been discussed at SaltyBeliever.com.  At the most basic level, the Bible teaches that the Christians of the First Century were believers of something and someone.  The Greek word Christianos appears in the New Testament three times and in all three uses it seems to mean follower or disciple of Christ (Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; and 1 Peter 4:16).  And the Bible teaches that a disciple and follower of Jesus Christ believes some specific things about Jesus, dies to self by picking up his or her cross daily, and is measured by how he or she loves others as well as by a spiritual fruit present in the believer's life.   

Yet if we travel to the Bible Belt, that is, some of the religious states in the southern portion of the US, we find lots of self-proclaimed 'Christians' who seem not to fit the definition of a disciple of Jesus.  Often they attend a local church but are absent from the Body of Christ.  There is a problem in what they believe and they often seem to turn to a moralistic-driven belief structure.  Some see them as rather judgmental.  Their religion is heavily tied to politics and one might think that their use of the title of 'Christian' is synonymous with a social club benefiting only themselves.  Clearly there is a problem here.

For years, the Bible Belt has had an impact upon much of how the evangelical church in the US functions.  The order of the worship service for example is typically three songs followed by announcements and an offering.  Another song is sung and then a pastor gets up and gives a 3-point sermon, wearing a suit of course.  Mission trips and youth programs look a specific way.  Ladies wear big hats and overweight guys rotate through their three favorite ties.  An entire Christian music and movie industry has spawned out of this 'Christian' subculture.  Christian bookstores sell trinkets and gifts found nowhere else in the world.  Coffee mugs and refrigerator magnets with out-of-context biblical passages are often discovered among this tribe.  Politicians pander to this crowd for votes. And while most of these things are not entirely bad (although sometimes very odd), being a part of this subculture is by no means the definition of what it is to be a Christian.  In fact, there are likely many non-believers among this subculture who are not a part of Christ's Kingdom, that is, they are not actually Christians but unaware imposters enjoying the culture for personal benefit and social gain. 

Enter the post-modern, post-church 'Christian' community.  This movement--often driven more out of a rejection of the Bible Belt subculture--is made up of mostly young artsy, but often jaded people.  They're the hipsters, musicians, painters, and environmentalists who feel they've evolved beyond their parent's subculture. They love social justice and reject the Christian bookstore trinkets while they marry their commercial endeavors with popular charity causes.  They seek community and authenticity in ways that look different than the communities of the Bible Belt Christian subculture. They seek a tribe that thinks alike but different than the tribe they grew up among.  Rather than a moralistic-driven belief structure, they turn to a liberty-driven system.  "Live and let live" is their motto.  But is this really much different than the subculture they reject? Might there still be many among this tribe who use the term 'Christian' in ways that only really benefit themselves?  Are there many unaware imposters among this different subculture wrongly using the title of 'Christian' for their own personal gain? It seems there is a problem here too.

Christians, through the power and calling of Jesus do indeed enter a new community, but it is a Kingdom and described like a body of all believers, a flock with Jesus as the Good Shepherd, and even as the very Bride of Christ.  These definitions don't paint much of a picture of the subcultures we see among the variety of local churches but we do see a special kind of culture.  This new culture is one of a multitude of diverse people all tied together with the thread of Jesus in their lives.  It's certainly going to be the case that local churches will have their own subcultures within the larger community of Christ, but the culture itself is not Christianity--only a byproduct of it.  And this should cause us to ask, what would our various tribes look like if they were shaped by Christ as true Christ followers rather than the subculture?   Additionally, this should also cause us to have more grace for our differences.  And finally, we must ask ourselves if we are Christians by title or by true transformation by the power of Jesus.   


*Photo of Man Painted on a Brick Wall was taken by Richie Diesterheft and is licensed under a creative commons licenses and used by permission.

Your Cell Phone and God's Call

Set your cell phone or MacBook or latest electronic gadget on the table in front of you.  Look at it closely.  Imagine you were a person from 1950 looking at your gizmo today.  An iPad might be too much for 1950-man, so lets say it's a cell phone.  What could you know about it?  It's not lit up or making noise.  It's just sitting on the table.

If you stop and think about it, you could probably deduce that the device is something that has been intentionally created; that is, it wasn't accidentally assembled after a tornado ripped through computer plant.  You might also come to the conclusion that the device did not create itself.  There was a designer or a team of designers and they probably had a plan to build the phone.  A purpose for the object was probably also something the builders had in mind.  And the simple reality that someone else built the phone should lead you to believe that the builder deserves much more credit for the phone's existence than the phone itself.  

Like your cell phone, we can think about the creation of the world in much the same way.  The technical term for this is teleological thinking.  As we look at the created world, we can see a creator.  There is order and organization and harmony and design.  All this world came from somewhere and the credit belongs to the creator.  A funny thing happens however--throughout history people look at the world and worship creation, that is, they give ultimate credit to the created things rather than the creator.  This would be like crediting the plastic power button on your phone for the phone's creation and then worshiping the power button.  Of if they don't worship a physical part of creation, they worship an idea.  It's like saying all this world came about by accident and random chance gets all the credit and worship.  But when they say this, what they are really saying is, "I know best and the object of my worship is myself because of my own ideas."  The phone aught not think of itself better than its creator, yet so many people do this regarding their own creation and their creator.  How silly.

Looking at the world and seeing a creator happens because the Creator has designed in some markers into his creation.  This called general revelation.  General revelation is, “The knowledge of God’s existence, character, and moral law, which comes through creation to all humanity. […] General revelation comes through observing nature, through seeing God’s directing influence in history, and through an inner sense of God’s existence and his laws that he has placed inside every person.”[1] (A biblical picture of general revelation is available in Romans 1:18-2:29 and Psalm 19:1-6 for example.)

God has appointed all of his creation to point back to himself.  He has placed his trademark on all he has created just as Apple has a recognized symbol on all their products.  Yet even looking at an iPhone, iPad, or iMac, you don't need the Apple icon to know the item was created by Apple.  There's just something about an Apple products that screams, "I'm made by Apple!"

