Krissi

Why does Paul call out Peter publicly in Antioch? Paul could have approached Peter privately to talk about his concerns, yet he chose a public forum which demeaned and belittled Peter. Why did he do this? My guess why Paul's rebuke was made publicly because Peter's behavior had had public/church-wide ramifications, gentile Christians had been feeling hurt and rejected by their Jewish brethren, and Jewish leaders had not done anything about it and were, in fact, perpetuating a two-tiered version of Christianity. What is the reason for Peter's hypocrisy? I don't know the sequence of events but at some point in the book of Acts Peter had a vision in which animals were lowered on a blanket before him. He was commanded (by God?) to kill those animals and eat them. Peter refused because of Jewish laws that rendered those animals unclean. This was repeated three times. In the end, God told him to not consider things unclean which He has said were clean. What is the central issue on which Paul feels they must not compromise? This is the central issue -- although they knew that the old laws that had to do with unclean/clean had been abrogated by Christ, and that gentiles were now full members of the body of Christ, prior habits borne from a sense of superiority lingered among the Jewish leaders of the new church. Paul sensed the corrosive nature of a two-tiered Christianity and nixed it before it became deeply rooted. Had he not done this, Christianity could have developed into two religions, with gentile-Christians becoming the "Samaritans." Why is it so important? One of the most important social implications of the Christian faith is the idea we are all equal or one, that in the body of Christ we may have a different function but not a different status.

Perhaps church discipline is avoided because with so many churches to choose from, an individual Christian is able to leave a more stringent church and join a less stringent church without social repercussions. Church discipline may work best in a monopolistic circumstance. During the reformation, for example, when Luther was excommunicated by the Catholic church, it was a big deal because Luther had no other options -- the Catholic church exercised a monopoly on Christianity. This is no longer the case. Another reason why church discipline is avoided is that churches are morally/ethically weak. They'd rather look away from sin, to proclaim a weak gospel of love and forgiveness. Moral laxity is the norm and churches, unfortunately, don't set themselves apart from society. In my wee opinion, we need to be more like the Amish than the Episcopalians; more distinct from society than successful within it. I have never seen church discipline so I have no idea what it would be like. I don't have a comparison with a culture that practices discipline and don't see or can imagine it's consequences. Pastor Ralph's mention of shunning among the Amish makes sense -- that's an application of discipline. Do they still do this? I'm sure we've all read the nineteenth-century novel by Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter, in which the protagonist Hester Pyrne (?) was judged on a platform in front of her entire community because she had borne an illegitimate child. As a punishment for her moral transgression, she was forced to wear a large, red letter "A" conspicuously sewn on her clothing ... for the rest of her life. If I recall the story correctly, because the father of her child was the town minister, she refused to divulge his name and so was forced to bear the shame and punishment alone. To avoid this novel's scenario, the church has gone to the opposite extreme. We don't have stocks or public shaming. We don't brand people or force them to wear a letter "A." We don't have overt shaming in the church either. But we do have subtle shaming: being avoided, not being included in social events, sitting alone, being the focus of gossip. Morality, then, is internalized. Though I'm certain that, if asked, most Christians would agree that adultery, for example, is wrong, I rather doubt that a practicing adulterer would be kicked out of 99-percent of evangelical/charismatic fellowships, particularly if he/she were subtle about their sin. We tolerate some sins more easily than others -- blatant materialism and greed are rarely considering to be offensive, and, at times, are even seen as a marker of success. If you want to get a sense of how much people care about morality in your church or fellowship, just ask them to list the Ten Commandments ...

