Take, for example, John 8:24.  Jesus speaks very clearly to the Pharisee’s about His identity.  He says plainly, “I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am He you will die in your sins.”  Read that slowly.  Jesus is telling the religious leaders that unless they believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah, then death in sin is the result.  And since dying in our sins means that we will stand before God and have to bear His wrath against our sin, this is not good news.  But if we are found in Christ, then we will find that God has dealt with our sins at Calvary.

And how exactly does that (being found in Christ) happen according to Jesus?  By believing.  Notice that little word that Jesus speaks.  “Unless you believe…”.  Believing in Jesus as the Christ is the only way to not die in your sins.  Jesus does not make it hard to understand.  He doesn’t give a theology of justification, imputation, new birth, or anything else.  He touches those subjects in other places, but not here.  Here the emphasis falls on simply believing that Jesus is who He says He is. 

Well, that raises an important question.  What does it mean to believe?  Is it simple mental assent to some facts about Jesus?  Can’t be.  The demons assent to the fact of Jesus being the Son of God but they shudder (James 2:19).  Is it simply acknowledging that Jesus comes from God?  No.  Look at Nicodemus (John 3).  Then what is it?

I think the answer can be summed up in the two-fold idea of repentance and trust.  Two sides, one coin.  To believe in Jesus is to believe all that He said.  It is to turn from our sin (repentance) and trust in Jesus alone for our salvation.  It is believing that all other roads to heaven are bankrupt.  They do not exist.  There is a turning from our old path and clinging to Jesus on His path. 

If this has been done, then I would say you have exercised Genuine Saving Faith in Jesus.  You have believed in a saving way.  You can call it faith, trust, or belief, but it is the type of thing that has you hating sin and loving Christ.  And then…Oh, Christian…your life is transformed and you begin to walk in light as Jesus is in the light.

This is the weight of belief.

Here is the bottom line.  Read Psalms 58 and 51.  Read Romans 3:10-23; 6:23.  Pay attention to passages such as Romans 5:10.  When you do, you find that all of humanity comes into this world as sinners, deserving of the wrath of God.   We are not, in our unregenerate state, friends of God but stand as His enemies (Rom 5:10).  So our greatest need is peace with God.  We must be reconciled to Him before the “day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (Rom 2:5).  And this leads to the good news of Jesus Christ (the gospel).  The wrath of God has been laid upon the shoulders of Jesus at the cross of Calvary for all those who will believe.  Isaiah, writing some 700 years before the crucifixion of Christ, tells us that “the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity (lawlessness) of us all” (Is 53:6).  We are told in the Bible that in Christ “the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands…He set aside, nailing it to the cross” (Col 2:14).  And the way we find this good news has been appropriated to us is if we repent of our sins and believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (John 3:16, Acts 16: 30-31; 17:30).  It is only through faith in Jesus that we have peace with God (Rom 5:1).

So, if Jesus is the only way to be saved from the wrath to come (because He alone has borne that wrath for the believer) and be reconciled to the Father (John 14:6; 1 John 5:12), then the message of what Jesus has done must be proclaimed.  This is why the apostle Paul would say in Romans 10:13-17 that the message must be preached.  Read Paul for himself:

“For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.  How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed?  And how are they to believe in Him whom they have never heard?  And how are they to hear without someone preaching?  And how are they to preach unless they are sent?  As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!’  But they have not all obeyed the gospel.  For Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?’  So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”

It is clear then.  Every man, woman, and child is born separated from a holy God.  Only Jesus can save them.  It is only Christ who has went to the cross and paid the debt.  And that debt is paid for you only if you repent of sin and trust in Jesus as your Lord and Savior.  This is the most important message in the world.  This is the mission of the church.  We are to take the good news of Jesus to a lost and dying world so that those who hear and believe will be reconciled to the God of heaven.  It is good news indeed. 

