An Open Letter to PTI...

On the February 15, 2010 episode of Pardon the Interruption, Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon had a brief discussion around the question: Can the NFL learn anything from the NBA for it's halftime show? I have to admit that:

1. I did NOT see the NBA halftime show, other than the video of Shakira and Alicia Keys shown on PTI. Frankly, that was enough to prove to me that I would have channel surfed had I been tuned in...

2. I DID see the NFL halftime show...and love classic rockers...

Of utmost concern to me was the assumption by Wilbon and Kornheiser that the NBA had something to teach the NFL...specifically because the NBA paraded half naked women, dancing suggestively in front of the camera, while the NFL halftime show featured 60 year old rockers.

I decided to send an email to PTI...but, because they will likely ignore my sentiments, I decided to use the "new media" and post my email as an open letter in my blog...


"I was so disappointed in your discussion comparing the NBA and NFL halftime shows. Perhaps those of you 'in the big city' have a different set of values than the rest of us...or, maybe those of
you in the media do. Either way, showing half-naked women, dancing suggestively is not entertainment for those of us who do NOT frequent strip clubs.

Quite frankly, I could not be more happy that the 'wardrobe malfunction' happened. Not because it exposed Janet Jackson's bare right breast, but it exposed an entire culture/sub-culture that is bankrupt of even the facade of decent moral values. Can we do anything at all in the realm of 'entertainment' without it becoming 'sexertainment'?

As for me...I'll take a bunch of old classic rockers over the sexploitation of women anyday. Can the NFL learn anything? Yes...keep doing what you are doing...or, I'll go back to turning
OFF the halftime show!"

Sincerely,
Rob Pochek
Husband, Father, NBA/NFL/Nascar/MLB/NCAA FAN!

2009 NASCAR Sprint Cup Predictions - How did I do?

The season is now over...the NASCAR season, that is. At the beginning of the year I made a handful of predictions...here is how I grade those predictions:

1. The 2009 season will have greater parity than ever. With all of the contractions of teams in the off season, this is a year that a "little guy" can make some noise and win some races.

GRADE C - Several "little guys" won this year, including Brad Keselowski (Talladega Spring), David Reutimann (Charlotte), Brian Vickers (Michigan), and Jamie McMurray (Talladega Fall). However, the guys from Hendrick and JGR still dominated.

2. One of the "big guys" will win the championship. My money is on a Hendrick driver - surprise, surprise - but not JJ.

GRADE D - Probably should be an "F." Truth is...until somebody beats him, Jimmy Johnson has to be the favorite...And, sadly, MOST sports fans have no idea what he just accomplished...

3. Mark Martin will win a big race...and maybe a championship.

GRADE A - Martin won 5 races: Phoenix, Darlington, Michigan, Chicago, and Loudon. He finished 2nd (again) in the points, but could have won the championship in Miami...so...not a bad year at all!

4. Dale, Jr will win more than one race....but probably not a championship.

GRADE F - Jr had a terrible year, finishing 25th...one spot below AJ Allmendinger. He won no races. In all honesty, Jr needs to pick it up in 2010.

5. Tony Stewart won't lose his cool until AFTER the July Daytona race. (Because he will have yet to win AND will have just gotten wrecked!)

GRADE C - Tony actually won 2 races before the July Daytona race (but only one points race). Of course, he WON the July Daytona race, too...and, obviously, wasn't wrecked! He did maintain his cool until well into the season...but his tempermental competitiveness emerged nicely at Miami...

6. Juan Pablo Montoya will win an Oval Track race.

GRADE C - JPM was closer than ever with 7 top 5's this year...PLUS, he had all but won the Indy race when a silly mistake cost him dearly. I look for JPM to be VERY strong in 2010.

7. Kyle Busch will win more than anyone else PRIOR to the race for the Chase...at which time he will choke, again.

GRADE C - Busch managed to win 5 races this year, including three in a row early. Unfortunately (for his fans), he didn't make the chase...in fact, the implosion I expected during the chase began to happen earlier...so...I was close...

8. The championship will be decided in the fall race at Phoenix, making Homestead a Ho-Hum race.

GRADE D - I got this one wrong. Homestead was a race that mattered...albeit only to two people: JJ and Mark Martin. Only if JJ made a mistake could Martin capitalize, so, again...close...

