I'm a christian woman in my late twenties, and I am unmarried.  In high school and college, I always seemed to be dumped by guys who went after the less moral girls.  Now, I'm wondering if my piousness was worth it.

Sincerely, Staring Down Thirty

Dear Staring Down Thirty,

Better to be single and going to heaven than married to an idiot who only was interested in you for your licentiousness. The reality of your situation is unfortunate. We live in an age where people are attracted to low moral standards in women. This means that good, faithful, pure women (such as yourself) get overlooked by much of the male population. Understandably, that same group of men is of an amazingly low quality, but that doesn’t remove the sting of rejection. Solomon said that he had seen people suffer for doing the right thing and prosper for doing the wrong thing (Eccl 7:15), but he’d choose morality anyway (Eccl 12:13). You have felt the bitter edge of religious suffering, but many treasures are stored in heaven for your faithfulness (Matt 6:20).

It is often difficult to be content in our circumstances when we wish they were different, and yet that is what God says we should do (Php 4:11). At thirty, your life is far from over! You have a reputation for righteousness, and that will serve you well (Pr 22:1). Pray about it, continue to serve God, put His will first, and you never know what tomorrow may bring (Matt 6:33-34). God promises that He will work all things together for good in your life (Rom 8:28).

Thanks for tackling this question earlier. You gave a good explanation of how offering the Lord's Supper twice is consistent with the command to "wait for one another" in 1 Cor 11:33, but your answer left me with a few more questions. We often talk about how we need to have a command, example, or necessary inference for everything the Church does. In this case, I'm not aware of a command or example to have the Lord's Supper twice, and the inference doesn't seem necessary to me. Where is our authority to do this?

Many of the exhortations in 1 Cor 11 imply that communing with our brothers and sisters in Christ is an important aspect of the Supper. Why is it that when we come together we all sing, we all pray, we all meditate on the Scriptures together, but only some of us take communion? It seems like we all should participate, or none of us should. What if only one person comes forward to take communion in the evening? Who are they communing with?

Sincerely, All or Nothing

Dear All or Nothing,

If one person takes the Lord’s Supper, they are communing with the Lord (1 Cor 10:16), the same as if a hundred people took it. The point of the Lord’s Supper is:

1. Proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes (1 Cor 11:26).
2. Examine ourselves (1 Cor 11:28).
3. Remember His suffering on our behalf (1 Cor 11:25).

All three of those items are an individual command. The Lord’s Supper is taken individually and offered collectively. In this case, we have to split hairs. A congregation is responsible for offering the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7) and to offer it in an orderly way (1 Cor 11:18); the individual is responsible for taking it when it is offered.

The issue of command, example, and necessary inference for all Biblical practices still holds true in this case. Christians are commanded to take the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:24). We have an example of the church offering the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). We necessarily infer that if the churches partook on the first day of the week, we also should do so. The question comes down to how to logistically make that happen. Every congregation must offer the Lord’s Supper in an orderly way, so that all members have opportunity to fulfill the command to partake of it. One congregation offers it only in the morning; another offers it in the morning and at night… both fulfill the Lord’s wishes. As long as it is offered every Sunday, a congregation has the freedom to organize this particular part of worship as they see fit.

5 minutes a day 5 days a week All the New Testament in a year

One of my friends just left her husband for another man.  It has become a big problem between us.  She said that their "attraction was too great to deny."  She has always been somewhat of a flirt.  She says that it's just her nature.  I don't understand!  Would God make someone to be a natural cheat?  If so, do I have a "nature" that would make me do something wrong?

Sincerely, Instinctively Angry

Dear Instinctively Angry,

Your friend is using an age-old excuse for sin. There is no such thing as an “attraction too great to deny”… just people who wish to follow their lusts instead of their morals. God specifically states that He doesn’t allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able to bear, and that there is ALWAYS a way of escape from sin (1 Cor 10:13).

We all have predispositions toward certain behaviors. Flirtatiousness, temper problems, laziness, depression, cowardliness, alcoholism, etc. are all temptations that pull stronger on some people than on others. You may never struggle with depression, but your temper may always be an issue for you. This is not an excuse for bad behavior, but simply a reality of life. Even as far back as Adam and Eve, God has not accepted excuses for sin (Gen 3:11-13). Your friend has chosen her own lusts over serving God. Instead of fighting against a predisposition towards flirtation, she succumbed to it. She had a choice, and she chose poorly (Gen 4:7).

5 minutes a day 5 days a week All the New Testament in a year