http://ichthys.com/ 
Believers in the World XXXII

Question #1:  
Thank you for your answer Bob! 

The problem has been solved. Thank God! And also thanks to you, Bob. I could maybe also write you how I biblically think that eating meat is ok because maybe another person with the same question writes you one time. 

I also have a question:

I know that this might just be a trap too, but still. How do I know when to fast? How can I know if the Lord wants me to eat right now or if he wants me to fast? In the New Testament I can only think of Jesus who was led to fasting. The other ones, like in acts, rather seemed like a decision of the individual for me. What do you think?

Be blessed and may Jesus‘ love guard you
Response #1:   
Glad to be of help!

Re: Fasting. It's not required. And if a person does it with the wrong attitude, it's worse than not fasting at all. Essentially, fasting is a legitimate technique to concentrate on the Lord and His truth and to dedicate oneself to prayer in times of great stress or need. Only mature believers should even think about attempting it because it can easily morph into legalistic behavior. Also, I have seen people become prideful about it – as we see also in scripture:
“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. ‘I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Luke 18:10-14 NKJV
So, best advice, put this one aside until you're a lot farther down the road, and even then be very careful with it. God hears our prayers . . . whether we fast or not. It doesn't do anything for Him (obviously); it can potentially help us focus in times of great need (but again, if it's not approached with precisely the right attitude it can do more harm than good). 

Here are some links on this:
Fasting 1
Fasting 2
Fasting 3
In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #2: 
Hello Dr. Luginbill,

First I just want to thank you for your prayers for __she is doing much better. Have another appt. with the eye specialist on __.

Secondly, I just started to read a book titled "Illustrations of Bible Truths" compiled by "Sporos Zodhiates, Th.D. I would like to have your opinion on the following:

1. "If we don't have fellowship with other believers, there is a dark spot in our spiritual vision".

2. "You can build a noble character for yourself, in spite of all the hurts and injuries done consciously or unconsciously by others, with the fragment of the broken hopes, joys and the lost opportunities that lie strewn about your feet.

3. "No matter how badly others have hurt and marred you, they cannot prevent you from building a beautiful character for yourself; conversely, others by their best work cannot cause you to build a beautiful character."

4. The church is the one that hurt me so much. After we moved to Indiana, we stopped going to any kind of church, because I had church services in the chapel and Bible study with those who attended.

We eventually moved away to another place, and we have never gone back to another church since; it has been many years. My experience with so-called Christians and also the pentecostal organization where I worked and studied to get to the top place, but that was not appreciated at all by those in charge of the State churches. Well, I have had my experiences with the churches, but no more. We have bible study every Sunday, and we enjoy that, and I also study and prepare different teachings, but most of my time is used to study your teachings, which I thank God for such a valuable teacher.

I really become unhappy when I think of everything that has happened in my 85 years and soon to be 86 years on this wicked earth, if God allows it. I would so much appreciate your comments on what this person has written, because I don't feel good about what he has compiled. Thank you so much for your great help.

P.S. The ministry that I served and the pastors I met, I have to say, were not of much help, especially the State Bishop. When I think about all that has happened to me during my past 85 years, I just become so dissatisfied. I don't even know why I even entered the ministry. 

My life will soon be over I think, if God is done with me.

Great blessings to you.

Your friend,
Response #2:  
Thanks for the positive report about __. Keep me in the loop; I'm keeping up the prayer (please give her my best as well).

Re: your life. You are a blessing to me, my friend! And your wonderful emails have no doubt blessed many associated with this ministry. Not to mention how grateful I am for your prayers!

What the Laodicean church-visible calls "ministry" is often anything but. Generally speaking, it follows the RCC pattern of only seeing value in ministry by those who have titles – and in many cases some of them are even saved. What you have done in offering Bible study opportunities to others surpasses I would imagine everything the RCC has done in this state. In fact, your contributions have been positive rather than leading others astray.

We would all rather be with the Lord. But He is the One with the plan. And if we are still here, there is a reason for that. So we fight this fight, one day at a time, and continue to do so until He takes us home.

So be encouraged, my friend! You have a great reward waiting for you on the other side. Be pleased to do you best to keep adding to it day by day. There's always room for more in our "thesaurus" (Matt.6:21; Lk.12:34).

Re: Zodhiates. 1-3 only are from him, correct? I don't find anything useful in the quotes. It comes across to me as typical Baptist emoting. In terms of fellowship, well, we can't have fellowship with worthwhile believers unless the Lord brings them across our path. We're certainly unlikely to find them in any brick and mortar church! If they were truly seeking the Lord like we are, they wouldn't be there!
In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good.
1st Corinthians 11:17 NIV
Not to say that there is NO church in the US where truly good things are happening. know of a few. But they are few and far between, and in most cases a believers would still be better off learning from Ichthys or Bible Academy (link).  [p.s., special appeal to any and all who have felt the need to contribute to this ministry over the years but have been unable to do so (because it doesn't accept them): please consider blessing Bible Academy with your godly generosity.]

As to 2-3 and building character, I really don't know what the fellow is talking about. I could over-interpret to his benefit or against it, so I'll just leave it at that. Clearly, we don't find language like this in the Bible, so it's anyone's guess exactly what he means.

I'm very sorry that you had such bad experiences in the past, my friend. But it is in the past. Best advice. The only "yesterday" we need to keep in mind is the day of the cross when our Lord saved us. We are not required to dwell on anything else, and in most cases we're a lot better off not doing so. Plenty of people associated with this ministry have been abused or suffered greatly at the hands of others in the past. We all need to get beyond that and focus on serving Jesus "today, as long as it is called 'today'" (Heb.3:13). That is the way to maximize the reward on the only "tomorrow" we are supposed to have in view, the day when our blessed hope (Tit.2:13) is fulfilled, and we see our Lord face to face. Until then, we fight this fight one day at a time.

Keeping you guys in my daily prayers.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #3:  
Thanks so much, for you are truly my friend.

Thanks for the scriptures and the good things you wrote about, which is the truth, we need to follow each day of the rest of our lives.

Thanks so much again, and again.

Yes, people would be a great deal better if they studied at Ichthys. I can't even mention how much I have learned and appreciate it so much.

I am thankful to the LORD that He directed me to the Website. 

Blessings to you always and always.

Your friend,
Response #3:
It's my great pleasure to have such good Christian friends as yourselves!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #4:  
Doctor, I have to ask: What of people with actual psychosis or people with schizophrenia, or both? There's little doubt schizophrenic hallucinations can be helped (otherwise near everyone who has them and doesn't want them would overcome them). And the entire diagnosis of psychosis is delusions that are indistinguishable from reality, to a degree the person in question effectively has their perception and belief overwritten no matter how much they want to prevent that from happening or how convinced they would be that's nonsense before.

I'm not saying God can't help this, He definitely has (I've heard many cases where said person became much more calm and less impulsive and more open to listening to others in psychotic episodes, even if often times the false beliefs that normally would even be spiritually destructive are just as strong, thanks to the Lord working in their life. These people still proclaim Jesus as Lord and would never want to abandon Him when "sane", even if the delusions that come up can turn that on its head.)

Many suffering from this even have great spiritual lives outside of these episodes. Are you implying they should be ashamed of anything that happens in these episodes or that it's up to them to somehow stop them completely and they're guilty of whatever happens in them if they don't? Because believe me, people try. It doesn't always work out like that, sadly.

I need to know your position on this because that's the impression I get implied from what's said on "absolute free will". Is there a limit to that's reach still once things this extreme become an issue? It's often like the desires and thoughts of a person are often completely overwritten against their will. That can't fall under free will anymore, surely?
Response #4:  
*To begin, I am addressing this issue in terms of believers who are suffering. What unbelievers think or do is of little concern to us and should not influence or affect our evaluation of such issues.

To use an analogy, just because a believer has a medical problem doesn't mean it's their fault or that they should be ashamed. If someone has arterial sclerosis it might be due in part to eating poorly or lack of exercise, etc., but scripture doesn't give any basis I can see for condemning others or blaming oneself overly for such things. 

No doubt none of us is perfect in the way we have managed our health and our bodies in this life. And of course even if we have done a good job, we can still get sick without it being our fault at all. I saw a recent study that concluded that over 50% of our ultimate longevity is determined by our DNA. Of course, God is in control of everything, but you see the point. 

So worrying about these sorts of conditions (or any medical condition) overly or being overly judgmental about oneself or especially of others on this score is out of line. Granted, there are obvious problem behaviors that constitute the "ditch on the other side of the road" of application here. If a person is smoking three packs of cigarettes a day and develops a heart condition, clearly part of the recovery ought to be to stop smoking. Still, we ought not to stigmatize physical problems. If they are discipline from the Lord, then that is strictly between the person suffering and the Lord. After all, that is what Job's "friends" thought about his terrible skin condition – and they were dead wrong.

In terms of mental problems, I would largely view these in the same way. Whatever therapy a person decides to opt for in regard to physical ailments is their business. It's not a spiritual issue per se. If one person signs up for a heart transplant while another shies away from that particular solution, that would be their business. There are clearly "ditches" on both sides of the road here too. Refusing antibiotics on "principle" when one has a potentially fatal case of pneumonia strikes me as "off the road"; so would be bankrupting my family's lives for a space flight that might on some bizarre theory cure cancer through extended weightlessness. I think a pastor-teacher would be within his rights to warn a parishioner off of either of these extremes.

Re: "Many suffering from this even have great spiritual lives outside of these episodes." I've never met one. So I wonder about the "many". We don't make policy based on outliers. When it comes to this particular issue of mental health, for the most part in my opinion it ought to be governed by the same principles as above. If you told me you were getting a particular type of therapy, I wouldn't try to tell you not to or suggest that there was something wrong with it. That would be your decision – and that is true of any such seeking of outside help. 