9. The Daytona 500 will be won by someone NOT LEADING at the White Flag.

GRADE B - since the White Flag never officially flew, I cannot take credit for an "A." However, Kenseth passed Sadler just before the caution came out and a rain delay ended the race. So, I give myself a "B."

10. By November, the season will seem too short and the winter ahead too long.

GRADE A - Absolutely...let's go racin boys!

The Story of the Bible

It's been a while since I have added to the blog...but thought I'd give the RRBC church family a look at the next series...

The Story of the Bible will follow the singular message of the Bible - that God has a plan for his people that is centered upon Jesus Christ. We will follow along as the story unfolds from the Garden of Eden to the Cattle troughs of Bethlehem...our story will unfold as follows:

Nov 8 “The Beginning of Trouble” Gen 1-3

Nov 15 “God Chooses One Man” Gen 12

Nov 22 “God Will Provide a Lamb” Gen 22

Nov 29 “A King Who Fights for His People” 1 Sam 17

Dec 6 “The Promise of an Eternal King” 2 Sam 7

Dec 13 “Born to Die” Mt 1:21

Dec 20 “The King is Born” Mt 1:1-17

Keep an eye out on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/robpochek?ref=profile) for more detail about the specific passages each week...I hope that the series will remind you that the story of the Bible is God's story...it is HiStory...and I hope that is a great encouragement to you!

Pastor Rob

Check out the promo video:

AAW- The Purpose Driven© Church Model

The August 26 Ask Anything Wednesday Question of the Week was:
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Purpose Driven© Church Model?

Before we ask about a particular "model" of the church, let's first address "what is a church?" While I cannot hope to be exhaustive on this issue, I can say that Protestant churches have tended to identify threeHistoric Marks of the Church, they are:
The Word - the gospel is rightly proclaimed
The Sacraments - Lord’s Supper & Baptism are rightly administered
Discipline - Members of the church are accountable for the beliefs and behavior

I point this out so that we understand that the Purpose Driven© Model is an attempt to help the church (one bearing the three marks described above) be all that God intends for it to be. Despite what some may think...to be Purpose Driven© or not to be Purpose Driven© is not a matter of fellowship, heresy, or being "hip." Rather, it is an effort to recognize that something "drives" every church...there is a reason a church chooses to use a piano in worship, a reason the pastor chooses to wear a coat and tie, a reason the church must vote to pay the bills. The question popularized by Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Church was: "What drives your church?" To say it another way: Why does your church do what it does?

In essence, the Purpose Driven© Model seeks to answer THREE Questions:
• Why are we (the church) here?
• What is our process for making disciples?
• Do we have a strategy to move people to greater levels of commitment?

In answering those questions a Purpose Driven Church…
Is organized around five core purposes of the church found in:
The Great Commission –Mt 28:18-20 and
The Great Commandment – Mt 22:37-40
These purposes are: Worship, Evangelism, Fellowship, Discipleship, and Ministry (or, Service).
These five purposes answer the question: Why are we here? We are here to Worship God, Evangelize the Lost, Fellowship with Believers, Grow in Christ, and Serve the Kingdom. A Purpose Driven© Church seeks to ensure that all five of these purposes are balanced.

A Purpose Driven© Church utilizes an intnetional discipleship process. In other words, a PDC has a plan to make disciples that is intentional, purposeful, and understandable. While some churches will deviate a bit here and there, all PD Churches will strive to be intentional about making disciples. The "ball diamond" has become the image associated with this process...

Finally, a PD Church practices an outside - in perspective to growth and evangelism. That is, PD Churches recognize that not everyone in the church has the same level of commitment. And, that an intentional strategy is required to move people toward greater commitment. The "cocentric circles of commitment" has become the image associated with this reality...

Now that we have a better - albeit brief - understanding of the PD Church...What are some of the WEAKNESSES of PD Model? This, too, is not intended to be exhaustive, but to simply give us some food for thought...
• Can become programmatic. That is, some churches will adopt purpose statements and edesign their “structure” without the heart for lost that is essential. There are many "traditional-minded" churches wearing Purpose Driven© "clothing." When a church "decides" to become Purpose Driven©, the question needs to be asked: "why?" Without a Great Commission answer, I suspect PD is another program being adopted...in spite of the fact that PD is NOT a program!