Interestingly enough, general revelation can demonstrate our sinful ways.  We can see that we've misplaced our worship and that's called idolatry.  Romans 1:16-2:11 provides a solid explanation that man is without excuse--we should know and believe that there is a God apart from creation and we are not that God.  In the book of Acts, the Apostles Barnabas and Paul go into Lystra to proclaim the good news of Christ.  The people there are so amazed, they begin worshiping Barnabas and Paul.  The Apostles respond by showing the people that they themselves are simply parts of the creation and not the Creator.  They go on to say that God has not left himself without a witness because his trademark is on his creation but that they should also listen to the message God has sent them to share. 

God uses the pinnacle of his creation, man, to share the good news of salvation found only through Christ.  This is what Barnabas and Paul were doing.  This is kind of like what the manufacturer of your cell phone does with press releases.  People stand up and tell you about the product and the manufacturer.  Even if you were not at the original press release meeting, you may learn of this information because someone wrote it down.  God has even commissioned his people to tell his story (and he appointed others to write it down).  The most famous of these instructions is found at the end of Matthew 28.  This telling of God's story is called special revelation and the instruction in Matthew 28:16-21 is called the Great Commission. 

Special revelation is, “God’s words addressed to specific people, such as the words of the Bible, the words of the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament apostles, and the words of God spoken in personal address, such as a Mount Sinai or the baptism of Jesus.”[2]

Now again imagine you are looking at your cell phone and it's an Apple product.  A guy walks up and says, "That phone is an Apple iPhone, designed by Steve Jobs."  You can choose to believe the guy or not.  God had many of his people telling the world about himself.  They were often called prophets in the Old Testament.  They told people about God and they themselves served as a mechanism for God's special revelation.  They often wrote stuff down too.  But the people rejected them and sometimes even killed them.

Now imagine that after the cell phone guy walks away, another man shows up.  While he's standing there the phone rings.  You answer it and the voice on the other end says "My name is Steve Jobs.  I created the phone you are holding in your hand."  You look up and the man speaking to you over the phone is the same man standing before you in person.  Again, you could believe or not. 

God has done this too when he said of Jesus at his baptism, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:15.)   You to have a choice.  Look at the world like you looked at your cell phone.  That's God's general revelation speaking to you.  Then open the Bible or talk with Christians telling God's story.  That's God's special revelation and he's speaking to you!



_____
1. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 1994), 122-123.

2. Ibid., 123. 

* Both the photo of Steve Jobs introducing the Mac Air in 2008 and Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam" are registered under a creative commons license and are used with permission.  

Using Statistics Among 'Christians'

Not too long ago, both The Gospel Coalition and Ed Stetzer suggested that evangelicals are erroneously using statistics on divorce when they quote the Barna Group saying things like, "In fact, when evangelicals and non-evangelical born again Christians are combined into an aggregate class of born again adults, their divorce figure is statistically identical to that of non-born again adults: 32% versus 33%, respectively" [1].

Who is correct?  Are evangelicals mishandling this information?

I should probably state that Ed Stetzer was not specifically saying that the Barna Group was wrong, but that Evangelicals are wrong in saying, "the divorce rate is the same between Christians and non-Christians"; however, this information comes from the Barna Group so by extension it would seem that the Barna Group and Stetzer were in disagreement.  When I asked Stetzer if we can trust the Barna Group's statement, he said yes and provided me with a brief explanation.  (He as also written out this explanation in further detail on his website.)

I should also disclose that I recently quoted the Barna statistic in a podcast on divorce.  Am I erroneously using data?  Well, I can say that it was not my intention; but I can also say this matter is not about one statistic being correct and another being wrong.  It's about what we are measuring and how we are doing it.

So what's going on here?  On the one side we have Christians who conduct extensive research using census data collected from every person in the nation and often self-reported.  On the other side we have research groups conducting carefully designed questioner-data collection that uses samples.  And we probably have reports from somewhere in the middle that uses data sets from both collection methods.

The national census asks people about their faith and it would seem that many people (especially in the southern US states) simply report that they are Christian regardless of their regenerate (or born-again) state.  Some of these self-reporters feel that they are Christian if they attend church on occasion, or maybe even if they've ever attended a Christian church at some point in their lifetime.  Maybe they believe they are Christians if their parents had them baptized as babies.   Others report that they are Christian even when many theologians would argue that the faith group these people attend is decidedly not Christian, but rather, heretical.  Reports generated from this kind of data collection seem to demonstrate that the divorce rate, for example, is "statistically identical" between Christians and non-Christians.  

On the other hand, researchers like Ed Stetzer--who conduct sample gathering research--design questions that attempt to get at the heart of a person's faith.  They inquire in ways that they believe measures a person's actual commitment to their faith, and sometimes they ask questions to assess faith itself.  They might ask if the person claimed to be a Christian at the time of divorce.  There could be questions about the person's level of involvement or commitment with his or her faith.  Collecting data in a more focused study tends to yield decidedly different results but at the same time, the researcher makes judgements about the persons faith apart from the subject's own self-statement.  In these cases, it does seem that active Christians are less likely to get divorced.

But who is right and who is mishandling statistics?  They're both right and we're probably all mishandling statistics.

When I see a tweet from John Piper talking about marriage and linking to one kind of report I understand that his intention is to celebrate numbers that support that Christians divorce less often.  His intentions are good but the information doesn't accurately report how the measurement was taken; or more specifically, what is accurately being measured. (And it's not like the pastor needs to offer a 22-page academic report on findings.)

When I said that the divorce rate looks like that of the world in a podcast, I too was pointing to numbers and research to make my point without a good explanation or citation of what's being measured.  I probably should have stated the name of the report or that it comes from census information and self reporting data.  (I accept full responsibility for that mistake.)  I could have also pointed out that when data is collected differently, the numbers appear differently.  But our podcast has a wide variety of listeners (both believers, non-believers) and the point was divorce, not statistical research methods.