Mind you, as believers, we do know that the God is all powerful, that He answers our prayers, that He heals us. So whether we are putting on a bandaid or getting a heroic medical procedure, we ought to keep always in mind that it is the Lord who is granting us the healing when healing takes place. We ought to trust Him as the Healer, even when we are making use of the intermediate means He provides us. 

Mental issues are a bit different because we know that the truth can encourage those believers who are down emotionally; and we know that it is the Holy Spirit who encourages us, when we let Him. In other words, I seriously doubt if any of the great believers of scripture would have needed a therapist. Saul, on the other hand, when he began to stray from the Lord did need such help (David's musical therapy). 

This is not to say that any believer who needs (or thinks he/she needs) therapy is in the wrong or should be stigmatized. Not at all. It is to say that clearly the best solution is to be in such a state of spiritual maturity, walking so closely to the Lord in the Spirit, that the manifestations associated with the traumas for which people get this sort of help are under control.

There is also the issue of prior behavior. To take another example from the physical realm, as I've quoted many times before, consider the fellow who was suffering from cirrhosis of the liver on account of excessive alcohol intake before he was saved. When asked about it (he was a believer after all), said, "Yes, God gave me a new heart, but He didn't give me a new liver". In other words, if a person has "dug themselves into a big hole" in the past, turning to the Lord and genuinely committing to spiritual growth in a serious way WILL help – but it's not necessarily going to bring about a full recovery from such conditions overnight. 

So what are we to say/do? First, we don't second guess anyone else' application here. That is wrong to do. Second, we do sympathize with any and all who are suffering mental or emotional pain – and we do pray for them. Third, we encourage them as we encourage everyone to rely on God first and foremost, even if (and perhaps especially if) they seek secular aid. Because secular therapy may help – but God always DOES help. That doesn't mean that recovery from any physical or mental trouble is easy or quick or even total. But God DOES help us and He DOES help us get through so as to be able to do what He wants us to do in spite of whatever burdens we are carrying, be their genesis partially or totally "our fault" or none of our fault at all.

In other words, Jesus Christ is always the solution, whether or not He gives us or we make use of worldly help. Engaging in the latter without regard for the former is where the trouble with this sort of thing lies. No pastor-teacher worth his salt should be remiss about reminding his charges of that essential truth. For this issue as with all other things in this life where we are making applications and judgment calls, we believers always need to keep in mind the fundamental principle . . .
"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."
Matthew 6:33 NIV
Keeping you in my prayers, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #5:  
[omitted]
Response #5:   
I'm sorry if any of my communications with you have been misinterpreted or in any way have caused you grief.

We are all "where we are at" at any given point in the Christian life. It's never a good idea to look backward, not even to yesterday. Living for Jesus is all about "today". 

So my advice about past pain and suffering – do NOT dwell on it. Let it go and move on.

Reading scripture should be helpful, every time you do it. Praying in the Spirit should be helpful, every time you do it. Reading the Bible Studies at Ichthys should be helpful, every time you do it. Relying on the Spirit, praising the Lord, focusing not on this life but the glories to come should be helpful, every time you do it. We all need to do a better job of "just doing it". Be pleased to try.

I am keeping you in my prayers.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #6:  
Hi Mr. Luginbill,

I don't have a question, just want to say hi.

I've been feeling frustrated and lonely recently, with church especially. I just want someone to talk to and share life with, and even with my Christian friends I feel like I'm always holding back. Like I can't actually say what I think.

Then, I was driving to work today and this verse came to mind. "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." -Matthew 6:33

I haven't been seeking God first, I've been chasing after all these other things: work, friendship, food/health...which are ok unless it starts to be more important than God. Plus, I hadn't written hardly anything on my ministry site for a long time (I just started working tonight on a post about the importance of spiritual growth).

So I looked up that verse about "seek first His kingdom" on your site and read some in the Peripateology study, the part when you list the things to remember. That was a good encouragement to get going again.

Work is still going well. Enjoying the sunshine and fresh air and the birds singing. Just working outside makes me so much happier!

I know I need to look to Jesus for fulfillment and have contentment. I just get caught in the "how do I balance Spiritual life and responsibilities like work, etc" and I need to not listen to my negative emotions.

Hope you have a good weekend coming up!

Respectfully,
P.S. I prayed for you today as I was watering the plants. I asked God to protect and bless you. Hope you are doing well!
P.P.S I think it's cool that even after the Genesis curse, people still get enjoyment and happiness from tending plants and how pretty and amazing plants are, even in this corrupted world we have. God is good to us! 
Response #6:  
Always good to hear from you, my friend.

You've made a nice start on ministry. One thing I can tell you is that consistency is very important for any successful ministry, and that ministers even more than those being ministered to need to have great care for their own continued spiritual growth, because all good ministry is contingent upon the minister's own spiritual status (OK, I guess that was "two things").

So I appreciate your honesty. But it's important to say at this point that you don't owe me any explanations. If you feel you've not been doing what you should (or doing something you shouldn't), the Lord is our Confessor (not any priest or pastor or "discipler").

I do pray for you for some good Christian fellowship. This is complaint I hear a great deal. I'm in communication with a lot of good folks through this ministry, but few of them live "in the same ZIP code"). One would have hoped with all that is going on in the world that Laodicea would have, by now, been shaken out of its torpor and that there would be all manner of groups large and small now getting fired up for the truth in anticipation of what's coming. But the opposite seems to be the case. 

Getting the balance right is never easy. We are fighting this spiritual warfare on many fronts, and we can't afford to ignore any of them completely. Dishes need to be done. Relationships kept up. Taxes paid. Jobs attended to. Health looked after. Etc., etc. But, "first things first" is not a bad principle to keep in mind – just as you remembered:
"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."
Matthew 6:33 NIV
Don't despair! You're fighting a good fight. And you'll learn how to get better at it if you keep at it one day at a time.

Keeping you in my prayers, my friend – and thanks for your prayers too (that is also ministry).

In Jesus,

Bob L.
p.s., Indeed! Given how beautiful His creation is even suffering under the curse, it will be amazing to see the rejuvenated earth of the Millennium . . . and of course, New Jerusalem. That is what we are all waiting for.
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
Romans 8:18-23 NKJV
Question #7:  
Hi Mr. Luginbill,

When it comes to growth and ministry, I do want to earn the three crowns...and then sometimes my actions don't show that. When I give good attention to my spiritual growth, I feel spiritually strong and good. And when I get distracted, I feel not-so-good and I miss the "solidness". So consistently is something I need to work on.

I know I answer to the Lord, I just wanted to talk to someone about it. My apologies if I erred in that. I have been feeling a loneliness deep down. Perhaps that is partly that I haven't been spending enough time with the Lord. Thank you for praying for Christian fellowship. I would like that. I'm hardwired, it seems, to crave the company of others but I don't want to settle for the wrong kind of company. I want to talk about God and the Bible with other Christians and be on pretty much the same page. That said, thank you for talking with me - and providing a place where Christians can fellowship, even if just virtually. That is a blessing.

I will try to keep balancing over here! Someday I might get it sorta right haha! God is very good to me and He has faithfully provided for me and then some. I can see it more and more and it's a good, good feeling of confidence. I don't worry as much as I used to.

Thank you for the encouragement!

Respectfully,
Response #7:   
It's perfectly fine! I just always need to make that point clear because there are SO many groups today which preach "accountability". We are accountable alright . . . to the Lord!

This life is a fight – spiritual warfare – for us all, and will be all the way to the end.

Re: "a place where Christians can fellowship, even if just virtually". Are you on the Ichthys forum? I don't remember if I ever told you about it or if you signed up. I can ask Steven, the moderator, to send you an invite if you're not but are interested in joining (they're an awfully nice group). [n.b., see the new Community Page at Ichthys]

Have a good week ahead, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #8:  
Hello Professor Luginbill-

In light of your Biblical linguistic skill, I am again turning to you for assistance. Recently I had the opportunity to have a “weighty” discussion with a United Methodist Church Minnesota Annual Conference Superintendent. At the heart of this exchange was the theme of the 2024 General Conference whereby the Church voted to change their official position on same sex marriages and inclusion of practicing homosexuals in the clergy and full membership of the church. During our meaningful dialog, the Superintendent defined Paul’s admonition regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality as being related to the cultural practice of man/boy sexual activity. I am aware that this type of sexual activity did exist in antiquity. Hence, one could make the argument that Paul’s admonition was ONLY against this type of man/boy activity. However in light of the totality of scripture, it seems to me that the Superintendent’s definition was too narrow. When our current translations, (OT and NT) references “homosexual” what type of activity/relationships are they referring to?

Again, thank you for any assistance that you can offer.

In Christ Jesus,

Minnesota
Response #8:  
Good to hear from you!

First thing to say: as believers, we are told not to judge others – especially if we don't want to be judged ourselves (as none of us is anything close to perfect: Matt.7:1-5). Second, there is a real temptation for believers to get political about this sort of thing, even engaging in very dangerous "crusader behavior". It's not up to us to guide society at large or to weigh in on social issues. So when it comes to unbelievers, as long as they are law-abiding and not dangerous, we deal with them in respect regardless of what they believe, how they look, what they do. This issue you ask about is one for believers:
I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”
1st Corinthians 5:9-13 NKJV
To get to your question now, I've heard this particular rationalization in general many times, although dividing this sin up into different subcategories where one is "OK" is new to me. This was NOT a distinction they made in the ancient world. Or rather, generally speaking, the way the Greeks understood it was that there was always in such relationships "a lover" who actively pursued the relationship and "a beloved" who was the object. That doesn't always mean what we may assume either. Plato, in his Symposium, has one of the interlocutors prove that Achilles was the "beloved", not Patroclus (as most everyone assumes). All this is only to demonstrate that this distinction you mention based upon subcategorization is invalid from the ancient cultural point of view. That it is invalid in scripture, one only has to read the passages to see very clearly.
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Romans 1:26-27 NKJV
"Men with men" is pretty clear. "Males with males" (Greek) with no age qualification present at all.