• Tendency to “dumb down” the Gospel. I want to be careful to say that this is not an inevitable result of being Purpose Driven©. But, there are those who uncritically adopt a Purpose Driven© approach and ASSUME that means that Bible cannot be preached in its entirety. Here the Pastor and/or Church are fearful to preach the “whole Bible” lest the seeker is offended. In fact, a biblically informed adopting of the Purpose Driven© approach is one that tries to remove as many barriers of offense as possible...with the EXCEPTION of the Bible. God honors his word...proclaim it faithfully and clearly and let God's Spirit do his work!

There are also STRENGTHS of PD Model:
• Biblically-based. I do believe the model is rooted in biblical truth and is not a fad. The five purposes espoused by PD are essential to our faithfully carrying out the Great Commission in the context of the Great Commandment.

• Flexible / Not one style. The PD Model is flexible and is not solely a "contemporary" church approach. There are Purpose Driven© churches in over 100 denominations and/or associations. There are traditional, liturgical, and contemporary churches practicing PD principles. Further, PD is not limited by geography. There are churches practicing these principles throughout all parts of the US and around the world.

• Easy to Understand / Adapt. This is the final strength, in my book...the PD model is adaptable. And...IT MUST BE ADAPTED to each setting. A PD church in California will look different than one in the North East or in the South East. While the principles will be the same, the expression of those principles will vary...and that is how it should be.

Ultimately I believe the Purpose Driven© Model has done far more good than harm. While it has not always been introduced into traditional churches in the best ways, the primary question of the Model remains to be answered by EVERY congregation: What drives your church? Or, Why are you doing what you do? Too many churches resort to doing what they prefer, or what they have always done WITHOUT thinking through a biblical rationale for it. You know you are guilty of this if you don't want someone to ask "why" about an event, a ministry, or a practice your church is engaged in!

At the church I am serving (Raleigh Road Baptist Church), I can assure you that I will always want a biblical rationale for what we do...and, my hope and prayer is that such a rationale will be driven by the Great Commission and the Great Commandment.

AAW - Civil Ceremony vs. Religious Ceremony

Marriage issues have dominated the last several questions, which is good...there are lots of things to think about as we contemplate the difference Christ makes in our view of marriage. This week's question is very interesting: If a couple is married in a civil ceremony, do they still have a covenant marriage in the eyes of God?

There are two issues to consider here. The first has to do with God's presence. Several websites mockingly assert that if the ceremony does not happen in a distinctively religious environment, God isn't present, or doesn't see it. The truth is that all of life occurs coram deo: before the face of God. This phrase literally refers to something that takes place in the presence of, or before the face of, God. To live coram Deo is to live one's entire life in the presence of God, under the authority of God, to the glory of God. So, the idea that “my wedding didn’t happen in a church, God must not recognize it” misunderstands the nature of God and falls victim to a false sacred / secular dichotomy. There is a sacred / secular division, but not because something is not done in “God’s presence.” Everything is done in God’s presence. The question is whether what is done in his presence honors him or dishonors him. So, Can a marriage before a justice of peace honor God? Yes…but that has to do with what defines a marriage…

One component of defining a marriage is the legal / civil aspect…let’s look at:
Mt 19:3-6

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

“Is it lawful?” – this question from the Pharisees about divorce is one that is both a legal and religious question…remember, the Law of Moses was the governing authority for Israel. In Israel the legal and relgious authority was blended. But, the fact that the legal and religious authority are blended in Israel is not a rejection of their co-existence. Think about water...chemically it is H2O…the fact that Hydrogen and Oxygen are together in water does not mean that one of them ceases to exist. In the case of marriage there is a legal authority and a religious authority…

Rom 13:1-2, 5 tells us that God recognized Rome as an instrument; an authority that he placed in power.
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

God recognizes the role and authority of human government…indeed he instituted it. So, a wedding before a Justice of the Peace takes place within the confines of an institution given to humanity by God…and it is certainly under the gaze of God (coram deo)...

There is not, however, solely a legal basis for marriage...