The truth is, both reports are correct.  If we were to ask how far Seattle is from Salt Lake, one could report the number of hours it takes to drive between the cities, another could state the highway millage, while still another could report the distance as the crow flies and use kilometers.  Do we measure from the edge of the city limits, or the center, or from some other point?  What route do we take if we drive?  How fast are we to go?  Does the way we measure make the answer wrong?  No.  It just needs to be qualified so we know what was measured and how we did it.

The question about divorce rates among Christians is not so much about misusing information as some have suggested, but about what is being measured.  In the case of the divorce rate, it seems one measurement is examining the divorce rate among everybody who accepted the title of Christian for themselves at at least one point in their life, while the other measurement is trying to determine who is actually a Christian and then is only measuring those people. In either case, I'd say the only misuse of the numbers is not stating the background behind the measurement.  That being said, we really do have an obligation to share this information honestly and accurately. And we really aught to examine ourselves the next time we are asked if we are a Christian.

___
1.  Barna Group, "New Marriage and Divorce Statistics Released," March 31, 2008 [www.barna.org/family-kids-articles/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released?q=divorce, accessed September 28, 2012].  

* Photo by Leo Reynolds is licensed under a Creative Commons License and used with permission.

People Make the Church

Someone once said something to the effect of, "We do not go to church, we are the Church" and a lot of people have repeated that statement.  It's a good line and worth repeating.  It's been said another way: "We don't go to church on Sunday, the church gathers in a building on Sunday and any other day God's people get together" and from statements like this some pastors have started calling their Sunday services 'gatherings.'

The personality of a church becomes far more apparent when we start thinking of the local church as a group of people rather than a building or what happens in it at any given moment.   For starters, it is easy to see that a church tends to reflect its leadership.  What the leadership deeply cares about is regularly shared as a dream, vision, or goal and the people of the church tend to get behind and care about the same dream, vision, or goal.  The methods, style, and depth in the way pastors teach and preach tend to dictate the style and dept of the church and how the entire body approaches the Bible.  The leadership actually shapes the family and this is a good thing (if the leadership is good).

But the shaping doesn't end with the leadership.  The body, that is all the people in the church also have a strong influence upon the make up of the church.  Attitudes shape many things as do the personalities of the people among the body.  When members share the gospel with their friends and co-workers, similar people join the body, often with similar jobs and personalities.  Churches tend to have a lot in common from the leadership at the top all the way down to the newest believer, no matter how much they try to diversify.   The people give shape to the family that God has brought together and often (but not every time) that family has much in common.

Thinking about this, I conducted a little thought experiment.  At Risen Life Church, where I am on staff, we have a team of 12 which includes pastoral staff, administrative staff, and interns.  We also have three church planters and pastors who have partnered with us and often join us for our staff meetings.  I started imagining that myself and one other pastor were planting a church in another part of the valley.  I would image how we would work together and what the leadership would look like.  As I got this picture in my head, I would imagine what the body would start to look like given the area where we might plant.

After getting one picture, I would image that the plant were in another part of the Salty Lake valley, then another, and another.  Each time the church looked different, sometimes really different.  Then I would think about what shape the church would take if specific members in the Risen Life Church body were to join us in the plant.  Each time, the picture looked a little different.  Then I changed the pastor who would plant with me.  With each change, things started looking very different.  How interesting I thought.

My experiment continued as I worked through each member on the team.  Then I paired up other people and saw some changes with myself out of the equation.  Then I added a third or fourth person to the leadership mix.  I couldn't believe how different each church plant looked.  As I imagined these plants growing to maturity, each seemed to have a completely different appearance as they aged.

From here I thought about what Risen Life Church might look like without some of our more involved members.  And as I thought about this, I realized that we've gone through some changes as people have joined our family or moved away.  It truly is remarkable how different a church body might look with different people among the body, each with different gifts.

But the truth is Christ builds his Church.  It doesn't matter how we might pair people together or try to engineer a church plant; if God is not behind it and the personality of the body is not what God intended, it will not succeed.  Therefore, we should be reminded as we see all kinds of different churches with different sizes and styles, types and teaching, depths and denominations, that God is sovereign and it is his hand that shapes all these different churches as they gather.  It is by God's will that a church has the personality it does for the season God gave it.  In addition, each local church body is part of a larger body and we will all one-day be together and see the final picture Christ is painting with us.  The church is not a building, it is a living organization, a body with many parts, and each part is there for a God-given reason.  How amazing, indeed!


*Photo by Hong Change Bum is registered under a creative commons license and used with permission. 

Writing a Doctrinal Statement

It seems every Christian organization, be it a church, school, seminary, conference, denomination, church-planting body, or whatever has a doctrinal or confession statement.  Even I have provided one on this website called, This I Believe.  These things are everywhere.  Some people notice the multitude of doctrinal statements and confessions and only see division while others see diversity and still others see them as a continuing conversation, something of a 'movable feast.'

But the question we should be asking is why?  Why so many different doctrinal statements?  Why the differences?  And why do organizations need them?  After recently finishing my part in shaping the new doctrinal statement at Risen Life Church, I have been thinking about these questions.

As we examine why, we should remember a couple things.  First, there have been disagreements for a very long time and as a result different creeds or doctrinal statements have developed.  In his letters Paul often lays out a confession statement so there is no confusion where he stands. He must do this because there are others preaching and teaching different beliefs and even different gospels.  There is an entire party of believers who hold to the idea that gentile Christians must keep the Law and be circumcised (see Acts 15 and Titus 1:10-11, for examples) .  To resolve this problem a counsel was convened in Jerusalem and a letter was written outlining the outcome (see Acts 15:19-30).  This letter serves as an early New Testament doctrinal statement.  Moving forward in the Church, we see a number of different creeds and confessions.  Entire schools of monks developed because of different views. The reformers had differing ideas and many evangelicals have differences with the reformers today, although they may be unaware.  Most denominations identify themselves by their doctrinal statements and confessions, which unifies them within the organization and differentiates them from other groups.  Differences are certainly not new.

