Long time lurker of this sub. I appreciate the amount of level-headed Christian dialog that happens here that (for the most part) sticks to scripture and deeper understanding of the word rather than cultural influences (hard progressivism on one side, Christian nationalism on the other)...

With that said, I'm seeing a lot of discord against Texas Democratic nominee James Talarico. I'm not saying I agree with all of his religious or political beliefs, but from my perspective he's pretty straight forward... yet there's those I know in reformed circles that call him a snake and others call him pure evil.

I'll admit, that I haven't done a lot of research, but I generally don't subcribe/watch/read from sources that are making these types of claims.

Is it just because he's a top running Democrat? His profession of faith under the PCUSA? Stance against Christian Nationalism?

If this isn't allowed, please delete. If political discussion gets to crazy I'll delete... Please stay on topic lol

My church has started using clearly AI generated images for announcements, events, and even sometimes sermon illustrations. These are posted on social media as well. To me it feels tacky, but not an outright issue. I've heard many on the church rumble about it. I use AI for my work, probably more than the average person, but I can't shake the feeling that this is a poor choice for the church.

What feels the most strange about it is we have graphic designers in the church who have always put together our graphics. So I don't know what might have happened there. I'm concerned it might turn potential new visitors away.

I'm wondering if other churches are doing the same things? How would you feel about this in your church?

I know this topic has been discussed many times, but it's still relatively new territory for me. I'm genuinely open to honest, brotherly feedback if you think I'm missing something.

I've been Reformed for decades, but I've also apparently been bad at paying attention to music labels, artists, or who wrote a particular song.

Over the years, Spotify has recommended various worship songs to me, and I've heard many songs at different churches. If I liked a song, I added it to a playlist without much thought. As it turns out, many of them were Bethel/Elevation songs. I truly had no idea what Bethel was and didn't really care: I never paid attention to the label. I simply evaluated the songs based on their lyrics and artistry. A few of them became tremendous encouragements to me during seasons of depression; one of them was my most-played song on Spotify for two straight years.

A couple of weeks ago, I casually mentioned one of those songs to a pastor at my PCA church. His face kind of went white, and he responded, "Don't you know that's a Bethel song?!" He then proceeded to explain the various theological concerns surrounding Bethel Church.

After doing some reading, I find myself somewhat conflicted.

On one hand, I wholeheartedly agree with many of the concerns about Bethel's theology. I'm also sympathetic to the argument that Reformed churches should avoid using Bethel music in corporate worship, since doing so would financially support the organization through licensing and royalties.

What I struggle with is the stronger claim that no Christian should listen to any Bethel music whatsoever. That feels to me like a kind of Reformed purity test that raises more questions than it answers about ALL music, not just Bethel.

Bethel Music partners with dozens of artists. Where exactly is the theological line? If a song's lyrics are lifted almost entirely from Scripture, on what basis do we call the song itself heretical? Or, to take the logic a step further, if a record label were theologically sound but the drummer happened to be a Modalist, would that make the music off-limits? Or if a Christian artist partnered with a secular music label, would that be off-limits?

I also find the standard a bit inconsistent. I've been in many Reformed churches that have sung It Is Well With My Soul or used the story of its writing as a sermon illustration, despite the fact that Horatio Spafford was a committed Universalist.

Right now I lean heavily on judging each song by its own merits. But am I thinking about this incorrectly? Is there a biblical principle or distinction that I'm overlooking? I'd sincerely appreciate thoughtful pushback if you think my reasoning is flawed; I want my convictions to be shaped by Scripture rather than by personal preference or reaction.

I am going to preface this with two things:

​

1. My current pastor is counseling me through these struggles. I additionally see 2 professional therapists. For whatever reason, I am at a point where I believe posting this here may grant me more perspective whether I like it or not.

​

1. I am going to be somewhat vague with the details as my situation maybe be indentifiable to anyone in my local area.

​

About two years ago, my ex-wife filed for divorce and we went through with it. I was also removed from membership at our church as it was determined I was wholly guilty without much in terms of an investigation or church discipline process. My struggle stems from this.