Now, the question is how social justice causes fit in.  There are numerous ways and it is not my intent to discuss all of that here.  I do believe, however, that as we become new creations in Christ (2 Cor 5:17), we have a new mind.  Our worldview is changed.  We begin to see things differently.  Specifically, we begin to see things the way God does as His Word (the Bible) informs us.  We see all men and women as created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27).  We find that the call to love is foundational to being a follower of Christ because God is love (1 John 4:8).  And the love we are called to have is a love that acts (1 John 3:18).  Therefore, when we see things like human-trafficking, the poor without food or drink, and a thousand other social injustices, we are moved as those who bear God’s image are suffering.  It is right, then, that we seek to alleviate suffering.  It is good that we fight injustice.  But we must remember that simply fighting injustice itself is not the gospel.

If I raise millions to stop slavery, or feed a village, or build water purifying facilities, but fail to speak the gospel, then I have failed to meet the greatest need a person has.  They may be free from human bondage but are still slaves to sin (Rom 6:17).  I may feed a village but they still do not have the food that endures to eternal life (John 6:27).  And they may have clean water but will continue to lack a water that will satisfy them for eternity (John 4:14).  Without the gospel of Jesus Christ, our social justice activism will only make people more comfortable in their journey towards hell.

So, balance is needed.  As we are conformed into the image of Jesus it is my hope and prayer that my generation and all subsequent generations will have broken hearts for those who are oppressed, hungry, and thirsty.  I pray that we seek to alleviate some of that suffering.  But I also pray we realize that until the Kingdom of God is ushered in fully and finally at the return of Jesus, none of these social injustices will end.  These things will only end when Jesus returns and wipes away every tear (Rev 21:4).  That doesn’t mean we don’t fight, it simply means we are aware that we are fighting a battle that we will not win in this age.  Victory will come when Jesus brings it.

Until then, the greatest need people have is to hear the gospel.  Our social activism can certainly open the door for the gospel to be preached.  Many of the miracles Jesus did while on the earth were done to gain Him the ears of the people.  Then He proclaimed the message of the kingdom.  Our social activism must be done with the same goal.  We want to open the door for people to hear about Jesus. 

So, for me, if I am forced to make a decision between giving water to a thirsty man or telling him about Jesus…I tell him about Jesus every time.  Of course, that is a hypothetical situation.  In our days we probably have the chance to do both.  So we should.  But the hypothetical makes the point.  The sharing of Jesus takes precedence over social justice activism.

Let us be a generation that is known more for proclaiming the gospel.

Jared Wilson also has a post to read about this issue and has the video on his site.

Barnabas Piper offers thoughts here.

August, 2010

“Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship.”  So the saying goes.  Since becoming a Christian I have heard this over and over again.  From pulpits, books, and conversations this common line continuously comes forth.  I have, however, never really liked it.  I must admit that it has always been awkward for me to completely agree with.

Now, before anyone throws stones, let me be clear.  I believe that Christianity is first and foremost about a relationship with Jesus Christ.  I believe that is exactly what those who use this phrase generally mean.  My salvation is tied directly and exclusively to my relationship with Christ.  Either I have repented of sin and trusted in Him or I have not.  If I have then I am a child of the living God.  If I have not, then I still stand as God’s enemy (Romans 5:10) and His wrath is aimed right at me.  So, the greatest question a person can ask is what relation to God are they standing in?  Are they children or strangers?  Are they friends or enemies?  To be both a child and a friend of God I must have placed my faith in Christ and be united to Him (relationship).  None of my religiosity, that is my religious activity, can make me a child or friend of God.  My church attendance, prayer life, bible reading, tithing, and missionary zeal are useless in reconciling me to God (again, read relationship).  So, in that sense I say yes and amen to the phrase “Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship.” 

Now, here is my divergence from this commonly used statement.  It is my fear that we have used this phrase so widely and pervasively that we have fed the idea that there are no religious, or ceremonial, activities that we should be involved in.  Or, at the very least, certain religious acts may be nice but they are not necessary.  Let me give an example.  By casting off any thought that Christianity involves any religious acts we have undermined the very need to be committed to a local church.  If Christianity is simply about my relationship with Christ and has nothing to do with religious acts, then why attend a church?  Why gather with a local body and take the Lord’s Supper, or be baptized, or sit under the preaching of the Word, or be held accountable to a standard?  Why should I spend time in private prayer, meditation on Scripture, and so forth? 

