Our church recently had to make a major decision.  One man mentioned that we should consider Scriptural examples of how the disciples made major decisions, and the most similar example he could think of was when the apostles cast lots in Acts 1 to choose who would replace Judas.  Some people dismissed this instantly, saying that we don't have the Holy Spirit the way the apostles did.  Another person said we shouldn't have to resort to casting lots; we could work this out logically.  Is casting lots an appropriate way for churches to make decisions today, and if so, what does casting lots look like?

Sincerely,
Luck Of The Draw

Dear Luck Of The Draw,

Casting lots was an ancient way of randomly deciding on something.  It is akin to flipping a coin or drawing the short straw in today’s culture.  Historically, what little we know of casting lots involved using dark and light colored stones and blindly choosing them, with each colored stone representing some aspect of the decision that needed to be made.  In Acts 1:26, they cast lots to decide who would replace Judas the traitor and be numbered as one of the twelve apostles.  There are several key ideas that need to be understood before we make this a common practice in the church.

1. All logic had already been applied to the situation.  The apostles had already consulted Scriptures (Acts 1:15-16, Acts 1:20).  They had also used wisdom in setting up the minimum criteria for becoming an apostle (Acts 1:21-22).  This decision was not made randomly and without prior thought.  They came to the conclusion of two potential candidates using Scriptural guidance and wisdom (Acts 1:23).
2. This was a decision between two perfectly Biblical and healthy choices.  Both Joseph and Matthias were godly, faithful, competent, and qualified men.  Either one would have been a good decision.  Once again, all logic had been applied already.  The only reason they had to choose between these two men was because there was only one slot to fill in the apostleship.  Casting lots left the decision to random chance because there was no downside.
3. The power was in the prayer, not the casting of lots.  Before they cast lots, they prayed (Acts 1:24-25).  There is only one time in the entire New Testament that we see casting lots used in a decision-making process… but we see prayer involved in hundreds of decisions.  The common denominator throughout the New Testament is prayer.  They prayed for wisdom and then “flipped a coin” because they honestly couldn’t choose between these two godly men, and God blessed their decision because they prayed and asked for the blessing.

In short (as if this was a short answer!), casting lots is as applicable as drawing straws – you can do it, but it really isn’t going to do you any good in and of itself.  Prayer (Jas 1:5), searching the Scriptures (Acts 17:11), and a multitude of wise counselors (Pr 11:14) are the real keys to good decision-making.

What guidance does the Bible have for how a church should use its money?  It seems from places such as 1 Corinthians 16 that when the early church collected funds, they were primarily used for benevolence.  Today it seems like the majority of a church's income tends to go towards paying utilities and mortgages, and churches frequently have a large savings account.  What guidance does the Bible have as far as how much a church should keep in savings, how much debt it should take on, etc.?  If a church buys land, should it consider the investment value of the land as well?  What about earning interest on money in savings?

Sincerely,
Not For Profit

Dear Not For Profit,

The church is allowed to spend money on anything God commands the church to do.  If God commands the church to assemble (Heb 10:24-25), the church can spend money to assemble in the most practical way it sees fit.  If God commands the church to teach (1 Cor 4:17), the church is authorized to spend money to facilitate teaching the saved and the lost.  If the church is told to do something, they are authorized to spend money to make it happen – that freedom to spend money is inherent within the command.  It would be the same as if someone asked you to take their car to the car wash… it would be understood that it was okay for you to spend the gas to drive the car to the car wash, and it was also okay for you to spend the money to pay for the car to be washed.  Whatever is necessary to fulfill a command is automatically allowed.

In the particular case of the Corinthian church, they needed to collect funds for benevolence… and that was a very common reason for collection in that time of Christian persecution.  In today’s culture and world the church finds itself in, we need to pay for things that the first-century saints would never have dreamed of (“Electrical bills?  What’s that?!”).  However, just because the expenses we face are not the same, that doesn’t mean that the same guidelines don’t apply.  1 Cor 16:1-2 outlines the mode with which to collect funds to pay for whatever expenses a church may incur.  It also explains that it is appropriate for the church to have a store of money for future expenses (1 Cor 16:2-3).

As far as how big that savings account can be, what level of debt the church can incur, savings accounts with interest, etc. – the church has the same guidelines for financial management as individuals… use wisdom (Pr 8:12-18).  Too little of savings is foolish; too much is greedy.  Interest is condoned by God (Matt 25:27) and shows wisdom, but “playing the market” with the church’s treasury is very different from gaining simple interest.  In other words, the church needs to show wisdom and discretion in its financial management.