There are some marriages that may be legal, but are not considered a biblical / God-honoring marriage...or a covenant marriage. For example, gay marriage may be legal…but it fails the second test…what I am calling the Spiritual Component of marriage. We see this in Eph 5…By "spiritual component" I mean at least three things:

1. God-honoring commitment is made (to selfless, monogamous relationship; rejection of polyamorous marriages – entered into with intention of multiple partners.)
Polyamory, reports Newsweek, is having a "coming-out-party." Polyamory is the current "term of art" applied to "families" or "clusters" comprised of multiple sexual partners. As Newsweek explains, this is not exactly polygamy, because marriage is not the issue. Advocates of polyamory argue that their lifestyle is not "open marriage." Indeed, they define their movement in terms of the moral principle of "ethical nonmonogamy," defined as "engaging in loving, intimate relationships with more than one person -- based upon the knowledge and consent of everyone involved."
On Dr. Al Mohler's blog, he said of polyamorous marriages: "The ultimate sign of our moral confusion becomes evident when virtually no one appears ready to condemn polyamory as immoral. The only arguments mustered against this new movement focus on matters of practicality." ( http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=4211)

The biblical model is one of leaving and cleaving; leaving and being united…literally two becoming one flesh…not just a sexual act…although it is included…but, in every way, there is an exclusivity intended...a living for the benefit of the one’s spouse.

2. Commitment made between a man and woman (i.e. consistent with biblical model)
Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron (like boneless ribs)…marriage can only be between a man and a woman. I am not here debating the merits / demerits of homosexuality, whether there is a genetic determinate for homosexuality, etc. Rather, I am simply stating that homosexual behavior (like all other sexual sin...pornography, adultery, etc) is sinful - according to the Bible - and the civil uniting of two males or females can never properly be called a marriage.

3. Marriage is picture of Christ and Church (people may not recognize this, but it is true nevertheless)… Every marriage is intended to be a picture of Christ and the Church. I cannot improve on Piper here:

"Now why is the coming together of a man and woman to form one flesh in marriage a mystery? Paul's answer in verse 32 is this: the marriage union is a mystery because its deepest meaning has been partially concealed, but is now being openly revealed by the apostle, namely, that marriage is an image of Christ and the church. Verse 32: "I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church."
So marriage is like a metaphor or an image or a picture or parable that stands for something more than a man and a woman becoming one flesh. It stands for the relationship between Christ and the church. That's the deepest meaning of marriage. It's meant to be a living drama of how Christ and the church relate to each other." (http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByScripture/3/683_Husbands_Who_Love_Like_Christ_and_the_Wives_Who_Submit_to_Them/)
This spiritual component exists whether we know it or not…so, here is my conclusion…
A marriage can be legal, but not biblical / God-honoring…
A marriage cannot be biblical / God-honoring without being legal…

So, a monogamous marriage commitment between a man and a woman, before a justice of the peace, is every bit a covenant of marriage as one before a pastor in a church.

NOTE: There were several follow up questions about common law marriages, etc which I have not gone into here...but...suffice it to say...one attempt to escape either the legal or the spiritual composition of marriage and honor God!

AAW - Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Church Leadership

The first thing we dealt with last night was the importance of doing “THEOLOGICAL TRIAGE”. Triage is what medical professionals call the process of discerning who needs the most urgent medical attention and whose treatment is not as urgent. In theology, some issues are critical to defining Christianity, some are essential in determining fellowship and cooperation, while others are very debatable and should not separate brothers in Christ. Following the lead of people like Dr. Mohler and Dr. Brand, I offered the following categories:
- Dogma – Issues that make us Christian
- Doctrine – Issues that define the nature and ministry of the Church
- Beliefs – Issues that are genuinely debatable and do not constitute a
denial of essential Christian faith OR require removal from fellowship

As we begin each of the questions over the next few weeks we will try to determine where they fall. Hopefully, this will help us to know how to respond to the answers given!

This was the question received via Facebook:
"My question is in regard to the high percentage of non beleivers who are divorced/remarried with blended families. Some churches limit the level at which these folks can serve while other churches all but ignore these circumstances. Since the RRBC target is the unsaved and unchurched so how will this be approached?"

Esssentially, the issue is: What is RRBC's disposition toward divorced (and possibly remarried) individuals serving in leadership. To respond, we first need a general understanding of the Bible's teaching on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage...and then we will apply that to the question of Church Leadership.