Why do ambitious Christians struggle so much when they don't seem to be doing anything important? Obviously, someone needs to explain this struggle from the point of view of a so-called "ambitious Christian." It's not so much the importance of the task that's so enticing -- though that helps! -- but it is the actual doing of a task that matters. It's the challenge. The next mountain to climb. The feeling of being a total failure if a week/hour/second goes by without accomplishing something. For years, I charted all my little achievements: the number of words written, number of tomatoes grown, weight and strength, etc. I loved to see progress. Change. To be a bigger and better me. Why is this so difficult to understand, folks???? It's not ambition in a social sense, but in a personal sense. It's the driven, Type-A personality. Why is patience with God's plan so important to growth? I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "Don't just sit there, do something ..." Some guy in the 1950s/60s inverted that phrase, "Don't just do something, sit there." That guy needs to have his butt superglued to a heavy chair for that phrase is inhumane, cruel and unusual! Look, some of us are born with personalities that are driven! I can't sit still. Never could. In my wee opinion, the most ridiculously impossible verse in the Bible is this: "Be still and know I am God." Having said this, I know that God not only has given me my personality (and is busily changing it), but also has forced me to be still, to live in solitude, and be separated from the bustle of existence. Though I have prayed for a "big life" for the past six years, God has made my life even smaller. He has His inscrutable reasons. Admittedly, it's been a time of accelerated spiritual growth. I often wonder, however, why a good God can't come up with a kinder way of helping me learn of Him as a person. If you have read Lettie Cowman's devotionals, you'll understand the horror of solitude and stillness from the perspective of a Type-A woman who is far more spiritually mature than am I. Suffice it to say that for the driven, not being challenged is pure torture. Being stuck at home, puttering around the house, feeding my elderly father, watching snow fall and then trees come into leaf, reading book after book after book after book after book after book, writing a few books ... too, petting the dog, studying devotionally for hours because prayer is so difficult -- this is torture to a driven person. Yet, I know that God puts people like me into house arrest because that's the only way He can get us to focus on Him and not on the tasks we're eager to do. If he had not plunged us into seeming inactivity, we'd be starting this or that group, raising money, rushing off to the mission field, speaking incessantly ... without looking at Him or really knowing Him. We would be less obedient than frenetic. We wouldn't really know God. Why is a period of spiritual formation so important to future leadership? Waiting is the supreme test of obedience. I'm not sure waiting is important only to leaders, however, for it is also important to average, everyday pew-warmers like me. A "period of spiritual formation" is a time of nothingness and waiting. "When the cloud tarried ... then the children of Israel ... journeyed not." The poor Israelites were forced to camp for months, perhaps years, without starting fun building projects, digging deep wells, putting in irrigation to make fields productive, dragging stones to make roads, teaching in schools and writing the curriculum, etc. These are the things one would do who was NOT merely tarrying, but knew his calling, purpose and reason for existing. It must have been horrible to be sitting in a dry, ugly desert, looking up at the cloud in tears and begging God to make it move. I feel their pain! Tarrying is for the lost. It's for those who have to learn something before life can start again. It's the pause between the projects, the "pregnant silence" before the crescendo. I wait because God has not assigned me to do anything. Sure, it's a preparatory period, but that's the point, isn't it? Waiting, in itself, is meaningless. It's ONLY preparation for something else. No one likes to wait. To listening for God's voice? I've never heard God's audible voice. If I did, I'd probably spin around to see who is behind me! One of the things I am learning, slowly, is to hear His inaudible voice as I pray. Perhaps this time of house arrest has taught me the rudiments.

If we were to follow Paul’s rule, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat,” wouldn’t that allow people to starve? Were there safety social nets in Roman society at the time Paul wrote these words? I doubt it. How did those people live, then, assuming they did not work, BEFORE they were part of the church? Someone must have supported them. Perhaps they were wealthy. Perhaps they were beggars. Assuming they stopped working when they became Christians because they had figured out how to sponge off of other Christians, well, yes, I'd like them starve. Most people, when faced with starvation, figure out how to work. If they were capable of working, they'd suddenly re-discover their work ethic. It sounds harsh. What are the positive results of this rule? It's not harsh. It's tough love. The church doesn't need parasites in congregation or clergy. And, parasites don't need to be parasitical! Work is ennobling. When someone works hard at something and does a "good job," he or she has a feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction, even in more abstract jobs. I remember talking to an engineer-architect who told me that he had designed a few buildings in that city. He told me that every time he drove past those buildings, he smiled. I also remember meeting someone who designed the lighting in grocery stores -- he told me he'd always walk by the produce when shopping, just to see his illumination work! That's a good thing. Those who are lazy may discover these same feelings or accomplishment when forced to work. Perhaps the congregation itself would be strengthened by raising the spiritual "mean" or average of the congregation which is pulled down by it's least mature members. Forcing people to work would raise that spiritual mean. Furthermore, the congregation would have more money to give away to those who truly need it. To whom in a Christian community would this rule apply? To whom would it not apply? Specifically, it would only apply to those truly in need. The elderly, in particular, are vulnerable and often unseen and ignored. It would not apply to anyone capable of work. I also think that Christians who work hard, but still cannot make ends meet, or who have sudden catastrophe such as a health crisis, should be supported. One last thing. Christians who do work, yet fall on rough times, need to be supported in a way that doesn't demean or diminish them. Sometimes that support could be in the form of child care or dropping off food anonymously. The point is to not make them feel like failures or to belittle them in any way. I have seen women in church groups make meals for people who don't really need meals. I remember being in one such group when I had a baby. Their "ministry" was to bring meals to new mothers for one week. This sounds nice, but none of us needed it. The only effect that these meals had was to make the women in the group feel good about themselves -- it served no real need. Their time would have been better spent volunteering at a homeless shelter where the need for food was real, not contrived.