Is there a Bible verse that says, "Count your many blessings”?

Sincerely,
Grateful Mathematician

Dear Grateful Mathematician,

“Count Your Many Blessings” is the name of a popular hymn, but it isn’t a Bible verse.  Having said that, the idea of counting your blessings is a very Biblical idea.  Php 4:8 tells us to dwell upon good and pleasant things.  2 Cor 1:11 gives us the example of being grateful when we receive blessings.  Eph 1:16 points out that the apostle Paul never ceased giving thanks for people who blessed his life.  Php 4:6 tells us that thanksgiving should be a regular element in our prayers.  There is no doubt that the thoughts expressed in the hymn “Count Your Many Blessings” is right on target with Scriptural ideals.

In Revelation 21:1, the narrator said, "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away, and there was no more sea."

Now, my question is: is this to be taken literally?  Or is it just a symbolic description?  Also, in Isaiah 65:17, it says, "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered or come to mind."  Is this a prophetic verse for our time?  Or was it a metaphor for that civilization?  In 2 Peter 3:13, it says, "Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness."  So, indeed, we expect the new heaven and new earth?  Is this the new Paradise?

Sincerely,
Looking Ahead

Dear Looking Ahead,

Any time we see terminology like “new heavens and new earth”, we need to make sure that we are keeping it in its context.  Depending upon the circumstance and the situation, the phrase may mean different things.  A new heaven and earth stands for a change in world-order… the new world can only be understood by looking at the context and seeing what the old world was.  In Isaiah chapter 65, the prophet is discussing the new covenant that would be set up by Christ.  The old covenant Jews are being compared to the new covenant christians.  The Jews rejected God (Isa 65:12), and the christians would be a new Jerusalem that would faithfully serve God (Isa 65:18, Heb 12:22-24).  The new heaven and new earth of Isa 65:17 is the church and the New Covenant in Christ.

However, Rev 21:1 and 2 Pet 3:13 are talking about an entirely different situation.  Once again, context is the key to understanding these verses.  In both Revelation and Second Peter, the context is dealing with the end of this physical world and the beginning of eternity in a spiritual realm (Rev 21:4, 2 Pet 3:7-10).  In those verses, the new heavens and earth represent the change from a physical world to a spiritual world.

You've mentioned before that we all should be baptized if we expect to enter the gates of Heaven.  What is your take on the thief on the cross beside Jesus?  He, the thief, asked Jesus to remember him, and Jesus answered, “Today you shall be with Me in Paradise”.

I suppose the thief may have been baptized previously, before he took on a life of crime, or was Jesus giving this guy a break this one time?

Sincerely,
Question From The Jury

Dear Question From The Jury,

There are four explanations for Christ’s pardon of the crucified thief in Lk 23:39-43.  All of them fit in perfect harmony with the necessity of baptism and the New Testament teachings that salvation begins at baptism (1 Pet 3:21, Acts 2:37-38, Mk 16:16, Rom 6:3-4).

1. The first explanation you have already mentioned.  This thief may very well have been baptized by John the Baptist (Mk 1:4) or one of Jesus’ disciples (Jhn 4:1-2).  We simply don’t know enough about this thief to say whether he was or wasn’t baptized.  It is always faulty to build a doctrine off an assumption.  To say that we don’t need to be baptized because that thief wasn’t baptized is an assumption.
2. The thief was physically unable to be baptized.  2 Cor 8:12 tells us that God only holds us accountable for what we are physically able to do.  That thief didn’t have the capability to get off that cross and be baptized.  The argument could be made that he was excused from the law of baptism the same way that a mute man would be excused from the command to “confess Christ with your tongue” (Rom 14:11).  This isn’t the best argument of the four, but it is a valid point worth considering.
3. While Jesus was here on earth, He had the authority to forgive sins as He saw fit (Matt 9:6).  This thief was no different than any of the other people whose sins were verbally forgiven by Christ as He walked this earth (Lk 7:48-49, Lk 5:20).  Since Jesus is no longer on this earth… baptism is the only other way to have your sins removed.
4. The command to be baptized for salvation is a New Testament command.  Those who are baptized become a part of the church (Acts 2:41).  If we are being technical (and there is a time for technicalities), the church and the New Testament law didn’t come into effect until after Jesus died and rose from the grave.  Until Jesus’ death and resurrection, the laws of the Old Testament would have still been in effect.  That thief wasn’t bound to the law of baptism (a New Testament law) because Jesus hadn’t yet died.

No matter which argument seems the sturdiest to you (they all have merit), the thief on the cross example doesn’t negate the necessity of baptism today.