Is Crossroad going to be so long all the time? (this is actually my own question) Answer: No. No way. No how.

Can you elaborate more on shame as a biblical principle? I’ve always thought that God wants us to be convicted but not ashamed.

Shame is a painful emotion felt when one has violated conscience or a known moral boundary. No doubt, when people first started using the word ‘convicted’ to represent the place where one had violated God’s Law, it was an appropriate synonym. But like a lot of things, our flesh takes the concept and turns it to make it easier to not have to deal with the fullness of what sin is and what we have done. Consider this, when Acts described the first Christians and how they lived, this is the statement Luke writes in Acts 9:31- the church grew walking ‘in the fear of the Lord and the comfort of the Holy Spirit.’ The church today has radically embraced the ‘comfort of the Holy Spirit’ but completely done away with ‘the fear of the Lord.’ Strange thing is- YOU CANNOT HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER!! They are inseparable. It is only the true shame (sorrow, grief) over sin that will lead to true repentance that brings true faith and the true Holy Spirit with the true consolations of Christ.

How do I explain to someone why God breaks us?

Simple- tell them that God is trying to make sure that people understand the seriousness of sin and its consequences. Consider the punishment for sin- eternal hell. Now people today are trying to push hell away and say that God couldn’t possibly do something like that. God, on the other hand, has gone to extraordinary lengths to make absolutely sure that people know that is exactly what He is going to do. God breaks us to make sure that we know what the stakes are. Consider it this way- you go into a Dr’s office and he comes back with some test results. One Dr says “Looks OK, you could try to work on your fat intake a little.’ Another Dr says ‘Your cholesterol reading are bad news. If you do not change, you are going to die. If we do not see improvement by your next visit, I will no longer be your Dr because I am not going to watch this. This is your warning.’ Which did his or her job? #2. Same with God. Its a warning.

Repentance is recognition and confession of sin. Is that confession to God and ourselves only, or also to Christian brothers and sisters?

Good one. Depends. First, yes- confession is always to God. Consider when David had gone into the whole mess with Bathsheba. He lies. Kills her husband. And when he is confronted and confesses, in his Psalm of confession (Ps 51- which everyone should read) he says ‘against You and You only have I sinned.’ In one sense, he is right. There is only One against whom we can sin- God. In another way, he had sinned against Bath. Part of his repentance would be to confess to her and make it right. The Bible does teach us to confess to one another. I think that this is so we will be accountable to one another. I can confess my sin to God all the time and trick myself into thinking everything is cool pretty easy. Another person makes it ‘real,’ if you will. We definitely are called to make things right between ourselves and those we sin against. So I think that it is case by case.

I’m confused about how someone who seeks repentance will not receive it- like Esau.

Anyone who seeks repentance will find it. The point made last night is that sorrow is not repentance. Esau was sorry, but he was not repentant. The author of Hebrews was saying- if you want to repent, you better do it now, because your own heart will turn on you if you don’t.

Is repentance a gift from God? Is it something God does through us or is it something we do for God?

Both, actually. Acts 11:18 tells when the Jews discovered that Gentiles were becoming Christians as well, they said “God has granted to the Gentiles repentance.’ In 2 Tim 2:25 the Apostle Paul tells Timothy to be gentle with people because God might grant them repentance. No one repents who has not received repentance as a gift from God. At the same time, Paul in his letters tells people to stop doing the things that they had formerly been doing and start doing the things that God had placed before them to do. Here is the simple answer- the truly repentant are the ones who start doing what God has asked them to do and work at stopping what God has asked them to stop. They will fail at times at both, but will keep going.

In Mark 1, Jesus had not yet died and risen from the grave, so what does ‘gospel’ mean? What are they supposed to believe in?

‘Gospel’ simply means ‘good news.’ The word is used by the angels in Luke 2:10 at Jesus’ birth, for example. Modern Christian have a tendency to say that the ‘Gospel’ is nothing more than Jesus’ death and resurrection, but the Biblical authors saw it as a wider set of happenings. I guess the easiest way to answer the question here is to say that they are to believe that Jesus is who He says He is. The ‘good news’ of God among them at that time.

I have received Jesus into my heart and want to start a relationship with Him. I have made many failed attempts. Where should I start reading?