Now the answer to all those things above is because they are ways in which I live out my relationship with Christ in a healthy way.  My prayer life, my bible study, my participation in the ordinances of the church (baptism and the Lord’s Supper), and so on, are the things that I DO as one who has placed his faith in Jesus.  That, my friend, is my religion.  Webster defines religion a number of ways.  Religion is defined as a “commitment…devotion to a religious faith or observance; a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices; scrupulous conformity; a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.”  And those are the things that characterize my relationship with Jesus Christ.  I am committed to Him and His commands, devoted to pursuing His glory, have a personal set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices that mark my relationship, seek to conform to His image, and hold to these things with ardor and faith.

None of those practices or commitments saves me.  My relationship with Christ through faith in His person and work alone are my hope.  But that relationship takes on a certain form of religion.  When James wrote his letter in the New Testament he knew this.  He talked about a faith that was marked by works.  He talked about “pure and undefiled religion before God” (James 1:27).  Those works, that religion, was not the basis of salvation.  The basis was faith.  But genuine faith results in a form of religion, that is, it results in certain things that we do.  Examples are caring for orphans, widows, the unborn, committing to a local church, being baptized, and regularly participating in the Lord’s Supper. 

Christianity is a religion but only in the sense that our religion is a reflection of the relationship we have with Christ through faith.  Let us not forget to point this out to a generation that seems to shun anything that seems religious, as if there were no commands and practices that Christ wants us to follow.  As believers in Jesus Christ there is a pure and undefiled religion we seek to live out.

Read and learn…and possibly laugh a bit.

CLICK HERE

In his book, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, Owen says this:

“God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men.  If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight…If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.  If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins?  You will say, ‘Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.’  But his unbelief, is it a sin, or not?  If not, why should they be punished for it?  If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not.  If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died…?  If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins.  Let them choose which part they will.”

That passage was written in the 1600′s.  It is one of the strongest arguments in favor of Limited Atonement and one of the logical reasons I fall in this camp. 

Chris Pope is a graduate of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, a pastoral intern, Sunday School Teacher, and friend.  Chris is fluent in both Hebrew and Greek and is currently working on his own translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew.  He is as qualified as any man I know to tackle this topic.  Enjoy his article!

This past Christmas, my grandmother gave me The Complete Works of E.M. Bounds on Prayer in “contemporary English.” The material was written between 1912 and 1931, and already someone felt the need to update the language. Today, many older works are available in modern versions. For my part, when it comes to classics like Shakespeare or The Pilgrim’s Progress, I prefer the original. Often the poetry, the nuances, and the exact choices made by the author just don’t carry over well in the updating process. And there’s always the chance that the bias of the editors has crept in and diminished the work. I believe this is one of the main reasons many people prefer the King James Version of the Bible.

I’m writing today to address a segment of American Christianity that not only prefers the King James, but insists that it is the only acceptable Bible for English-speaking churches. Like many Baptists, my first Bible was a King James, and I read it and memorized from it as a child. As England’s Prime Minister recently declared, the KJV is without question the most important work in English, the masterwork of literature in our language. From the late 1600s to the late 1800s, it was virtually the only English Bible in common use, and preaching from other versions was almost unheard of in Southern Baptist churches until the last thirty years or so. It is understandable that, in many people’s eyes, “modern” versions of the Bible just don’t measure up.

However, one key difference between the King James Bible and other classical literature is this: the KJV is not “the original.” The Bible was first written in Hebrew, Greek, and some Aramaic, and it is this material that was inspired and perfect. Very early on, the Bible was translated into Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, Slavic and dozens of other languages. The King James is, in fact, an update of previous English translations of God’s Word, and the translators wrote an extensive introduction to defend their work against critics who preferred older versions or who questioned the legitimacy of translation altogether. In their introduction, the KJV translators affirm that “euen the meanest translation of the Bible in English…containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which he vttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by euery Translator with like grace nor peraduenture so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, euery where” (the old English forms were retained in that paragraph).