Second, it is important to remember that not all doctrinal statements are equal.  Some organizations set themselves to stand only on those things they believe are of the utmost importance and essential to salvation, leaving room for differences in the lesser things; while other organizations feel they must include all matters of their beliefs as well as methods of their practice.  Some groups hold very strongly to their doctrinal statements while others see them as soft guidelines.  For example, I know of schools who ask their students to "generally" agree with the school's doctrinal statement, while others are very strict that their students firmly agree with every word.  Pastors are often expected to sign a doctrinal statement or write one, although the degree of seriousness to these statements vary among organizations and pastors.  Individuals of organizations may know their creeds well or have no idea that their organization even has a statement of beliefs.  Some churches require parishioners to memorize creeds, confessions, or a catechism as a requirement for membership.  We can read the statements, but sometimes it is best to examine how the group functions within their doctrinal statements and creeds.

A doctrinal statement, article of faith, creed, or a confession of faith is (or should be) a statement or list of things believed that must be shared by the others among the organization if they are to be unified in purpose and practice.  However, these statements normally stick to the most important items and are usually associated with those beliefs which are essential to salvation, but not always. 

So, this brings us back to our initial questions.  Why?

Ultimately, differences arise due to different interpretations of the Bible, reactions to various beliefs, or differencing practices.  In regard to different interpretations of the Bible, these surface when believers hold to different understandings of hermetical principles, place a higher focus on different passages and doctrines than others, or simply have a poor interpretation. In other cases, the Bible may not be as clear in a specific area, and in these instances it is best of we do not hold them with such a strictness.

When it comes to reactions to various beliefs, we find particular statements that stand in support of the hot issues of the day, or against them. This is often the result of different interpretations, but not always.  This became rather serious when believers called for believer's baptism, Luther challenged the pope, others challenged the Eucharist, the charismatic movement shifted into high gear, people started calling the Bible a book of error, women entered the pulpit, and so-on.  There are often code words contained within a doctrinal statement that help us identify where the organization stands but to understand the code words, we have to understand our history and the arguments.  We've got to see the luggage each code work is carrying and we need to understand the history of the baggage.  We even see this with the revisions to the A.D. 325 Nicene Creed at Constantinople in A.D. 381.

Finally, like the reactions to various beliefs we find statements that stand against differing practices.  Church government is sometimes listed in a doctrinal statement although with the exception of a plurality of elders, the Bible is fairly vague on this topic.  Sometimes the method of how worship is conducted or which translation of the Bible the church prefers appears in a doctrinal statement.  Sometimes when churches or organizations hold strongly to preferences they begin to believe that their way is the only correct way and we see this bleed into their doctrinal statements.  Not all church do this, but it does happen.  Another instance is when a single doctrine is elevated above all others and then influences all practices of faith eventually being written into creeds and confessions.  This is most common within the charismatic debates as well as the arguments regarding the role of the different sexes or the end-times understandings.  Often the debates start in the realm of belief but on occasions belief exits the conversation and pride drives the statement.

Despite the reasons for differences, doctrinal statements are good.  If you are a part of a church or maybe a para-church organization, there is great benefit in knowing the doctrinal statement.  As you examine the statements of your organizations, it may be fruitful to start developing your own statement.  What is most important?  What is not?  What is essential? What's not?  These are good questions to ask yourself as you become more and more grounded in what you believe.  And of course, be sure that your beliefs are shaped by what God's Word teaches rather than your preferences.


*Photo by Karen Tan is registered under a creative commons license and is used with permission.

The Explicit Gospel by Matt Chandler

Chandler, Matt.  The Explicit Gospel.  Weaton, Illi: Crossway, 2012.

In his book, The Explicit Gospel, Matt Chandler asks the question, "How can you grow up going to church every week and not hear the gospel?" (12)  He was haunted by this question after watching a series of baptism testimonies that fallow the lines of, "I grew up in the church but. . ." or "No one ever taught me the gospel."  This, it seems, has prompted Chandler to write a book specifically outlining the gospel.

Unlike many academic books that journey through the gospel, The Explicit Gospel is penned by a practicing pastor who understands the personal nature of the gospel.  However, unlike many pastoral books on the gospel, Chandler does not simply stay rooted in the dirty interpersonal aspects of the gospel.  He rightly sees the gospel from two distinct perspectives--the gospel on the ground and the gospel in the air.  The ground and air views are how he creatively describes these two perspectives.

The gospel on the ground is the stuff in the everyday life of people.  It's what we most often hear from the counseling, pastoral ministers and leaders.  The gospel on the ground is about God's relationship with man, man's brokenness, Christ's atonement and his love for us, and our repentance and response to Christ.  This is the very personal gospel story that we often hear from personal perspectives, and it is very much the gospel of the Bible.

On the other hand, Chandler also addresses the gospel in the air.  Rather than the view on the ground, on the pavement with with people, this is the 30,000 foot view.  This is the gospel we often hear about from professors and teachers and the more big-picture driven pastors and leaders.  It is not so much dependent upon the personal relationship as it is about the story of the history of God's redemption.  This is the gospel that starts with creation and is broken by the fall.  Then reconciliation between the created and their Creator through and by Christ leads to the beautiful consummation.  And this too is the gospel of the Bible.

Chandler does a fantastic job and presenting the gospel from both of these perspectives.  His journey takes detailed steps through the Bible, going to great lengths to explain and express the story of the Bible in simple to understand terms.  In addition, he has a section in the book that discusses the dangers of staying only on the ground or remaining only in the air and it is spot on.  His argument beyond the reality that Christians must know the gospel is that we must also find balance.