In a church. That is awesome news and I am so glad to hear that God is calling another of His children to His side. You need- no, MUST- be in a place where there are people that can challenge and teach you. HANGING OUT WITH CHRISTIAN FRIENDS WILL NOT GET IT DONE. You need people further down the road to help you along. The Bible, to be sure, is going to be crucial for the rest of your life, but you will need help understanding parts of it. As for the literal ‘where should I start reading?’- the Gospels. Start with John.

How did you get arrested for bootlegging in Texarkana?

Technically speaking, bootlegging is when you bring a certain amount of un-taxed alcohol from one tax district to another. In this case, it was a very large amount of Arkansas beer into Texas. We had actually acted with one shred of brain-power and had a designated driver, so the cops ended up just charging us with a MIP- or minor in possession of alcohol. I was not a Christian at the time, but that event ( I was 16) set off a chain reaction that led me to it when I was 18. One of the best things that ever happened to me.

We know that alcohol harms the body so then does this not make it a sin?
The same argument can be made about bacon, red meat, the sun and kissing. Abusing alcohol is a sin. Studies show that a drink now and then (especially wine) can be good for the body. Again, this is importing ideas into the realm of morality that are not meant to be there.

What about body tattoos and Leviticus 19. 28?
Those commands were much more about not being identified with Canaanite Baal worship than anything else. I don’t think that we can put this in a category for today that says it is wrong. I don’t know if it is the smartest thing (sorry, all you tattooed people! But I think there will be some weird looking grandparents one day!), but I can’t say that it is sinful. (To the person that said that they were going to get ‘Greg Pinkner’ tattooed across their back- my wife said not even she would do that, so I would stay away from it! P.S.- my initials are GJP, if you are interested! HA!)

What about being drunk?
All things in moderation. I would say that being drunk is sin, because there is nothing good that comes from it and it usually leads to nothing edifying. People make ‘the worst mistakes of their lives’ when drunk. Cops will tell you that 90% of crime happens when people are drunk or high. Someone who goes out with the purpose of drinking too much is not seeking the glory of the Lord, but their own hedonism. As we looked at the verses last night- they will give account. Many of the emails on this subject, however, are intertwining ‘being drunk’ with ‘drinking’ and they are not the same thing- although in the college context they are usually one and the same. We need to be more discerning than that.

Can’t a person fool themselves into thinking that an action is perfectly fine, while their hearts condemn it and rationalization begins?
ABSOLUTELY! Which is why last night I kept talking about being wise and spiritually mature. The way we guard against these things is by staying in the Word and around Christian community. Our Christian friends will hopefully call us out when we are doing this and it will allow the Holy Spirit to speak to us regarding our hardening heart. All this to say that is why I was talking about this being a ‘dangerous’ teaching- those that are slaves to the flesh will only use it to justify their sinful behaviors. But we must teach the whole of the Word. We do not hold back portions of it because some might hang themselves with the rope you give.

What are the differences between these verses and the arguements the emergent church uses to justify its “cultural” views?
Well, mainly the EC is talking about doctrinal issues and we are talking about moral ones. They would say that since our culture does not really believe in sin, we should not use it to talk about the Gospel. (Foolishness, by the way). We are saying, along with Paul in Rom 14, that the Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of peace, joy and righteousness in the Holy Spirit. The EC is basically saying the Gospel is ‘enslaved,’ if you will, to a culture’s precepts. We are saying the Gospel is transcendent.

Can u be in a relationship when you disagree about the grey areas? Ex. Alcohol?
Simply, yes. That is the whole point of the passage; that we are to be in relationship with people that we disagree with on these things. I am guessing that you are asking about a romantic relationship and there we run into some other issues. If you remember our Dating series, you know that ultimately dating is about marriage. Marriage means kids and there is the rub. It could be very confusing for a kid to see their parents doing two opposite things. But that is something each has to decide for themselves. If you are asking my gut-level opinion- I think that it would be wiser to not date someone you disagree with. Too much opportunity for the flesh to insert itself and hurt you both.

I am also on staff at a church. Do you believe church staff is held to a different standard with respect to drinking?
Only in that they are more visible. There is no distinction between how a lay person should live this out and a pastoral person. Each should have in mind the people that they affect. In the case of the pastor, they are usually more visible, so the number of people that could be wounded by them is greater, thus they have to be more careful. But the degree to which they must respect others is no different.

