Door Posting
By Anthony Casperson
10-31-26

Do you know what today is? That’s right, it’s my dad’s birthday.

Wait, that’s not what you were expecting for an answer?

Let’s see what else October 31st is known for. Um, some celebrities’ birthday also. National Doorbell Day. National Knock-Knock Day. (Interesting that there are two different celebrations that reference answering doors on the same day. Weird, huh?) There’s also National Caramel Apple Day. Oh, it is also the anniversary of Harry Houdini’s unfortunate death. Today is also…World Savings Day. Oh, and speaking of saving money, today is also Reformation Day. Wait, there’s also a door with that one too.

Hm, what’s that? Do you not know how Reformation Day connects to saving money and doors? Or do you not know what Reformation Day even is?

Well, we can answer all of those in a relatively short amount of time.

Heading back 509 years ago, we arrive at Oct. 31, 1517. We see a town in Germany, and a grand church rising high up. And as we move to the main entryway, we hear the tapping of a hammer on some nails. A man stands before the door. He’s not knocking to be let in, or to receive anything from those inside the building. No, he’s using the church door as a public posting spot.

Because so many people approached the door regularly, the church door in Wittenberg, Germany could be used like a community board. It’s old school social media posting. As a matter of fact, when a professor of the town’s college wished to debate a topic, they would post here on this very door.

For those unfamiliar with the story, this man posting on the town’s primary bulletin board is Martin Luther. (No, not that guy. This is his namesake.) What Martin Luther posted that day is considered the beginning of the Protestant Movement, the breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church that’s known as the Reformation. Hence the Reformation Day name. It’s sorta like the birthday of Protestantism.

Now, while many might consider that the 95 theses—or the 95 statements that Luther wished to debate with any who so chose to oppose him—are the core tenets of Protestantism, that’s not the case. Primarily, the theses revolved around a practice that had begun to spread wildly among the churches Luther knew.

And this practice is the selling of indulgences. No, not sweet treats. The idea of giving money to the church so as to reduce the amount of time one spent in Purgatory, whether the purchase was for the person paying for the indulgences or for loved ones who had already passed.

(Let’s be clear before continuing, Purgatory is not really a thing in Protestant theology. Because the idea of needing a place to purge sins performed after the time of salvation/baptism is not necessary, according to typical Protestant teaching, because the blood of Jesus pays for all sin, whether past, present, or future. But Luther was still developing his theological stance, and thus was working with what he understood at the time.)

But the selling of these indulgences had become so commonplace that it almost looked like someone was hawking these things on every street corner. Holy loot boxes that had encroached into every arena of life. The people looked at these pope-backed pieces of parchment, and figured they could pay-to-play now, while not being overly concerned about their future. Or they could bestow the papal absolution upon another, like a spiritual gift card.

Theses 53 and 54 show Luther’s utter contempt toward these pardon merchants and their turning away from the word of God. He says that they are “enemies of Christ” as “they forbid altogether the preaching of the Word of God in some churches in order that indulgences may be preached in others.” And also that they bring injury to the word of God, “when, in the same sermon, an equal or larger amount of time is devoted to indulgences than to the Word.”

More time seems to be given in trying to milk every last coin out of the congregation than actually proclaiming the truth of the word of God. There’s not even really care given for the people buying the indulgences, or their spiritual wellbeing. When all they’re hearing from the pulpit is a paid programming advertisement, they’re not being called to lives of greater holiness.

In truth, it would be better for the members of the congregations to save their money and reach for the word. They’d be better served, both physically and spiritually, to listen to those devoting the bulk of their time in worship to the truth of the bible, even if outside of the building’s walls.

Otherwise, all they would be hearing was a sales pitch to purchase penance. And that is a far cry from the true repentance that the bible calls us to.

This brings us to the actual crux of why Luther wanted to argue against indulgences in general. And it has to do with his first listed thesis, as well as the bible verse he referenced there.

See, the whole idea of indulgences is connected to the concept of penance—the act of discipline, sacrifice, or punishment in an effort to show regret for wrongdoing. You do the evil deed, you pay for it. One way or another.

But that wasn’t the way of the gospel, as Luther was growing to see it.

Within the handful of years previous to Luther’s posting of his 95 theses, he’d begun reading the Greek of the New Testament as opposed to just the Latin translation, called the Vulgate.

In the Vulgate’s translation, Matthew 4:17 shows Jesus saying, “Do penance, for the Kingdom of God is near.” However, when Luther read the original Greek of the verse, what Jesus says is “Repent,” not “Do penance.” In particular, the Greek word in question here has nothing to do with disciplining, sacrificing, or punishing in order to pay for the moment of repentance. Instead, it carries with it the idea of changing your mind about the wrongdoing.

Rather than excusing the sin—or needing to pay for it yourself—repentance has to do with agreeing with God about the wrong of the sinful action performed. Repentance, true repentance, doesn’t need indulgences, because it doesn’t seek to pay for the ramifications. The cross already did that. For past, present, and future sins in the life of the follower of Jesus.

All that Jesus calls us to is repentance, while he paid the price. We turn to him in faith, for every sin we continue to commit, as he continues to lavish his love onto us.