This is fascinating -- a moon worshipper morphs into a godly man. He became godly because God revealed aspects of Himself to Abraham. The little bit that Abraham knew of God was compelling enough to believe in Him, to really trust God, and to do what God tells him to do ... most of the time. God gave Abraham the promise that he would be the father of a nation which obviously meant he'd have to have a child as the basis of that nation. In spite of his circumstances and logic, most of the time Abraham believed this promise of God. I like the fact that God overlooks or forgives Abrahams momentary lapses in faith. Gives me hope. At times, trusting God means being irrational. It means NOT looking at circumstances. It means NOT listening to the people around you who love and want the best for you. Sometimes, trusting God means walking into burning fires because you are absolutely convinced that this is God's will. Abraham trusted God like this. It was irrational for an old, wandering, stateless man to believe he would be the founder of a new nation. His circumstances weren't amenable ... he wasn't poor, but he didn't have a place of his own. No country was named after him. No land was his to defend. He mostly didn't listen to those who criticized him for being a believer in God -- he did listen to Sarah, his wife, and then slept with her servant -- big mistake! The current conflict in israel is the fruit of that coupling. What I identify with in Abraham is his wavering glitches in faith. What I love about God is his willingness to use Abraham in spite of these faith-glitches.

What kind of example did Paul set with regard to work when he was in Thessalonica? Paul worked diligently, for long hours, with his hands. He was a skilled tradesman. Those with whom he lived, that is, those with whom he travelled would have surely watched him work. Perhaps people in the cities to which he travelled also watched him work. As a tent-maker, he would have had to carry heavy loads of cloth to make tents. He also would have had to bring his needles, dowels, string or thread and other tools and supplies of that trade. I never thought that Paul was schlepping this stuff around until now! As a Christian worker, did he have a right to support? Yes, though I wouldn't word it as a "right." I'd rather say he had an "expectation" that people in each city would be willing to support him so he could preach and teach. Sometimes they gave ... sometimes not. It's much like itinerant preachers today who ask for "love offerings." I'm sure they pray that their offerings, at a minimum, cover their expenses. Why didn’t he exercise that right? Paul says he wanted to be an example of hard work to those who may have thought he was sloughing it off by only preaching. It would be difficult to deny Paul was working when he produced actual, visual objects, in this case, tents; it was easier to deny Paul was working when he produced speeches.

What does the Bible teach about sloth and idleness among those who can work but refuse to? Summarize it briefly. What is our Christian duty? Most of the people I know, including myself, have the opposite problem -- we're compulsive workers, unable to relax. Compulsive workers find the contemplative aspects of Christian faith almost impossible to "achieve." For example, I have a difficult time clearing my mind for prayer. I've met a handful of truly lazy people in my past -- none were christians -- who had either been born into money or received a windfall for some reason. The only work they did, in their minds, had to do had to be "fun." They became dissipated and lazy, self-indulgent and obsessed with the material objects. They shrank as people. By this I mean that they were less interesting to talk to because they had nothing to talk about! Instead of giving away their wealth, they hoarded it as they were spending. Money, oddly, had became the focus of their life perhaps because their status as wealthy individuals was all they had -- they had no real or meaningful accomplishments. Without faith, if one's livelihood is assured, the problem of work becomes acute. (This is a great time to witness, by the way.) Faith gives meaning to labor. A faithful person does not labor to exist, but labors because he/she LOVES other people and wants to serve them and because he/she loves God and want to obey Him. Labors become infused with meaning because they are no longer seen as a "job" but as a significant and important "calling." I'm not opposed to the Protestant work ethic, by the way. It's a glorious idea, misunderstood by most. Essentially, this ethic weaves calling and work tightly together. In it, you work because you are called to work; it is your obedience to that calling that gives joy and direction to your life.