What about churches that have turned either lost people or struggling Christians away for wearing jeans when they come in the 1st time?
You can only do your best. If a church has set a culture of a relaxed nature and someone is put off by it, then that is more on the person than the church. What about the people that DO come because of the relaxed culture and are turned off by the opposite? That is why Paul said ‘the one who eats, eats to the glory of the Lord; the one who abstains, abstains to the glory of the Lord.’ The church that glorifies God through a relaxed culture is no more or less glorifying to God than the one that does it through a formal culture, and vice versa. Some people are ‘looking’ for reasons to leave the church, and for that they will give account.

Is it wrong to drink in front of a recovering alcoholic who still struggles with quitting?
This is an easy one- yes. Without a doubt.

What about things like ‘little white lies?
Lying is prohibited by Scripture- it is not the same thing as something that is not directly addressed by Scripture. As much as we say that ‘lwl’s are to spare someone else’s feelings, they are usually more about sparing our own feeling and getting us out of ‘uncomfortable situations.’

Jen pinkner is hot and i love her cute bangs!

The good news is that this was written in by one of the girls Jen mentors and I don’t have to kill anyone. Especially when they are right!!! HA!

What about about things that are made ok and lawfull to do? can we do
those things?
Unless it is against God’s word, yes. On the flip side, if something is gray in God’s word and it is made illegal, then you can’t. For example, it is not black and white in the NT that it is wrong to drink alcohol (sorry Baptists). But that the law says it is wrong for someone under the age of 21 to drink MAKES it against God’s law. Here’s a curve ball- even if your parents are cool with it, that doesn’t make it ok because it is not their place to dictate that. It is the government’s. It was against God to drink alcohol during Prohibition, and then not the very day Prohibition was overturned. God has granted His authority to the government.

Can military personal go to war? What about the whole “thou shall not
kill” thing?
Yes, that is the whole point of the ‘just war’ stuff we talked about at the end. If the proper government has given proper authority and the criteria for just war are met, then they can. The ‘thou shall not kill’ does not apply because God has given the authority to the government to exercise His right to do so. That command is for the individual.

Was it right for people like detrich bonhoffer and john knox to
attempt to assassinate those in authority.
I would say no. They were not ‘governmental’ authorities, if you will. I would say that made it sin. Sin NEVER is the answer to sin. Never.

How can you say the people who passed the abortion law are working for
God
I don’t. They are clearly outside of God’s will. Just like Pilate was wrong for crucifying an innocent man. If your question is ‘how can you say that the only authority in existence is in existence because of God?’ then you are going to have to re-read the text and really bend it to come up with something else. Also verses like Acts 2:23 which says that God assembled all the rulers together to stand against Jesus. God allows evil for His purposes. This is clear from the Bible. His reason is His goodness is revealed more clearly because of it.

When choosing a political canidate how do you weigh the importance of
things like abortion and gay marriage against war?
Good question. I think the main thing is that you can’t be a ‘one issue’ voter. When I am considering voting for someone, I have to look at a lot of things, not just a ‘hot topic’ issue like abortion or gay rights. What do they think about the economy? Crime? Social issues like welfare and Social Security? This can help narrow down the field. There is definitely some merit to the idea that Christians should only vote for people that are Christians and are representing Christian values. As much as the emergents and liberals are saying that politics and religion are exclusive, it is funny to me how at the exact same time, they are advancing liberal political agendas. (‘Hey pot! This is the kettle calling . . .’) The main thing is: vote your conscience. Choose the best candidate you can. I do think sometimes we might have to go with the ‘lesser of two evils’ approach.

If you are drafted into an immoral war how should you go about
participating the way God would want?
Probably this would be a time to engage is civil disobedience. You would probably go to jail, but that would be what you would have to do if you were sure you were honoring God with your disobedience. Consider Paul, Peter and John in the book of Acts and their constant jailing. They would not stop preaching the Gospel, knowing that was more important than personal freedom. Also note that even when they were in prison- God sprung both Peter and Paul through supernatural means!!