This is a wonderful book, although a learned student of the Bible may find some sections a little boring and prefer to turn to the Bible itself.  That being the case, the sections on the gospel on the ground and the gospel in the air, as well as the latter chapters on the dangers of a lack of balance are extremely insightful and valuable.  In addition, the very purpose of this book is to communicate to those who do not know and understand the gospel.  Inversely, those with little to no knowledge should read this book and will probably find it extremely enjoyable.

*Jared Jenkins, Adam Madden, and I recorded a podcast centered around the gospel on the ground and the gospel in the air as presented by Chandler.  You can listen to it here or subscribe to Salty Believer Unscripted on iTunes.

Divorce (Re-posted)

[As we discussed divorce on Salty Believer Unscripted, I thought I would repost and article from SaltyBeliever.com that was written more than two years ago.  If you're not subscribed to Salty Believer Unscripted, find it on iTunes or subscribe here.  You can listen to our podcast on divorce here.]  


Not too long ago, I was asked "Is it okay to get divorced?"  This is a huge question.

We first need to ask what is meant by "okay." If okay means entry or exclusion from heaven, I want to be very clear: getting a divorce or staying married has no baring on entrance to heaven or hell or one's ability to pray to God.  Even one sin without Christ's grace will keep a person out of heaven. Faith and surrender to Jesus Christ, who he says he is, and in his death and resurrection dictates entering heaven or being cast to hell.  This is the key to entry in to heaven, not any work, like staying married. Without Christ, even one sin is "not okay." However, we all sin (act in ways that are contrary to God's wishes for us), a lot. If we need to discuss this in more detail, please feel free to contact me.

So then the real question is if you were considering divorce, and God were sitting with us having coffee, how would he advise you in your situation. If this is you, I recommend you put lots of time to honest prayer, just as if he were sitting with you having coffee. Ask him what you might do to improve your marriage. Ask him to show you areas in your own life that may need repentance.  Ask him how you can show your spouse grace.  Ask him to fix your marriage. After you've had that conversation for a while, and if you feel that his involvement and advice is making no difference, ask him why. If you are already praying about this, pray more.

In the Bible, God presents his ideal. His ideal is that people remain married. And if not for humanity's ugly brokenness, we'd all meet this ideal with little effort. But because of the mess that we are, we have to work at it--some much more than others. The entire Bible is full of stories about people trying to work together in some kind of relationship. Paul writes letters to entire churches trying to help them have healthy relationships in work, play, marriage, etc. Obviously, it's hard and it's messy to meet this ideal.

God wants us to meet his ideal, but we won't, we can't. We are too messed up. This is why Christ died. So now we can find grace in our mess, through Jesus.

The overly religious people of Jesus' day, the Pharisees, came to Jesus and asked him if it was okay for anybody to get a divorce. (You can read about this in Matthew 19:1-9 and Mark 10:1-11.) Here's how it went down (I'm greatly paraphrasing):

Religious people: Is it against God's Law to divorce your wife for any reason?

Jesus: Haven't you read the Law? [He's referring to the Scriptures, specifically to what the Jews called The Law, the first 5 books of the Old Testament, written by Moses. These 5 books include lots of stories; it is not just a book of rules like we think of the law today]. God created men and women to be together. A man should leave his family and get married. He should hold fast to his wife. [Paul once wrote that a man should love his wife like Christ loves the church, and Christ died for the church!] God has joined them together so nobody should separate them. (See Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:6, Ephesians 5:23-33.)

[Jesus pointed out the ideal and expressed that it should be taken seriously.]

Religious people: Oh really, than why did Moses say a man can divorce his wife? [They were trying to trap Jesus or demonstrate that he was teaching counter to the Scriptures.]

Jesus: It's because you have a hard heart. [This is his way of pointing out our ugly, brokenness.] But it was not intended to be this way from the beginning. But you should know, anyone who gets divorced outside of infidelity will commit adultery.

Jesus also explained that even the very act of looking with lust at another person is committing adultery with that person (Matthew 5:28). I am not saying that committing adultery is okay with God; in fact, the opposite is true and society's definition of adultery and God's definition are quite different.  However, you should understand how it's being discussed in the Bible. And ultimately, the religious people were asking if a person will still be okay with God if they got divorced. Jesus is our intermediary so we can always be right with God through Jesus, divorced or not.

That being said, divorce is against the ideal; it's against God's desires for us. God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). The Bible teaches that we should not take the matter lightly; and if you are considering divorce, you should try at all cost to work through the messiness.

Maybe this is not the answer you wanted to hear, and that's okay.  I realize I didn't give a simple yes or no, but that's because it is not a simple matter. I suggest that you go back to that table at the coffeehouse and talk with God often.  Read his Word in the Bible.  Pray. Communicate with your spouse. And pray together.

*Photo taken by Flickr user, jcoterhals, is registered under a Creative Commons license.

Mission: Speed Week 2012

A question that the Church really aught to be asking today is how we most effectively reach our specific communities to plant the gospel.

In Paul's day, the best plan (at least for a while) was to go to the local synagogues and announce the identity of the messiah, which everybody was waiting for.  Then when that was done or when they rejected the message you'd journey into the market places where the people were and preach the gospel.  You might also consider heading over to the local hotspots where the philosophers met to talk about new ideas.  This is what Paul did, anyway.  Others in Paul's day saw the gospel spread house to house, which is probably not to say door-to-door up and down the street but rather, from one household through relationships to the next.

There was a time when bringing a big tent into town and preaching evening evangelistic services was the thing to do because people were bored and always looking for something different.  Some would simply stand on a wooden box and preach to passers-by. Radio, at one point, was an extremely effective means for planting the gospel, as was television.  Tracts have been useful at certain times, depending on the tract and how it was deployed.  The underground church is effective in places where the church is in extreme persecution.  In some cases missionaries are sent into an area and other times we send church planters and sometimes we use the para-church organizations.  But these things all have a time and place where they are more effective and a time and place where they fall short.   They can not be deployed like the stroke of a broad brush.  And what may have once worked in an area may not always be effective or fruitful.  We must seek the most effective means to reach the lost in the specific culture and community where they are found. 