Why is perseverance so important as we see wickedness increasing? The most horrible of circumstances are those which never seem to get better. Then, patience over the long term is needed. That's how I think of perseverance, as patience stretched over many years, over circumstances that are emotionally crushing. What happens if we stop believing and being patient? When we impatiently do stupid things to get rid of the pain and change the circumstances, our circumstances actually get worse. How can we help one another persevere? Only those who trust us can be encouraged. Most of the time the sort of circumstances that require perseverance are too horrible to discuss. Ultimately, perseverance is an individual character trait that has to be grown by the Spirit -- it's less of an issue in our salvation than in our subsequent sanctification. What part does God’s redemption and grace have in our salvation? God initiates and completes our salvation. I'm not smart enough to understand our and His respective roles. Somehow we respond to what He puts into our hearts -- a need to know Him. Is our response preordained? Again, I don't know and probably will never know!

Many years ago I read an article in which random Christians in different churches were asked to recite the Ten Commandments. Very few -- less than ten percent, as I recall -- were able to recite most of them. Some didn't know any of the commandments. Most Christians could say only one or two of them. These were Christians! Could it be the case that legalism isn't possible unless the law is known? Legalism isn't trusting oneself but a fanatical adherence to the letter of the law. Spiritual pride is another matter. One can be proud of one's ability to stand in front of the congregation and preach, pray, sing or whatever. One can be proud of the number of converts notched on one's belt. One can be proud of diligent reading and prayer, and of completing these bible studies. One can be proud, then, of good things, strangely. When the thing of which one is proud is a substitute for a relationship with Christ Himself, then "spiritual pride" is a hindrance to knowing Him and trusting only Him in faith. I struggle with pride even though all I value has been destroyed in the past decade. At times, I feel sorry for myself and angry at God. I beg to die rather than put up with another day on earth. When I gripe to God about how much I hate my life and want either change or death, I feel the heaviness of the Spirit in me. I know I've displeased him. And in a very real way, it's pride that's hindering me. If I were not so proud, I would not believe I deserve more than this. As I ask God, "Haven't I been humbled enough?" I realize that the asking of that question renders His answer, "NO!"

Why do you think God sends Ananias to Paul rather than revealing directly? I don't know. Saul had been blinded for only three days and certainly didn't have the time to deeply ponder what had happened to him and why so I don't think it had to do with Saul but Ananias. Surely, Ananias was changed by the experience of ministering to Paul, by being the instrument God used to perform the miracle of restoring Paul's sight, leading Him to the Lord and baptising him in the Spirit. God could have appeared to Paul as he did to so many Old Testament figures, even obliquely as in a burning bush. But He didn't do this. I don't think we'll ever know His reasons for doing what He did. Why does Ananias argue with God? Ananias was rightly frightened. Stephen had just been stoned and Ananias was afraid of meeting a similar fate. Why does it take courage to obey? What does Ananias do and say? Facing persecution or death for the sake of my faith is always courageous because the option lingers in my mind of denying Christ to save my life. Have you ever had God guide you to talk with someone and minister to him or her? Have you followed through? Yes and Yes. But it's never enough! I pray to be used by Him in the near future. I'm praying to powerfully evangelize, with the power of Him/Spirit, not with the power of my own cleverness, charisma or ability to articulate.