It may help to know a little about how the King James Bible came to be. It all began with William Tyndale, who began translating the New Testament into English in 1525. As a result of corruption in the church at the time, translating the Bible or even possessing it in one’s own language was illegal. But Tyndale believed all Christians should have the right to read the Bible for themselves. Miles Coverdale added the Old Testament a few years later. Once Henry VIII legalized English Bibles, an official version was produced, based on Tyndale’s New Testament. Today a whole family of English translations has its roots in Tyndale’s work.

By 1604, England had two competing translations. The Bishops’ Bible was preferred by the clergy and used in the Book of Common Prayer, but many of the common people preferred the Geneva Bible, which was produced by Puritans and contained many interpretive notes like today’s study Bibles. (Both were based on Tyndale’s work.) Puritan John Reynolds proposed a compromise version, and King James commissioned the project. It would contain some concessions to Puritan sensibilities, as well as marginal notes on alternate translations and textual readings, but unlike the Geneva Bible, it would maintain Episcopal vocabulary (words such as baptism, bishop, and church) and have no interpretive notes.

About fifty Anglican scholars worked on the project in six committees. For the Old Testament, they relied on the traditional Rabbinic editions of the Hebrew Bible, with occasional alterations toward the Greek and Latin. Their Greek sources for the New Testament were chiefly the 1588/89 and 1598 editions of Theodore Beza’s work, with about 200 exceptions. The Apocrypha was also translated and included with most copies into the 1700s. The introduction, “The Translators to the Reader,” remains to this day an excellent treatise on the early history and theory of Bible translation.

In the final work, first printed in 1611, an estimated 80% of the words in the New Testament were still identical to Tyndale’s work from the 1520s. As a result, some of the language already sounded “old” when the KJV was first published. Nevertheless, the KJV was more technical, more dignified, and more fit for public reading than any of the previous editions. The spelling and grammar were updated and standardized in the 1760s; the introduction and marginal notes were also removed around this time.

During the late 1700s and 1800s, many older Greek manuscripts were discovered that favored a slightly shorter and simpler text for the New Testament. In 1885, the Revised Version was published, taking these discoveries into account. This project was a direct predecessor to the New American Standard, New Revised Standard, and English Standard versions in use today, and also gave rise to scores of independent Bible translations.

I don’t wish to discourage anyone from using the King James Version. It is one of the Bibles I consistently have on hand in my own study and translation work, and God has used it as mightily as any other English version. However, my firm conviction is that any translation is the word of God to the extent that it faithfully conveys what the authors originally wrote. The King James does this well, but other English versions today do this just as well and possibly even better. (There are a few versions today that are corrupt or of poor quality, and I believe it is best to avoid outright paraphrases, but that’s an article for another day.) Those for whom faith in the King James is equivalent to faith in the Bible itself will not be persuaded by a single blog article. But for the teachable, let me close with seven reasons to use contemporary Bibles alongside the King James:

1. Respect for the KJV Translators’ Intent. In creating “one principal good” English version, the translators did not intend theirs to be the final English Bible, nor did they claim that it was perfect. Their justification for updating well-respected versions of God’s Word also applies to updates to their own work. In fact, they argue on the basis of 1 Corinthians 14:6-12 that it would be negligent to leave God’s Word in a state where it cannot be clearly understood.

2. Changes in the English Language. One can argue whether English has gotten better or worse in the past 500 years, but it is unquestionably very different. In Tyndale’s English, “suffer” means to let or permit, “let” often means to prevent, and “prevent” means to precede. A couple dozen KJV words have fallen out of use entirely, and there are newer words and grammatical structures that allow us to more clearly convey the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek.

3. Advances in the Text. God has preserved the Scriptures not in a single enshrined source but in thousands of manuscript copies. As explained above, we have found copies of Scripture that are closer to the original in time and place than those the KJV translators had available. Most modern versions at least have footnotes to let the reader know when there is a difference in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. There are some important differences, though they do not affect the doctrines of the faith. If every word of the Bible is inspired (and if anything added later by copyists is not), we should desire something as close to the original as possible.