Is it biblical to have the united nations and on top of that for the
U.S. to submit itself to the united nations?
This is the first of many questions that I am going to answer by saying the issue at hand is not a biblical one, but a political one. For example, in the Bible, democracy as a political system is unknown. It speaks of emperors and kings. If we go by an undiscerning interpretative technique, we could say that living in a democratic republic (that’s us) is unbiblical because it is not in the Bible. That would be ridiculous. The issue for us is ‘does the UN help the political aspirations and needs of the US?’ Not a Biblical question, but a political one.

How do you speak to a friend who claims to seek Jesus but drinks
underage in a way they defend as ‘responsible’ and ‘not out of control’
Kindly at first and then more sternly if they will not listen. Look up the verses in Matt 18 regarding confronting a fellow Christian in sin. As for the root- it is not up to them to decide if it is ok to break the law. The government has God’s authority to establish the law. Period. If they break it, it is for their own pleasure and sensate, carnal lusts. It’s really simple- they are loving sin more than God.

When does legalism become an issue, or letting laws and silly rules
distract you from God’s glory and living for that alone?
First of all, legalism is a term for an aberration from salvation doctrine. It would be saying ‘you can’t be a Christian until you believe and Christ AND turn in a circle three times.’ The ‘turn in a circle three times’ is the legalistic aberration. In the N.T., it is usually about circumcision. A BIG mistake is made to when the call to holiness, or what is called ‘sanctification’ in the Bible, is called legalism. It’s not. If I call on everyone at Crossroad to obey the Lord by abstaining from sexual immorality, that is not legalism, it is sanctification. What is clear from the Romans text is that Paul considered living by the laws of the land a part of sanctification, thus it WAS living for God’s glory. To dismiss it is to NOT live for God’s glory, but our own pleasure. True Christian living is more about humility and proper submission than it is about wild hedonism, not matter what the current Christian bestsellers say.

Is it biblical for a woman to rule in a secular format?
I think I would say yes to this. The Bible is only specific about husbands and wives and within the Church. It would be true that a woman at the time would not be a business owner or leader nor a political ruler. But since there is not exact address in the Bible regarding that, I would say it is fine.

What is your view on fairtax…
Again, a political question rather than a biblical one. If I understand it correctly, it is a tax on consumption rather than income. I think that I am ok with that as long as there is a way to help the poor . . .

should i reject my government-given lottery scholarship money?
I don’t think so.

It seems we turn people off to God because they feel like a bad
person. Clearly they won’t be as good as me, but how change that view?
This is one of the consistent ‘greatest mistakes’ the Church makes over and over. Is it not up to us how people react to the Gospel. We are just to present it and allow the Holy Spirit to do the work. In trying to ‘soften’ it, we usually end up changing it. This is EXACTLY what is going on with the emergents right now. While they say all they are trying to do is make the Gospel accessible to a new generation, their writings and podcast are full of modified Gospel, which is no Gospel at all.

We yield to government proper, not to Caesar. What is the difference?
Does this mean the American Revolution was of vain.
If the ‘government proper’ becomes one of tyranny, then the Christian can revolt if it done under a ‘just war’ fashion. Remember, the colonists elected a government who tried to reason with Britian and then ultimately revolted. Read the Declaration of Independence and see what you think about their reasoning.

what if someone is convicted and put in prison when they are truly
innocent?
I’m not sure what the question is, but on face value I will say that it is wrong. We should strive to set up the fairest system possible. Our system has an operating value that ‘ten guilty men should go free before one innocent man goes to jail.’ It does its best, but that doesn’t mean it’s perfect. Nothing here is or will be until Jesus returns.

Are these concepts applicable to other forms of authority, such as
professors and others?
Yes. You will see all through his letters that Paul considers showing proper respect to those in authority a Christian duty. Consider the letter ‘Philemon.’ In it, Paul is sending a runaway slave back to his master in order to be seen as proper even in injustice. In the letter, he calls for the master to be lenient, but more important is that the name of Christ be exalted by all by seeing good conduct. A difficult lesson in our ‘I have my rights’ society. But that is why we are not of this world.

How can one win approval of an authority who walks in darkness, if
‘darkness hates the light’?
Again, that is the job of the Holy Spirit. It seems impossible in the human scale, but nothing is impossible with God. Look at Pharaoh and Joseph, Daniel and Darius, the Jews and Cyrus, etc. God will give us favor with those He pleases. He directs their hearts like a river.