So, basically, the 95 theses were posted in an effort to describe an error that had crept into the Church. General concession of defining what a word meant, along with a bunch of authoritative claims for the clergy, had led to this grave misunderstanding about what Jesus said and meant.

Since, the priests taught that “penance” was necessary, and only priests and the other members of the clergy—including the pope, through his indulgences—were able to provide the penance, forgiveness of these sins was only possible in the method they taught. And without someone to confront this error, it would continue to plague those who sought forgiveness from God.

The lack of understanding about Jesus’ actual words leads to incredibly dangerous doctrines. And letting the ways of culture around us dictate the definitions is the surest road to that error.

While this might be a good history lesson—a way for us to understand the background of Protestantism’s beginnings—I can’t help but wonder what theses Luther might wish to post to today’s public bulletin board. No one can be 100% sure, but let’s consider the overarching error connected to Luther’s theses. And then question what words of Jesus have been culturally mistranslated to fit that error.

If Luther’s original theses argued for a deeper understanding of the definition of a word—specifically, one that had a cultural connotation opposing the actual Greek’s meaning—and the error has to do with pushing the word of God out of the pulpit in order to sell the effects of the falsehood to the congregation, then I think we have one prime candidate for today’s version.

Love.

There are few other topics today that are so invasive of a battleground, both in the pulpit as well as culture, than love is.

Our culture has a definition of love that directs efforts toward “affirmation.” Love, by this definition, is all about affirming and celebrating the thoughts, actions, and deeds of a person. If a person finds happiness or pleasure in something, than we should celebrate that, and not try to remove that happiness from them.

(The argument of adding, “as long as they aren’t harming anyone in the process,” could be given as well, but that would lead us to definitions about what “harm” actually is also. And this blog is already pushing normal blog limits for the website. So, another blog can handle that question.)

But this affirmation of actions is not what biblical love is about. As a matter of fact, some of Jesus words point out that affirmation from the world actually disproves godly love in us.

To show this, let’s look at John 15:1-25. You can read it on your own, but we can give a brief explanation of verses 1-11 before getting into the heart of my point from verses 12-19.

Jesus tells his disciples—and all who follow him, by extension—to dwell in him. The branches connected to his Vine have life, and bear fruit. If we’re connected to him, then what he provides can flow into and through those of us who are his. And if we are not connected to him, we will wither, and will be useless spiritually.

But how do we abide in him? Verses 7 and 9 tell us that if we maintain that same dwelling connection to his words and his love, then we will abide in him. And verse 10 further clarifies that if we keep and follow the commands of Jesus, then we are dwelling in his love.

Thus, at the very least, we can see that following the commands of Jesus—just like how he followed the commands of the Father—we will abide in his love.

But what are his commands?

While I would say that everything Jesus taught and lived would be included, at the very least, context shows us that verse 12’s words are a directly related command. “Love one another as I have loved you.”

Yet still, Jesus doesn’t leave the word “love” without a direction. Verse 13 shows us that the greatest love—the most perfect form of this godly love—is to give your life for others.

Love isn’t about selfishly seeking affirmation or the celebration of whatever makes a person happy. It is about giving to others. Sacrificing, if necessary. The command of love is giving everything for the betterment of others, just as how the sacrifice of Jesus provides salvation for all who bow before his cross.

It’s a willingness to give whatever it takes to lead others closer to that godly action of abiding with Jesus. When we call others to attach to the Vine, when we invite them to follow the words and ways of Jesus, that is love. Even if that call to godliness directs them away from things that make them “happy.” Especially then, because that is a means of temptation for them, a lure to disconnect from the spiritual life Jesus has for them.

You see the opposing definitions of love between what our culture tells us it should be, and what Jesus says here, right? The love of Jesus command is not to affirm each others’ “truths.”

And if all of the previous discussion isn’t enough for you, look at verses 18-19. Jesus tells his followers that if we are hated by the world—by the culture around us—then we shouldn’t be surprised, because the world hated him. And we are not better than Jesus.

But then he adds that, since we are not of the world—since we connect to the life he provides, rather than follow the world’s ways—then the world does not love us. And this word translated as “love” right here is key to understanding this. The Greek uses a different word in verse 19 than it has anywhere else in the passage. This isn’t the selfless and sacrificial love of God. No, this is the “have affection for,” or possibly, the “affirm” type of love.

Thus, if we were of the world, then the world would affirm us.

Do you see? The affirmation of our culture, the very thing they use to define love, is not the same as the love of God. As a matter of fact it is shown by Jesus’ own words in this passage to be totally in opposition to the love he calls his followers to.

Therefore, when preachers and these “affirmation mongers” spend dozens of minutes forcing the idea of affirmation onto their congregations, rather than the actual love and word of God, they’re doing the same thing as the indulgence sellers of Luther’s day. They’re hawking a holy loot box that promises only lies. And forfeits the holiness we followers of Jesus are called to pursue.

Don’t buy into the faulty definitions. Don’t let the fancy slogans lead you down a false path. Instead, let’s call all followers of Jesus back to the truth. To repentance. To Jesus’ love.

I don’t know for certain if this is what Luther would post if he were around today. But it certainly is what I am posting.

And what better day is there to do it?