We are all sinners. We all have sin nature tendencies, some towards one temptation, some towards another. But there is nothing more dangerous than pretending that a sin is not a sin, excusing the sin, canonizing the sin, glorifying the sin. How is that any different from what Satan is doing? He is proclaiming himself "good" in attempting to dethrone God. I don't think any Christian wants to get anywhere near such a mind-set. 

Likewise hard to misinterpret, if one is being honest:
Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.
1st Corinthians 6:18 NKJV

. . . knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.
1st Timothy 1:9-10 NKJV

. . .as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Jude 1:7 NKJV
I don't judge other people and I know full well that our Lord is beyond merciful, that He forgives us when we repent and confess. But it's not within our right to tell HIM what is and what is not a sin – and it is beyond dangerous to go down that road.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #9:  
Hi Bob,

Over the years, I think I've struggled with a specific concept that I am going to broadly call "not ideal vs. wrong". In short, the logic that trips me up goes something like this:

X is not ideal (that is, there is some other path Y that is "better" than X)
We as Christians should always try to do what is best, according to God's first-best Will
Therefore, we as Christians should always take path Y instead of X, since it "better"

If you recall, I was very much struggling with this general chain of logic when we spent several years discussing the subject of marriage vs. celibacy. Either celibacy is always "better" (and therefore people who choose to marry in some sense made a compromising decision), or it is more complicated than that, and we ought not look down in such a way upon people who marry (since perhaps for some it is truly what the Holy Spirit is leading them into = God's Will for them). I'm paraphrasing, but much of our past discussion was me getting all bent out of shape about "is it A or B?", and being disgruntled by wording that sounded a lot like A without any nuance whatsoever. It seemed to me like people who overly pushed celibacy were using rhetorical tricks to try and dress up legalism prettily and say "Ah, you see, we aren't saying getting married is wrong; we are saying staying celibate is better... for all people." Whenever I felt people were insinuating that, it made me very combative, since they would lean upon their specific narrow interpretation to judge all people who are married, and then when called on it, say "This isn't legalism; it is self-evidently what the Bible teaches!" They would claim their position literally is the text of the Bible, when in fact, it is an interpretation.

But it has not just been this one place where I've struggled with this specific concept. For example:

Participating in local churches in some regard

Position A: "We aren't saying participating in local churches is wrong; we are saying reading Ichthys (and the like) online and staying completely separate is better"
Position B: It is more complicated than that, and we ought not look down in such a way upon people who get involved in such a way (since perhaps for some it is truly what the Holy Spirit is leading them into = God's Will for them)...

Music as part of Christian assembly

Position A: "We aren't saying including music in Christian assembly is wrong; we are saying keeping the focus on Bible teaching alone is better"
Position B: It is more complicated than that, and we ought not look down in such a way upon people who use solid, theologically-sound, godly music as part of their Christian assembly (since perhaps for some it is truly what the Holy Spirit is leading them into = God's Will for them)...

Drug/alcohol addiction support/encouragement groups

Position A: "We aren't saying that being involved in a support/encouragement group for addiction recovery is wrong; we are saying keeping the focus on the Bible and spiritual growth alone is better"
Position B: It is more complicated than that, and we ought not look down in such a way upon people who participate in such groups (since perhaps for some it is truly what the Holy Spirit is leading them into = God's Will for them)...

Christian counseling/psychology

Position A: "We aren't saying that depressed or anxious people seeking out a Christian counselor/psychologist is wrong; we are saying keeping the focus on the Bible and spiritual growth alone is better"
Position B: It is more complicated than that, and we ought not look down in such a way upon people who seek out a Christian psychologist (since perhaps for some it is truly what the Holy Spirit is leading them into = God's Will for them)...

Use of pharmaceutical drugs to treat mental health issues

Position A: "We aren't saying that people with apparent mental health problems making use of pharmaceutical drugs to treat their symptoms is wrong; we are saying keeping the focus on the Bible and spiritual growth alone is better"
Position B: It is more complicated than that, and we ought not look down in such a way upon people who make use of such drugs (since perhaps for some it is truly what the Holy Spirit is leading them into = God's Will for them)...

I might go on, but I think this is a pretty decent sampling of the sorts of things that I find myself concerned about in this regard. Far be it from me to condemn a consistent emphasis on the Bible and spiritual growth (or to be dismissive of the all-to-real and vastly-underappreciated dangers present in all of these areas) but... is there not a degree of babies and bathwater here? That is where I find myself concerned.

For example, in our recent exchange about accountability partners, you said:

"I don't believe in AA or any such "support group" organizations. This is like needing to learn how to walk again after an accident and never ceasing to use your crutches. You'll never get there. I don't inveigh against them. I don't tell people not to join them. But, obviously (or so I thought), if we are relying on someone else to do the hard lifting for us, we'll never get to the point of independence necessary to be able to function on our own, to survive and, hopefully, thrive – in anything. If I do your math homework with you (so therefore essentially "for you"), will you ever learn math?"

Unless my reading comprehension is lacking, this is in essence a statement to the effect of "it is always better to not participate in these things." No exceptions are allowed by this sort of wording, as it seems to me.

And in Q&A #14 from this week's posting (Eschatology Issues CXLII), you said:

"It's also been a bit of a revelation to see how deeply involved psychology and psychiatry are in this sort of satanic mess. Again, I always knew I didn't like or respect them. Now I have a better idea of why I feel that way. That is a difficult area nowadays seeing as how so many Christians are involved in or dependent on such things, like AA or seeing a therapist or taking anti-depressants, etc., etc. As I've probably also mentioned or posted, my seminary, Talbot, is part of Biola University, and when I went there they had an entire school of "Christian Psychology". I knew that there was something odd about the students from there with whom I had contact. I don't think you can listen to the devil's music without coming to hum his tune to some degree: he influences your "discipline" if you are using his techniques, not the other way around."

Again, unless my reading comprehension is lacking, this too is in essence a statement to the effect of "it is always better to not participate in these things." No exceptions are allowed by this sort of wording, as it seems to me.

I understand that these are single quotations and do not necessarily represent all you have written about these topics (or music, or local church involvement, etc.), but the wider question I am driving at here is related to that chain of logic from before:

X is not ideal (that is, there is some other path Y that is "better" than X)
We as Christians should always try to do what is best, according to God's first-best Will
Therefore, we as Christians should always take path Y instead of X, since it "better"

When we spoke of marriage, I believe we eventually settled on proposition (1) not being true across all people: celibacy is not in fact better for all, but only those "to whom it has been given".

My conclusions after that long, protracted discussion included something to the effect that it would be so much clearer if we as Bible teachers came right out and said that explicitly as part of our discussions on the subject, so that people (like past me) wouldn't be walking around wondering if somehow they are necessarily deficient Christians for not taking the path that might be hypothetically better for those select few who are called to it and actually able to bear it.

And if that is true there, what about all of these other areas?

__ has tried to explain to me that our job is to point out the dangers in all these paths, and if we do that, we fulfill our role as Bible teachers, and nothing more is necessary (in terms of disclaimers or additional nuance). He seems to "get it" in a way that I do not yet. (Hence the email).

In this regard, I am in no way opposed to pointing out all of the many very-real dangers, and staying extremely skeptical when someone approaches me and says "The Holy Spirit is leading me to do [something that seems a bit questionable]!" But I have still never been able to shake the feeling like at the same do we do all of that, we also have a direct obligation to make it clear that application is between individuals and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and while there may be great dangers present in many of these paths, that does not necessarily logically preclude them from being things God may have actually led someone to. (That is only something they can properly know). If we don't come right out and say that too, aren't we too one-sided in our presentation?

Basically, I am confused why we might be resistant to answering the question of "Well, could one of these paths be something that God is actually calling someone to?" It seems to me like there is nothing in the Bible that makes such a thing impossible, so we would need to say "Possibly, but only if the voice leading you to such is truly from the Holy Spirit." That is far from a blessing of said behavior, or any sort of carte blanche. But it is also, as it seems to me, quite distinct from holding that these sorts of paths are always inferior to a "Bible study/spiritual growth alone" sort of approach. But if we fail to directly answer that question in such a way, do we not give the impression that these admittedly-dangerous paths are necessarily inferior across the board, for all people in all circumstances, without exception?

I know this line of questioning might come off as overly critical of Ichthys' approach to all these matters, and I suppose I should say that I really do see the need to teach from the pulpit that the dangers here are not even close to being equal; there are, no doubt, extremes to avoid like always, but one extreme has such overwhelming cultural support that the "danger profile" here is extremely one-sided in all these areas. For example, virtually nobody is going to have inbuilt resistance to seeing a counselor/psychologist since our culture pushes it so hard, even making it almost a virtue. So if we had to err on one side, better to err on the sternly warning people away from danger side, even if it draws said people's ire. Point granted. But does that get us all the way to never being willing to publicly acknowledge the potential for any of these paths to possibly be correct/be within God's plan for some individual, even if not us specifically?

Your friend in Jesus,
Response #9:   
I understand what you are saying/asking, but I'm not sure I can give you THE answer you may be looking for.