As I have been exploring this question in the area were I live and serve (Salt Lake City, Utah), I have been examining all kinds of ways those of us who deeply love Jesus can effectively share that love with others.  So recently, we went to the Bonneville Salt Flats.

This was the initial video I used to see if God may be calling others to join me, provide water and other financial resources, or commit to praying for our mission trip.  Sean Patrick and I really didn't know what to expect so we decided we would see what doors God opened and who he would bring to help with the work.  Then with the people and resources provided, we would faithfully design the mission around what we had.

Initially, we were hoping to have enough people and resources to do a church service and venture into Wendover, but God had something different in mind.  He blessed us with a good man to lead the charge--Zak Harris.  Then he brought some other labors, all great guys.  And water.  And sunscreen.  And a shade tent.  And money to buy more water and ice and gas for the van and some food and more water, lots of water. And we had a radio that could broadcast the speeds and times.  Then we got up early in the morning and drove 115 miles to the Bonneville Salt Flats.

The first day was a little rough.  We had entered an entirely different world and had no clue what we were doing.  We set up in the wrong spot, twice.  Walking around in the three miles of the pit, we made some friends and engaged a little, but not as much as we were hoping for.  We struggle to meet anybody along the remaining 4 miles of spectator lines.  But then, at the end of the day, we were shown what we needed to do.  So on the second day we printed up signs and set up and the starting line.  There, we made a few friends and gave away lots of water, all of it in the many coolers we brought.  It was simple and fun and by the end of the day we felt that something had happened. We learned a lot and hopefully we were faithful seed planters, or at least seed broadcasters.

Here's how it went down (The guys speaking are Zak Harris, Jay Workman, Jeremy Jeffs, and John Romane in that order. . . and then it's Zak again):

From this experience we came to realize that in our day and in our area it may simply be most effective to be where people are, enjoying life and loving on people.  That's not too hard.  So we started looking for other interests we share with the people of our culture and other opportunities. In some cases, just like at Speed Week, it might not even be that we share an interest but that we are willing to go into a community for the sake of the Kingdom.

But the truth is, the most effective means of sharing and planting the gospel is not about events or systems or plans.  It is about a lifestyle.  Our ability to reach into our communities should simply be nothing more than the overflow of Jesus in our own lives.  Everybody loves to share what they love.  As we love Christ, we should have a desire to share his love with others in every community circle we find ourselves.  Among friends, in the work-place, at the park or football game, skiing and rock climbing, or anywhere else, with anybody else.  This should be natural and fun and easy.   It might be that the most effective way to spread the gospel in our community is not found a program but in our lives as Christ lives in us.  It might just actually be that simple.

Difficult Matters for the Church

As the Salty Believer Unscripted podcast has grown, Jared Jenkins and I have determined that it's time we take on difficult topics that address questions people are actually asking.  The new series is called "Difficult Matters for the Church" and it will address challenging passages of the Bible and areas of disagreement within the Church, as well as the controversial and spicy issues between the Church and the larger society.  Topics like same-sex marriage, women in ministry, the Christian's role in politics, Mormonism, creationism, environmentalism, social justice, election and free will, egalitarianism, the charismatic gifts, and any other suggestions we receive will not be off the table because nothing is off limits.

To help us, we've enlisted some other pastors.  Sean Patrick (Risen Life Church) and Adam Madden (Christ Fellowship)--two pastors who have previously been on the podcast--have returned and Jason Benson (Real Life Church) has joined us for the first time.  In addition, we have a new podcast intern: Ben Peirce. (We're not sure what a podcast intern does, but we're working on that.)

We'd love to hear your suggestions for this series.  Please don't hesitate to contact us and share your thoughts and questions.  We hope this series will be fruitful as well as enjoyable.

As always, thanks for visiting SaltyBeliever.com and thanks for subscribing to Salty Believer Unscripted.

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. 

Soli Deo gloria!
Bryan Catherman   


*Photo by flikr.com user dkshots is registered under a creative commons license and us used by permission.  

Operation Auca: The Power of the Gospel

Only a single generation ago, the Waodani people of Ecuador, were a people of the spear.  They  killed each other with very little reason because they knew no other way.  Over the previous five generations, six out of every 10 deaths were homicides.  Then something changed.

In 1956, Jim Elliot, Nate Saint, Ed McCully, Peter Fleming, and Roger Youderian made contact with the Waodani in an effort to share the gospel.  Initially, these missionaries dropped gifts from the air and eventually they were able to land on a small beach along the river in the jungle.  Three Waodani (a man and two women) met with them on the beach and they were even taken for rides in the air plane.  It seemed that this survey trip was going very well until a band of Waodani warriors speared all five missionaries to death.

Shortly there after, Elisabeth Elliot (Jim Elliot's wife) and Rachel Saint (Nate Saint's sister) returned to Ecuador and soon returned to the Waodani tribe to live among them.  Elisabeth also took her young daughter.  Over time, these ladies were successful in bringing the gospel to the Waodani people and the homicide rate dropped to nearly nothing. Many came to saving faith in Christ and now they walk the trail of Jesus by following his "markings" (the Bible).  

But this is not where the story ends.  If it were not already surprising enough that Elisabeth and Rachel returned as missionaries, about two years later Nate Saint's children, Steve and Kathy Saint, entered the tribe with their aunt Rachel.  Looking at nine-year-old Steve Saint, Mincaye, the man who killed his father knew that it was Steve's obligation to one-day avenge Nate Saint's death.  However, Steve had no clue how to make spears or hunt.  The Waodani man who killed Nate Saint took Steve under his care and trained him.  That man came to be called Grandfather and eventually came to America to see Steve Saint's son graduate from college.  Kathy Saint was baptized in nearly the same location, in the same river where her father died.  Standing on her right and left, baptizing her, were the men who threw the spears into Nate Saint, her dad.