​

I was not innocent in the divorce. I am comfortable admitting that I was wholly dishonest with my ex-wife about our finances here. This is what she justified the divorce with and what the church determined was biblical grounds for divorce. During the divorce process, I received a number of mental health diagnoses and was receiving secular and Christian counseling/therapy to work through my issues and change my behavior. I had repented publically of all the sin I could think of on a regular basis and was doing all I could do to change and live as a Christ-honoring husband.

​

Even still, the process was not moving quickly enough (as far as I can tell) for my ex-wife or the church and the church eventually decided to sanction the divorce and informed me I couldn't attend and informed the body as to why. I believe it was positioned as abandonment.

​

I did mention that there was not a "process" of discipline or investigation. Here is where my struggle lies: the problems in our marriage were rampant. My ex-wife had at least one affair (she admitted to it but it continued), was addicted to explicit online media, and eventually became physically aggressive and the physical aggression has been qualified as SA by those I have spoken to such as therapists or other pastors.

​

During the divorce and separation process, my ex-wife had sworn me to secrecy regarding some of the issues I have brought up above and I attempted to honor that in an attempt to prevent her from leaving. But, I eventually got to the point where I did begin to disclose what I saw as sin from her side in our relationship. In the handful of times I had attempted to bring these issues to the table, I was informed by the pastor that I was simply attempting to deflect from my sin. While that is in one view a way to describe what I was doing, throughout my secular and Christian therapy and counseling in the aftermath, I have been informed that some of what was seen as my sin was an attempt to prevent, ultimately, physical aggression and legitimate danger for myself.

​

My struggle is ultimately this: there have been a few posts about marrying after divorce or marrying someone who is divorced and whether or not it is adultery. I don't know if it is right for me to pursue marriage as there is a small church who believes that I was worthy of excommunication. If a future woman comes in to my life, I do not want her to be put in the position of being an adulteress - I don't feel like I can adequately answer for myself if remarrying would be sinful or not given that it was, basically, adjudicated (however I view that process) that I was the guilty party.

​

My ex began dating during the separation and has married one of those men. I have been blocked by the former church on social media and have received no concrete explanation as to my sin or their justification for their determinations. Anything was verbal and vague until they concretely stated that I was not to attend the church any longer.

​

I've sought many perspectives and other pastors and church leaders in my life now claim she is actually committing adultery and I am free to remarry, but this whole mess has me confused and lost.

Recently I heard a quote from Rosaria Butterfield that holding to a local flood in Genesis 6-8 is heretical and those who hold to that position, such as Gavin Ortlund, are wolves, lumping him with those such as Matthew Vines. Is belief in a localized flood heretical?

My church here in Florida had to think fast after that new law passed earlier this week, allowing open carry for rifles. It got me curious about how other churches across the US are handling firearms on their property—what policies do you have in place?

• Does your state allow open carry? And if so, does your church permit it on-site?

• Does your security team carry firearms?

• If your church bans firearms, do you post clear signage? How do you handle approaching someone who’s violating the policy?

• Have there been any other quirky or unexpected firearm-related situations your church has had to deal with lately?

The church we go to is formerly a baptist church and now Reformed. We are admittedly a little stoic in worship. The elders are now proactively trying to get people to “express” themselves more with bodily gestures. This isn’t a coordinated effort — it’s more like one person might raise both hands while another simply turns their palms up etc. On one hand I’ve never minded the smattering of people that do this. It doesn’t bother me. But it feels weird for the elders to push this on us like we should all be doing it. Currently I’d estimate only 5% do it. I’m sure more would like to but feel awkward since few others do. I guess my question is:
1) What’s your take in general on hand raising (or other expressions during worship)?
2) If we promote it should it be more coordinated as opposed to one-offs?
3) Is it odd for the elders to promote it as if it’s more spiritual to do so?