I have opinions (as we all do), and in terms of spiritual things, when I believe them to be biblical, I definitely do allow them to be voiced from time to time as a measure of guidance. Here's what I'm not willing to do: tell other people what to do when it's not a matter of specific biblical commands. 

Take any one of the areas you ask about. If someone is asking me for advice about getting therapy, first, I am not that person. Second, I do not have a complete understanding of that person and his/her life experience. Third, while I may have some idea of his/her spiritual level, I certainly do not have an absolutely grasp of it nor, especially, of any gaps that may be present. Fourth, I don't know the Lord's specific plan for his/her life. 

So I think it's a mistake to approach issues of application from a "principle of the ideal". There is no actual practical occurrence of the ideal. We are all flawed. We have all added to our inherent flawed nature with a lifetime of mistakes. We have all been influenced by the evil world system in which we "swim". Through the grace of God we have been born again, saved through faith in Jesus Christ, and we are endeavoring to draw closer to Him through the truth. But none of us has "arrived". So any application we may make is subject to imperfection. There is no perfection down here.

This is a war. And wars are messy. They are not nice and neat like a game of chess. One only has a partial understanding of what is going on. We even struggle with our own motivations, after all. So we cannot play a perfect game. We can only get out there and fight the fight. Like a battle, there will be blood, losses, mistakes, and a very great amount of the "fog of war". If we are dedicated to Jesus Christ, we will fight a good fight – but not a perfect one. Even if we could get to the point of the near perfect motivation Paul was able to deploy, we would still be less than 100% and our applications would still be imperfect – just as was the case with him.

If it is true that putting oneself under the guidance of psychology or psychiatry is not generally in a Christian's best interest (which I think is the case), we pastor-teachers are within our rights to intimate that if that is our opinion. On the other hand, do we want to stigmatize believers who feel they need it or who feel they have been helped by such things: they may well have been. We don't want to make other believers who have made different applications from ourselves in all "disputable matters" feel they have committed some sin. And what we REALLY want to avoid is to be seen as or to actually be setting down rules and regulations in any matter of application – that is legalism.

If the Bible says clearly "don't do it", then that is what we teach. If the Bible says clearly "this is OK", then that is what we teach. For other things, we can have an opinion, but it's important not to phrase that opinion as a mandate for others. So including a caveat (as I often do when speaking of psycho-therapy) is not a bad idea. Because the Christian life is in large measure about making one's own choices. 

Here's why I think we don't have to worry about this. I am very confident that anyone who is truly interested in growing spiritually will be led to the right place (for them) to grow. And as they grow, they will bit by bit and piece by piece "put away childish things". So if they are using crutches, eventually they will grow out of using them and out of needing them, maybe more quickly than we would imagine, maybe more slowly than we would hope, and likely not in a uniform way, with some areas taking longer to address than others. If a brother or sister follows your ministry but still maintains membership in the Episcopal church, e.g., we have a good idea that he/she would be much better served using that time and energy doubling down with your ministry, but . . . we are all different. It is just possible that you and I likewise are not being perfect in every aspect of our application in this life. 

I like to have a late supper once everything is done, and I generally watch TV while I'm preparing, eating, cleaning up, digesting. I could probably watch a lot less TV. There is a case for arguing that "watching TV is spiritually non-productive and potentially dangerous". But if my pastor-teacher set that down as a principle, I would be distraught. At that point, my options would be 1) stop watching TV, or 2) keep doing something my pastor-teacher has said flat out I shouldn't do. If I opt for #1, I'm changing not from my own free will in response to the truth as I grow in it but through following someone else' dictates ("discipleship" legalism cult-like behavior). If I opt for #2, I'm undermining my respect for my pastor-teacher's authority, and it won't be long before I reject what he says about other actually important things which ARE in the Bible (and perhaps I will drift away from his ministry altogether as a result). 

So if the Bible teaches it, we teach it. If the Bible doesn't teach it but it seems good to do, we encourage it with caveats and not as a mandate, and the opposite if it seems problematic, discouraging with caveats and not as a mandate. We want everyone to make good applications – but we want them to make those good decisions from their own free will, from their own heart. 

After all, God is God. He could have forced us to do what He wants us to do. He does not. That being the case, pastor-teachers likewise should adopt that same approach. We teach the truth. We encourage and rebuke (when it's appropriate). But we are trying to lead others to spiritual maturity so that when they are grown up they will make good decisions for themselves.

Happy to clarify.

I pray for you daily, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #10:  
Hi Bob,

Thanks for taking the time to engage on this one. Figuring out how to approach discussion on "these sorts of things" has sort of been something on my mind for a while, so it's nice to finally dig into it a bit.

Re: 1) "I have opinions (as we all do), and in terms of spiritual things, when I believe them to be biblical, I definitely do allow them to be voiced from time to time as a measure of guidance."

What exactly does it mean for an opinion to be biblical, but not related to a biblical command? I'm not trying to play tricksy games with words or definitions here, but just understand how we draw the lines.

For example, generally speaking, we would be opposed to sharing our political opinions from the pulpit, right? So those would not be "biblical opinions"? What then is a "biblical opinion", and how does one know that an opinion is that sort, rather than the non-biblical sort (that we presumably should only ever keep to ourselves, at least when speaking from the pulpit)? And how are "biblical opinions" different from "biblical commands" (which we should clearly teach as fact)?

Re: 2) "If it is true that putting oneself under the guidance psychology and psychiatry are not generally in a Christian's best interest (which I think is the case), we pastor-teachers are within our rights to intimate that if that is our opinion. On the other hand, do we want to stigmatize believers who feel they need or who feel they have been helped by such things. They may well have been. We don't want to make other believers who have made different applications from ourselves in all "disputable matters" feel they have committed some sin. And what we REALLY want to avoid is to be seen as or to actually be setting down rules and regulations in any matter of application -- that is legalism."

If an authority figure that someone really respects and looks up to states their strong opinion concerning something (even if not making a formal principle/rule out of it), won't that lead to at least some degree of pressure on and cognitive dissonance in the hearer? Like, in terms of this:

"At that point, my options would be 1) stop watching TV, or 2) keep doing something my pastor-teacher has said flat out I shouldn't do. If I opt for #1, I'm changing not from my own free will in response to the truth as I grow in it but through following someone else' dictates ("discipleship" legalism cult-like behavior). If I opt for #2, I'm undermining my respect for my pastor-teacher's authority, and it won't be long before I reject what he says about other actually important things which ARE in the Bible (and perhaps I drift away from his ministry altogether as a result)."

Perhaps the effect is not nearly so strong as if a pastor-teacher comes right out and says "do that" or "don't do this", but even if we leave it at merely "sharing opinions", doesn't our office in the Church already give our words great weight in the eyes of lay Christians -- far more than others?

So, for example, let's use the example of taking pharmaceutical drugs to combat symptoms of mental health struggles. If I as a pastor-teacher say "it is generally best for Christians to avoid putting themself under the influence of these drugs", might it not be the case that somebody who was reading my ministry either 1) decides to make changes not because they independently felt it was the right thing to do but because of what I said (i.e., they made the change because they had their free will "softly coerced" by my opinion, because they respect me a lot, and even aside from me as an individual, they respect the position in the Church I occupy), or 2) comes to have a "bone stuck in their throat" because of this, and in such a way, thereafter has "issues" with my teaching, because they cannot get past my opinion on this matter?

Re: 3) "So if the Bible teaches it, we teach it. If the Bible doesn't teach it but it seems good to do, we encourage it with caveats and not as a mandate, and the opposite if it seems problematic, discouraging with caveats and not as a mandate."

I have heard it said that pastor-teachers are supposed to only teach the truth (as in, teaching directly pulled from the Bible) and not their opinions.

What you suggest here is just... well, isn't it different from that? Or is that oft-quoted statement more like "don't teach your opinions AS principles/rules" rather than "don't share your opinions at all"?

I guess a fair question for me would be "Well, what then precisely would you recommend we as teachers say about taking pharmaceutical drugs for mental health struggles (e.g.)?"

I suppose the "no opinions at all from the pulpit" approach would be more like "since the Bible doesn't say anything at all on the subject (given that the notion of taking drugs to combat anxiety and depression and the like was not common practice until many, many centuries after the Bible was written), neither will I say anything at all on the subject." Like, a complete refusal to engage on anything except that which is clearly discussed in the Bible.

I mean, many people would presumably find that very frustrating ("You aren't answering my question!"), but in some senses, isn't it the only approach we can take as teachers that keeps 100% of the focus upon the Word of God, and ensures we only serve as mouthpieces of the Holy Spirit, with as little of us in the process as possible?

I'm just struggling to see where I'm going wrong here, in reasoning like that.

Yours in Christ,
Response #10:   
1) If my opinion contradicts the truth, it's not biblical; if it is in accordance with the truth, then it is – but of course since it's an opinion, this is my personal impression (which may change over time as I grow). I'm not sure I can give you a litmus test or touchstone principle. If I'm led by the Spirit to share an opinion, I do so; if I'm restrained, I (generally) refrain. Regarding your example: "If I as a pastor-teacher say "it is generally best for Christians to avoid putting themselves under the influence of these drugs" . . . " – this is something I wouldn't say precisely because it is a matter of application but saying this way, even with the qualification "generally" is way "over the top" as far as I'm concerned. So perhaps it would be better for you to give me an example of where I've written something that sounds like rule-making. We lead by example. My example is, I hope, reflected in the applications I make and give voice to in this ministry; but we don't require others to do exactly what we are doing in detail, merely to follow the spirit of godly application in the examples we are giving. But we do teach the Bible first and foremost which is absolute.

2) As pastor-teachers, we do have to take into account how our opinion might be received and take pains to "head off at the pass" any and all likely misapplications those who listen to us might make (gauging that from our experience in general and our impression of our congregation). So a lot depends on how we phrase these things since others will not always "process them" in the exact same way. If we realize we have been too vehement in pushing something or diminishing something we should be quick to correct our approach. It is difficult to teach the Bible in isolation from application and that is not something we should try to do. Helping believers apply the truth is part of the job – not the ENTIRE job as in Baptist sermons – but important, and it needs to be done right. The main thing is to help without doing anything to undermine the free will and faith of those listening: they need to learn to make their OWN applications.

3) Re: "pastor-teachers are supposed to only teach the truth (as in, teaching directly pulled from the Bible) and not their opinions." That sounds great and is true, generally and in principle. As with this saw: "If the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense" – except that what makes sense to one person might not be correct. Also, since we are teaching the Bible, we are interpreting left and right. What is interpretation and what is opinion may sometimes be mere semantics. I'm using the word "interpretation" here to refer to "preferred applications" – which is what I thought your email was about. We do our best to provide guidance on subjects and issues and questions where scripture points in one direction or the other but does not give the specifics outright that people may need or want as to just exactly how they are to deal with "it" personally (whatever the "it" is). Marriage issues is a good example of that.

Re: "You aren't answering my question!" I get that a lot, LOL! As pastor-teachings, I think it is often the case that we need to do our best to thread the needle to the perfect middle between not saying less or more than we should. That is what I try to do in my teaching (obviously I'm not entirely successful at that all the time). Does the Bible say nothing about anxiety and depression? Does the Bible say nothing about medicine and healing? It does address these issues, only not in a direct way. Our job is to take what the Bible does say and craft our responses and our teaching based upon that. Obviously, our degree of certainty in the guidance we give is going to be greater at some times than at others. When it is less than, say, 50%, I guess we could consider it an opinion, biblically informed (and we may believe it is right), but with enough doubt about its absolute nature to want to avoid teaching it as doctrinal. Should Christians see psychiatrists? I have my strong doubts; I'm not willing to say "never"; when the subject comes up, I try to let my reservations be heard in a way that is not likely to stigmatize or completely dissuade those who feel otherwise (or might actually need that help, even if in a perfect world they wouldn't). This is not an exact science. The only way to avoid ever making mistakes here is to avoid teaching. That is the correct approach for some, after all.
My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.
James 3:1 NKJV
So you are right to be concerned about this. I just don't think it can be logically pinned down to a mechanical formula since there are far too many "moving parts" for it to ever become an exact science. 

I'm praying for you daily, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #11:  
Hi Bob, 

1) Re: "If the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense".

What do you mean by this? 

2) This helps a lot; thanks. I suppose (Holy-Spirit-empowered) common sense takes us far here. Does someone ask for advice about selling all their things to go give money to some ministry cause? We would probably be wrong to be like "Well, the Bible doesn't say anything about this specific situation, so I can't comment at all." Instead, we probably ought to give them a heavy dose of caution. Not doing so would in some sense be negligent in our capacity as shepherds of the flock, right?

So coming at things from this side, one cannot lean so far into "teachers should only talk about what the Bible does" that we fail to do basic functions of our office, like warning off our flocks from clear spiritual peril.

But on the other hand, there are obviously plenty of ways to get over-involved too, or to be too micromanager-y. So what to do? How to thread the needle properly?

It seems to me like the answer must be "Rely upon the Holy Spirit to guide us in our approach, case by case."

I basically agree with that as our general modus operandi as teachers, and it makes good sense to me. And I agree that this acknowledgement does essentially mean it is very difficult to spell all this out systematically. Unsatisfying as that may be in some senses, it is important that we leave things there to a certain extent, and let separate teachers operate within their personal spheres of influence, as the Spirit individually guides them.

3) Re: "I try to let my reservations be heard in a way that is not likely to stigmatize or completely dissuade those who feel otherwise (or might actually need that help, even if in a perfect world they wouldn't)."

You emphasized before that being too idealistic can be perilous down here upon this messy, imperfect battlefield. As you no doubt picked up on, this was probably my main concern in all this---what we might term "overprescribing" our preferred applications. Preferred though they may be, preferred is clearly different from "always".

Well, that being the case, don't we need to ensure that this truth (namely, the distinction between "generally preferred" vs. "always") always shines through very clearly, whenever we talk about such matters with our flocks? What I mean is that if one of our listeners actually has doubts on this point (i.e., whether we are talking about "generally best" vs. "always best"), haven't we in some sense fundamentally failed in our communication?

We needn't "wrestle the tar baby" in terms of trying to figure out whether someone maybe could have avoided their present circumstances had they exercised their free will a bit better in the past (and that sort of thing)---or whether God might perhaps be calling them to a path different than the vast majority of other Christians, with their free will decisions past or present having nothing to do with it---the point is, at this point in time, in their current circumstances, perhaps the "preferred application" has gone out the window as a real option for them, for whatever reason. We can't know for sure as third parties, and perhaps even they can't know for sure (given that none of us can always properly judge our own heart). But it is nonetheless true that this can be the case.

That being so, if we fail to make crystal clear and unambiguous the distinction I am emphasizing here, aren't we in so doing dooming some people to despair? If we tell them they must do X (or if not that, imply that X is "always best" rather than "generally preferred"), and they simply cannot do X (for whatever reason), then that can be quite destructive spiritually, can it not?

[omitted]

As they say, "to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." In some senses, that past negative experience has perhaps set me up to be hyper-sensitive in regards to how teachers word things in these sorts of areas. I don't necessarily want to be the wording-police here or be insistent upon arbitrary standards and rules that govern how we as teachers speak about these sorts of matters (rules that are not so enumerated in the Bible), but if a bit of care here can "head off" negative situations like the one I experienced, why would we ever not want to clearly articulate the fact that we are talking about "generally preferred" not "always", virtually every single time we talk about one of these areas, in an way that is decidedly explicit and unambiguous?

Does that make sense?

In many cases, I think it is a single word to add. Compare:

Here in Laodicea, it is generally best to avoid entanglement with local churches, rather than getting involved.
Having more Bible teaching is generally best in Christian assembly, rather than spending time on music.
Leaning on God through Bible reading/Bible study/prayer is generally best in battling addictions, rather than AA-like support groups.
Leaning on God through Bible reading/Bible study/prayer is generally best in dealing with mental health struggles, rather than seeing counselors/psychologists/psychiatrists, even Christian ones.
Leaning on God through Bible reading/Bible study/prayer is generally best in dealing with mental health struggles, rather than turning to pharmaceutical drugs.

And here's an area I hadn't identified in my initial list of examples:

It is generally best for Christians to stay out of politics, rather than spending time and energy there.

If you remove the word "generally" from these statements, I feel like the potential for people to stumble is drastically increased. Because perhaps they will think that "best" means "best in an unqualified sense, always" rather than "best in most circumstances", and those are two different things. So if we do in fact mean the second, why not take pains to explicitly communicate that sentiment whenever we discuss such things?

[omitted]

As I say, I think I am fine with simply adding the word "generally" in front of things: "generally preferred", "generally better", "generally best". But if we don't do that... is that a foul, so to speak? And if it's not, what's the reasoning behind why it is not, given the potential for people to stumble?

I really appreciate you going through all this with me.

Yours in Christ,
Response #11:   
1) Re: "If the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense". This was a "principle of interpretation" taught in hermeneutics at my seminary. Essentially, it's an excuse NOT to look at the original language or compare the passage to other biblical truths if one is of a mind to reject alternative viewpoints. Like Occam's razor, it works less than half the time so is essentially useless (except for self-justification).

2) Thanks. This is the way I see it too. Re: "How to thread the needle properly?" We do the best we can, relying as you note on the Spirit and on all we've learned and experienced when such things come up. It is a biblical principle as well. In Romans 14, Paul enjoins treating weak and strong believers differently in terms of matters of application. Obviously, rather than two categories there are believers all along the spectrum when it comes to applying the truth to virtually any aspect of life. On the one hand, we do not want to put a yoke of legalism on anyone. On the other hand, we are pastors who must protect the sheep from the wolves. Thus we need to "do the right thing" and "say the right thing" in each and every situation. There is no one who is going to be perfect at this. We endeavor to do the best we can, to learn from our mistakes, to rely on the Spirit, AND to pray for help in doing what we need to do and for our words and actions meant for godly good not to be taken the wrong way. Whenever they are, we do what we can to mitigate that and pray for help in the mitigation as well. We don't want to be popes who must never be defied. We also don't want to be Casper Milk-toasts who refuse to assert our authority when it may be very important to do so. It's not easy to thread that needle. But it is essential to try our best to do so.

3) Qualification is always important. When it comes to "preferred applications" that is doubly so. In rhetoric, you can get away with virtually any outrageous claim . . . as long as you qualify it. "This ridiculous thing I'm saying is true . . . for the most part, in general, all other things being equal". We as pastor-teachers leave openings in matters of application not for nefarious purposes but precisely as you have suggested in order not to demoralize others. This really is about the "others". No two believers are the same, and even if we think we know the members of our congregations, we know a lot less than we might imagine. Only the Lord knows precisely where each one is spiritually and just how they will react or respond to some teaching or other. What we prefer, what we really want, when it comes to such matters is for those listening to us to be brought along spiritually even if gradually and slowly by taking in the truth over time and in breadth and depth to the same sort of mature spiritual thinking that we are (one hopes) demonstrating in our teaching. 

Would a person who accepts the principles of the image of God and personal responsibility along with having a deep understanding of our Lord's goodness and other basic doctrines really want to defend the idea that "most of us should get professional mental health care if possible"? Wouldn't virtually every truth in scripture say instead that focusing on Him and His truth is the solution to whatever mental/emotional problems we may have? But not everyone is "there", and many have baggage from the past which is not so easily put aside. So we are careful in how we couch such things, letting people get a feel for where we stand but qualifying and not making rules. Maybe indeed person X at point Y in their life really does need such help . . . at least until having grown spiritually enough to be able to throw away the crutch.

Re: "hyper-sensitive in regards to how teachers word things" I think your point is well taken. No doubt the Lord gave you this experience for a reason. On the one hand, as a pastor-teacher, you can't afford to care what anyone else thinks about your ministry and your teaching . . . except the Lord (and we care EVERYTHING about what He thinks). On the other hand, we don't want to lay on any believer the kind of experience you relate, not unless it's a matter of absolute scriptural right and wrong. 

Even here, inveighing against sinful behavior is also a place to tread with circumspection. Yes, we want believers to turn from sin. But we also don't want to make them feel as if because they once committed sin X or are still struggling with sin Y that they are "no good". On the one hand we don't want to excuse sins "since everyone sins" (Rom.3:23). On the other hand, we don't want to chase people away from the Lord, from the truth, and from spiritual growth just because we couldn't be bothered to be "sensitive about the way we word things". We can be sensitive without compromising the truth. If something actually is "decidedly explicit and unambiguous" that is one thing. But when we address areas of application we need to keep in mind that there are "weak believers" as well as "strong one" – and they both have their "issues" as in Romans chapter 14, where the weak believers were being judgmental and the strong ones insensitive.

I like your list of qualifications. This is what I meant above. On politics, I "generally" say, "Christians should stay out of politics", with no qualification. I'm happy with that. On the one hand, if someone will take mortal offense at that, they're probably not going to get anywhere with this ministry anyway. On the other hand, this is SUCH a dangerous area for a Christian to get involved in that I feel an explicit warning is needful – especially nowadays. That also is a "judgment call". But that is what we have been commissioned to do: make the best "calls" we can for the protection of our flocks.

Re: 1st Corinthians 7: this is a good example of Paul giving us a lot of information but also a certain amount of flexibility. There is a lot Paul does NOT say here as well, many possible variations upon which he does not weigh in, which leaves it for us to fill in the blanks (my list of "points" in advice on marriage wherein I also say "better"; see the link). When it comes to "better vs. worse", we have to keep in mind that everyone is different, and that everyone is responsible for their own applications. 

As pastor-teachers, on the one hand, we don't want to impinge on anyone else' free will by laying down rules that the Bible doesn't include or make anyone feel less because they don't make the same applications in "disputable matters" that we do. On the other hand, we don't want to suggest in any way or give those looking for it an opening to go down a questionable road which we know will be very bad for them spiritually. That is often a very small needle to thread, but that's the job.

Glad you're finding this helpful!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #12: 
Hi Bob,

1) [omitted] As part of trying to explain much of what we've talked about here---such as the idea that while Bible teachers do not dictate rules, we can in fact share our opinions about "preferred applications", rather than holding to some problematically inflexible position of complete neutrality/unwillingness to even demonstrate a leaning in any direction---I think I had a bit of a light bulb moment. It went something like this:

I've been concerned this entire time primarily about the idea of a hypothetical need to acknowledge that a possible path of application "could be correct"/"could be God's Will for someone", in the positive sense. Clearly, if we have no scripture weighing in formally, it is problematic for us to teach that matter XYZ is blanket wrong = that it could never be God's Will for someone/the right choice in some circumstances. That is making rules when we ought not. But here's the thing. It is equally just as problematic to teach that something definitely could be God's Will for someone/the right choice in some circumstances. How do we know that? We have no means to. Maybe. But maybe not.

Basically, if the Bible doesn't say one way or the other, then we can neither confirm nor deny whether it is possible for something to be a correct path (for any person, under any circumstances), or not. Asserting that it is a definite possibility is in fact taking a position that is more "out there" than basically shrugging and saying that we simply don't know because the Bible doesn't say, so we can say nothing black and white at all (re: whether it is in fact possible or not for something to be the right path, ever), and only share some leanings based on indirect principles.

I don't know why this had never hit me before. To me, I suppose I had sort of been seeing what I term "being level handed" (as opposed to being too problematically one-sided) in treatments of matters of application as needing to directly teach the possibility that something could be a possible path of application for someone/could be God's Will for someone/could be the "right" thing for some person to do at some time in some circumstances. Like, teaching in a black and white sense that such is definitively possible in an absolute sense. Failing to do that, in my eyes, was a failure to actually be treating something as a matter of application. I saw failing to do that as basically calling something application but then treating it as if it was not; as not truly leaving the door open properly.

If you recall, a couple years back, I had asked you about the idea of getting involved in local churches to run supplementary Bible studies. In the process of discussing that idea, I became somewhat fixated on the above---at the time, I simply could not fathom why you seemed to reluctant to make a statement like "it is definitely possible that God could call someone to that" or "it is definitely possible that someone's circumstances could make that the 'right' path for them". Like, I was looking for a black and white affirmation of that as a definite possibility, and after repeated pushing on my part, you basically made it clear that you weren't willing to make a statement like that, at least not in so many words.

At the time I really didn't understand. I wasn't upset so much as extremely puzzled, since to me, I thought this is exactly what "acknowledging something as matter of application" meant = a willingness to acknowledge that both sides of things (insofar as there are sides) could definitely be God's Will for someone, depending upon circumstances. At the time (and in fact right up until just about now), that is always how I had thought we defined matters of application as a concept.

So, to summarize, if before I was thinking something like this (let's call it "Understanding A"):

If we identify something as a matter of application
We should not teach it as blanket wrong = that it is never the right path
We should explicitly teach that it could be (=it is possible for it to be) the right path for someone in some set of circumstances. That such is an absolute airtight truth.

Then now perhaps I am wondering if something more like this is a better approach (let's call it "Understanding B"):

If we identify something as a matter of application
We should not teach it as blanket wrong = that it is never the right path
We should neither confirm nor deny whether something could be (=it is possible for it to be) the right path for someone in some set of circumstances. We make no absolute claims about that at all.

Would you agree that Understanding B is a better approach for us than Understanding A? What do you think?

I think this really could solve a great deal of all the confusion I have had here over the years, and to be perfectly honest, finally clear up some conversations we've had in the past wherein I never quite understood why you would never explicitly affirm that XYZ could possibly be a right path---like, formally support a claim to the effect that it was definitely possible for that to be the case, making things only a matter of having the proper hypothetical circumstances (Understanding A), rather than us actually being agnostic as to whether any set of circumstances could ever possibly justify a path, and refusing to affirm that actually being a certain possibility (Understanding B).

2) Re: "Qualification is always important. When it comes to "preferred applications" that is doubly so. [...] We as pastor-teachers leave openings in matters of application not for nefarious purposes but precisely as you have suggested in order not to demoralize others."

At risk of oversimplification, this does mean you agree with the general practice of sticking the word "generally" in front of our opinions regarding preferred applications (or something to that effect, in order to hedge a bit), correct? In order to always make it clear when we talk about matters of application that we are speaking not in absolutes, so there is as little chance as possible of having people take our statements as absolutes when we don't intend them that way?

I don't mean to be repetitive in the questions. It seems to me like the above quote signifies you agree with this point. Just want to make extra sure though.

3) Re: "I like your list of qualifications. This is what I meant above."

This means that you like the general way in which I qualified these statements/think these statements are a good approach for (i.e., way to word) these specific matters of application?

Here in Laodicea, it is generally best to avoid entanglement with local churches, rather than getting involved.
Having more Bible teaching is generally best in Christian assembly, rather than spending time on music.
Leaning on God through Bible reading/Bible study/prayer is generally best in battling addictions, rather than AA-like support groups.
Leaning on God through Bible reading/Bible study/prayer is generally best in dealing with mental health struggles, rather than seeing counselors/psychologists/psychiatrists, even Christian ones.
Leaning on God through Bible reading/Bible study/prayer is generally best in dealing with mental health struggles, rather than turning to pharmaceutical drugs.

What specifically is it that you "meant above" (regarding the "this is what I meant above")?

4) Re: "On politics, I "generally" say, "Christians should stay out of politics", with no qualification. I'm happy with that. On the one hand, if someone will take mortal offense at that, they're probably not going to get anywhere with this ministry anyway. On the other hand, this is SUCH a dangerous area for a Christian to get involved in that I feel an explicit warning is needful -- especially nowadays. That also is a "judgment call". But that is what we have been commissioned to do: make the best "calls" we can for the protection of our flocks."

So, what you mean by this is that: 

Involvement in politics is still a matter of application, not a black and white matter of doctrine
Generally, it is good to qualify when we speak about matters of application
But you have personally chosen as a Bible teacher to not even qualify statements about Christians staying out of politics, simply because the risks are so great here (especially nowadays) that you have felt led by the Spirit to come on stronger here than in other matters of application? And this lack of qualification in our wording can sometimes be an appropriate course, if our "percent certainty" (if you will) about something reaches a certain level, even if something is still ultimately application not black and white doctrine? And we know when to drop the qualification in some area based upon the leading of the Spirit, I'd assume?

As before, thanks for sticking with me on this. I think it's actually helping lots of things from past conversations click into place, especially if what I put forward in (1) is in fact the case.

Your friend in Jesus,
Response #12:  
On #1, "in general" (LOL), I agree, this is the better way to think about it. Keep in mind that even if the Bible doesn't address something specifically, the Bible almost always says plenty of things that reflect on whatever it is we are talking about. The truth of the Bible embraces absolutely everything in this world and in our human experience. We use that truth we have believed in the Spirit to make the applications we make – or at least we should. As mentioned, if we believe in free will and the image of God, how does that set of truths not affect how we apply the "do I / don't I" question regarding getting professional mental health help? It's not the only set of doctrines that apply. There are probably hundreds that do (at least), and of course that is without considering the very specific situation of the individual in question who is attempting to make the "right application". 

In general, as pastor teachers we are attempting to teach people as much truth as possible so that, with the help of the Spirit, they develop a high level of "spiritual common sense" and thus don't need us to hold their hands and guide them ("disciple them") as to how to apply that truth to their lives. Will they make some mistakes? Don't we all? But as they get better and grow farther, they will improve in this process. What we DON'T want is to make them dependent upon us and our opinions about things the Bible doesn't specify one way or the other. The exception to this rule is when we see our group or individuals therein making very dangerous applications which might bring them great physical or spiritual harm. In such cases dropping an "opinion" on them in a careful way might be necessary.

On #2, that's right. If I tell someone, "don't do it!", they will take this as the command it is, and if they violate the command they will be violating my teaching authority (which, of course, they have voluntarily accepted of their own accord so as to be able to grow). Even worse, they will likely (a certain type) start looking to me to make all of their decisions for them – and then we have a cult. Better, "Since you ask, it's up to you, but I don't know if I'd be so quick to do that, if I were you, because . . . "). Or even better (when it's not a matter of some serious and irreversible mistake), just biting our lips.

On #3, that's right too. Re: "meant above" = I talked a lot about qualifying our opinions and adding caveats earlier in that email.

On #4: "simply because the risks are so great here". That's right. Now if I become aware that someone is voting or participating in a campaign or loves politician X or hates politician Y, I do my best not to even comment on it. It is, as you likewise affirm, a matter of application. My purpose on this one is to keep believers out of trouble (and involvement in politics is nothing but trouble now and could be devastating very soon, once the Tribulation begins), but also to keep their focus as far as it's up to me on divine solutions, not human solutions.

Finally, on the issue of behavior modifying drugs and secular therapy, I'm very careful not to tell others not to do it. Yes, I have an opinion, but I'm not omniscient (can't always even remember what I had for lunch yesterday). Everyone has baggage and some of us have physical issues that are not even the result of our prior bad mistakes. So taking an absolute position on this would be a mistake. My inclination is let people know that I personally don't like pills or allowing third parties to weigh in on my decisions or experiences and leave it at that . . . without suggesting that this is the ONLY way to proceed. Better: just zip my lip. After all, when it comes to physical issues I DO "take pills" and I DO listen to my doctors (occasionally, more or less).

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #13:  
Hello Bob.

I’m mentally quite bad right now. I have so many small and mean questions in my day that are attacking my conscious and I sometimes even think they are from evil but I’m still not winning. I think I have also sinned against my conscious. Man I’m exhausted Bob. I can hardly live a normal life anymore. Even when showering I get the thoughts. Thoughts like [omitted]“. Those questions sound wrong ALREADY but I still FAIL TO CONQUER. Bob, I seriously need help. Please

Be blessed from Jesus
Response #13:
We have a saying in this country which, while not in the Bible, is often applicable in such cases: "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". 

I read this in scripture:
"Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."
Matthew 11:29-30 NKJV
Placing unbearable burdens on ourselves is something we do, not God. He has called us to peace (Jn.14:27; 1Cor.7:15). If we're not resting in the Lord, we're not fulfilling the New Testament revision of the fourth commandment (see Hebrews 3-4; and Heb.8:10: "I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts").

No one is perfect. If we have sinned, we confess it to the Lord and He forgives us (see the link) . . . and then we move on, getting right back to running our race.
"And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward."
Matthew 10:42 NKJV
Rather than being condemned for anything we do wrong, we are rewarded for anything we do right.

Remember that you have the Holy Spirit. He is willing to encourage you and give you peace. But things have to be done His way (not our way).

So if you are doing anything right, be joyous about it – rather than being despondent for not being perfect at all times. That is an impossible standard which would depress anyone.

Also, please keep in mind that as you grow spiritually, as you begin to leave things to the Lord instead of trying to do this all by yourself, things will get clearer and easier with that growth.
For anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his.
Hebrews 4:10 NKJV
Be pleased to enter into the rest of faith the Lord has for you (see the link).

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #14:  
Good evening Professor 

Sorry to bother you but if you have time will you check out my thinking and let me know if I'm off. I have the procedure on Thursday now. If I've decided to go through with this because then I will have some knowledge that may give me some peace of mind or a treatment plan. I also have considered what the Lord would want me to do. I could make a list of to do it or not to do it. And then I could use my knowledge of Him to see which way to go. 

In this instance, I got nothing from scripture to lean on except the promise of His love and that He won't leave me. It really is wonderful to think of His faithfulness to me when I'm nervous. 

So, now I'm thinking He wouldn't be against me reaching out for help here with my troubles. So if He is not against me then He would be on my side during the whole process. I might could even go get my body checked out for Him. If I do it for the Lord then I would have to do it "as unto the Lord". If I do it like that then maybe I can keep from panicking when I get there. I will act like a good brave soldier for Him. 

Does this sound like a good plan or am I just putting stuff to the Lord that I shouldn't. 

Thank for helping

In Jesus
Response #14:  
Outstanding plan! Sometimes we DO need help, and if God provides the means, well, then it is right and proper for us to go forward in faith and confidence that He will work it all out for good.

A couple of years ago, I developed a "frozen shoulder". I injured the thing in a fall while jogging and thought I was being prudent by not forcing it to go places it didn't want to go. Turns out that for a shoulder joint this is exactly the wrong thing to do. It developed adhesions which could only be broken through intense and painful physical therapy. I had to do something. It got to the point where I couldn't lift my right arm high enough to write on the blackboard anymore. So I did it. Let me tell you, I have never felt worse pain in my life – and those sessions went on for a long time. But I trusted the Lord to get me through the pain and He did, and in the end I got my mobility back.

So, long story short, it's only my opinion but it seems to me that you are making the right decision. 

I'm keeping you in my prayers for this – keep me in the loop!

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #15:  
Robert,

You obviously have far more brain cells than you really need. Might you consider being a brain cell donor as I'm sure you can spare a few without skipping a thought!
Response #15:   
LOL!

The Spirit can use a few just like He can a lot (my experience). You just have to hand them over to Him for Him to do so.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #16:  
Greetings! 

Like some other people on here, I suffer from scrupulousity to a severe extent. Part of this is related to the fact that I was raised Christian, and then around 14 I left the faith due to what I perceived to be conflicts with what I thought I knew about the world. While there was a small pang of belief always in the background, I lived in hedonism for years after that. A couple years ago, I found my belief in Jesus to be stronger than the atheism I was claiming, and the error in my ways became apparent, as well as my need for the grace of God. I have since asked Jesus to forgive me for my sins, and have given him complete control of my life and I bring every decision before him, as well as sharing my faith with others. I worry though, because of the apostasy I committed when I was 14, as well as how much it must have hurt Jesus for me to live the way I did. My scrupulousity tells me that I made a permanent mistake back then, and it pains me alot. Do you have any insight into this?
Response #16:  
Good to make your acquaintance. 

First, let me congratulate you and your spiritual recovery! From the sound of it, you are now doing a creditable job of "spiritual defense" in staying away from the things that dragged you down in the past. What is not sufficiently appreciated in our Laodicean era, however, is that only "spiritual offense" can ever bring a believer into the peace of "faith rest" that we are told to enter into (Hebrews chapters 3 and 4; see the link), as the Church Age fulfillment of the 4th commandment. In other words, now that you've stopped moving backwards, it's high time to start moving forward. But how does one do that?

Simply answer: commit to studying under a good teaching ministry. I believe Ichthys to be such a place (here's a link for suggested procedure); I also highly recommend Bible Academy (at the link).
(11) Christ Himself appointed some of us apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers (12) in order to prepare all of His holy people for their own ministry work, that the entire body of Christ might thus be built up, (13) until we all reach that unifying [goal] of belief in and full-knowledge of the Son of God, that each of us might be a perfect person, that is, that we might attain to that standard of maturity of the fullness of Christ; (14) that we may no longer be immature, swept off-course and carried headlong by every breeze of so-called teaching that emanates from the trickery of men in their readiness to do anything to cunningly work their deceit, (15) but rather that we may, by embracing the truth in love, grow up in all respects with Christ, who is the head of the Church, as our model. (16) In this way, the entire body of the Church, fit and joined together by Him through the sinews He powerfully supplies to each and every part, works out its own growth for the building up of itself in love.
Ephesians 4:11-16
You have to grow spiritually to build up your faith and subsequently to pass the maturity tests that come all growing believers' way – and eventually come into the ministry the Lord means you to carry out (He has something for each of us). 

"Going to church" and occasionally reading your Bible will not accomplish the above – not unless your church is one of those very rare places where the truth is being taught as job #1 and in sufficient depth and quantity to lead to growth. 
"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
John 3:18 NKJV
As you grow, you will begin to leave all these doubts and fears behind. You are a believer, and all believers are saved. You know this, no doubt, but there is hearing the truth, believing the truth, and applying the truth, and it takes some time-in-grade in this process in order for it to come to fruition.

