In a world where impurity is not just tolerated but celebrated, we are called to be different. We are called to be a people marked by purity, both individually and collectively. Let us strive to live out this calling with intentionality and commitment, supporting one another in our pursuit of holiness. As we do, we will not only honor God but also become a powerful witness to the world around us, demonstrating the beauty and freedom of a life lived in obedience to His commands.

Purity in an Impure World
When Scripture commands, “You shall not commit adultery,” it’s speaking to far more than just the physical act of genitals colliding. This commandment opens the door to an entire world of innocence and purity, calling all of God’s people to a life that is perfectly spotless in every aspect. In a culture where moral boundaries are increasingly blurred, it is crucial to understand that adultery, as defined by Scripture, goes far beyond mere physical infidelity.
The Deception of Minimizing Sin
Consider the infamous attempt to downplay the seriousness of adultery, like when William Jefferson Clinton famously declared, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” Such efforts to obfuscate, redefine, or minimize sin stand in stark contrast to the unyielding clarity of God’s Word, which leaves no room for such ambiguity or philandering.
Adultery, according to God’s standard, includes every unchaste thought, action, and inclination that mars the purity He demands from us. The Westminster Larger Catechism wisely instructs us to maintain “chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior and to preserve this purity in both ourselves and others.”
A Call to Holy Living
This command is more than a prohibition; it’s a divine mandate for you and me to cultivate a life of holiness. It challenges us not just to avoid sin but to actively guard, nurture, and promote purity in every aspect of our lives and those around us. In a world that often celebrates moral compromise, God calls His people to rise above, to shine as beacons of righteousness, and to uphold the sanctity of chastity with unwavering commitment.
Vigilance in Every Area of Life
This holistic approach to chastity demands vigilance in every area of our lives. Our first line of defense begins with ourselves—guarding our thoughts, safeguarding our desires, and taking deliberate action against anything that might lead us toward impurity. It means avoiding situations that tempt us, censoring the media we consume, and refusing to laugh at or entertain sin. As John Piper famously observed, we often laugh at the things God hates. Even shows that seem mild by today’s standards—like Friends—promote a laissez-faire attitude toward sex, which is contrary to God’s law. How much more vigilant should we be today when the media we consume is far more explicit?
Read More
Related Posts:

There are no other options besides heaven and hell. Purgatory is a baseless medieval invention. It is true that following death the wicked and the righteous will enter what is called the intermediate state, an in-between stage. The righteous will eagerly anticipate the redemption of our bodies; the wicked, like fallen angels, will enter a sort of “gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day” (Jude 1:6). But the time of testing is now. Death seals our fate forever. Everyone who dies will wait for the consummation of history in the return of Jesus.

Many people are uncomfortable thinking about death. That’s understandable. Death is hauntingly foreign, like traveling to a country from which visitors do not return. But we must think about it because we will travel there. Our discomfort with mortality cannot delay the inevitable. And the matters are vital. What happens when we die affects how we live now. And how we live now determines what happens when we die.
So we must think about death in the only way that will truly help us, by listening to the Bible. Our questions about what happens after death can’t be fully answered by science or experience. And personal opinions and theories are useless. So what does God say about the state of humans after this part of our lives is over? Let’s break that question into two parts.
What Happens When I Die?
Two main things will happen, corresponding to the two parts of our humanity.
My Body Will Deteriorate
This truth is observable. But why our bodies disintegrate can only be explained by revelation. These are the last words of the terrible curse that God spoke to Adam after the first sin: “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19). God forms us from the same particles that make up everything else on this planet. When our spirit leaves us our elements will again become dispersed.
Still, even in death the bodies of believers “continue united to Christ, and rest in their graves as in their beds” (Dan. 12:2; Acts 24:15).[i] This may seem a strange comfort but God promises that even the dead bodies of his children are in his care. Deceased believers are affectionately referred to as “the dead in Christ” (1 Thess. 4:16), or “those who sleep in Jesus” (4:14). God’s care of our dead bodies is an essential part of his commitment to swallow up mortality with life (2 Cor. 5:4; cf. Rom. 8:22–23)
My Soul Will Return to God
Souls cannot die. Nor do they go dormant after death. When my body returns to the dust my soul will go back to the God who gave it (Eccl. 12:7). It will have finished its probationary journey on earth and will then be sorted to its eternal destiny.
The souls of the righteous enter heaven. At death believers’ souls will be “made perfect in holiness” (see Heb. 12:23). Christians on earth gain only partial victory over sin. In eternity we will not grieve over past sin, commit new sin, or even consider sinning. Heaven is a place of righteousness; there sin is impossible (2 Peter 3:13).
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Michael J. Kruger |
Thursday, September 5, 2024
If we don’t understand a person’s view, we should ask for clarity. And when we get that clarity, we should take them at their word. In sum, we should just follow the golden rule when we disagree with others: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you” (Matt 7:12). Truth be told, engaging in disagreement with fairness is hard work. It takes time, and intellectual energy, to really understand your opponent’s argument in a way they themselves would recognize. This is why so few do it. In a Twitter (X) culture, it’s much easier to use quick jabs and witty one-liners than to really try to understand what a person thinks and why they think it.