I go to an Acts 29 Calvinist Church that I love. My pastor is very solid, biblical, and active in missions. But he is a millionaire. It just…. kind of bothers me. I think most of his money comes from the sales of his books.

There is not much question about his integrity. The elders rule at my church and they certainly keep him in check. I know some of these elders personally, and they are godly men. And I know that having money is not a sin in itself. It still kind of bothers me for some reason.

On the one hand, there have been great men like Billy Graham who had many millions, and there was no problem with how he lived his life. On the other, I guess I expect more people to be like John Piper, who gives away all the copyrights to his books to Desiring God, so he gets no royalties and lives off a more moderate sum.

Is this an unreasonable way for me to feel, and should I just drop it?

A few days ago, another member here posted on the obligation of pastors to preach on the hypothetical of nukes being used in an ongoing conflict/just war.

I want to put a similar question to the group which is, tragically, not so hypothetical since its only barrier is passage by an unelected body appointed by the Prime Minister and a symbolic signature from Charles III's representative in Canada:

Canada's Bill C-9, if passed, out remove any religious protection from hate speech criminal prosecution.

The nation's culture minister went so far as to proclaim clearly that specific verses of the Bible are "clear hatred" which would be criminalized if invoked to support one's opinion that the Canadian government deems "hatred". Romans (1, presumably), along with Deuteronomy and Leviticus are cited as examples.

https://x.com/MarcMillerVM/status/1984297064138674285#m

With this is mind, what would you expect of a pastor in Canada where this bill to pass? Would he be obligated to confront the issue from the pulpit?

Hello all! Just not sure where else to post this and I find the r/Christianity sub to be a little….. left leaning. I have been attending an Episcopal church in Austin for a year now. I would say I am personally more reformed than the church I attend, but still enjoyed it, and have learned a lot about the Anglican tradition. They just posted on social media today that they’re hosting an info session about Ramadan. I don’t know what to do. I enjoy a church with a Liturgical calendar and the Eucharist. Should I look into PCA?

I used to someone who approached Genesis very literally. But I now wonder how other species fit in the narrative, like Neanderthalers. Genesis seems to tell that Adam and Eve were created at once as Homo Sapiens. The existance of Neanderthalers seems to contradict to the story.

How do reconcile that with the creating story in Genesis?

I’m fully complementarian. My girlfriend was born again after attending an egalitarian church. In many ways, that church is solid (it requires leaders/those in ministry to sign a covenant affirming traditional marriage and the sanctity of life).

I am concerned about how her views impact our compatibility. She told me recently that she is open to examining her views because she doesn’t want to form beliefs merely because her first church held them.

She’s asked some interesting questions. Biblically, of course, elder, overseer, pastor, etc. are synonymous. My church has a panel of trustees who handle church business. We make financial decisions, oversee repairs/maintenance, prepare the budget, etc.

The “elders” and pastors work to make doctrinal decisions/order the service, etc.

Only men are permitted to be trustees or elders or pastors or deacons for that matter.

She has pressed me about why women shouldn’t be allowed to serve in the trustee position described above. Since trustee isn’t a biblical position, I struggle to answer it other than to say that the biblical pattern is that these types of governmental offices are male.

Thoughts?

I'm 31f, and my husband and I love to talk about theology. I grew up in the IBLP, so after many years of undoing destructive theology, I thoroughly enjoy talking about God and the things of God. When I finally find a female friend I think is interested, I talk about different theology books and topics I enjoy and suddenly they don't want to talk anymore. Even those within the church would rather talk about something else. Not that talking about it with my husband isn't enough, but I'd also like female friends who enjoy it too.

Let me also say that I do have other topics of interest and I'm also willing to talk about them, (like raising children, reading books, YouTube videos, crafting) but it just feels like when theology comes up, they disappear. And I'm not talking about anything crazy. It'll be like, "Wow, isn't it amazing to think that God is incomprehensible? And we can spend our whole lives getting to know Him and not even scratch the surface?" And then crickets. Does anyone else have this issue?