4. Advances in Vocabulary. Through the study of ancient documents found in the past couple centuries, as well as greater contact with other cultures, we now understand many technical terms, such as words for plants and animals, that the KJV translators misunderstood or had to guess at. For example, the “dragons” of Psalm 44:19 should be jackals, and the “unicorn” of Numbers 23:22 should be the wild ox.

5. Resistance to Conspiracy Theories. Some “King James Only” teachers claim (without evidence) that all modern Bibles are part of an ancient conspiracy to deliberately corrupt the Bible, and that the manuscripts used by today’s translators were created and promoted by a Satanic or Gnostic cult. Conspiracy claims are tempting because they let us feel we are “in the know,” superior to the multitudes we think are deceived. However, it is just as naive to believe conspiracy claims as it is to believe the majority. The fact is that most popular English Bibles are put together by a wide variety of godly evangelical Christians who follow the same principles of study and translation as scholars in any other field.

6. Charity Toward Other Believers. Many Christians have come into the faith and grown as believers through modern versions of Scripture. They find these easier to understand and closer to the original. Many pastors and Sunday School teachers likewise find it best to teach from a contemporary rendering. I have seen “King James Only” Christians pass judgment on such people or treat them with suspicion. We should not disparage their devotion to the Bible on account of their translation preference.

7. Independent Study of God’s Word. You need a Bible you can understand for yourself and study with other Christians. If you need to rely wholly on your pastor, as is the case in many places where only the KJV is preached, or if you cannot study the Bible with other believers without paraphrasing and modernizing the language yourself, a contemporary version is in order. This is why the Bible is translated in the first place, so that we can see it for ourselves and have a way to determine whether the teaching of pastors and scholars is truly biblical.

For study of the Bible, I recommend essentially literal versions in contemporary English. For further study of this issue, I recommend One Bible Only? by Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder, and How to Choose a Bible Version by Robert L. Thomas.

Thus the visions of grandeur that many, young and old, entertain.  Now, the above goals are not bad.  In themselves, they are desirable.  A plurality of elders is consistent with New Testament polity.  Feminism is unbiblical and needs crushing.  Evangelism and world missions are to be pursued and embraced.  These are good things to strive for.  Reformation along these lines is worthy of our efforts over the years of our ministries.

My thoughts last night and this morning, however, have surrounded the relationship between Reformation and Revival.  Which comes first?  Are they two sides of one coin?  These are good questions to consider.  And we must realize that a real question exists.  Reformation and Revival are not the same.  The former involves a “renewal of the forms and structures of society and culture” while revival “describes a renewal of spiritual life” (The Spirit of Revival, Sproul).  The question, then, is can you have a renewal of forms and structures without a renewal of spiritual life?

R. C. Sproul says that “it is not possible to have true reformation without first having true revival.  The renewal of spiritual life under the power of the Holy Spirit is a necessary condition for reformation but not a sufficient condition for it” (The Spirit of Revival, Sproul).  I am inclined to agree in part.  I think that a person could come into a church and lead the congregation to make form and structural changes that are  biblical without revival in the hearts of the people having taken place.  Now, this may not fit the category Sproul has raised (that of “true reformation”).  But still, a type of reformation has taken place.  It may be, however, without true revival having also, or previously, occurred, that a Christ-centered embrace of these changes on theological grounds cannot happen.  I am open to learning more on this point.

The thought that has stuck in my mind in regard to this discussion is simply this:  are we going into our churches with the wrong order of things in mind?  Are we so doggedly determined to change structures and forms that we miss the need to see revival take place in the hearts of our people?  Would seeking to lead our people to the glorious God of the Bible, to deeper understandings and embrace of the cross, not be the logical place to begin our ministries?

There was a similar conversation around the Great Commission Resurgence.  Many were calling for revival, not restructuring.  I disagreed then and disagree still.  I think that when God begins to stir in hearts then it causes us to step back and evaluate things.  Structures and policies included.  Thus, the GCR, in my mind, was a result of a level of revival taking place in the SBC.  In some of our church contexts, however, it may not be so.  The pastor may have been stirred by God, stand as one who is on fire for the glory of King Jesus, but be serving in a place where the people have not had the same experience.  If that be the case, reformation must take a back-seat to revival.