First...What category do the issues of Divorce and Remarriage fall into?
Marriage, divorce, and remarriage are "largely" in the third category: beliefs. This is because the bible's teaching is open to some difference of opinion.

For example,
John Piper has written that “All marriage after divorce is prohibited while both spouses
are alive.” You can find his rationale at: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1986/1488_Divorce_and_Remarriage_A_Position_Paper/
Meanwhile, John MacArthur would say that remarriage is permissible in some circumstances.
You can find his ratinoale at: http://www.believersweb.org/view.cfm?ID=822

Since we have two fairly prominent, conservative, bible believing pastor/scholars who come to an honest difference of opinion - yet would not prohibit their fellowship - it would seem that this is likely a third category issue.

Here are four General Biblical Principles regarding Marriage & Divorce, as I understand them:

1. Marriage is intended by God to be between one man and one woman for a lifetime. (Mt 19:1-9; Mk 10:1-12; 1 Cor 7:10-16). This is God's purpose for marriage and it precludes homosexuality being part of God's design.

2. Marriage is a physical picture of the spiritual reality of Christ and the church. (Eph 5:21-32)
The way we treat our spouses makes a spiritual statement about Christ and the church. Consider that the next time you get in a spat!

3. God hates divorce (Mal 2:13-16)
And, I would add...so does everyone who has ever been involved in one.

4. Remarriage is an option if:
- reconciliation is not an option (1 Cor 7:15)
- divorce occurred prior to salvation (2 Cor 5:17)
- remarriage is to another believer (2 Cor 6:14)
- one does not have the gift of celibacy(1 Cor 7:6-9)

These principles should cause us to have a very high view of marriage and reject the culture of divorce that seems to believe that marriage is something you can "try out" to see if it "works for you."

Now, whether formerly divorced persons may serve in leadership is probably in the second category: doctrine…I say probably because I am not 100% sure...it may be in the third category...in fact, I might put it right on the line. It may be 2nd category because it affects our understanding of the nature and ministry of the church. However, you may find that you could be a part of a church that held to a view on this particular issue that differed from yours - in which case it would be more of a third level issue. At any rate, the real question is how will we at RRBC deal with it?

Let's first look at our official document:
From Appendix of RRBC Constitution:
Overseer Qualifications:
3. Husband of one wife. (1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6)

Deacon Qualifications:
A. Husband of Only One Wife (1 Timothy 3:12) We believe that God has placed the responsibility of the office of deacon upon men (Acts 6:3). A deacon must have a healthy, Bible-based view of marriage and the home. A man shall be eligible for serving as an overseer or deacon provided he has not experienced a divorce within the past ten years and his immediate family is presently in stable condition. The previous marital history of his spouse shall not be taken into consideration. Men who have never been married or widowers are not to be excluded from the deacon body.

In both overseer and deacon qualifications we recognize that a healthy marriage is vitally important. We also recognize that a previously divorced man is not automatically ineligible for serving in either capacity. Let's examine why this is the case...

General Biblical Principles regarding Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage as it pertains to Church Leadership

1. “Husband of one wife” clause is NOT a blanket rejection of anyone who has been divorced.
What do we do with a man who was divorced as a non-believer? Is he a new creature in Christ or not? It is an affirmation of a demonstrable commitment to his wife, and to her alone.

2. “Husband of one wife” clause literally means a “one woman man.”
- Commitment to current spouse is implied.
- Faithfulness to current spouse is implied.
Commitment and faithfulness extend beyond the act of adultery to emotional affairs and to pornography. These demonstrate a lack of commitment and faithfulness.
- Rejection of “culture of divorce” is implied.

3. Commitment and faithfulness are demonstrated over time.
I believe the RRBC “10 year” rule is attempt to quantify this reality. A man who was divorced three months ago, and is already remarried and "promises" to be committed to his wife needs to demonstrate that. While there is no biblical requirement for such a quantifiable time frame, the intention is consistent with the biblical principles of commitment and faithfulness.

4. A number of factors must be taken into account:
- Spiritual condition at time of divorce (beleiver or non-believer at time of divorce?)
- Circumstances of divorce (abandonment? abuse? adultery? self-centeredness?)
- Current spiritual condition of man and wife (are both believers?)
- Current condition of marriage (is marriage health, stable, Christ honoring?)