Can we beat Greg?

You can try. I will say that I carry a knife and don’t have the ‘turn the cheek’ thing down . . . at all.

What if the act that is most right in the sight of all is unbiblical?
Well, the answer to this one is pretty obvious. You never, ever disobey God to please people. MOST of what we do will be looked down on by the world. I think what Paul is saying here goes along with his admonition to be at peace with all if possible. We are, like most Westerners, mostly concerned with our rights and privileges. We should be most concerned with spreading the good news and glory of Jesus

When u say feed evil, does that apply to giving money to homeless? Culd
u elaborate if possible

I don’t remember saying ‘feed evil,’ but probably did. If I understand the question, basically the issue is- how do I know who to help? There is one way of thinking about it that would say “I’m just supposed to give the money, it’s up to Jesus what they do with it.” There’s another that says “Don’t help the sinner sin.” I think that both are right in ways. I think it is sometimes a cop out to give money- in the way that some might give money and then think “I’ve done my duty . . . I’m good.” The more loving thing is to dive in- it will also have the benefit of showing you the truth. When someone asks me for money to get something to eat, I tell them I will go buy them whatever they want from wherever they want. I’ve only been taken up on it once or twice. Most of the time, it becomes obvious that all they want is money. I can’t do that, because more than likely, I know where it is going. If you are someone who is especially moved by this type of thing, then maybe you need to be looking to helping out at places that help people in these situations. Places like KARM (Knoxville Area Rescue Ministries) or Love Inc try to help out those that need it. To quote Jesus from Matthew, be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (a quote, BTW, that I wrongly attributed to Paul last night).

Does this mean i shud be a pacifist?

Good question, and one that I will deal with more next week. The answer is yes and no. It is one thing to let someone slap your face, another to not stop someone from slapping someone else. When someone who cannot defend themselves, for whatever reason (physical, psychological, economical), is being abused it would be wrong to do nothing about it. Consider that almost all of Paul’s letters in the NT are to churches that are under attack from false teaching. He did not stand aside- he jumped in and confronted.

In loving the church, how can we call out christians who are living in
sin without being hypocritical, since we sin too (except me)
Excellent humility. I always wanted to meet someone who was as humble as I am. WE ROCK!!! It is not sin to point out sin, it is sin not too. Note in Paul’s letters he says that we are to point out sin in others so that they can be reconciled to Christ. If our purpose is to be the ‘holy club’ and show people how spiritual we are, then we are wrong even if the content of our observation is right. If it is because we love and are trying to help then we are doing what is best for the person. Someone who points out sin should remember that they are sinners as well and thus confront the person how they would want to be confronted. Ever notice how most of the time, the person who is so confrontational can’t stand to be confronted? That cannot be us.

As it says in romans 12, be constant in payer, if you continually pray
for one thing over and over does this show a lack of faith?
This idea is gaining more and more traction in the Church today, so let me answer plainly: NO. NO WAY. NO HOW. Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane and was told no. Paul prayed over and over that his ‘thorn in the flesh’ would be removed and was told no over and over. If a prayer being answered ‘no’ is lack of faith, then Jesus lacked faith and that is a big problem. It means that God is saying no and trying to teach you something. The something could be perseverance and He wants you to keep praying. But it doesn’t necessarily mean a lack of faith.

I have the gift of discernment. People tell me it is a sin and hateful
to tell a minister he/she is wrong. How do I explain that its not
Point to Paul. He confronted people in every one of his letters, and they were inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself. There may come a time, however, when it is time for you to move on because there is no change. This is why Paul advocates confronting people about sin a certain number of times and then moving on (as in leaving). It just becomes confrontation for confrontation’s sake after that.

Why is I Corinthians 13 not applicable at weddings?
Because it is primarily about how to live together in the church. It’s more about how the church should love than about romantic love. Not that there aren’t lessons to be learned, and using it is not necessarily bad, that’s just not what the text is really about.

Why you gotta pick on baby’s feet?

They can’t fight back!

What should I say or do for those stuck Christians? It’s as if one I know isn’t seeking and seems2not care, concluding on her own terms.