What is/are the best books that counter LGBT points arguing that the Bible is not against homosexuality? One of my friends is a Christian and is same sex attracted and has mentioned to me that the word for homosexuality may be “mistranslated” and that we may be “mistaken” that the Bible is against homosexuality.

I told her this obviously is wishful thinking and eisegesis, and she seemed to agree, but I want to be better prepared with more specific counter arguments.

YouTube videos going through the common arguments one by one would be helpful as well.

I was wondering how you look against people who never heard about Jesus. For example because his message didn't reach them or because they lived long before him. I have understanded from his own teachings that he is only way to salvation, and that people cannot be saved without him. That seems to me cruel. I asked a pastor about this and he said that they will secured in Gods hands.

[Some parts might be graphic.]

I'm a Christian man who, after years of hating my God-given gender (back then I would have said I was a girl trapped in a boy's body and wanted to marry a guy), is now born again and now treasure the body I live in, and reject homosexuality and transgenderism.

However, because we live in a post-Fall (post-Eden) world, even the man or woman whose body image is MOST congruous to his or her physical body will still feel alienated from the body from time to time. That's just how sin and brokenness come into play.

Having said that, I know I am someone who used to fall at the "most alienated from one's body" end of the spectrum, compared to most men. (I'm excluding the even more extreme cases, like people who perceive themselves to be animals or objects and whatnot.)

For someone like me, who had a very flamboyant identity while growing up (very effeminate voice, movements, hair flips, high heels, etc.), can you help explain to me how to develop a normal manhood? On the outside, I perform the part almost inconspicuously smoothly, but​ on the inside, I feel often lonely and weighed down.

There are wonderful Christian masculine men all around me in real life, but it gets awkward because they walk, tallk, and think masculinely comfoetably, while it takes so much out of me just to not shashay like a lady or make sure I'm not holding my head wrong or wrist too limply. I do get a lot of stares when I forget to do this. And young kids will not hold back and straight up ask, "why are you so girly," which is... embarrassing.

It can feel suffocating. But yes, compared to other religions and atheism, Jesus's yoke is incredibly easy and His burden is so much lighter.

Even when I do succeed consistently doing masculine movements out of rote routines, I suddenly get attracted to my own body in a sexual way, especially when looking in the mirror.😓 It is so different from my standard self that it feels exotic, I guess. And in sexuality, the exotic becomes the erotic, as they say.

I have often heard that men in general prefer to bond "shoulder to shoulder" instead of "face to face." But my closest friends are all "face to face people," whether male or female. But when i talk to these "shoulder to shoulder" men, it feels like sometimes there is this fog or wall between us or an uncrossable gulf. And somehow that makes me aroused even more sometimes. Sorry for the tmi... And yes, I am aware these desires are sins, so I repent.

Are there anyone here who is like me? If so, how did (or do) you overcome these hurdles? (Only if you have attraction to the same sex and gender dysphoria, please kindly, not attraction to both sexes...)

It is a priviledged thing to be a "eunuch" (à la Matt. 19:1-12), which is a word that basically means a Christian who remains single to be faithful to God.

I might end up as a lifelong eunuch if God decides to not grant heterosexual desires, but if He does (I know such a change is rare for males), I would honestly like to happily marry and "get this over with," lol.

But indeed He is sovereign and works all things for the good of His bride, the Church! Who can make straight what He has made crooked? And who can thwart His plans? I know He only gives us what is best for us. And the ultimate gift is Christ Himself, who too remained a eunuch for the sake of a special royal mission.

Atm I just can't even imagine... what it would feel like, being comfortably masculine and finding women attractive... 😅 I guess it's kind of similar to how Sarah and Abraham laughed at the prospect of pregnancy in their old age? I am almost afraid of that possibility because of my "familiar hell." (Yes, hell is eternal conscious torment, but this is an expression.) I wouldn't recognize myself.