In the 2020 Apple TV breakout hit, Ted Lasso, there’s a remarkable scene in the local London pub where Ted challenges the show’s nemesis, Rupert Mannion, to a game of darts. Confident that he can beat this silly American who knows nothing about British culture, Rupert quickly ups the stakes with an aggressive bet. Ted agrees and the game is on.
Rupert quickly discovers, however, that he has underestimated this bumbling “aw shucks” football coach. While Ted threw darts with his right hand in the warm-up session, it turns out he’s really left-handed. Rupert also learns something else he didn’t know: Ted grew up playing darts with his father. They played together every week for nearly seven years.
Before Ted seals his unexpected (and for Rupert, humiliating) victory, he gives one of the most memorable speeches of the show. Reflecting on how others have misjudged him his entire life, Ted says,
All them fellas that used to belittle me, not a single one of them were curious. They thought they had everything all figured out. So, they judged everything and everyone. . . Cause if they were curious, they would have asked questions.
Ted’s core lesson here—be curious—is one that I often share with my seminary students. In particular, it’s a lesson that applies to how we engage in disagreement with others. Rather than simply standing back judging “everything and everyone,” I encourage them to be intellectually curious. Why does this person believe this? What are the reasons for their view? How can I learn from this person, even if I fundamentally disagree?
But this is not just a lesson for seminary students. It’s a lesson for all Christians, particularly as the evangelical world is undergoing what is arguably an unprecedented level of fracturing and in-fighting. More intellectual curiosity would mean that we really want to understand another person’s view and why they hold it (beyond just giving us ammunition for our forthcoming rebuttal).
So, what would happen if the evangelical church expressed more intellectual curiosity with one another? I think we would discover four things:
Not Everyone Has Nefarious Motives
For years now, Christian theologians have rightly lamented how genuine intellectual debate is increasingly rare in our postmodern (or post-postmodern) world. Indeed, one might argue that, in certain quarters, it is not even allowed. Arguments have been replaced with declarations—usually statements about the goodness or badness of the other side. And these declarations are often laced with moral accusations that the other side is bigoted, or narrow-minded, or discriminatory, or what have you.
While evangelicals have typically been at the forefront of resisting such a trend, I wonder if in some ways we are now participating in it. One might argue that now it’s evangelicals that sometimes seem uninterested in intellectual engagement and are quick to make declarations about the goodness or badness of the other side. If a person disagrees with us, then that person is just a compromiser, or a liberal, or a fundamentalist, or what have you.
But this is where intellectual curiosity comes in. If we are curious, and genuinely listen to our fellow Christian, then we might discover that they are not in league with the devil or hard-hearted rebels who refuse to follow the “plain” teachings of Scripture. Indeed, we might learn that they love Jesus, want to follow his Word, and actually have arguments for the beliefs they hold.
Now, this doesn’t mean that everyone we disagree with is well-intentioned. And some doctrinal differences are so severe that they are worthy of serious rebuke. Rather, the point here is simply that not all differences fall into this category.
Read More
Related Posts:

Bringing together, then, the “permanency of the gifts which qualify for the office,” and the church’s judgment “that Christ is calling this man to the exercise of the office,” Murray considers it inconsistent for the elder to be installed for a specified period (despite the PCA’s “perpetual” ordination, this does not preclude churches from specifying terms for ruling elders’ service on the session).