Well, the Bible gives us a couple of things to do. First is to go after them. We are not to sit back and just let them slide along. We need to go after them with love and concern. After a season of that, if they still will not turn from sin or their own wants (we must be discerning here- there is a difference between struggling with sin, and just not caring and diving into it) then we are to begin a process called church discipline. Meaning that we are to not even eat with them. This is only for people who say that they are Christians but will not live like it. You should seek the council of a pastor and leaders within the church to fully walk this out.

Does the church engage in self mutilation? Is it the foot’s job to contact the surgeon or is it the body’s?

Great question. It’s both. The foot should tell the body when it needs help. In the real body, it does- with pain, etc. The body should respond to the need. Likewise, in the real body, if the foot is diseased and cannot be cured, you cut it off so the whole doesn’t go down with it. As with the above question, sometimes the member that will not be cured needs to be put out.

If the Holy Spirit is in you does that mean you should be able to speak in tongues?

Let me state this with no hesitation- absolutely not. 1 Cor 12:7-11 says that the Holy Spirit gives gifts as He chooses, but the same Lord is behind them all. 1 Cor 12:30 even asks the question “Do all speak in tongues?” with the implied answer being ‘of course not.’ To state that everyone should have the same gift is to TOTALLY ignore the whole point of 1 Cor 12. Read that chapter and you will see exactly what I mean.

So is the list in romans 12 6 and on in the order of authority?

No. In it, Paul is not even really talking about spiritual gifts as much as he is talking about Christians ‘getting after it.’ 1 Cor 12 has a list of gifts in order, but then Paul makes absolutely clear that no one gift is more important. They are all needed, even though some are meant to establish parameters of operation. For example, the apostles were the founding authority of the church and should be followed as closely as possible. Does that make them more important than someone with the gift of mercy? No. They just had a different role.

Can’t people have more than 1 gift. Aren’t we all supposed to be servants & able to teach other brothers? Can you have more than one gift in different parts of your life?

In a nutshell, yes. People can have more than one gift. I think I touched on this last night, but there are commandments that supersede gifting. While some are gifted to be evangelists, we are all called to evangelize. While some are gifted to serve, we are all called to serve one another. In a way, you could say that God gives us gifts so we can find places to serve and that we can know Him better through it. There are times that we have to do things that are outside of our gifting. This is also so we can know Him more. No one is ever ‘let off the hook’ because of a lack of gifting. Consider Moses in the OT. God knows what He is doing. Because God is the Giver of the gift and ultimately sovereign over them, He could ‘change’ a person’s gift in their life if He so desired. I would think it more likely that He would ‘add’ a gift however.

How do Pentecostals and charismatics reconcile the verses that one gift is no more important than another? That is if they believe tongues are on a higher degree of spirituality than another gift.

Mostly, they use the verse from 1 Cor 14 in which Paul says he wants everyone to speak in tongues. This is funny (that some C’s and P’s say that this makes tngs the primary spiritual gift) because in the paragraph, Paul is actually saying that prophecy is more important. There is something to be learned in the knowledge that Paul wants us to pursue the Holy Spirit and seek for Him to gift us and the church more and more.

Do you think spiritual gift tests work? What is the difference between a spiritual gift and a calling?

Yes, I do think they can work. But not as well as the actual ‘doing.’ Consider it this way, you can take those tests that tell you what kind of job you would be good at, but you don’t know until you do it. If a gifts test gives you some ideas as to where you should start trying out your gift, great! But, you might find that the test wasn’t exactly dead on as you work it out. What I am saying is- don’t take a test, get a result and then say ‘That’s it! I know my gift and I’m doing that no matter what!’ God might be using the gift test result to get you moving, only to show you later that your true gift is something else. A calling is different in that it is a urging from God to take up a specific post. You might, for example, feel called to be a pastor and be gifted to lead or administrate. Gifts help us live out our callings. And vice versa.

Is contributing to Christian charities via the church considered tithe? Scriptures?