I would like to see pastors head into the pastorate with a plan to do nothing before first having made sure that the hearts of his people are enthralled with the majesty of God.  We should think through strategies of change, as well as concerns that will need addressing, and then be ready to institute changes when the time comes.  But the we must first make sure that the congregation is alive.  If they are not, revival must take place.  Preach the glories of Jesus, the sovereignty of God over all things, and the age to come with passion and zeal.  Let God set them on fire through your life and teaching.  And, then, after spiritual life has been imparted or revived, then set a course to see reformation take place.

Revival first.  Then Reformation.

I encourage you, if you do buy the book, to read these two reviews. 

Dr. Denny Burk–Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, Boyce Bible College.  His review can be read here.

Tim Challies–Pastor of Grace Fellowship Church in Canada, blogger, and Co-Founder of Cruciform Press.  Read his review here.

I thought it would be helpful simply to list books on marriage and relationships that may be helpful to you as you seek to honor Jesus in your dating and marriage.  Any of these books can be found easily on the internet, therefore, I will not take the time to provide links for each.

–This Momentary Marriage by John Piper

–Sacred Marriage by Gary Thomas

–The Meaning of Marriage by Tim Keller

–What Did You Expect by Paul Tripp

–Relationships:  A Mess Worth Making by Tim Lane and Paul Tripp

–The Complete Husband by Lou Priolo

–The Exmplary Husband by Stuart Scott

–When Boy Meets Girl by Joshua Harris

As always, I pray that these books are helpful, but always secondary.  The first book we must read and search to learn how to live in the context of dating, marriage, and any other relationship is the Bible.  May God’s Word be our ultimate guide in all things.

Surrendered. 

As I have contemplated the life of this theological giant, one of the glaring realities of Calvin’s life was that he invested in people.  The number of close friends that Calvin spent time with, the letters that he wrote to encourage dignitaries, pastors, and church members, is itself testimony to the value this man placed on ministering to real people.  This can get lost in many’s perception of Calvin as they focus solely upon his academic undertakings.  Even the academic was meant to protect the gospel, the Christian, and point them towards God and faithful living for the glory of King Jesus.

Men like Pierre Viret, William Farel, and Theodore Beza bear testimony of Calvin’s love for the saints.  Up until his dying breath the pastors and city council members in Geneva were not far from Calvin’s heart, thoughts, and exhortations.  John Calvin may have been the leading theologian of the reformation, and one of the greatest of all time, but he was not a man stuck in the ivory tower of speculative theology.  He was a man who took his studies and used what he learned to rebuke the sinner, encourage the fainthearted, slay the heretic, and protect the sheep for the glory of God.

My prayer is that I learn from this aspect of Calvin’s life.  I love to read, study, and think.  At times, I do this to the neglect of those around me.  I can fail to remember that my intellectual labors should be done first so that I know God and His Word better and secondly that I can help others do the same.  If I miss this point, I miss my calling.  When it comes to thinking deeply and investing in people, I hope to imitate John Calvin.

Surrendered.

This morning, at our 6am pastors meeting, we discussed a particular issue involving prayer for a member at our church.  James 5 was referenced and I held my tongue until the meeting was concluded.  Then I brought up my hesitation with the way the passage was being understood.  The conversation was cordial, humble, and thought-provoking.  This led to both myself and the pastor with which I chatted to study further.  I can honestly say that this has encouraged me today.  Not only did we both bring up good points, but we both were pressed to study further.  Theological dialogue should do this.  It should cause us to consider the thoughts of others and make sure that our own thoughts are biblically faithful. 

So, as I sat at my desk after the short exchange, I put some thoughts on paper (or email).  I will share those thoughts here and hope they are helpful.

All that to say, I am unsure that anointing with oil in a ceremonial fashion is what James 5 is teaching us.  Although, due to the wide range of other scholarly opinions, I am happy to do it! 

May God continue to work in our staff this way.  And I pray more pastoral staff’s will be marked by serious theological discussion as they lead the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.