Is it wrong for a church to employ a youth minister? In the Bible, we have examples of those who labor in the Word being paid for their efforts. I understand that the term ‘youth minister’ is somewhat denominational-sounding, and many times those who hold that position are nothing more than activities directors. That being said, if the ‘youth minister’ is in charge of actually putting together curriculum and teaching, then is it appropriate for a local congregation to pay for that service?

Sincerely, Youthful Exuberance

Dear Youthful Exuberance,

If you have someone doing the work of a minister, then he is worthy of his hire (Lk 10:7, 1 Tim 5:18). The title of ‘youth minister’ is indeed often used for those who are party planners for teens or activities directors to motivate the younger generations. That sort of ‘youth minister’ role is completely unbiblical and never seen within the New Testament.

If you have a ‘youth minister’ in charge of teaching and preaching in the local congregation, then he is a minister – just call him by that title. One of the great tragedies in religion has been to add titles and classifications that simply don’t exist within the Bible. Popes, archbishops, reverends, cardinals, etc. are all positions that were created by adding new titles and terminology that doesn’t exist within the Bible. Very often, the path away from the Word of God has been paved by simply adding things that aren’t necessary (Rev 22:18-19). We don’t need youth ministers, mission leaders, small group pastors, etc. – we need deacons, elders and evangelists (Php 1:1, 2 Tim 4:5). If a man is doing the job of a minister/preacher, then call him a minister/preacher and leave it at that. And yes, a congregation certainly can support someone fulfilling that Biblical role.

From birth to age twenty-eight, I was a practicing Catholic. Whenever God in His three parts was referred to (by teachers, fellow believers, priest, sermons etc.), it was with the word ‘Trinity’. At the age of twenty-eight, I converted to being a christian only.  Since that time, when God is spoken of in His three parts, it has been with the word ‘Godhead’. Both seem to be talking about the same mysterious thing - one God but three distinct persons – Father (Jehovah), Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit (dove at Jesus’ baptism). When I look in the concordance, I can find the word ‘Godhead’ used by several different versions of Bible translations but never find the word ‘Trinity’. The only way I can research ‘Trinity’ is to use secular or Catholic sources. Can you please tell me where the differences/similarities are between the two words? Thanks for your time and effort to sort this out.

Gratefully, Then and Now

Dear Then and Now,

The words ‘Trinity’ and ‘Godhead’ are both attempting to grapple with the idea that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are unique individuals and yet also one. The word ‘Godhead’ comes from a Greek word used in Col 2:9 which means ‘the state of being God’. Some translations use the word ‘Deity’ instead of ‘Godhead’.

If we were to get technical, and this IS a technical question, ‘Trinity’ is a word created by theologians to describe the interactions among the three deities of the Bible. Alternatively, ‘Godhead’ is a direct Bible description of how all three individuals are equally God. ‘Trinity’ was first recorded as being used in 170 AD by Theophilus of Antioch. ‘Godhead’ is first recorded as being used by the apostle Paul.

‘Trinity’ is correct terminology, but it is man-made terminology. Once again, we are being technical, but technically speaking, ‘Godhead’ is the most Biblically accurate descriptor of the relationship among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I tithe, but at the end of the service, should the leader go on and on, scripture after scripture, telling you that you are cursed with a curse if you don’t give tithes and offerings? Badgering people about this I feel is wrong, and I have an uneasy feeling about this the more I hear it. We are supposed to give out of love and with a cheerful heart. Is it wrong to hold this offering over the congregation’s head and to use Scripture to justify it? What happens if I don’t have the money to tithe? Am I going to be not as blessed as the rest of the congregation? I do believe God wants us to be blessed and prosper, but what about the people who are struggling and not prospering? Does that mean their faith is weak? I’m really troubled by doctrines and people’s perceptions of how we are supposed to be overflowing with prosperity and people are supposed to see that we are more prosperous than the worldly/secular people. Does God really want our bank accounts full when all of it is going to perish anyways? I would like to know if prosperity is truly what Jesus taught and what He emphasized.

Sincerely, Too Much Money Talk

Dear Too Much Money Talk,

Christians don’t tithe; Jews do. Christians also don’t have any guarantees of financial prosperity. Faithfulness doesn’t guarantee financial success. If that was the case, why did Paul end up in prison (Acts 16:37)? Why did Jesus say that He didn’t have anywhere to lay His head (Matt 8:20)? The most faithful people often suffer the most for the gospel. In fact, Christians are guaranteed to suffer for Christ’s church (Acts 14:22). If anything, prosperity is often a hindrance to faithfulness (Lk 18:24).

Tithing is an Old Testament command to the Jews (Deu 14:22). ‘Tithe’ means ‘to give 10%’. Christians are never told to tithe in the New Testament. We are told to be ‘cheerful givers’ (2 Cor 9:7). We are also told to ‘lay by in store’ and plan ahead before we give (1 Cor 16:1-2). We are never told a specific amount that we are supposed to give. Having said that, I think 10% is a good starting point for giving. Don’t let anyone badger you with the “You Have to Tithe” argument, though. Unless you are a Jew, you aren’t bound by the 10% rule.

It sounds like the church you attend teaches something called “The Prosperity Gospel”. The “Prosperity Gospel” is a false teaching that says if you serve God, you will have financial success; if you don’t, you will have financial failure. This is completely false. Job was the most faithful man on the planet in his day (Job 1:8), and he suffered more financial loss than anyone before or since. If the congregation you attend is teaching that… run. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matt 7:15) who are teaching that Jesus cares more about money than He does about souls.

I have two questions regarding the Holy Spirit:

1. Speaking in tongues: Does this still happen? What are some verses that talk about this subject?
2. Prophesy: Can we prophesy through the Holy Spirit? Or who does/can?

Please help me answer these questions.

Sincerely, Visions of Answers

Dear Visions of Answers,

Speaking in tongues and prophesying are miraculous abilities that no longer exist because they are no longer needed. The purpose of miracles was to bear witness that Jesus and His apostles were sent by God (Heb 2:4). Both speaking in tongues and prophesying were miraculous abilities that the church needed in its infancy. Speaking in tongues was useful for preaching the gospel to unbelieving nations with various languages; prophesy was useful for teaching the church God’s will before they had a complete New Testament (1 Cor 14:22). Now that the New Testament is complete and has spread to every nation and language, there is no need for such miracles. Paul himself said that miracles were only needed until knowledge of God’s will was perfectly preserved for all mankind (1 Cor 13:8-10).

The easiest way to see that these miracles have ceased is to see how God provided them. The Holy Spirit provided the apostles with the ability to perform miracles on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). The apostles could perform miracles, and they also had the unique ability to pass on miraculous abilities through touch (Acts 8:15-18). Since the apostles were the only ones that could pass on the ability to perform miracles to others, we would need an apostle alive today in order to still have prophesy, speaking in tongues, miraculous healings, etc. The miracles died out with the final person that the last living apostle laid his hands on. Today, we are led by the perfect and complete Word of God (Jude 1:3, Rom 1:16), and those miraculous abilities are no longer necessary.

I am a christian and was attending services this past Sunday when the man leading the Lord's Supper referred to the cross as a "very ugly thing." I understand why it would be "ugly" to us; it represents our sin which separates us from God, but it also represents Christ's death which reunites us with God. So why then do Christians tend to refrain from wearing jewelry in the shape of crosses, etc? I understand that it would be wrong to worship a piece of jewelry (like Catholics with their rosaries), but wouldn't it be fine to wear a reminder of His sacrifice? Or even have a cross (not a crucifix) in the church building?

Sincerely, Cross About The Whole Subject

Dear Cross About The Whole Subject,

The problem with crosses as jewelry is that God tells us how He wants us to remember the death of Christ – through the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:25). Furthermore, christians are supposed to be known by their character, not their clothes (1 Pet 3:3-4). WWJD bracelets, crosses, religious bumper stickers, etc. are often used as a substitute for actually living a faithful life.

Having said all that, wearing a cross isn’t inherently wrong. The Scriptures don’t condemn that kind of clothing, but they strongly caution us against the attitudes that are often portrayed and involved with such outward adornment. Ultimately, the jewelry is unnecessary. The apostles and first century christians certainly didn’t need such ‘holy hardware’ to remember who they were. They found the cross a scary, inhuman, and terrifying way to die. I sometimes wonder… if Christ had died in an electric chair, would we all be wearing golden electric chair charms around our necks and putting giant electric chairs on top of our church buildings? For me, that analogy keeps the issue in proper perspective.