‘Via’ the church, yes. Outside the church, no. This is a huge question and I don’t want to get too lengthy with these, but here goes. What we are commanded to do is to be generous to the brothers and sisters in the church (1 Tim 6, Titus 3). Most of the texts regarding giving in the NT have the church in mind (remember, the church is the people, not the building). The idea of the tithe (as carried over from the OT) was that by banding together, we can do more than apart. I can get into this further if need be, but suffice it to say this: if you are not in a church, you are outside of God’s will for you. If you are not helping support that church, but are a leech, the same is true as well. What we want today is to go to a church, enjoy all its programs, but give our money wherever we want and even IF we want. That is not God’s way. If we are supporting our church, and God puts it on our heart to support a ministry that exists outside the people we have committed to, then that is a call God is giving us above and beyond what we are already doing. Taking from our tithe to do that is to ‘rob Peter to pay Paul,’ as the saying goes. Again, this issue is deep and needs much more explanation than is allowed here. If you are in big disagreement here, ask yourself this question- does your disagreement stem from not being able to do what you want to do?

Does the gift of tongues still exist in today’s church?

The schools of ideas that govern spiritual gifts come in two major categories. First is called ‘cessationism.’ It’s the idea that the spiritual gifts do not exist today. There are divisions within the school, like ‘semi-cessationist’ which would say that gifts do exist, just not the ‘sign’ gifts like tongues and miracles. The opposite is, obviously, the non-cessationist, which says that the gifts are in operation today. There are good arguments on both sides and I think that there is room for disagreement. I think that anyone who says ‘if you think such-and-such way about spiritual gifts, you are not a Christian’ is wrong. Having said that, I cannot be persuaded by the arguments for the cessationist views. They are, to me, unconvincing. I do believe that the gift of tongues is in operation today. I am not sure that I think that many of the ways that it is used in churches is the true gift. For example, in some Pentecostal churches, many people are ‘speaking in tongues’ all at once in a jumbled confusing manner. That goes against clear Scriptural commands. I don’t see how the Holy Spirit would sanction that.

Where does the text say that there is a gift of discernment? Why are there diff gifts in diff places?

Discernment is actually not in this list, but in 1 Cor 12. As for different gifts in different places, I’m not sure exactly what is meant. If you mean ‘within the Bible,’ then the answer is because Paul was writing to different groups of people in different places at different times. He wanted to make sure the people to which he wrote had the info they needed to walk the Christian life out as best they could. If the question means ‘in different places in the world,’ the answer is that God knows what areas need which gifts. The Father loves His children and wants to care for them. He knows what they need.

Off Topic

On the week to week basis, I will get to these if I can:

What’s the book you said had a blasphemous sentence is the middle?

The Shack. There is actually more than one. Is there some good in the book? Yes, without question (ex.- personifying God’s love and grace, personifying the love for one another within the Trinity). Is there some bad? More than the good unfortunately (ex.- the calling of authority sinful, mocking of attempts to properly interpret the Bible, a total misrepresentation of the nature of the Atonement and the Cross). Should you read it? Short answer: probably not. Long answer: depends. If you feel that you are very spiritually discerning, then MAYBE, but only to help others navigate it. If you know that you have more to learn (remember last night’s warning from Paul not to think more highly of yourself than you ought- Rom 12:3), I would stay away from it. If you are seeking a spiritual high or encouragement- read the Bible.

How do we start the changes necessary to transform the church and its
blatant hypocrisy?

Well . . . how about an easy question!! Truthfully- you start with yourself. My old pastor told me ‘If you want to shoot hypocrites, get a mirror.’ It is out of concern for our brothers and sisters in Christ that we should begin to confront the church, and if that is not our motivation, then we should stay quiet because in truth- we are the hypocrite. There should be loving confrontation. Having said that, saying that we should not confront people is the same error on the opposite end of the spectrum. Over aggression or passivity are not the ways of Christ. And then there is the most Biblical, least obeyed commandment in the NT- church disciple. The reason there are so many hypocrites in the church is because there are so many non-Christians allowed to masquerade. Consider 1 Cor 5 or 2 Thess 3- for example.

There are just certain things that you don’t mess with in our society and the validity of someone’s experience is one of them. If you said to someone “are you sure (blank) happened?” They would say ‘yes’ or ‘maybe.’ But if you began to push on them that they might be confused or mistaken about something that they are sure of- watch out. You just grabbed the third rail called the “I’m infallible, don’t push me’ rail. If the category in question is ‘did or didn’t you tell me you were hanging out with someone else tonight’ or ‘did or didn’t you tell me you were hanging with the guys tonight (BTW- guys, you can’t win this. Don’t try),’ then the stakes are not the high really, even though the emotion might be.