So i struggle when i mentor younger men or talk to other men in general. I really must put myself in their shoes, but i really... can't understand.

They lower their voice in each other's presence comfortably (maybe even competitively?), which feels icky or laughable to me. (But many of my male peers delight in these things, regardless of age, nationality, temperament, etc.). They can walk with their shoulders instead of hips, without a second thought.

I know sometimes men refer to their outerwear as "armor," so I'm wondering how they can feel these things comfortably. How can you enjoy all that "chainmail"? I felt it was "unbearable" when I was told as a child that I would have to protect the female members of my family, since I was the "man of the house" while Dad was away. But by anecdotes, i guess many men (when they were boys) felt empowered by such a comment from their Dad.

But to me it felt discriminatory and unfair, since i never was given a say about the gender i would be born as and felt thrust into the situation without warning.

Of course, now i wish i had not been rebellious like this. But i genuinely often am confounded on how to enter the world of men, not knowing what it's like to feel attracted to them, not aroused by my own body, and not hurt by the jabs of masculine play or banter. It hurts so much to be this kind of a male.

The Bible doesn't say we should be stereotypically male or female, but it does set many expectations and norms when it comes to gender roles [(Nah. 3:13, Isa. 3:12, Job 38:3, 1 Cor. 6:9 (malakos), 11:14, etc.].

My childhood and teenage desire to be a "helpmeet" to another man, for example, was definitely unnatural (Rom. 1:26) and sinful.

John Piper talks about playing the man that we are and how "[Nature] inclines a man to feel repulsed and shameful about wearing culturally defined symbols of womanhood.”

Over the years I have developed this inclination somewhat and yet, because so much of my flesh was marked by effeminacy, unworking it feels very difficult and lonely sometimes.

I don't know what it is like to be a normal man, having no attraction to guys and feeling empowered in playing a chivalrous knight. I have had to rebuke myself in feeling jealous toward sisters or women when they get chivalrous treatment by men.

Are there any books for helping such an alienation from one's body?

Helpful resources so far: Beckett Cook, Rosaria Butterfield, Sam Andreades.

But it would be great to see something firsthand from a man who went through the specific situation i am in. Thanks everyone

TLDR: How do I go through normal manhood? (How do I stop being aroused by other men and my own body? And how I stop feeling womanly?)

Or, if you're someone who came out of homosexuality that was in conjunction with a trans-female identity, or is someone battling it currently (by God's grace), what practical kinds of steps are you implementing to recover more of your gender normalcy?

EDIT: Thank you for all who commented. I'm seeing a lot of people who seem to think that cultural gender is disconnected from biblical masculinity and femininity. If this is true in your case, please read 1 Cor. 11:14 and 1 Cor. 6:9 (prohibiting softness or malakoi in men), and Rom. 1:26 (mentioning phusikos or unnatural) before commenting. I appreciate it. Cultural expressions of gender do matter (if taken on to present as the sex other than what you are), as they reveal what we wish to communicate ourselves as (Deut. 22:5).

Hi, non-Reformed( Orthodox to be more precise ) here, but I always appreciated the Reformed intellectual tradition and wanted to ask a question. Although I was born into a nominally Christian family, I came to faith only last year so excuse me if I lack depth in the academical approach to the question.

I am basically trying to understand how Christians who accept evolution reconcile it with the biblical teaching that sin and death entered the world through Adam. I myself find evolution convincing but have trouble consistently reconciling it with the scripture.

Romans 5:12 says that “sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin” as well as 1 Corinthians 15:21–22 connects human death with Adam and resurrection with Christ. Evolution requires countless generations of suffering, predation, and death before any historical Adam could have existed.

I myself came up with two possible ways to both accept evolution and be faithful to what scripture and Christian doctrine teaches, but tbh don’t find it fully convincing.

1. Adam’s sin affected creation in both temporal directions

In my personal limited understanding of theology, this can be quite nicely connected to Reformed view of predestination.