I know a family with two cats of their own plus a third cat that holds a sort of quasi-official status. Number THREE gets fed morning and evening at the same time as ONE and TWO, but THREE doesn’t get the whipping cream treat of her fellow felines. ONE and TWO spend time outside during the day but come in at night. Alas, THREE is relegated to the outdoors except when the householder allows her into his office for a spell. THREE receives affection like ONE and TWO, but she lives somewhere between the status of a family cat and a neighborhood cat. The family has, in a sense, 2.5 cats.
I love the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), including our biblical form of government: rule by the plurality of elders. I recall, decades ago, the words of a long-serving ruling elder who told me: “The beauty of our church’s form of government is that a layman may rise to the highest office in the church, an elder.” His words reflected the PCA’s position, found in the Book of Church Order (BCO), of having only two offices in the church – elder and deacon.
Here I’ll suggest two specific areas in which the PCA – while holding to two offices, not three – in practice, encourages what has been called, half-seriously, a 2.5-office system.
First, ruling elder terms on the session.
An article by John Murray will be helpful, originally published in The Presbyterian Guardian (Feb. 15, 1955). An Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) teaching elder, Murray helped to revise the Church’s Form of Government. In “Arguments Against Term Eldership,” Murray states “the idea of being ordained to office for a limited period of time is without warrant from the New Testament, and is contrary to the implications of election and ordination.” (Murray makes clear there are cases in which a ruling elder may be removed from office.) He notes, “. . . there is no overt warrant from the New Testament for what we may call ‘term eldership.’ There is no intimation . . . that the elders in question were ordained to the office for a specified time. This is a consideration that must not lightly be dismissed.”
Murray acknowledges that while “the New Testament does not expressly legislate against term eldership, there are considerations which fall into the category of good and necessary inference, and which militate against the propriety of this practice.” He notes the qualifications for eldership are of a “high order,” from 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. The elder’s gifts “are not of a temporary character,” the implication, therefore, “. . . that he permanently possesses them.” When a church elects a man to the office of elder, she must be convinced that he possesses the requisite qualifications and gifts. Here Murray adds an essential consideration: in electing an elder the church also judges “to the effect that, by reason of the gifts with which he is endowed, Christ the head of the church, and the Holy Spirit who dwells in the church, are calling this man to the exercise of this sacred office. . . . The Church is acting ministerially in doing the will of Christ” (see Acts 20:28). Bringing together, then, the “permanency of the gifts which qualify for the office,” and the church’s judgment “that Christ is calling this man to the exercise of the office,” Murray considers it inconsistent for the elder to be installed for a specified period (despite the PCA’s “perpetual” ordination, this does not preclude churches from specifying terms for ruling elders’ service on the session).
Murray’s third line of argument “pertains to the unity of the office of ruling,” in which respect the ruling and teaching elder “are on complete parity.” He perceives that term eldership for ruling elders “draws a line of cleavage between ruling elders and teaching elders in respect to that one function” common to both. Murray refutes the argument that because teaching elders are called to full-time ministry but ruling elders to part-time, this provides a basis for ruling elder terms. Full- or part-time service has “absolutely nothing to do with the question of the permanency of the call to office,” he says. Murray concludes with seven practical considerations against term eldership.” The first two concern the “notion of trial periods,” in the minds of congregants, as well in the minds of elders themselves. Such notions have no place concerning eldership.
Second, infrequent or denied ruling elder leadership in corporate worship.
In the PCA, some if not many churches typically allow ruling elders a speaking part in the service: reading a passage of Scripture or leading the affirmation of faith, or offering one of the several prayers. But for those churches that do not, why is that the case? Certainly, there are a number of ruling elders (perhaps most, given some training?) possessing the requisite qualities for an effective reading or prayer (which should be assigned and prepared for). (An effective reading, by the way, is more challenging than one might assume; even more so, a prayer.) Shouldn’t we naturally expect that a congregation will be encouraged in their own Christian walk as they see and hear one of their own shepherds – a “non-professional” – leading in worship before the living God? Might not such examples serve to nudge some members to improve their own giving of attention to the Word and prayer?
Further, considering the character traits and gifts required of the ruling elder, and given that the PCA upholds the position of all elders sharing the same office, on what basis should any church view her elders as unequipped for leading some portions of corporate worship? Again, preparation for such a role is assumed. Every part of corporate worship is a holy act, and every participatory role a sacred undertaking. (It could be instructive that in a sister denomination, the OPC, although holding a three-office position – teaching elder, ruling elder, and deacon – ruling elder participation in corporate worship may be as widely practiced as in the two-office PCA.)
In conclusion, please don’t misinterpret my intent. These are not sin issues. Rather, may this essay encourage discussions within PCA churches and courts that may lead to a closer aligning of our practices with our excellent doctrine and polity. And, all to the glory of God! (I’ll close now, as cat THREE managed to wander inside the house uninvited.) That said, should greater consistency be achieved respecting these and possibly other ruling elder matters one day, truly it will be . . . the cat’s meow.
A Presbyterian Elder
Related Posts:

Our sinful flesh, even with a thorough grasp of sound doctrine, can cause us to fail to evangelize. We might maintain a strong stance against hyper-Calvinism and be committed doctrinally to urgency about making disciples and still find ourselves apathetic and passive in evangelism.

A trap is something you fall into because you don’t realize it’s there. Theological traps are errors in thinking about God and His ways that creep in and steal away our motivation for evangelism. These aberrant thoughts affect our emotions, zap our confidence, and often hold us back from faithful verbal evangelism.
Being the sinners that we are, our flesh easily falls into such traps. Outside of intervening grace, we tend to avoid sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Biblical evangelism is a supernatural event springing from grace. Our flesh is diametrically opposed to it because we are proud and selfish. That is why consistent evangelism as a lifestyle is such a battle for most of us. Evaluation of our evangelism—what we do and what we fail to do—is therefore a healthy exercise.
Great commission-centric living requires a continual renewal of our minds. How we think about God, others, and life in general, must be regularly recalibrated: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind” (Romans 12:21). As we consider together some of the theological traps that easily ensnare, let’s be honest with ourselves before God. Are we presently struggling in the quagmire of one or more of the following four traps?
Relegating our Responsibility to God’s Sovereignty
If we have a biblically healthy view of God’s sovereignty in salvation, we must admit the negative tendencies about evangelism that come with it. Our sinful flesh is prone to reason that if God is in control and election is real, then God will certainly save the elect so ultimately it’s not really up to us anyway. This kind of thinking can cause us to stray away from urgency in evangelism. This is why some people who are passionate about evangelism tend to reject strong views of God’s sovereignty in salvation.
A view of God’s sovereignty that allows or encourages apathy in evangelism is not sound doctrine. God’s Word leaves the relationship between God’s sovereignty and the will of man a mystery that cannot be fully understood.2 In passages that strongly declare God’s sovereignty, verses that declare man’s responsibility are often close by (see John 6:41-71).
Our sinful flesh, even with a thorough grasp of sound doctrine, can cause us to fail to evangelize. We might maintain a strong stance against hyper-Calvinism and be committed doctrinally to urgency about making disciples and still find ourselves apathetic and passive in evangelism.
Diminishing a Woman’s Responsibility for Evangelism
Bible-believing Christians must emphasize male leadership because God does. To fail to do so is to be unfaithful to God’s Word.
Read More
Related Posts:

 It’s a wisdom that says, I know that trouble will come. As it came to Job, as it came to Jesus, it will come to me. But God has said, ‘I will be with you. I will never forsake you. And I will redeem all things. This is not the end.’  “All things work together for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28). God does not want us to live in denial of trouble—not of ours nor of those near us. 