What makes people so gullible that they believe the Antichrist’s deceptions? What is the reason that God gives them over to this deception? This question has to do with human psychology and how we're wired to believe certain untruths. It also has to do with how society forces untruths on us -- relentlessly, through the media and government disinformation. I have no doubt that most of the people I know will believe the antiChrist when he comes. They're inclined to believe the herd, to defer to "expert opinion." These are those who "refuse to love the truth." But the verses Pastor Ralph gave us also suggest that they believe lies because God has given up on them, knowing that they'll never want to know the truth. Some people may be "too far gone." I'd like to think that everyone could be saved if they wanted to be so, but some people make decisions, one after the next, that only reinforce their "powerful delusions." They can't be corrected. Why is a fearless seeking of God’s truth so important to us? How can a preaching of the truth set people free? I was struck by the "fearlessness" we must have as we seek His truths. This implies something bad may happen or that the truths themselves may be so powerful, or so antithetical to the way we live/think that we are afraid of knowing the truth. Some strongly held ideas are tenaciously held because changing them was far too difficult and painful. God doesn't seem to make everyone face their own delusions. I was also struck by the phrase, "refuse to love the truth." Not only are we to fearlessly seek what we fear will destroy us, but we also have to love it!! That's amazing. I'm thinking of a young woman who is a lesbian with whom I recently spoke, who though she has divorced her "wife" to marry a male (it's a start!), she refuses to condemn her old beliefs. Too proud to admit she was wrong, she won't cut the mental/emotional/spiritual ties to her past, even though she seems to love her new husband and the truth of real marriage. I'm praying that God sends her a better messenger than I to explain, patiently and with great compassion, true human sexuality. Perhaps his/her preaching will set her free as the Spirit enters her? I pray this happens. But there are people who grew up in the church, or who knew the truth but backburnered or rejected it to believe a lie they can't "live without it." I've known ******** Marxists who simply can't give up that totalizing way of looking at the world -- I've also read of a handful who have become Christian. I know many "greenies" who are convinced that the world is warming -- these people have made themselves into mini-gods who can't quite give up their own eschatological POV that contradicts God's word. Many sexual deviants, uber-wealthy shysters, ******** patriots as well as America-haters, and almost all diplomats and politicians involved in international affairs are people who can't give up the lie as it's too personally painful for them to do so. They prefer bondage to the lies of their own concoction to freedom from those lies by submitting to Christ.

The antichrist will be proud -- intense and excessive pride is his distinguishing characteristic. He is too proud to submit to law -- he exalts himself above all. He is too proud to submit to God, in fact he puts himself in the place of God, pretending to be God, fooling some people, though ultimately he is only fooling himself. Most Christians assume that the antichrist will be a political leader. Pastor Ralph, in contrast, emphasized the antichrist's religious fantasies: the Revelation passage states that the antichrist makes war against christians to conquer the church. He is a one-world leader with authority/power over every single nation and people-group. And most people, even Christians, apparently, will not push back -- all but the most true Christians will worship the antichrist. The antichrist is a person, a flesh-and-blood man, not an socio-economic or political system. He will have a name. The antichrist, then, will usher in a 42-month period of intense political persecution of Christian as he tries to consolidate power under himself. I can see how such political persecution separates the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, in the church. Weaker Christians and those of false or unformed faith will fall away unless protected and shepherded by those with stronger faith. I'm repressing the urge to speculate who it could be, if the antichrist is alive today. It seems only logical that he would come from one of the organizations with globalist pretensions (WHO, UN, EU) or from a powerful state with globalist pretensions (China, USA).

The Thessalonians had been convinced that they had missed Jesus's second visitation to the earth by a false prophet or letter-writer. They didn't know what to believe. On the one hand, they had the false letter from a false Christian (or a confused one) -- on the other hand, they had Paul's comforting words that they had not missed the Second Coming. I wonder how they dealt with these confusing, conflicting ways of looking at things. We tend to think that Paul's words automatically settled the issue, but maybe they remained confused. In his brief discussion of the anti-Christ, Paul clearly states that the anti-Christ will come before Christ returns. He will reign during a time when people are crude, unlettered, hostile to God and immoral (sounds like today, huh?). The anti-Christ seems, in the biblical description, to be a political leader, perhaps a globalist/internationalist. Since Christ won't come until the anti-Christ is in power, many find it tempting to speculate on who the anti-Christ could be! It's sorta like a Christian parlor game.

Why does persecuting Christ's people constitute persecuting Christ himself? I hope, frankly, that the persecution I've endured recently is equivalent to being like Christ and His persecution. It seems, though, that many Christian who are persecuted are not relieved of that persecution in their lives, and some even die as martyrs ... again, like Christ. God controls all of human history including its more sordid aspects such as the persecution of believers. I do not know how to reconcile God's sovereignty with the persecution of believers. What kinds of goads or prods have you seen God use on you to move you along Christ's path? The goads God has used to get me to turn to Him more fervently are failure and persecution, solitude and divorce. All were incredibly painful. When you "kick against the goads" is it harder on you or on God? Me. God put those goads in my path both by creating me the way I am and by engineering my life. He knew when I would fail and when I would overcome. He chose to make my life difficult. God is sovereign. He knows and controls all events in our lives, including the goads which He places on our path.

