Hi, I have a question about the qualifications of a deacon. We have a man who our congregation would like to appoint as a deacon, however, in the past I know that his wife and he defaulted on a home loan and walked away from their house picked up their belongings and moved to another state.  Wouldn't that be the same as stealing from the bank?  He signed those loan papers promising to pay the mortgage payments for the life of the loan.  I know situations arise, but there wasn't any major illness or anything like that, just the same economy that all of us are living in.  It gives me pause to put him in a position like that in our congregation knowing this.

Sincerely,
Fiscally Sound

Dear Fiscally Sound,

1 Tim 3:12 says that a deacon must rule their own household well.  As the head of his house, a man is responsible for the overall order and health of his household affairs.  It is important to remember that the criteria that a deacon “rule his own house well” is a generic one.  Every man is going to make mistakes and suffer setbacks in his life; the job of the congregation is to assess the overall health of the man’s household.  This particular incident is worthy of note and should be factored in when looking at the man’s ability to serve as a deacon, but it doesn't necessarily disqualify him.

My husband is going to be baptized soon, and a relative told him to not let them baptize him in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  We have both always heard that that’s the right way to baptize.  What do you think about it?

Sincerely,
Water Works

Dear Water Works,

That is exactly how you should be baptized.  ‘In the name of’ means ‘by the authority of’.  When someone is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – they are being immersed in water by God's authority… as opposed to man's authority.  Acts 2:38 states that baptism forgives your sins, and 1 Pet 3:21 makes it clear that baptism by God's authority saves your soul.  When Jesus spoke to His apostles, He told them to make disciples and baptize those disciples in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19).

     Is Col 3:16 prohibitive to any other mode of teaching and admonishing than the ways listed in the verse?

Sincerely,
Sing And Be Happy

Dear Sing And Be Happy,

If Col 3:16 were the only verse we had to read, we would have to say that the only way we should teach people is through singing songs… but we have a lot of other verses in the Bible.  Ps 119:60 says that the sum of God’s Word gives us the truth, and the Bible gives many modes of teaching.

1. 1 Pet 2:21 says that Jesus’ lifestyle was a way of teaching, and Matt 5:14-16 says that our lives should be a way of teaching people.
2. 2 Tim 3:16 talks about every Scripture being profitable for teaching, and 1 Tim 4:13 says that the Scriptures should be read publicly in order to teach.
3. Acts 20:7 gives the example of preaching as a method for teaching people (Paul did it until midnight one time!), and Neh 8:8 shows that someone explaining the Scriptures through preaching can be very beneficial.

The Bible condones many ways of teaching people about God and many ways of teaching in the church.  Col 3:16 is just one of those ways.

      Are dramatizations of Bible stories acceptable forms of teaching in a worship service?

Sincerely,
Acting Up

Dear Acting Up,

It would seriously depend on a lot of factors.  In order for something to be acceptable as part of a Sunday worship service, it must fit into the pattern found in the New Testament.  There are several principles to consider:

• The pattern we see in the New Testament says that men are to be leading the worship service, and women are to remain silent (1 Cor 14:34).  That means that any “dramatization” that involves women would be forbidden.
• Everything must be done decently and in order (1 Cor 14:40).  The goal is to teach, not to entertain.  Many church activities that we see in the denominational world are about thrumming up enthusiasm at the expense of teaching.
• Though the Bible is full of teaching that uses examples, illustrations, and parables, it is a bit of a stretch to say that acting out Bible stories was a regular part of worship found in the New Testament.  That alone should make us wary.
• The pattern of teaching that we see is men standing before the congregation preaching – like Paul in Acts 20:7.  We must always remember that the pattern we see in the Bible is not only the safest; it is what God shows us to be the most effective.  Solid Bible preaching has always been the tried and true method of teaching found in the early church’s worship.

When you consider all these things, most “dramatizations” that we can think of would be at best unwise and at worst outright sinful.  But, it is best to lay out the principles and make a decision on a case-by-case basis in such matters.

Sometimes it seems as if the Bible views women as inferior to men.  A woman should serve her husband and should be submissive to him, and she should pretty much keep to herself and her family, much like Islamic women today and women in various other cultures.  The Bible also mentions slaves.  How does this relate to equality that we seem to demand in our culture today?  I've heard a theory that the Bible was written in a specific time period, and in order for people to pretty much take it seriously, it needed to have ideals and beliefs for that time period.  What are your thoughts on that, and if you think that might be correct, how do we fit everything in the Bible into our lives today?

Sincerely,
Cultural Relevance

Dear Cultural Relevance,

The Bible does seem to treat women as inferior when it is viewed through the lens of today’s American culture – because our culture is thoroughly dysfunctional when it comes to men and women.  Just one look at the modern divorce rate shows our dysfunction.

The Bible emphasizes gender differences, but that is not the same as saying men and women aren’t equal.  In fact, the Bible is very specific in stating that women are equal with men (1 Pet 3:7).  Women are different than men – big shock.  Unlike modern American culture, which tries to pretend that there are no real differences between men and women, the Bible comes right out and says that they are unique.  This blatant honesty is jarring to today’s culture.  But we must remember that being different is not the same as being inferior.  Men can’t exist without women, and women can’t exist without men (1 Cor 11:11-12).  Both men and women have souls (Gen 1:27), and God created them both.  The way the Bible deals with male and female roles is timeless, and therefore, It doesn’t cater to the specific dysfunctional whims of modern America.

The timeless nature of the Bible is also the reason for the Bible addressing slavery.  God makes it clear that it is better to be free than a slave (1 Cor 7:21).  However, slavery does exist in many cultures and always has.  The Bible tells slaves and slave-owners how to act because the Bible is God’s Word to all mankind.  In a free society, such commands seem archaic, but for the many slaves throughout time, such commands are vital and exceptionally pertinent.