My conclusion:
- My preference is for men who have been married once to a godly woman and who have exemplary, stable marriages to serve as overseers and deacons.
- For those who are under consideration and have been through the trauma of divorce: Those men must be evaluated, in light of factors above, on a case by case basis with respect to this qualification.
- Ultimately, I believe my conclusion and the RRBC policy are consistent with the biblical injunction for an overseer or deacon to be the "husband of one wife."

Ask Anything Wednesdays

When we arrived in Wilson and at RRBC, my plan was to utilize Wednesday nights to help the church to get to know us...well, more specifically, me and my understanding of key issues. So, I launched an Open Q and A night. (I have decided to call them Ask Anything Wednesdays by "borrowing" the name from Dr. Russ Moore...remember, Doc...imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!)

Anyway, so far we have dealt with leadership philosophy; thoughts on worship, culture and choirs; and this week: alcohol, funraisers and ministry alignment with vision. I will hope to use the blog and FB as a way to interact about the Q and A time...so..

Here was the brief scoop from this week on two big questions:
What is the biblical answer to alcohol use?

First...the bible does not address every issue in terms of "right / wrong." There are some issues that the Holy Spirit MAY personally convict us about, but may give another freedom (i.e. Rom 14:1-22). The use of alcohol is one of them. I say that because, on the one hand, the Bible indicates that wine (including fermented drink) is a gift from God that may be received with thanks. For example, Ps 104:14-15; Dt 14:26; and Jn 2:1-11. On the other hand, the Bible provides stern warnings about overindulgence with wine (i.e. Prov 20:1; 23:29-35). And, the Bible teaches that drunkenness is ALWAYS a sin (Eph 5:18). The most reasonable thing to conclude then, is that alcohol itself is not evil, but it's abuse is sinful.

Now, I personally do not use alcohol for five reasons:
1. I do not use it because I do not have freedom of conscience to do so. However, I will not judge others whose conscience is not so bound.

2. Alchohol is mind altering and I do not want to have anything affect the Holy Spirit's influene over my mind. I, personally, do not want to do anything that would inhibit me from taking every thought captive for Christ (2 Cor 10:5).

3. Alcohol is addictive. Here again, I do not want to push the limits of my "addictions." Right now they are limited to caffeine and, perhaps, Buffalo Wild Wings, but why take the chance that I might become addicted to alcohol.

4. Alcohol is destructive. The use (and abuse) of alcohol in our culture has had a number of negative and destructive effects. From drunk driving to destroyed marriages, alcohol abuse has been a frequent cause of death and destruction. To avoid alcohol is to make a strong social statement against such things. Further, it must be asked whether it is prudent to partake in something that has caused such destruction. For me, the answer is no.

5. I don't like the taste of it. Yes, I have had wine on a couple occasions and champagne once. I have never had an entire glass of any of it and have never had the occasion to drink beer. I do not say those things to boast or to wallow in some type of self-pity. Rather, to state an undeniable fact: I do not like how it tastes.

Again, I would urge every believer to seek the Holy Spirit's guidance regarding things like alcohol. Do not simply assume that your conscience will be bound or free...but, pray, and act in wisdom.

What do you think of fundraisers in the church?
Since this is running longer than expected...let me give a few thoughts.
First, we have to ask biblical / theological questions. Does the bible forbid fundraising? Simply put, NO. Jesus' anger at the money changers in the Temple was related to their CHEATING of people. So, fundraisers ought not cheat people!

We should also ask whether the fundraiser leads to sin...are we leading people to covet? For example, a "raffle" for a new car would lead beleivers to covet the car...as such, it is sin. A car wash, trivia night, etc do not lead people to sin.

A third biblical question relates to the appropriateness of unbelievers underwriting God's work. On this I can only say that there is biblical precedent for it - Ex 12:35-36 says that the Children of Israel asked the Egyptians to finance the Exodus, and they did it! It may be a thin precedent, but there is one...

The other big issue is the practical administration of fundraising. I prefer that there be a limited number of fundraisers avaialable to ministries, the proceeds of which should be used for missions - both local and international. I am not in favor of fundraisers for facilities or for budgets...these are to be provided for through the regular tithes and offerings of God's people.

So...that was this week...if you have questions for next week or the next few, feel free to email me at robpochek@raleighroad.com.

Blessings...
Pastor Rob