I imagine the glory of God to be so overwhelming that it's "sensory overload." In the Bible, God's presence is so bright, so loud, so frightening ... that it defies explanatory words. Metaphors had to suffice and even the strongest of adjectives was not enough. Frankly, I think God's glory would be terrifying both to believers and seculars. It's just too much to take in ... even though believers are safe. Unbelievers would see it as a Hollywoodish depiction except in their hearts they would know the glory was real, not fake, and that would terrify them. Their lack of understanding, though, may cause seculars to see the glory as a natural disaster, nuclear bomb, or something like that. I don't think they'd associate it with God. If "outer darkness" is hell, then "inner lightness" is heaven. "Darkness as black as night covers all the nations of the earth, but the glory of the Lord rises and appears over you.All nations will come to your light; mighty kings will come to see your radiance." (Isaiah 60:2-3 NLT)

I've been reading primary sources on the First Great Awakening lately. The sermons at that time have been shocking because of their "negativity," I confess. Earlier generations of Christian evangelists made no effort to create "seeker friendly services" or salve/comfort those attending their services; instead preachers spoke often and in explicit terms about hell, damnation and the horrible consequence of unbelief. No comforting psychology, excuses, alibis or whatever were given to those who reject God. Instead, they were called heathen or the damned and not the more gentle term that I just used, "unbelievers." Perhaps we've lost something in our evangelistic appeal if we do not talk about hell? I don't know. I have no idea how a Purlitan-like sermon would effect millennials, for example. Perhaps our Puritan forebears were onto something when they frightened those who heard their message ... purposely. The response of heathen-listeners was to shake, sob, be consumed with fear, beg God for forgiveness, etc. Their reaction, in short, was visceral as well as mental/spiritual. They were very afraid. -- I confess that I never heard of annihilation until this lesson. Any doctrine that softens the notion of hell for unbelievers functions like this, however, which is why most non-believers don't believe in hell. It's not like unbelievers think about hell, admit it exists and roll the dice! That's not what happens. They deny hell's existence. I have been told on several occasions that some unbelievers were such good people -- so kind, nice and generous -- that God could never consign them to hell; conversely, I have been told that Christians are frauds and child molesters who deserve hell. My point is that our common culture cannot handle the idea of judgment which is why, frankly, it may be useful to bring it up again. The list of verses Pastor Ralph listed is a good start. As an aside, Jews don't have a developed knowledge of hell. Instead, they believe that "good Jews" sorta hover about, like shades or ghosts -- well-educated people have told me this. When in graveyards, Jews put little pebbles on the gravestones to weigh down the ghosts trying to escape. For them, hell is not a place of punishment but more like a boring playground with lousy equipment that no one wants to play on. There's no judgment in shoel. No God. For most Jews, the afterlife is, at best, a sleeping state ... but forever. A small minority of Jews believe the body will be resurrected when the Messiah comes (not Jesus) and there will be an existence something like the Christian heaven for ALL Jews, good or bad, believing or unbelieving.

I find Pastor Ralph's observation that they were "just' praying in the upper room, as if that was insufficient, until the power of the Spirit came upon them. How often I've prayed without power! Probably most of my prayers are insipid and powerless, I confess. But what KIND of power did they get? I'm not sure, but whatever it was, it had a witnessing effect. Before, they prayed: after the Spirit came, they proclaimed, witnessed ... were martyred. The identity of martyrdom and witnessing frightens me. Spreading the gospel should be costly, not easy. It could cost my life. When the Spirit came upon them, they scattered. The usual explanation is that the diaspora was a consequence of persecution, but maybe they were just obeying the Spirit who told them to leave, run, move-house, and go to new places. Why? To witness. To die there. But the blueprint is this -- once the Spirit comes upon a new Christian, he/she will feel compelled to witness AND witness to groups of people who had never heard the gospel message. Do I fit in this? Yes. I am waiting for His commission or sending, eager to do whatever He wants me to do abroad or at home. I simply wish He'd speak in a clear though whispery voice, "GO TO INDIA (or wherever) and TELL PEOPLE ABOUT ME AS YOU ...." The people in the upper room were clearly empowered and sent. I pray for such clarity in my own life.

