Our preacher has really let his "preacher's house" go to a shambles.  They let their dog urinate all over the house, and it really smells. Their kids have destroyed many things, and the yard is a mess.  Now the real problem is that the preacher's wife is always complaining that nobody will let them be hospitable and come over because people keep turning down their offers.  I'm sure it’s because of the state of their house.  I went over for a Bible study once, and I could hardly breathe; it was so bad.  We don't have elders, but some of the men have brought this to his attention.  He hasn't said much, and nothing has really changed.  I'm afraid the place will need to be gutted if he ever leaves, and we will be stuck with the bill.  This is a very tough spot for us all, and I could really use some advice on how we should handle it.  Thanks!

Sincerely,
Disgusted

Dear Disgusted,

We’re afraid we have no easy answers for your question.  We’ll assume from how you worded your question that the “preacher’s house” is owned by the congregation, and he is allowed to live in it as long as he preaches for you – an arrangement typically called a ‘parsonage’.  If we are wrong, and this house is actually owned by the preacher – the answer is: “do nothing; it’s his house and his concern”.

However, if it is a parsonage, here is the issue – the congregation is responsible for how it uses the finances it has collected to do God’s work.  The congregation must be faithful stewards (1 Cor 4:2) of both the liquid assets (money in the bank) and assets like property (such as a church building or a parsonage).  It is perfectly appropriate for the congregation to “pay” the preacher by allowing him to stay in the parsonage.  His labor as a preacher is being accepted as rent instead of money (1 Tim 5:18).  However, he is also, in a sense, still a renter.  You have paid him by giving him the parsonage; you have paid him by allowing him to live in the parsonage.  Now some congregations can take it too far and feel that they have the right to barge into the parsonage whenever they like, nitpick the preacher’s wife’s décor, etc., but the opposite is also true.  If a preacher is being a “bad renter” and destroying the property, the congregation must seriously consider addressing him on this issue and create an enforceable plan of action.

A youth pastor is going to different families in the church and saying that he thinks two particular teens are having a homosexual relationship.  He has not talked to the youths themselves or their parents.  What kind of action would you suggest be taken in regards to this youth pastor?

Sincerely,
Not A Gossip Girl

Dear Not A Gossip Girl,

Homosexuality is a sin (Rom 1:26-27), and to slander someone with such an accusation is a heinous crime indeed.  We are never to gossip or slander people (Pr 10:18, 2 Tim 3:3).  The Scriptures teach that if we believe someone is living a sinful lifestyle, we should talk to them individually first before escalating the issue and exposing their sin to others (Matt 18:15-17).  There are multiple reasons for this:

1. You might be wrong and have misunderstood the situation.
2. Individual confrontation keeps a situation as private as possible and, therefore, allows people to save face.
3. It avoids gossip and making a situation larger than it needs to be.
4. God says to do it this way (most importantly!).

This “youth pastor” (that title alone tells us there are further problems at your congregation – we recommend you read “What’s In A Name?” and “Elders”) is completely wrong in not confronting the individuals personally.  If he is right, then their souls hang in the balance.  If he is wrong, then the situation could be corrected privately the way God intends.

     Our preacher is more involved with a local civic organization than he is in growing our local church.  We don't have elders, and many of the men are also members of the civic group.  I find this to be a contradiction in service, but he says that there are things the church isn't authorized to do that this group can, like caring for needy non-saints.  But if more time is spent with that group than with our own, can that be right?

Sincerely,
Second Best

Dear Second Best,

There isn’t anything wrong with Christians (and preachers are just Christians, too) with being involved with philanthropic work outside of the church, but that doesn’t mean that a balance isn’t important.  Gal 6:10 says that we should do good to all men, but especially the church.  The church should receive the first of our labors because it is our eternal family in Christ… but that doesn’t mean we should neglect doing good to all.  We can’t speak to the balance the men in your congregation are having in their lives, but we can tell you this isn’t a matter of right and wrong; it is a matter of wisdom.  On a positive note, we can think of worse problems than good people struggling over what good work to do.

I am not very religious.  I'm a science major, and my mind tends to go with science over religion.  But I enjoy church and the community and family feeling it gives.  I love choir and have been singing forever and would like to sing for a church.  I love how church helps people and makes it easier to get involved.  The problem is that I do not enjoy the sermon part of going to church.  Are there churches out there that have all the qualities I want without the long, drawn-out sermon that I cannot get my head into?  A place that is, essentially, church with all things (God included) but without so much pressure to believe in one thing?  A place where I can still believe in God but let it be okay that I am very skeptical?  I go once in a while but can't continue because I very much dislike the sermon.  I don't like the praying or the feeling that I have to join in.  What should I do?

Sincerely,
Quasi-Christian

Dear Quasi-Christian,

You should decide whether you are going to believe in God or not.  You state that you want to go somewhere where you can “believe in God but let it be okay that I am very skeptical.”  That is a self-contradicting statement.  It is akin to saying, “I’d like to be hot… but still cold” (which in the end, makes you lukewarm – Rev 3:16).  It is unfortunate that we live in a world that teaches us that religion is mostly about how it makes us feel – this is false.  Religion only has meaning when it is based upon conviction; otherwise, we might as well just join a club or other social organization.

We would challenge you that you don’t have to choose religion over science – we certainly didn’t.  The battle isn’t between God and science; it is between evolutionists and preachers.  God, His Bible, and science are in perfect harmony.  There are mountains of scientific evidence that God exists and that evolution is false.  We would highly recommend that you read the posts in our EVIDENCES category of the archives.  We would also recommend that you spend some time reading books like Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell, Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel, and Has God Spoken? by A.O. Schnabel.  We would also recommend the website www.answersingenesis.org and the movie "Expelled" by Ben Stein.  Take the time to make serious inquiry into this subject – it is the most important topic you will ever research!

The reason you don’t like the sermons is because you don’t think they apply to you.  You are skeptical that the Bible is really from God.  If the Bible isn’t from God, you shouldn’t waste your time with the church (1 Cor 15:13-14).  If the Bible is from God, you need the sermons to help mold and teach you.  If God really is, you need to become the person God intends for you to be… if not, forget the “church thing”.

I know the Bible speaks of deacons; does it speak of deaconesses (women) in the church?

Sincerely,
Servant’s Heart

Dear Servant’s Heart,

The Bible does speak about deaconesses – but not as an official job title.  The word ‘deacon’ simply means ‘servant’.  In most places of your Bible, the Greek word is simply translated as ‘servant’.  Only in a few places is it translated ‘deacon’… which can be a little confusing.  In 1 Tim 3:8-13, it gives the qualifications for deacons (servants) who will serve the eldership in an official capacity.  These qualifications clearly state that deacons of this sort must be married men (1 Tim 3:12).  These types of deacons are part of the official church leadership, and they fall into a very specific category of servant.

However, the New Testament is full of other types of servants.  Phoebe was a servant of the church in Cenchrea and is described as “a helper to all” (Rom 16:1-2).  This type of deacon isn’t an official job title but is simply a person with a kind and magnanimous servant’s heart who helps others.  In today’s vernacular, we associate the word ‘deacon’ with an official title in the church, and this would only include those who meet the qualifications of 1 Tim 3:8-13 and have been appointed by the church to that position.  However, when we remember that ‘deacon’ means ‘servant’ – we see that, unofficially, the church is full of servants of every shape, size, age, and gender.