There are coyotes in Pennsylvania. Not just upstate, rural, Potter County coyotes, but also a growing population of urban and suburban coyotes. In counties wiped clean of carnivores a hundred years ago or more, in the land of Walgreens and Wendy’s, coyotes have slunk in after dark and made themselves at home. And apparently (this defies every logic of the suburban mind), Pennsylvania coyotes, interbred with ill-tempered Canadian wolves, are even bigger than Montana coyotes or South Dakota coyotes. So people say.
I have lived in the Philadelphia suburbs for most of my 55 years and had never seen a coyote. Until I did. At 10:00 at night, within the city limits, lit up by my headlights, I saw a coyote trotting down a residential street. It disappeared into the dark, but all doubt was removed: they are here. This is a thing.
Wild carnivorous animals live, not just “out there” somewhere, but here, near me.
Making Sense of Adversity
In a similar way, our lives and the lives of those close to us are not immune to adversity or danger. When trouble comes, it can leave us reeling, unsure how to make sense of what happened and why. This shock and bewilderment isn’t a new phenomenon. In the book of Job, three friends come to sit with Job, a righteous man who, in a whirlwind of sudden tragedies, has experienced both the complete loss of his family and also total financial ruin. It’s a disaster beyond words, and for a week the friends have the good sense not to speak. But then one of them cannot help himself anymore. “As I have observed,”he says, “those who sow trouble reap it”(4:8 NIV).  This man, trying to make sense of the horror of what had happened to his friend, had come to what seemed to him the only logical conclusion: Job must have done something terrible to make it happen. “I’m just sayin’ . . . ”
This friend’s assumption mirrors a common way that people interpret trouble and suffering: it happens to people who have it coming. Tragedies don’t come out of nowhere, they reason. Job takes in what his friends say and feels the insult added to his injury, telling them that they have withheld kindness from a friend (6:14). “You too have proved to be of no help; you see something dreadful and are afraid” (6:21).
You see something dreadful and are afraid. It’s a good way to interpret the failure of friendship that suffering people often experience. It’s as if a coyote has been spotted in the neighborhood, and, in denial, people begin to inch away. They studiously avoid eye contact. They see calamity happen to someone close and often instinctively back up. Why? This thing that you have experienced is terrifying to me. It’s come too close. 
Read More
Related Posts:

Schaeffer stands as a positive example for the Church today as someone who understood what was truly behind the culture war raging around him. It was not a war that just began in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade; it had started in the Garden. He was no scholar’s scholar, but he was a man who understood that a desire for legitimacy or prestige could not overtake Christians’ fundamental calling to seek out the lost so that they might find their only Savior. 

The evangelical elites have not been particularly kind to the intellectual legacy of Francis Schaeffer. Then again, it might be more accurate to say that it all depends on exactly who’s doing the talking.
As Charles E. Cotherman recounts in his book To Think Christianly: A History of L’Abri, Regent College, and the Christian Study Center Movement, many aspirant evangelical academics were dismayed at Schaeffer’s lack of interest in keeping up with the latest technical literature and the high-level debates they sought to foster as a part of their own eventually distinguished careers. They saw themselves as those endeavoring to “seek the welfare of the city” (Jeremiah 29:7) by standing forth as representatives for evangelicals within elite educational institutions and publications, proving that they were no backward fundamentalists incapable of serious scholarship.
Yet for the students who attended L’Abri, the ministry for which Schaeffer came to be best known, most importantly as a haven for skeptical adolescents studying in Europe, it was his insistence on dealing with ground-floor problems of the postmodern experience that made him so appealing.
Read More
Related Posts:

It’s crucial for the pastor to maintain doctrinal purity while also exercising discernment against misleading teachings. Both are fundamental to nurturing and protecting the flock.

The introduction to this series explored the role of the pastoral apologist. We explored Paul’s charge to Timothy, highlighting the responsibilities and the profound calling of pastors to serve both as nurturers and defenders of faith. As I said in that article, the second and third articles will consider four facets of the pastoral apologist’s role: doctrine, discernment, defence, and discipleship. This article will explore the first two facets.
By closely examining these two aspects, we aim to understand how Timothy—and, by extension, pastoral apologists today—ought to undertake their task. This discussion will help us appreciate how doctrinal accuracy and discernment are essential in nurturing the flock, while also protecting them from false teachings and guiding them in truth.
Prioritising Doctrine
Paul’s instruction to Timothy is crucial. He commands him to “charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3b). This verse will guide our discussion.
As J. Gresham Machen commented on it, “It never occurred to Paul that a gospel might be true for one man and not for another; the blight of pragmatism had never fallen upon his soul. Paul was convinced of the objective truth of the gospel message, and devotion to that truth was the great passion of his life. Christianity for Paul was not only a life, but also a doctrine, and logically the doctrine came first.”
So Paul instructs Timothy to remain in Ephesus, specifically to prevent others from teaching different doctrines. This calls attention to the importance Paul placed on doctrinal consistency and purity. The gospel isn’t subjective or flexible. For Paul, the gospel was a singular truth, applicable to all. The gospel isn’t some practical guideline that varies from person to person.
Christian doctrine, as Paul understood it, has an absolute nature. It’s more than thoughts or tips. For Paul, Christianity wasn’t merely a lifestyle or a set of practices; it was founded on definitive, core truths. His directive to Timothy wasn’t just about maintaining order; it’s about preserving the integrity of the gospel against distortions. Paul was dedicated to these truths. Pastors must be too. They’re essential for the life and health of the church.
Read More
Related Posts:

Even more, in an age like ours, God’s people should be a notable exception or, as historian Tom Holland put it, “weird” in the sense that we are committed to the truth even if everyone else abandons it.

President Biden’s announcement to not seek re-election punctuated one of the most eventful and historic months in American politics in recent memory. The decision came after various political leaders and celebrities publicly and privately expressed their concerns about his age and ability, though Biden’s decline has long been apparent. In the end, even the best attempts of the First Lady could not overcome what everyone saw during Biden’s first (and last) presidential debate.
Still, politicians, celebrity donors, and the Biden family insisted that the President was fine, long after it was obvious that he was not, right up until his decision to withdraw. It’s now unreasonable to think that most of these voices did not know better. Clearly, they believed they could continue to misrepresent reality, even if their claims contradicted the obvious.
In an age in which digital technology can manipulate information in unprecedented ways, this kind of public gaslighting has never been easier. Take, for example, the decision by Veteran Affairs to ban the famous Times Square “V-J Day kiss” photo. After asking that the photo be removed from all facilities, lest the celebratory kiss “foster trauma,” the VA swiftly denied ever sending the memo due to the public backlash.
Or consider how the NFL handled Alicia Keys’ Superbowl Halftime performance earlier this year. When Keys hit a wildly off-key note, fans commented on social media and posted it there immediately. However, when the official video of the performance was posted to YouTube the next day, there was no trace of the wrong note.
Read More
Related Posts:

Students contribute to the family of God as gifted brothers and sisters. Within the local body, seminary students may participate in a scaffolding of opportunities for leading, teaching, and serving in all sorts of capacities…local church participation coheres seminary coursework with the Great Commission.

For many pastors, time spent in formal seminary training is one of the most joyful seasons of life. Most seminary students are in their twenties or early thirties, learning God’s Word and how to walk by faith in all spheres of life. Toward that end I offer here six steps for maximizing the seminary experience.
Be ready to repent. Seminary brings fleshly thinking and habits to the surface. If it is the case that the Word exposes sin, the more time we are around the Word, the more we are exposed. And this is good news! Can you imagine how fleshly our churches would be if we did not have seminaries as spheres of learning where we might discover and deal with fleshly thought patterns? Since the Word is central to all courses at MBTS, a school like ours is a place where students and faculty are confronted about all sorts of fleshly living. It may be that seminary uniquely exposes areas of prideful comparison and competition. When students receive graded papers, they are tempted to ask how fellow students scored; when grading a Hebrew grammar quiz in class, students are tempted to score themselves as highly as possible; when sharing about the number of evangelistic encounters they have had, seminarians want to be sure that their efforts do not go unnoticed. Faculty are tempted to use their platform for self-glory or academic posturing when they get noticed for this or that speaking event or publication. So, the Spirit confronts these fleshly thought patterns and empowers the seminary community to repent and walk in the humble power of the gospel.
Prepare for financial struggles—and miraculous provision. The records of heaven are filled with accounts of God’s faithfulness to young men and women, sometimes with children tagging along, who step out in faith to attend seminary. Most seminary students begin the journey with little cash to spare, initially seeking God to provide a job. And He does. I meet student after student who notes how God provides flexible work through which they can both make it to class and make ends meet. During seminary, most students run into a financial bind—or two. This is part of God’s curriculum for pastors: in leading a church post-seminary, men of God will need to personally know of God’s faithfulness if they will lead the flock to walk by faith. Upon graduation, seminary students, often with tears, detail how God provided through extra work, an anonymous gift, the kindness of their local church, or a generous family member. God has yet to be unfaithful to meet the church’s or her leaders’ needs in training.
Read More
Related Posts: