How to Understand what the Bible Leaves Out

Perhaps this sounds like an ambitious thing to tackle in a blog post, however, someone asked some good questions over twitter recently, and although I tried to answer her question, I'm not sure I was doing well over twitter. So, I'm going to give a more full answer here, where I have more space. The question was, basically, "Are we supposed to get baptized in Jesus name only, or in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?" The question was raised because of a perceived conflict between two verses. The two verses are as follows:

Matt 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  (ESV)

Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Also ESV)

There are two ways to approach this question. First, does it matter how we are baptized? Second, how do we know what to do with two verses that seem to contradict each other because of differing amounts of detail?

One of the answers to the question of how to be baptized was to point the questioner to a CARM page on baptism, which has a link to an explanation of what that verse has to do with baptism (http://carm.org/baptism-and-acts-238)
That web page has an in depth, technical explanation of the Greek in Act 2:38.  However, I'm guessing that most people asking the question about which verse to follow aren't interested in a technical explanation of the Greek grammar behind one of those verses. If you skip that explanation, it also has a good explanation of the idea that salvation does not come because of getting baptized.  So, it really doesn't matter (much) how you get baptized, because that's not what gets you saved anyway. I'm not saying it isn't important to do what God's word says. The idea of obedience is good, certainly. The biggest issue, though, is that a person is acting from right motives. So, if a person is honestly trying to do what is right, then that's what counts. If they are in a group that believes in Jesus only baptisms, and so they believe they should be baptized in the name of Jesus only because they don't realize that the Bible has anything else to say on the subject, God isn't going to punish that person for having acted out of a good conscience and for not having been baptized the "right" way. This goes for any other question regarding baptism, too. If you are in a group that practices dunking, sprinkling, immersion, whatever, it isn't the most important question. If you were baptized in any of those groups (regardless of what is "correct" in an objective sense), that's fine. If you did it as the answer of a good conscience towards God to make a public confession of faith towards God, you did it with right motives. That's what counts. That said, if your conscience is bothering you, by all means, do it again! If you've decided that the group who originally baptized you didn't have everything right and so you are concerned that it "didn't take" or something along those lines, go do it again. The Bible is pretty clear about maintaining a good conscience (see 1 John 3:19-23 or so). Also, if those around you don't believe that the way you did it in the past was valid, for their sakes, do it again.

The second question is the more important question. How do we know what to do regarding two verses that seem to contradict each other by giving differing amounts of information? First of all, this pair of verses (Matt 28:19 and Acts 2:38) don't contradict each other. If you are baptized in the name of the son of God, then you are baptized in the name of Jesus. The two things mean the same. If you are baptized in the name of the father and of the holy spirit, you are still being baptized "in the name of" God, which means you are doing it because he (God) commanded it. You are acting as his agent. Because God is one God, whether you do something in the name of Jesus, or in the name of the Father, or the Son or the Holy Spirit, it is all being done in the name of God. Now, if someone doesn't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, then that's an issue, because there are a LOT of scriptures which substantiate that doctrine. If someone says, though, there is a difference in meaning because the one tells me to be baptized in three names and the other says only to be baptized in one name, that person needs to consider this:

If I go to a party and am telling everyone about a car accident that was really shocking that I witnessed on the way to the party, I might give a LOT of details to the first person I tell about it. I might be still trying to deal with what I saw and I need to just have a shoulder to cry on, so to speak. But if someone else comes over and asks what we are talking about, I'm probably not going to go into as much detail. If yet a third person comes over and asks what we are talking about, I might shorten my recap to just a few words. "Oh, I was talking about an accident I saw." Done. End of story. Say no more. Does it mean that I'm "changing my story?" Is there a contradiction present between my various retellings of what happened? Not at all. These changes are completely natural.

If I'm trying to find a job and so I apply to multiple potential employers, the job descriptions might vary quite a bit. If they each require three completely different skill sets, I might tailor my resume to match each of those three requirements. If I leave out my computer programming experience while applying for a sales job, it doesn't mean I haven't ever worked as a computer programmer. It just means I've changed the focus of my resume to match the needs of my audience.

We often see instances in the Bible of the same circumstances being recounted by multiple witnesses. Jesus life is retold once in each of the four Gospels and each one is different. What to do? If you get more detail from one account than from another, you have to believe the one with more details. 2Ti 3:16 states that, "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" So, you can't just toss out the longer verses because they seem to disagree with the shorter verses.



What do you think? Am I missing anything in my explanation of what to do with those two verses? Is my focus or set of priorities wrong? Can you give me any suggestions for improvements in my reasoning or my examples? Or, if this has been really helpful to you and you just think this is the most wonderful blog post you've ever read, either way, let me know! I love to get comments. Thanks in advance and God bless you!

Weed and the Gospel

Many of the arguments against using drugs are the same regardless of the drug. However, many of us don't know those arguments (when it comes to drug use and Christianity), so I thought I'd write up a quick synopsis of them. There may well be more, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on this in the comments, but this is the way I'm thinking about it currently.

The first argument has to do with the meaning of the word from the Bible translated as sorcery. Although most of us don't think of sorcery today as having anything to do with drugs, in the time the new testament was written, it did. This comes as a surprise to most people I talk to when I'm out witnessing in the streets, but if you look it up in "Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary," it is right there in black and white. I had a hard time with this, although I heard friends of mine saying things about this on a regular basis, until I looked it up myself. The definition given in Vine's is pretty explicit, so I will quote extensively here.

Sorcery:
A. Nouns
1. pharmakia (leaving out the greek spelling) (Eng., "pharmacy," etc.) primarily signified "the use of medicine, drugs, spells"; then, "poisoning"; then, "sorcery," Gal. 5:20, RV, "sorcery" (KJV, "witchcraft"), mentioned as one of "the works of the flesh." See also Rev. 9:21, 18:23. In the Septuagint, Ex 7:11, 22; 8:7, 18; Isa 47:9, 12. In "sorcery," the use of drugs, whether simple or potent, was generally accompanied by incantations and appeals to occult powers, with the provision of various charms, amulets, etc., professedly designed to keep the applicant or paitient from the attention and power of demons, but actually to impress the applicant with the mysterious resources and powers of the sorcerer.

The word "sorcerer" is only slightly different. The second meaning in Vine's for "sorcerer" is as follows.

2. pharmakos (greek spelling omitted), an adjective signifying "devoted to magical arts," is used as a nound, "a sorcerer," especially one who uses drugs, potions, spells, enchantments, Rev 21:8, in the best texts (some have pharmakeus), and 22:15.

Both "Sorcery" and "Sorcerer" are sometimes the words used as the translation of words of another root, "magos", whose definition doesn't have anything overtly to do with "drugs" or "potions". However, for your ease of reading, I've included some of the above cited verses below.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 First of all, sorcerers are listed right along with murderers, whoremongers (RSV uses "fornicators" here. Several other translations say just, "sexually immoral people") and idolaters, each of which is worthy of death in the old testament law. Second, it says that these people "shall have their part in the lake which burn[s] with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." That sounds pretty bad to me. Going from Vine's definition alone, one might say, "Well, the problem with whatever it was these people were doing was that they were actually committing idolatry. It had nothing to do with the drug usage." But, idolatry is listed, too. So, if idolatry was the only problem going on, it wouldn't be listed separately. In Rev 22:15, we see that sorcerers are not going to be allowed to enter into the "New Jerusalem" with the murderers, whoremongers and idolaters. In Gal 5:20, the word for "witchcraft" is pharmakeia. In Gal 5:21, we find that people who practice "pharmakeia" (right along with, again, murderers and such) "shall not inherit the kingdom of God." There doesn't seem to be any symbolism there. As if "lake of fire" and shut out of "New Jerusalem" weren't enough, those who do "pharmakeia" won't inherit the kingdom of God.

If you haven't ever tried to witness to people about the Gospel and had them try to justify themselves, then it might be hard to imagine all the different ways people try to wiggle out of their responsibility to do what's right. In case you, like me, think the above things make "doing drugs" look like something we really ought to avoid, I'll try to help you see things from the point of view of those I witness to. They say things like, "Well, maybe it was some other drug that was being talked about there. How do I know that is really talking about weed?" In response, I try to explain to them the principle behind these prohibitions. I tell them this is no different from alcohol usage (1 Cor 6:9-10, no drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of heaven). The thing that unites the two is Matt 5:28, "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." The point here is not that a man can't look at a woman. The point is also not that a man can't feel attracted to a woman. Rather, if a man notices that he is being tempted to do something he should not (lusting after a woman he's not married to), he should avoid the source of the temptation. That is, a man being tempted by a woman's beauty should look away! The problem with both alcohol and weed is that they both dull the mind and prevent people from being able to choose right from wrong.

The third argument is that marijuana should be avoided because it is simply not good for you. This argument has a number of different approaches. We are told we are not to defile the temple, and the body of the believer is the temple of the Lord. (retort: What does it mean to defile the temple?) We are not to commit murder, and because we are killing ourselves by smoking (whether marijuana or tobacco), we are committing murder by smoking.

The obviousness of the above is pretty clear to me. However, when I bring this line of reasoning out into the streets, I'm often told, "Oh, no. Neither alcohol nor weed does that to me." I used to drink alcohol, and I find it hard to believe that it doesn't make it more difficult for ANYONE to do what is right. I've never used marijuana, but I've watched people who have, and having done that has been enough for me. Today, though, I found a book in the library that gives me further evidence to support my ideas. It is "Forensic Pharmacology," by Beth and Morris Zedeck, 2007. On p. 51, it says the following.

Marijuana has a range of behavioral effects, including feelings of euphoria, relaxation, mood changes, panic reactions, and paranoia. It also causes an altered time perception, lack of concentration, and impairs judgment, learning, and memory. [...] Other changes include psychosis, delusions, and hallucinations. [...] The physiological effects of marijuana include increased heart rate, dryness of the mouth and throat, increased appetite, enlargement of the blood vessels and pupils, sleepiness, decreased repiration rate, and psychomotor impairment. Ataxia (unsteady balance) and bloodshot eyes are characteristic of marijuana intoxication. Use of marijuana over a long period of time can cause lung damage, impairment of cognitive function, alteration of the immune system, reduced testosterone levels and enlarged breast tissue in males, and schizophrenia, a mental disorder that results in disorganized behavior and social withdrawal.

A friend of mine once told me about a movie he considered to be completely ridiculous called, "Reefer madness," which he said claimed some of those same things. As I remember, his rationale was, "I've known a lot of people who have used pot, and none of them had the things happen that were portrayed in that movie." I've not seen that movie, but if a book on "Forensic Pharmacology" says these things happen, I believe it does happen. How often, I don't know. However, is it really something that should be risked? I personally don't want to mess with anything that could cause me to become schizophrenic. 

1Cr 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

Now, knowing what marijuana does to people (from a medical/pharmacological perspective), is using it really something likely to be "to the glory of God?"

Earning an Escape from the Flames

"What you are asking for, I cannot sell you," said the old man.

Rufus replied, "If I'm not offering enough, I'll pay more. How much do you want?" They walked steadily and quickly, but calmly through the city as others ran past frantically.

But the old man answered, "There is no price. I'm sorry."

Amidst angry shouts around him, Rufus persisted. "But, you've offered it to me hundreds of times before...I just wasn't ready."

"You weren't ready? Are you sure you weren't just unwilling?"

The old man had volunteered at the orphanage for years. He told all the children wonderful stories whenever he came. But he also told the children to follow him and that doing so would be both extremely difficult and more fun than anything they'd ever done before.

"Well, I don't know. The things you said didn't make any sense to me. How was I supposed to know that the things you were saying were true?" The old man had also told them what would happen to their city. The old man had told of the problems the city had: the rising tensions and the unwillingness of the people who lived there to do what was right. The people who lived there always wanted more and more: even after they’d been given as much as they could use without hurting themselves.

"I know and understand that. But, they didn't make sense to Jimmy, either, and yet he is now coming with me."

"Why does he get to go and I have to stay? He doesn't have anything to give you! Look how much money I've offered you and he hasn't offered you anything!"

"He loves me. He is a child. Jimmy trusted me and came when I called him. He has no other parents. He needs me. You have said over and over again that you don't need my help. You are all grown now. Your father came to claim you years ago and you willingly went with him. Don't you remember the story of the soup kitchen?"

Rufus knew it well. The old man had explained to him and the other orphans using a story about how strange people could be. He said that he had run a soup kitchen for a time and that one night a proud man came in who had lost his home. He was still well dressed, in spite of being homeless. The man had no more money because of legal difficulties and problems with his own business. The proud man had wanted to earn his soup. The old man told him that he couldn't do that.

"But, I don't want a hand out. I don't want to take anything for free. Let me work for my food."

The old man could only reply, "You are welcome to work. You are welcome to eat. But the food is free, whether you work or not. You cannot earn it. All the ingredients have been donated. I promise all donors that I will never charge for what they have freely given. Should I put a price tag on it now? I cannot."

The proud man hadn't eaten in days and began to weep because he didn't want to take charity.

"But what does the soup kitchen have to do with us...here and now?" asked Rufus. Meanwhile, as they had walked, they had come to the docks and the old man began to board a ship, little Jimmy running quietly alongside him to keep up. The old man gave the fare for himself and Jimmy and continued to explain to Rufus, "When I told you not to steal, you did it anyway. Others punished you. I could not. I was just a volunteer. When I told you to tell me about your homework and let me help you with it, you would not. Your grades suffered for it. You didn't trust me in the little things. Jimmy did and does. Jimmy is clearly willing to be my son. You didn't seek me early. We haven't spoken in years. But now, when the things I told you would happen have finally come to pass, now you claim to want to be my son, but you aren't." By this time, everyone had boarded the ship except the old man and Jimmy. Then, they walked up the gang plank, too. The ship began to pull away.

Rufus looked out at the large ship as it kept pulling further from the dock. He had to speak ever louder in order for the old man to hear him.

"But I'll work for you. I'll do anything you say. Whatever you ask me, I'll do."

"Rufus, you've said that before, but you never keep your word. You have always lied to me. And anyway, I can't turn the ship around. The gap is now so large, you couldn't leap it if you tried. And, remember the soup kitchen."

Looking back, Rufus could see the city on fire. With all the noise in the background and the growing distance to the ship, Rufus was now yelling so loud it was hurting his throat.

He said, "I was only in the orphanage because I thought my father was dead, but he wasn't. Now I know my father is an evil man. But you were always kind to me. Even though I didn't do what you said, the things you told me...I see now that you always only gave me good advice. Please take me with you. And why do you keep bringing up the soup kitchen?"

Rufus began to sweat from the heat of the burning city. He was also sobbing by this time. The buildings in that city were made mostly of wood and it had been dry lately. The fires were spreading quickly, even while the people rioted instead of trying to put them out.

The old man yelled, "You don't really love me. You haven't ever loved me. You are only saying those things now to try to escape the flames. Immigrations would never allow it. You have no more time to make those decisions. You are too old now. I can't bring a grown man home and claim to have adopted him. This is your city. This is where you belong. I keep bringing up the soup kitchen to remind you that there are some things you just can't 'earn'."

The fires were close enough now that Rufus could feel pain from the flames, and he could no longer see the ship because of the smoke. It was so thick he was in complete darkness. As he tried to watch the ship sail away, Rufus gnashed his teeth in agony from the heat, but there was no way to earn a place aboard the ship. He couldn't buy a ticket any more now than he could pay the old man to adopt him. His wicked, natural father had deserted him again at the first sign of danger and his chance to go with his savior was gone. The last words Rufus heard were, "There are some things you just can't 'earn'."

Jimmy and the old man watched from the ship as the smoke flooded over the docks and absorbed Rufus but were unable to do anything to help him. Jimmy asked the old man, “Daddy, what is Rufus doing now?” He answered, “I don’t know, Jimmy. I can’t see him any longer.” With that, they sailed on to the old man’s home land. There were, of course, times when Jimmy did things he wasn’t supposed to. But, he kept learning. When he was punished for something, he would learn not to do that thing again and he stopped doing it. His relationship with the old man continued until the old man’s death many years later. Then, he went on to teach other children how to live uprightly as well. And yet, he always knew that his relationship with the old man did not exist because Jimmy was “better” than Rufus. They had both lied. They had both stolen things. But Jimmy never left the old man for long. And if he did something wrong, he came back and apologized. The relationship didn’t exist because Jimmy paid the old man anything. It wasn’t there because Jimmy “worked” for the old man, but because they were both willing to maintain a relationship.

There is an old man who wants to adopt you, too. Are you willing to be his child? If you wait too long, one day, there won’t be any more time for you to decide to change, either. If you decided once that you wanted him to adopt you, have you kept up the relationship? Or have you walked away and only return when you are in trouble? What kind of a relationship is that if you only show up when you want something from him?

If you have questions or comments, I’d love to hear what you think. Thank you for reading.

How to Lead a Valuable Life

You need to lead a valuable life. Perhaps that's obvious, but most of us drift through life without much thought to how to make ourselves more valuable. If you want to be valuable, there are several steps involved. First, you have to decide that being valuable is your goal. Second, you have to know what your goal means. Third, you have to know how to achieve it. Of the three, once you've achieved the first two, the third is easy.

Why focus on being valuable? The easy answer is, "Because God commands it." Now, he doesn't come right out and say it that way, but consider the two commandments from the Bible which Jesus said are the greatest: Love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Now, when the Bible commands us to "Love God" and "Love our neighbors", what is it saying? First and foremost, remember that love is a verb. In the case of those two commandments, it is not only in active voice, it is COMMANDED! Sometimes people lose the idea that love can be commanded, but know this: love isn't just a feeling. It can be commanded because we can choose to act out our love toward others regardless of how we feel.

What does love have to do with being valuable? The opposite of love is not hate, but rather selfishness. There are only two ways to lead a life. You can be self centered or others focused. There is very little room in between.  If you seek to gratify your self, that path can only lead to failure. A very rich man from the early twentieth century was once asked how much money would be enough for him. He answered, "A little bit more." We are no different. One of my children really likes Pokemon cards. As a way to help him understand himself better, I asked him that same question, "How many will be enough? 100 cards? 500 cards?" He answered, "Some of my friends have binders and binders full of them." The answer doesn't really depend on some absolute, measurable goal, but rather on measuring up to those around him. What about you? Do your goals include measurable results?Do those results make sense on their own, or are your goals aimed simply at having as much as the next person or being as good as the next person? Are your goals all focused around how to get more _______ for yourself? (Go ahead and fill in the blank: money, power, prestige, stuff, comfort or other physical pleasures...it doesn't really matter what you put in that blank unless it is that you want more of God in your life...) To see a verse which talks about selfishness, read Isaiah 56. Towards the end of that chapter it says (of people not following God)

Isa 56:11

Yea, [they are] greedy dogs [which] can never have enough, and they [are] shepherds [that] cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.

The one who follows God is satisfied...not necessarily because God pours out money and possessions and power on those who follow him, but rather because God commands us to be content with what we have...and because he commands us to love our neighbors as our selves.

This is why the idea of selfishness is important: we can never be filled by seeking only our own good. We can only be filled by giving to others. By seeking to empty ourselves, we find out how full we are. That's where contentment comes from. I'm not saying we can be content merely by giving. God has to have a hand in it. There's no value in giving away so much that you become homeless and are no longer taking care of your family. Poverty isn't valuable of itself, either. There are ways to be poor which benefit no one. The value comes not from being poor, but from serving God by serving others in his name.

I know I haven't spent much time writing about how to actually be more valuable. But, as it says at the beginning of this post, actually doing it is the easy part. God will make you more valuable if you decide that making yourself more valuable to others will help you to love them, which is the second greatest commandment. He tells us that if we love him, we'll keep his commandments. So, being loving toward others (and you know that doesn't mean just fawning over them or feeling a certain way towards them) is second in importance only to living out our holiness towards God. And, He doesn't command us to do anything He doesn't give us the ability to accomplish (1 Cr 10:13, Matt 11:30 & 1 Jo 5:3).

As always, I look forward to your comments. They are a huge help to me. Thank you.

What Does it Mean: To be Dead to Sin?

The Bible has multiple verses which indicate we are to be dead to sin. Two of them are Rom 6:2 and Rom 6:11, which follow (with a little context):
Rom 6:1   What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2   God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom 6:11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

One of the greatest divisions within Christianity is in the understanding of what sin is. If you look up the greek word that was translated into English as, "sin", you'll find several similar meanings. (Go here for a thorough definition.)  Most people who've done ONLY this part come away with the idea that it means to err or miss the mark. Now that doesn't seem too hard to understand, does it? The trouble is that what you get from the dictionary is only a short explanation of the meaning behind the word in Greek as it existed when Christ took on flesh and preached among us. However, Christ didn't just leave the word as he found it. Rather, he (and his followers) added meaning to that original context.

When you read the Bible to see what it was that the Bible means with the word sin in the context of what Christ meant with it, you can look at James 4:17 since that verse tells what sin is. That verse says, "Therefore to him that knows to do good, and does [it] not, to him it is sin." Notice that it says, "to him" it is sin. Why? There's the idea of the importance of intentions. We see this importance also in Mat 5:28, where Jesus tells us, "But I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart." The part where it says, "to lust after her" shows us that it is not the looking which is sin (adultery), but rather that the intentions are the problem.  If a man is in a crowd of people looking for his wife or daughter and sees a bunch of women who are neither his wife nor his daughter, he has not sinned because of having looked at a bunch of women...unless he has intended to lust after them. The importance of intentions are also evident in Luke 6:45 which states, "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks." So, when you read the Bible, keep in mind that the word "sin" was not used the same way in all places. Think about what was meant by it. Is a particular text speaking about any mistake you make, or only mistakes with wrong intentions?

My point here is that if your ultimate goal in life is to serve God rather than to serve self, then ultimately, your intentions will be right. Then, when you look at people, whether you are a man looking at women or a woman looking at men, your intention will be to be a servant of others rather than to be trying to get what isn't rightfully yours. If your ultimate goal is to serve God, then when you realize you've done something God didn't want you to do, you will fix your course and again serve God (that's repentance). If you believe in God, and are intent upon serving him, then he will forgive you for your past sins (if you ask). Then, he can also cleanse your conscience of your past misdeeds. From this perspective, God is not being unreasonable when he tells us to "be perfect even as the father in heaven is perfect," because he isn't telling us to never again make a mistake, rather he is telling us to follow after him and give up all wrong-doing in our lives. This is what is meant by being "dead to sin." Using only the meaning of, "to miss the mark, to err" it is completely impossible to ever "stop sinning," like Jesus commands us to do in numerous places (see John 5:14 and 8:11 for examples). If, though, Jesus only meant to live up to the truth that we know, every one of us can do that by simply asking Jesus to cleanse our consciences and give us right intentions. Then we can act out of those right motives and have confidence before God.

Now, you have a choice to make: Are you going to go through the rest of life simply saying, "No one is perfect," and therefore thinking that it doesn't make any difference how you actually live since you can't be perfect anyway? Or are you going to give up serving self and live your life to serve Christ thereby doing what is right?

Has this post been helpful to you? Am I being ridiculous? Have I neglected to take something into account and you can help me grow closer to Christ by correcting me? I'll be O.k. with your comments regardless of whether you like or hate my views. Let me know what you think. I value your feedback. Thanks and God bless.

I Said Something New

I said something new tonight. I often find myself saying the same things over and over again. Even though I like to think that what I tell people and what I ask people is spirit lead, people so often come up with the same comments, the same questions, week after week, my responses often end up being the same. But, tonight was different. I said something new, that I hadn't prepped for particularly and yet that I liked and I found effective. So, I thought I would share it with you here.

Someone new came by the street corner I usually go to in order to witness or do street preaching. We got to talking and when it seemed like we were running out of things to talk about regarding his questions or comments about the preaching, I told him something he wasn't expecting, but which made sense to him. People often say things like, "You can make the Bible say anything you want," but I don't believe that. Naturally, people can twist the scriptures; but we are all responsible for figuring out for ourselves what is true. None of us will be judged in the end based on what our pastors or other spiritual leaders believe. We are only going to be judged based on whether we did what we PERSONALLY knew to be right. I asked him if he reads the Bible on a regular basis. He said he does. I asked him how he reads it and I gave him some examples of different ways people might do that. He said he generally reads the things around what his pastor preached on the prior Sunday. So, I encouraged him to read the WHOLE Bible and ask himself two questions. First, what is the purpose of what he's reading? And second, what is he supposed to get out of what he's reading?

When we read the Bible, if we are to apply what we've read, we have to understand the context. One of the easiest ways to misinterpret the Bible is to pull something out of context. The thing that can be difficult is figuring out how NOT to pull things out of context! By that, I mean there are a lot of different ways to ask the two questions I posed to him. What's the purpose of the Bible as a whole? What's the purpose of the particular chapter I'm reading at any given time? What's the purpose of the book of the Bible that I happen to be reading? Those same variations on the question of the purpose of the material can be applied to "What am I supposed to get out of it?"

He had said that we were putting way too much emphasis on sin in our message. My response was, "If you haven't even read the whole Bible, how do you know what the proper emphasis should be?" More than 3/4 of the Bible is Old Testament, and yet more than a few people who call themselves Christians think it just doesn't even apply to them. All they pay attention to is the New Testament. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and for ever. God doesn't change, and many people still throw out the Old Testament all together. Rather than thinking that the purpose of the Bible (as a whole) is to just show us how overwhelmingly in love with us God is, I believe that the main purpose of the Bible is to show us how important it is that we stay as far away from sin as we can. The Bible tells us how really bad sin is and that it is a large part of God's love for us that he showed us a way back to him in spite of how really bad we've been by sinning. Then, also, it shows us that we don't need to keep on living that way any more.

There were numerous other things that we discussed, but the upshot of the whole conversation was that he really appreciated me and my friends and what we were doing and he said he would start reading the Bible differently now. He told me he'd start studying it more and really start thinking about the big picture rather than just thinking about the content of his pastor's sermons.

I've started praying differently lately, too. These are the common elements I've generally started asking for prior to going out to preach or witness to people. I ask that God send people with open hearts, ears and eyes to see, hear and understand the truth. I also ask that he give me the right words to say to people at the right times and in the right ways to the right people. I've been finding that he's answering those prayers. As I see that he answers my prayers, I believe I'm praying with more confidence. And, over time, I'm seeing him answer those kinds of prayers more and more. I find it overwhelmingly worth while and exciting to see people willing to reconsider their lives and their walk with Christ and the things they believe about God and the Bible. I see these things just about every week.

God's word does not return unto him void, but accomplishes that for which He intended it. Praise be to God and God bless all of you in your efforts to serve him!

Three Reasons to Change Your Screen Name on Twitter

I hope you find this post both humorous and helpful. Without more introduction, please enjoy my reasoning.

The first situation when you might want to change you screen name is if you were drunk or high when you picked your screen name and it has some really crude and offensive meaning when that's really just not your normal personality. I'm assuming that if you did this, then you don't have many followers yet. While it seems like there are people out there who manage to have large numbers of followers and are really crude and offensive, they have to be consistently that way. So, if your name isn't true to who you are, you should change it. And, if you don't have many followers anyway, it won't hurt much to do so.

Second, if the mafia is after you and you think that changing your screen name might make it harder for them to find you. Now, seriously, if someone is trying to hunt you down and take your life, you might want to just have your twitter account deleted all together and don't create another one. But, if you just can't get twitter out of your mind, at least don't use your real name or picture on your profile.

The third case is if you are into doing things that most people would think just mean you are completely crazy, like street preaching, and you want it to take a while for people to figure it out. I'm not suggesting that you need to hide your true nature from people. On the contrary, even if you are a street preacher, that's ok. I love street preaching and care a great deal for other street preachers. But, if you want people other than just your street preaching friends to read what you write, then you might want to pick a screen name that doesn't turn people off before they ever even read what you've written. Of course, if you start out using a screen name like @strt_evangelist (like I did), you aren't going reach a very large audience. Most people (even those who consider themselves Christians) don't like street preachers. At the same time, the goal is to get your message out to as many people as you can.  Therefore, if you can keep people reading long enough to get something out of what you've written, everyone will be better off.

Clearly, none of these will apply to the majority of people, but you can understand why someone in any of the above situations would want to change their screen name. Sometimes it is good to not have people recognize you, and sometimes it isn't. For example, if you have street preacher friends that don't know you REALLLY well, but you still want them to be able to figure out who you are, the whole name change thing will be a little risky. I have one friend on twitter who quit following me after I changed my name. When I asked him about it he said, "nothing personal, we follow those who post Christian, Bible & evangelism related tweets & love street preachers & evangelists."

I'm sure everyone understands that just changing your name doesn't suddenly change who it is that you care for or love. I fully expect everyone realizes that you can change your bio without changing the content of your tweets. Now, I've recently broadened the content of my tweets in order to (hopefully) attract a larger audience to reading Bible verses and evangelism related tweets. However, when you change your name, sometimes people just can't tell who you are any more and so you risk misunderstandings and some people will fall away.

Hopefully some readers will get something out of my experiences and can avoid losing friends they care about.  Now, it may be that the benefits outweigh the risks, but be careful and try to pick a good name early on in your twitter career so that you can minimize the damages a name change can cause.

What do you think? I'd love to hear your feedback!

@DaveDerPunkt