God would not be just if He did not punish sin AND reward righteousness. The problem is that His punishment is often forwarded to after death, so that His justice is not seen on earth. Evil men/women do prosper and righteous people are martyred. That's just a fact. And it's a difficult fact, at least for me, to live in a world that is fundamentally unjust, even though I know in the end it will all be sorted out. I have to believe in His justice even though I don't see it. God's justice is not "inflicted" on me because I'm saved. I have taken Christ's righteousness as my own even though this is unjust -- it is NOT just that Christ died for my sins. It's a travesty, in fact. But because this happened, I'm just before God. Sanctification is the process of rehabilitation. It has nothing to do with justice and is lifelong. Balancing love and justice ... I don't know how to answer this. Do Christians have to figure this out? Perhaps we just love and leave justice to God. The older I get, the less I seem to understand about the biggest issues/question in faith, such as love and justice. I'm learning to let it go.

God could have sent the Holy Spirit on each of them individually in their own homes, but chose, instead, to send the Spirit to them corporately, as a group, which may be a hint to what the church should be like. The body of believers got the Spirit at once, not individuals. What we do today is focus on individual salvation and Spiritual indwelling. I wonder if this is right. Yet when the Spirit comes, He comes within us as individuals. Each of us are indwelt by the Spirit by choice, or so it seems. There's a odd tension, then, between corporate and individual, or church and convert/believer. Filling ... coming upon ... baptism -- these are ways of describing the mysterious and indescribable, the willingness of God to come within us. Words aren't enough. God is IN ME!! Isn't that amazing?

I think the Spirit Himself gives Christians their assurance of salvation. Thus, if I met a Christian who doubted her/his salvation, I would pray that the Holy Spirit enters that person in greater measure, giving both peace and a settled feeling of security. I would not try to reason or convince with Bible verses. I'd simply pray.

There's a huge, socio-theological divide between those who believe that spiritual gifts, or most of them, were confined to the First Century (John MacArthur's Cessationists) and those who believe that spiritual gifts are the leading edge of what the Spirit is doing in the world today (the prophetic/apostolic movement). Cessationists despise prophecy because it represents, to them, errant doctrine, emotional instability and permissiveness in worship -- the apostolic prophetic sorts (AP) are obviously into prophecy as an everyday, not-such-a-big-deal occurrence. For some charismatics, speaking in tongues and prophetically is merely a marker of spiritual maturity. I have never heard a prophecy or tongues interpreted though have often heard speaking in tongues and prophetic utterances. It seems to me that if someone says something unintelligible, then an interpreter had better be present or it won't edify the body. One of the more common practices in the AP movement, now, is mass speaking in tongues without interpretation. No attempt is made to silence or quiet one's personal prayer language. It sounds like cacophony to me! This is just my opinion -- i'm not speaking for any group or even God -- but prophecies don't need interpretation as they're usually spoken in the dominant language of the group. Tongues needs interpretation though no one seems to do it. Prophecies need explanation. They're obscure and hard to decipher, at times. I cor 14 provides guidelines to prevent wild and silly excesses in church including the need for interpretation. What's excessive to me may not be to you. I'm quiet and restrained so some churches that seem out-of-control to me may be wonderful worship to you. I'm not certain what constitutes unhealthy worship. Recently, I was reading a book on the First Great Awakening and was struck by the descriptions of falling over when saved, tongues, shaking and other spiritual-like behaviors. There's nothing new in what's going on today, huh?

When I read answers on this forum, I feel like an inferior Christian for I struggle mightily with praising God in dire circumstances. When in pain or inner turmoil my first response is NOT to praise but to cry out to Him for help and relief. Not all prayers are praise. Some are cries. Some are so painful that they defy words ... the groaning of the Spirit within. It may be possible for people on this forum to praise continually, but I have not been able to do this. Though I pray as I suffer and am subjected to unjust persecution, I cannot praise. Praise comes after the shock and horror, not in the midst of it, at least in my experience. Crying out to God for help and relief is one of the most pure forms of prayer. The absolutely desperate, flat-on-my-back prayer to God when there is nothing else between us, nothing hidden, no distraction or complications ... that's a real prayer -- it's so heart-felt, so pure in it's expression that I am certain God has heard me, the real me, and will answer in His time. I suppose, if I were a more mature Christian, I'd be able to praise at such times, but at this point, such praise wouldn't seem genuine but forced. Below is the Living Bible translation of the 77th Psalm. Perhaps, at the end, there is praise.: I cry to the Lord I call and call to Him Oh that He would listen I am in deep trouble and I need His help so badly All night long I pray, lifting my hands to heaven, pleading There can be no joy for me until He acts. I think of God and moan, overwhelmed with a longing for His help. I cannot sleep until You act. I am too distressed even to pray. ... Has the Lord rejected me forever? Will He never again be favorable? Is His loving-kindness gone forever? Has His promise failed? Has He forgotten to be kind to one so undeserving? Has he slammed the door in anger on His love? ... This is my fate, that the blessings of God have changed to hate. ... O God, Your ways are holy. Where are there any other as mighty as You? You are the God of miracles and wonders! You still demonstrate Your awesome power.