For now, please remember that the Father loves you so much that He sacrificed His beloved Son for you on the cross. And Jesus loves you so much that He bore all of your sins and stood judgment for them. God does NOT want to lose you. He has done everything possible to save you. As long as you believe, your eternal life is secure. In order to secure that faith, and in order to have confidence in that security, you need to grow, not just on this issue but in all the truth of the Word of God.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
1st Peter 1:3-5 NKJV
Feel free to write me back.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #17:  
[omitted]
Response #17:   
Thanks for letting me know! Everyone else who had problems accessing the site is reporting the same thing. I spent a goodly amount of time on the phone with my hosting company this morning as mentioned and they "escalated" the problem. A little before you sent this they sent me an email stating that "our system engineers have identified a known issue that may have been affecting your access. The issue has since been addressed, and they have confirmed that it is now resolved." They did ask me to retest, but since you and all of the others who had informed me of the outage have now checked in that it is up an working, I think I'll leave it at that.

Re: "mental" vs. physical work. That is very true. I'm having a hard time getting back into the research this summer. I've had my reasons (one thing or another to take care of on the job and at home), but there is a certain amount of palpable "pain" in having to sit there and engage with it. But like the "second wind" in running, it does get better if you stick with it. I'll say a prayer for him.

Re: "There's no better way than to take it to the Lord in prayer." Amen! I commend you on your great spiritual maturity. These family issues are some of the most difficult tests to pass. Joseph and his brothers indeed! It is very difficult to fight the temptation for self-defense even when we know it'd be a bad idea to do so.
I said, “I will watch my ways and keep my tongue from sin; I will put a muzzle on my mouth while in the presence of the wicked.” So I remained utterly silent, not even saying anything good. But my anguish increased; my heart grew hot within me. While I meditated, the fire burned; then I spoke with my tongue: Show me, LORD, my life’s end and the number of my days; let me know how fleeting my life is. You have made my days a mere handbreadth; the span of my years is as nothing before you. Everyone is but a breath, even those who seem secure. Surely everyone goes around like a mere phantom; in vain they rush about, heaping up wealth without knowing whose it will finally be. But now, Lord, what do I look for? My hope is in you.
Psalm 39:2-7 NIV

Though the LORD is exalted, he looks kindly on the lowly; though lofty, he sees them from afar. Though I walk in the midst of trouble, you preserve my life. You stretch out your hand against the anger of my foes; with your right hand you save me. The LORD will vindicate me; your love, LORD, endures forever— do not abandon the works of your hands.
Psalm 136:6-8 NIV
I'm keeping you in my prayers to pass this test, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #18:  
Hello Bob,

I’m mentally bad again because I still can’t figure out 1 Cor 5 and how and if it is applicable on family and if not, why not….. it has gotten so bad that I cannot eat, drink, or shower in the same house as my sister does, without my consciousness making annoying things because „technically“ I could eat, drink (because I have enough money for that) and shower (in the gym) outside of my home. And as long as this verse HAS to be taken word for word, as it is written, I have a problem. Because if it directly says I shouldn’t have company with those and those people, than 

1) how can I say that it doesn’t count for family?

2) how can I discern when somebody belongs to the type of people that should be avoided?? When is somebody a greedy person? Should I already avoid people who say that they are Christian’s but don’t read the Bible because they might not be real Christian’s and therefore calling themselves brother but not being one? 

3) how far does the company with them, that I should avoid, go? Am I even allowed to be in the same house, or eat out of the same fridge, or shower in the same shower? HOW CAN I WIN THIS ONE WITH THE WORD? The word just doesn’t have much information on this. Please. I want freedom. I don’t feel free at all. 

Be blessed 
Response #18:  
I also read this in scripture:

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
1st Corinthians 7:12-13 KJV

Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
Ephesians 6:1-3 KJV

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
1st Timothy 5:8 KJV

What all three of these passages have in common is that they all deal with family relationships of one sort or another. What they also all have in common is that they give NO mandate for separation. We can choose our friends, but not our family (except in the case of marriage and even there, once the choice is made, the spouse is "family"). We are responsible to the Lord to do right by our family, whether they are in authority over us (parents), or we are in authority over them (children), or there is some rough equality (i.e., siblings, marriage). So whether we like our family or not, whether we feel they are "good Christians" or not, we still are obligated to the Lord to do what is right by them. What, precisely, that means, is a matter of application which each Christian must decide for him/herself. But absolute separation except for cases of physical danger is generally not authorized by scripture, the way I read these (and many other) passages.

To repeat prior advice, we all have issues with some scriptures we don't understand or for whatever reason are tempted to "assume the worst", even when that does not align with what we know of our loving, gracious and marvelous God. Individual Christians are not tasked by the Lord with "figuring it all out immediately". Believers are supposed to grow spiritually through a good teaching ministry. As we grow, we will have our questions answered at least to some degree eventually. And we will eventually develop good "spiritual common sense" wherein we understand the truth of scripture broadly (so as not to be tripped up by misunderstanding individual passages) and become capable of applying it well with the help of the Spirit.

In the meantime, it's very important not to let some single passage like this become a stumbling block which undermines our entire growth process. The Lord has called us to peace (Jn.14:27), if we are reading the Bible and not getting peace, then we need to "set aside" that problem and focus on our growth. While that does include prayer and Bible reading, it means first and foremost learning basics from a good teaching ministry. So I commend to you the Peter series and the Basics series at Ichthys (Bible Academy is also an excellent place).

In Jesus,

Bob L.
Question #19:  
Hello Bob and thanks for your answer and time.

1) to the family part: I know some scripture about the relationship from child to parent, but I think, for example, that I don’t have to do what they tell me if they tell me to do something sinful, right? So if staying under one roof with a person WOULD be a sin, the parents prob couldn’t change it. 

2) secondly, I still ask myself what company Paul talks about? Are they only not allowed to be together with such a person or should they also not be where they are (for example on the same toilet or shower as they where) and how can I see that out of the Bible? 

3) I thought that I came to the conclusion that if I don’t know that I should avoid a person, than I shouldn’t AND if I don’t know if something is bad, than it is ok for me to do. [omitted] While I still think that biblically this was probably the right decision, I still think that I may have had doubts while doing that (even though biblically I had no reason for that) which would mean that I maybe would’ve sinned?

How can I doubt while biblically having no reason for it?? What should I do now about the doubts? If those don’t go and it is sin if I do things while those doubts are there, than I can’t eat at home anymore for example. But I know that I don’t know if it’s bad, so it shouldn’t be bad, but still it feels like I have doubts.
Response #19:   
I think you are right about this: this is a problem of doubt. What is needed is faith. Remember: you have the Holy Spirit. He is able to help you overcome this kind of counterproductive thinking. But 1) you do have to remember to seek and accept His help; 2) all such help is limited to the extent that a) one's spiritual growth is limited by not spending enough time and effort learning the truth; and b) one's spiritual growth is limited by unwillingness to accept and apply the truth once learned.

God loves you. He has provided everything for you. Do you really think He want's you to be miserable, especially when such misery is hindering the peace of faith rest you are commanded to be entering into?

No, of course, if our parents tell us to rob a bank, we should not do so (crime). If they tell us to slander others we should not do so (sin). If we are unwilling to accept their authority and give them the benefit of the doubt when it is no question of a crime or some clear sin, then that is our problem, not theirs. When you are on your own, if you feel uncomfortable with such things, you will have every opportunity to be alone. In the meantime, how would causing grief and trouble for your parents and siblings not be a problem? We are supposed to honor parents. Giving them push-back for doing what good parents around the world have been doing since the fall, namely, providing a place for their children to live, seems to me to be highly problematic. In matters of application, we use our spiritual common sense to consider the entirety of the situation. And whenever we give in to guilt or legalistic hyper-interpretation, we are almost always in the wrong.

1) If you are of age (I don't know your age or your country or its laws or culture), if this is such an issue for you, you could move out (NOT that I'm recommending that – it would probably be a mistake from my point of view, but that is not my decision). If you stay, I cannot see how doing anything else but respecting your parents and not giving them grief over this would be right.

2) It's very clear to me that 1st Corinthians 5:9-13 is not talking about children in their home. It is talking about adults choosing to be friends and/or business partners with other believers who are acting in anything but a Christian way. Keep in mind that this coda follows Paul's command to expel the incestuous believer from their church fellowship. That is the "inside/outside" he's referring to, namely, the common fellowship of believers. Even if a young believer finds him/herself in a family of vile personages who are sinful to an extreme degree, as a child, nothing can be done except to wait on the Lord. And that is often the case for us all in all manner of circumstances. 

If you are really in such a situation, and if you are unable to leave on account of your age/culture/other circumstances (which I assume is the case), then why not trust the Lord to deliver you in His way and in His timing? He is aware of you concerns. Why not put the matter to Him in prayer? And by all means, do NOT leave your home if it is not His will – and if you are a minor I guarantee you that this is almost certainly NOT His will. So do not do it. Do not destroy yourself over this issue. That is NOT what Jesus wants of you. That would be failing to trust Him. So we are back to trusting and not doubting.

3) I guarantee you that this is NOT what Paul means by "keeping company". He is talking about having a personal relationship from one's own choice, fellowship, with a Christian who is defaming the Name of Christ by his/her behavior. After all, at some point you might have to open a door outside of your home which has been touched by some vile person. Of course you will – we all have to have all manner of physical contact with all manner of objects that unbelievers, good and bad, and believers, good and bad, have touched. I hope you can see what a hopeless morass of spiritual paralysis you might be subjecting yourself to by going down this unbiblical and highly legalistic road. I see no biblical basis for these sorts of applications. More than that, you have already identified the problem. Have faith in the Lord, and He will see you through.
But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
Hebrews 11:6 NKJV
I'll be praying for you.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
http://ichthys.com/