This is an amazing picture of the transforming power of the Gospel.

A documentary titled Beyond the Gates of Splendor tells this story from the wives, children, and even the repentant killers.  It is outstanding and I highly recommend it.

The ESV Study Bible

I've said it before, but I believe that at the time of this post, the ESV Study Bible is the best study Bible on the market.  On my shelves are a number of study Bibles and with the exception of the HCSB Study Bible (which takes a distant second place), the ESV Study Bible is far superior to the rest.  The ESV Study Bible does a fantastic job of providing a great mediating translation (The English Standard Version) of the Bible partnered with the wonderful resources, maps, charts, articles, and commentary of the Study Bible.  

But really, you don't have to take my word for it; others highly recommend and endorse the ESV Study Bible too. Some of these leaders include Tullian Tchividjian, Al Mohler Jr., Joshua Harris, Mark Driscoll, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and many others.

Here, Tullian Tchividjian takes us through a great look at what the ESV has to offer you, a student of the Bible.

J. I. Packer, Theological Editor for the ESV Study Bible, discusses the ESV Study Bible from his unique perspective.

If it's not obvious by now, I highly recommend the ESV Study Bible and believe everybody should have a copy.  I might suggest however, that you make a little more of an investment and get the leather or imitation leather bound copy because the hardback version seems to have issues with its binding. 


* I have no material or financial connection to the ESV Bible other than my use of it in my pastoral and writing ministries. 

The Release of the Spirit by Watchman Nee

Nee, Watchman.  The Release of the Spirit. New York, NY: Christian Fellowship Publishers, 2000.

I do not recall ever having heard the name Watchman Nee in seminary.  Nee, I've since learned after a friend recommend The Release of the Spirit and other Nee works, was a Christian in China who was jailed for his faith in 1952 where he remained until his death in 1972.  According to watchmannee.org, Nee was uniquely gifted by God as a "Seer of the Divine Revelation."  Nee authored many books to include The Release of the Spirit. [1]

The Release of the Spirit was originally a series of sermons or lessons delivered in Foochow, South China between May 25th and 28th, 1948.  The book was first published in 1955 and the first English edition in 1965.

In this particular work, Nee suggests that man must ultimately be broken if his is to be an effective agent for God, and in fact God cannot use a servant who has not has a release of his inter spirit.  The flesh serves as an impenetrable capsule like an alabaster box.  Once this box is broken, life may come forth (14).  Nee argues that the Holy Spirit orchestrates the breaking, writing, "He makes sure one event after another and one difficulty after another come to us.  These break our outward man so that our inward man may come through" (15).  Most people however, try to avoid being broken not realizing the necessity of the outerman to crack and free the innerman.  "Let us remember," states Nee, "that the one reason for all misunderstandings, all fretfulness, all disappointments, is that we secretly love ourselves.  Hence, we plan a way whereby we can rescue ourselves.  Many times problems arise due to our seeking a way of escape--an escape from the working of the cross" (19).

While the overall point of of The Release of the Spirit is valuable, there is some difficulty with the its starting point.  Nee take a position of trichotomy, that is that man is made up of three parts--body, soul, and spirit.  Even for one who is a dichotomist (like this reviewer), typical arguments from a trichomists position tend to remain within biblical tension.  Nee however, identifies the soul and spirit with definitions that press upon this tension with some force that may be problematic for the dichotomist.  According to Nee, the body is the physical body, the flesh.  The soul is the intellect, thought, emotion, and intangible aspects of personality and being, and the spirit is something different.  "When God comes to indwell us by His Spirit with His life and power," states Nee, "He comes into our spirit at the time when we are born again" (12).  The body is defined by Nee as the outermost man, the soul is the outerman, and the spirit is the innerman.   Therefore, the indwelling by God seems only to be found in the spirit of man and the outerman and outermost man actually inhibit man's spirit fused with the Holy Spirit to come forth.

Nee's presentation flirts with a mystic argument and possibly dabbles in gnosticism.  Rather than God transforming and sanctifying the entirety of the man who is called to love God with all of his heart, soul, strength, and mind, it seems that Nee believes that these parts of man can only hold God back until they are broken and the inner spirit may come forth.  For example, Nee writes,

"Our only hope is that the Lord may blaze a way out of us, breaking our outward man--breaking it to such a degree that the inward man may come out and be seen.  This is precious!  This is the way for those who serve the Lord.  Only by this process can we serve the Lord, and only by this procedure can we lead men to the Lord.  All else is limited in its value.  Doctrinal and theological knowledge does not have that much usefulness.  What is the use of mere mental knowledge of the Bible if the outward man remains unbroken?  Only the person through whom God and come forth is useful" (20-21). 

The tone throughout the book is that emotions, intellect, and the other aspects of the soul are bad or negative and that something else emerges to do the Lord's work.  It is as if the spirit is the only thing infused with the Holy Spirit and the spirit somehow is no longer deprived while the rest of the man is still in a cage.  The soul and body are bad and not useful to God unless controlled by man's spirit.  The counterargument to such a position is that man's body, mind, strength, emotion, intellect, and so-on are given over to the control and transformation of the Holy Spirit and then the entirety of man may be used to pursue God's glory.

An additional difficulty throughout The Release of the Spirit is found in the language choices regarding God's sovereignty.   Or if it is not simply the choice of English words, then it must be the view.  Nee appears to have a small idea or view of God and a large view of man.  It seems God cannot function without us rather than the other way around.  Sinful man appears to hold a great deal over God.   For example Nee says, "It would seem the Lord usually spends several years upon most of us before He can accomplish this work of breaking" (17, italics added for emphasis).  Another example is found only a paragraph later: "But if we do not know how to use our spirit, the Spirit of God cannot touch people through us" (17, italics added for emphasis).