But do the same thing in something that really matters- say like a religious experience. You’ll get a curt, if not downright snotty “I know what I experienced.” Now let’s take a look at the Scripture says and see what happens. In Matt 24:24, Jesus tells us that Jesus warned us that there will be powerful delusions that will come that would deceive ‘even the elect, if that was possible.’ Now, whether you believe in election or not, you get the point here. This is saying that ONLY THE POWER OF GOD HIMSELF can shield the people of these times from the delusion that comes. In 2 Cor 11:13-15, Paul warns that false teachers and apostles will come and cloak themselves in righteousness because even Satan himself uses the disguise of an “angel of light.”

Now put these two things together and we get this simple question- are you unwilling to question experience? Are you going to say ‘there is no way that wasn’t God?’ The slippery slope of this is that some will question true experiences with God so much that one begins to believe that they weren’t valid. So what is the happy medium? How do we rightly question?

I think that the answer is- what was the eventual fruit? Was it a week of repentance and then a return to the old? Can we honestly say that was truly a conversion or repentant episode? If on the other hand, we see that an experience has shaken itself into the soul and there is a result of a newness of life, then we have the Biblical evidence called for.

Let me boil it down like this: true experience yields true result.

As we begin a new corporate worship journey in Crossroad, I pray that the Lord would bless us with the grace to truly experience Him, and more, that He would plant and reap a harvest of righteousness within us.

So when we deal with John, we must understand he was not arranging a historically linear biography.  That does not mean that the things he recorded didn’t happen, just that the order of them is not the key issue.  We write this way as well.  Say I was going to write a biography of Winston Churchill.  You would expect a certain flow of events.  Then say I was going to write a book claiming that W.C. was the greatest political leader who ever lived.  You would not hold me to a linear account if say I used an example from ’38 and then went to ’41 and then back to ’49.  My purpose would not be to show a linear account of why W.C. was the greatest, although I could do that.  It would be to show why W.C. was the greatest.
John is doing the same thing.  One has to grab on to the fact that throughout his Gospel, John arranges things symbolically.  Let me give only one example for the sake of not making this the longest thing ever.  In John 3, Jesus has the encounter with Nicodemus where the famous line born again is mentioned.  This is a shock to Nicodemus because he is everything ‘right.’  He is male, Jewish, Pharisee, a member of the Sanhedrin (Jewish High Court).  That he of all people would have to ‘start over’ is crazy.  What is the next story?  In John 4, we have the adulterous woman at the well.  She is everything ‘wrong.’  She is female, Gentile, pagan, sinner.  But it is to her that Jesus confirms who he is.  This is the symbolism of what John is doing.  These two stories are ‘bookends’ if you will.  No doubt the stories happened, but they are arranged to bring out a powerful point.  Jesus is the Christ who has come to save the world, not just the Jews.
Which brings us, finally, to the point of this thing.  Let’s examine the timeline John is proposing.  The timeline begins in John 1:24-28 (I’m going to summarize rather than type out the whole thing) when the Pharisees begin to question John the Baptist and he announces the coming of the One (not the Matrix.)  The second day is recorded in 1:29-34 when John announces Jesus.  The third day is the one we talked about, found in 1:35-42.  Day four is recorded in 1:43-51.  Then we hit chapter 2.  Now note this, it begins in 2:1 with ‘On the third day . . .’  So, we have 4 days, then 3 which makes 7.  What happens on that ‘7th’ day?  Jesus turns water to wine and to quote John from 2:11 ‘manifest(s) His glory.’  This is a picture using the Jewish notion of God.  God rests during His 7th day of creation, but through Christ, He is picking it back up.  The story is Jesus using Jewish washings basins to transform the wine.  A ‘this old creation will not do, I will transform it’ parable, if you will.
The Synoptics are clear that the Temptation occurred after the Baptism.  We must recognize that if John’s timeline is meant to be historically linear, there is an irreconcilable conflict.  None of this even mentions the impossibility of being in Judea one day and traveling all the way to Galilee the next, although that is an entirely different thing.  Rather, recognizing the high use of symbol in John (study it sometime, its fascinating and edifying) we can see there might be another way to engage the text that is not dishonest or ‘skirting.’