It is extraordinarily difficult to forgive people who have grossly and permanently wronged us, but it must be done. Jesus' words are clear. We're to not harbor anger and the desire for revenge, but trust Him to avenge. The good news is He promises to repay! So we will get justice. Somehow. In His time. In His way. Forgiving has to be internal first. In the heart. It's most difficult to forgive ongoing wrongs, that is, wrongs that have not stopped but continue to inflict pain and suffering. Yet, even those who continue to wrong us must be forgiven. Only with His grace are we able to do this.

I'm out of synch on this forum. I'm going to write frankly for those in church leadership who may benefit from hearing the perspective of a church member who doesn't respect the pastor. I attend a church with a spiritually weak pastor who has been hanging onto the pulpit solely because he wants to beef up his retirement package. During COVID, he was awol for more than a year so the church split into three factions: two of the factions have gone off to form new churches both of which are thriving, the third remains with the old pastor at the old location. As this is the only established church of my denomination in my city, I have continued to attend even after taking a year off and/or abroad during which time I tried a different church. When I returned to "my" church, nothing had improved during that year except that the pastor had strategically removed people from the vestry to stack it with people of his faction. He even went as far as to ordain two new leaders who are completely loyal to him. It was possible to do this because our bishop is in Africa and doesn't know what's going on - I am conservative Anglican. Now, I love the Anglican denomination, it's glorious and wonderful history, theology and liturgy. I love having communion every Sunday. I love the predictability of Sunday worship and find the liturgy a treasure trove of knowledge that I can explore deeply every worship service. BUT ... last Sunday I threw in the towel. It had become a dreaded chore to attend. A heavy duty. I always left as soon as the service was over, frustrated and sad. Thankfully, I've been fed, spiritually, by a non-denominational women's group that meets during the week. It's not church, but a close substitute. And this, folks, is the problem. If church-like groups adequately substitute for a spiritually suffocating, traditional church, eventually the need for that "real" church disappears. Since the fellowship I have with the ladies is far deeper and loyal than any relationship I have at the church, the desire for church fellowship quickly disappeared. I have been praying for revival, that a new pastor comes with spiritual vitality, but I know that after the old pastor leaves, he's put into position a phalanx of supporters who will block all new ideas and spiritual growth. I truly pity the person who walks into that hornet's nest. With this as deep background, let me answer Pastor Ralph's questions: What happens in a congregation when people don’t show respect for their leaders? Well, I'm one of those people, since I do not respect the pastor. His sermons are mere commentary on social problems, rarely deep or meaningful, so I have never received any spiritual insight or help anyway. So, to be specific, what happens when people like me quietly leave without saying anything to anyone? Nothing happens. A few people will notice and send me text messages, perhaps, but otherwise, the church will hobble on. (I did try to talk to the vestry with guarded language. So, I have done what I can do.) What happens when the disrespectful spread their disrespect? You've made an errant assumption that I'll gossip. I will not. No one knows I've decided to leave. My disrespect for the pastor is known only to me and to people on this site reading this who don't know who I am. Sometimes, we vote with our little cat feet, silently and without notice. Will getting rid of the leader fix the problem, or is there something deeper going on here? I think I've answered this question.

The "old" is the Torah and the Old Testament. To us, from our perch in the 21st century, the "old" includes the New Testament as well. It is God's written, secure revelation, the ancient treasures in our safe. The "new" is the current revelation by God, the whispering of the Spirit within as well as the manifestation of the power of the Spirit in our lives. It is the present working of the Spirit, that is, the Spirit of the moment ... of today. To be cross-trained is to have both the discipline of the old as well as the spontaneity of the new; to have the stability and security of God's revelation in history as well as the newness and freshness of God's present revelation in our hearts. --- Thank you for another wonderful class, Pastor Ralph. God is blessing us through your study, hard work and deep understanding of the scriptures. Thank you for allowing yourself to be used by Him in this way for we have greatly benefited from your obedience.