I have come to realize that if this matter is simply about the language choices and translation, than there is less problem than it would seem on the surface.  In addition, had Nee argued that God can and may use you broken or not but it is much better to be used broken, much of this review would have been different.  God used Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, and Judas for his purposes but they were hardened, not broken.  However, we should certainly prefer to be used well by God, willingly as his servant, and this requires first that we are broken.  I realize this perspective comes from my reformed theology which may not be the theology of Nee. 

Because of the theological difficulties I encountered throughout The Release of the Spirit by Watchman Nee, I cannot recommend it without some kind of caveat tailored to the individual.  Admittedly, I found Nee's work theologically troubling even though it appears he had the best of intentions and his over-arching point is good.  That being said, this was an interesting introduction to Watchman Nee and I am thankful for it. 
 

1. "Watchman Nee," http://www.watchmannee.org/index.html [Accessed June 28th, 2012].

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Words?

It’s surprising how intimating words can be. When I first entered the Army, I never thought I would understand what anybody was saying. Bathrooms were called latrines. Guns were called rifles and the piece that contains the bullets is called a magazine, not a clip. Tanks are called tracks and helicopters are fixed rotary-winged aircraft. Even worse was the level of confusion around all the acronyms. The Army uses so many acronyms that some things are only known by acronyms because everybody forgot what the acronym was short for in the first place. But I was really frightened when I ran into complicated words within the duties of my job that I had never heard before. Reconnoiter? Posse Comitatus? I felt overwhelmed!

Not too long ago I realized that new definitions and big words are a very normal part of life. I’m not much of a handyman so it was a surprise for me when I learned that a skill saw is a circular saw. And what is a reciprocal saw? Cheater bar? Pneumatics? When I was first married I couldn’t figure out what a blouse was. (It’s a lady shirt, if you didn’t know.) And my wife has a hairdryer attachment called a diffuser. A chipotle pepper is a smoked jalapeno. I don’t know why Americans don’t called it a smoked jalapeno; but really, that’s my point. An egress window is a window that a person can escape through. (Learned that one while buying a house.) If you buy stocks or make investments there’s about a million new words and phrases you’ll have to learn and they include things like liquid and materialized and compounding. When a symphony gets louder, it’s called a crescendo. And I still don’t understand what all the new movie theater features are. I-Max, 3-D, and Real D? (I’m afraid if I were to see the rerelease of Titanic in Real-D, I’d actually be on the ship.)

Learning a new vocabulary happens even within Christianity and Christian culture. Imagine what an unchurched person must think the first time he or she visits a church or gets around Christians. Think about it. How many people fellowship? Non-Christians hang out, or party, or whatever, but they never use fellowship in a sentence unless they are talking about a popular Tolkien book or movie. Few people have things laid on their heart. And even the word church is complicated. The non-churched (and some of the churched) only know this word to mean a building. But the Church is the body of Christ that gathers in buildings that we often call a church.

When we start studying the Bible we may run into big words. Don’t panic. Propitiation comes to mind. (That fancy word means to appease wrath; it’s an atonement that satisfies divine judgment and is only perfectly and finally found in Christ.) As we start turning to study Bibles, introductions, and commentaries we may start seeing really big words. There is no reason to be afraid of the big bad words. The truth is, often these words have nuanced and specific meanings beyond just sounding fancy; but most of the time and for many of us, the simpler word will do. However, some people use the bigger words just to sound smart and confuse others, and that’s a wrong use of big words. In academic settings the bigger loaded words are generally a requirement when professors are publishing and students are hoping to get a good grades. But remember, the tools of the theologian are words, so often they will say circular saw over skill saw, chipotle pepper rather than smoked jalapeno, and crescendo instead of getting louder.

Big words in-and-of-themselves are neither bad nor good unless they are used outside of their appropriate time. But many times in a study Bible, introduction, or commentary the bigger words are the most appropriate. So you may see a word like hypostatic union (which means that Jesus is both fully God and fully man). When used in academic circles, this phrase saves times and correctly conveys the meaning intended because it’s fully packed; but for others, it’s just confusing until they become comfortable with the term and the material behind the word. I remember learning about the penal vicarious substitutionary atonement. It’s a mouthful and most of the time it could be simply stated as Christ’s death on the cross. But seminary types and pastors could discuss and argue many aspects of these specific words that the simpler statement doesn’t capture. How about soteriology (the study of salvation), eschatology (the study of end times), the Pauline corpus (the New Testament writings by Paul), or the autographs (the original biblical manuscripts)? The Olivet Discourse is a fancy way to say the discussion Jesus had with his disciples on the Mount of Olives that is found in the synoptic gospels. Oh, and the synoptic gospels—that’s code talk for Mathew, Mark, and Luke. There’s even fancy talk in other languages. For example, in Latin we have the Imago Dei (the image of God) and the Theotokos (the God barer or one who gave physical birth to God, which is Mary). Theologians also seem to love German. Sitz im leben just means the life setting or the setting of life and a weltanschauung is a world view. I know, it’s nuts but it is just how it goes.

Like many other fields, we need not be afraid of words we don’t know when we study the Bible or other tools. These words should not intimidate us. We may need to learn some new vocabulary (or not), but we need not run from or shut the Bible, introduction, or commentary because of these big bad words.


*Photo of Webster's Dictionary by Amy Barker is is used by permission under a creative commons license. 

Andy Conroy on Class Design

Andy Conroy joined me on the podcast, Salty Believer Unscripted to discuss class design and teaching.  He has joined the podcast before; but this time, he also provided the studio space.

Andy teaches animation at the Salt Lake Art Institute.  He also leads a community group at Risen Life Church, is starting to co-teach a Sunday class on the Synoptic Gospels, and doodles on his notes every time I teach. 

Looking for some ideas about how to design or redesign your Sunday School or community group teaching format?  We might have some ideas.  Have a listen.

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.