We are instructed not to take the name of the Lord in vain, but can the word ‘god’ really be considered the Lord’s name? We do not know how to pronounce the Lord’s name, so we refer to the Lord as ‘God’, ‘Father’, and ‘Lord’, but aren’t those just classifications? God is what the Lord is; Father is His relationship to us (as is Lord), so should we consider those the name of God or just classifications for Him?  I know this doesn’t apply to Jesus or the Holy Spirit, for we are given Their names, and we know how to pronounce Them.

Sincerely,
Name Recognition

Dear Name Recognition,

There is more to treating God’s name as holy than just avoiding the word ‘Yahweh’. It is true that the Jews didn’t pronounce the name ‘Yahweh’ (the name God gives Himself when He talks with Moses – Ex 3:13-14), considering it to be such a holy name that it was best left unsaid. The technicality of not being able to pronounce a particular Hebrew word is missing the point though.

The command to not use the Lord’s name in vain comes from Ex 20:7, otherwise known as the Ten Commandments (Ex 34:28). This is an Old Testament verse, but it is just as applicable to New Testament christians because the concept is reiterated in the New Testament as well. Not using His name in vain is about more than just God’s technical name of ‘Yahweh’; it is about treating God as holy. Peter said it best when he said that you and I are to “show forth the excellencies of Him who called you” (1 Pet 2:9). We are to treat God with reverence (Heb 12:9). You would never use your parents’ names as swear words or exclamations of disdain. You would never speak ill of your friends or treat their names as bywords and cursing. When you say ‘God’ or ‘Lord’, everyone knows who you are referring to. Be very careful that you only use His name with the utmost respect. Sanctify all the names and terms you use for God as holy (Lk 1:49). God will not be mocked (Gal 6:7); if we don’t treat Him with respect and admiration – no technicality of pronunciation will save us on the Judgment.

Why is it that talking to certain christians is a lot like talking to a communist?

Sincerely,
Comrade

Dear Comrade,

There are three possible reasons:

1. Many christians are communists. Cuban christians are communists. Chinese christians are communists. Christians can be found amongst all the nations of the world. Christ died for us all, whether slave or free, Jew or Gentile (Col 3:10-11). Perhaps, you have been visiting these places lately and met a christian to talk to there. That would explain why they sounded that way.
2. Communists are also known for their belief in a unified government under a single party. That would be similar to Christianity. Christians all serve Christ as the head of the church (Eph 5:23), and within the church we are all equals and servants one of another (Matt 23:8). If you really wanted to stretch the idea, you could say that Christianity completes the utopia that Karl Marx wished for (but failed to achieve). In Christ, all are equal, all help each other, and all have hope. Maybe that is why you feel that talking to certain christians is like talking to a communist.
3. It could just be that you are attempting to be rude and mean.

Let us hope that it isn’t the last one.

I’m sure you have seen the “47-million-year-old” fossil of the “human” that evolutionists found recently.  I mean, it is ridiculous; it doesn’t even look human. It looks like an animal. I don’t understand how they can say they found a 47-million-year-old human.

Sincerely,
My Uncle Isn’t An Ape

Dear My Uncle Isn’t An Ape,

From time to time, evolutionists proclaim that they have found some spectacular new evidence that demonstrates that we evolved, and therefore the Bible is wrong. Every time they do this, the media becomes enamored, and a gigantic whirlwind of publicity ensues. Publicity is not the same as reality. Just because evolutionists say that ‘Ida’ (the name of the fossil) is a 47-million-year-old ‘missing link’ between mankind and primates doesn’t make it so.

The Bible answer is the same today as it was yesterday. God says He made the whole world in six days (Gen 1) and did it roughly 6,000 years ago. We were created and designed. I’m more inclined to believe God who was there than a bunch of scientists with an agenda.

Having said that, there is plenty of scientific evidence to refute ‘Ida’ being our evolutionary ancestor. I highly recommend reading this article from the scientists at Answers in Genesis. They specialize in studying these issues and the science behind them. The story is still fresh, and few scientists have had a chance to really take a look at the evidence, but as far as it looks now, ‘Ida’ is just another fossil of an extinct lemur species. ‘Ida’ would have been created on day 6… just like all the other lemurs.

When I was going to a youth conference on the weekend, I was reading the Bible in the book of Acts. I found Acts 2:17-21.

I knew this verse had something to do with the weekend. When we stopped at a coffee shop, I told my friend about the verse, and she thought it was amazing. When we were at the main session of the youth conference, the preacher used this verse… does this have any spiritual meaning?

Sincerely,
Acting on Acts

Dear Acting on Acts,

The coincidence of the preacher using this verse aside, every Bible verse has a spiritual meaning and significance. Acts 2:17-21 is an excerpt from Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost, the very first sermon preached after Christ ascended into heaven. Peter is quoting the book of Joel (Joel 2:28-32) and stating that what Joel wrote about was happening now. The verses have nothing to do with our behavior today or the end of time. If someone uses those verses to talk about speaking in tongues, modern day prophecy, visions, or the end of the world – they are misusing the Bible. Those verses refer to that particular day and the time period surrounding Christ’s life and death. Let me explain the context.

For 400 years, the Jews had received no word from God – no prophets, no visions, no dreams, nothing. Then, after all that silence came:

1. Zacharias and the angel (Lk 1:13)
2. Elizabeth’s prophecy (Lk 1:41)
3. Simeon’s prophecy (Lk 2:26)
4. Anna’s prophecy (Lk 2:36)
5. The vision of the shepherds (Lk 2:8-9)
6. John the Baptist’s preaching (Matt 3:1)
7. Jesus’ miracles (Jhn 2:11)
8. The miracles of Jesus’ seventy disciples (Lk 10:17)

There was a veritable explosion of supernatural events. Peter is explaining how this influx of miracles, visions, and prophecy were a fulfillment of what Joel had said would happen in the last days of Israel. ‘In the last days’ doesn’t mean the end of the world in this circumstance; it means the end (or last days) of the Old Covenant. Peter is using these verses from the book of Joel to illustrate that Jesus really is the Messiah that the Jews had been waiting for. Jesus fulfilled Joel’s prophecy, and today we reap the benefits of it.

If a pastor receives a salary from the church, should the congregation pay all of the bills that the pastor incurs (for instance: his rent or other bills)?

Sincerely,
Paying the Bills

Dear Paying the Bills,

Both pastors and preachers (yes, there is a difference) can be financially supported by a congregation. Paul makes it very clear that a ‘worker is worthy of his hire’ (1 Tim 5:17-19). Unfortunately, we live in a world where religious leaders have thoroughly abused this blessing. Televangelists and ‘mega-church’ pastors are well known for their greed and multi-million dollar homes. This has left a sour taste in the mouth of many Americans when it comes to supporting preachers and pastors.

A congregation does not have to pay all of the bills of a preacher. However, it is a blessing to him and to them if they can. If he is working hard doing preaching and teaching, then being financially supported can free him up to continue to work even harder.

If a pastor or preacher has to work a secular job to pay the bills, it will take away from his time to spread the gospel and teach christians; it is more important that he provide for his family in such cases (1 Tim 5:8). Ultimately, it is his responsibility, not the congregation’s, to provide for his family. Even Paul worked as a tentmaker to pay the bills at times (Acts 18:3). A godly man will not overburden a congregation or squander the money God has blessed him with .

A congregation must take up their weekly collection (1 Cor 16:1-2), assess all of their various costs, and make a prayerful decision as to how much they can afford to support a preacher. Some congregations will be able to fully support a preacher; others may not be able to support one at all. In either case, it is acceptable according to what a congregation has (2 Cor 8:11-12).

I was reading a question to a priest, and I asked him why we call him ‘father’ when it specifically says not to in the Bible (Matt 23:8). His response was that it is for the same reason a child calls their parent ‘father’; they are the natural father and the priest is the spiritual father. While I believe calling a priest ‘father’ is wrong, why is it okay to call our birth parent ‘father’?

Sincerely,
Paternal Nomenclature

Dear Paternal Nomenclature,

Calling a priest ‘father’ is wrong because, as the priest said, it is referring to ‘father’ in a spiritual sense. That is what Christ is condemning in Matt 23:8-10. Christ is rebuking people who elevate themselves above others within the church. Catholic priests place themselves in a position of spiritual superiority and authority above others. That is wrong and exactly what Christ told His disciples never to do.

On the other hand, the term ‘father’ is perfectly fine when used to refer to a physical parent. The Bible itself uses the word ‘father’ almost 1,000 times, and the vast majority of those times refer to fleshly parents. Gen 2:24, Gen 9:22, Lev 20:9, Pr 17:25, Mk 10:29, Lk 11:11 are just a few examples. Our fathers are a blessing from God given to us for a time to guide and discipline us (Heb 12:9-10). They are worthy of honor and the title ‘father’ (Eph 6:2).