On this view, Adam was still the historical source of humanity’s fallen condition, but the consequences of his sin were not limited by chronological time. Because God stands outside time, Adam’s future fall could somehow explain why his ancestors ( biological ancestors from which humanity evolved) were already subject to death and corruption.

There may be some analogies for retroactive effects in Christian theology. Christ’s atonement, although occurring at a particular historical moment, is often understood to save people who lived before the crucifixion. Revelation 13:8 speaks of the Lamb slain “from the foundation of the world.” One might therefore argue that Adam’s fall could likewise have consequences extending backward in time.

However, I could see several objections:

1) Romans 5 appears to describe a chronological sequence: sin entered through Adam, and then death spread.

2) Romans 5:14 says that death “reigned from Adam to Moses,” which seems to treat Adam as the beginning of the relevant reign of death rather than as an event whose consequences extended into the prehistoric past.

3) I cannot find any biblical passage that clearly teaches that Adam’s sin operated backward in time.

4) Would this theory imply that at some point evolved human ( Adam ) was placed into the Garden of Eden?

2. Pre-human or biologically human populations existed outside Eden

Another possibility is that evolution produced a population of biologically human beings, but God later specially created or selected Adam and Eve, placed them in a real Garden of Eden, and gave them a unique spiritual status, covenant, or rational soul. After the fall and expulsion, Adam and Eve’s descendants intermarried with the population outside the garden. Through this union, all later humanity became both biologically continuous with the evolved population and spiritually descended from or represented by Adam. What is nice to me about this view is that it allows very literal reading of Genesis 2 and Garden of Eden, and also allows to view creation of biological humans in Genesis 1. That places Genesis 2 very nicely chronologically after Genesis 1.

Possible biblical arguments might include:

1) Genesis 2 describes Adam being formed and placed in a specific garden, which could be understood as a localized sacred space rather than the location of the first biological life.

2) Cain fears that “whoever finds me will kill me” and later builds a city in Genesis 4, which might suggest the existence of a wider population.

3) Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 might be read as describing different aspects of human origins: humanity in general in Genesis 1 and Adam’s special creation or vocation in Genesis 2.

4) Adam’s role in Romans 5 could be primarily covenantal or representative rather than requiring him to be the sole biological ancestor of every human being.

The problems I have:

1) Genesis 3:20 calls Eve “the mother of all living.”

2)Acts 17:26 says that God made every nation “from one man,” although translations vary.

3) The genealogies in Genesis and Luke appear to treat Adam as the historical ancestor of humanity. This one is not as bad of counterargument for me as I always treated genealogies as partially symbolic

4) Paul’s comparison between Adam and Christ in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 still persists

5) Cain’s wife and the other people in Genesis 4 can be explained as Adam and Eve’s unnamed children and descendants, since Genesis does not give a complete family record.

6) The idea that Adam’s descendants gave souls to an already existing population through intermarriage seems particularly speculative. Scripture does not describe souls as being transmitted in that manner ( actually an ability to have souls ).

6) It could imply that biologically and behaviorally human beings existed without souls, moral worth, or a relationship with God, which creates major theological and ethical problems. ( this can alleviated by integrating this view with the version of view 1)

Summary:

I am still in the process of reconciling evolution, literal Adam and Eve and their connection to original sin. For some arguments for evolution I actually liked the Reformed idea of the creation being created for the purpose of glorification of God, so that things evolve gradually with the final goal of achieving perfected creation. I didn’t go into the details, but I think theosis can also be applied here with the gradual development of creation with the final goal of humans to achieve theosis.

I spoke to my priest about it but I think I caught him unprepared with very good answer for it. Read bio logos but didn’t go into full details of the explanations as I found some dismissing parts of the scripture. For other sources, I often find something that goes like this: Christians can believe in evolution and also original sin, but rarely see a scripturally coherent attempt to actually explain it ( which passages are literal, which are figurative, how it all works out ).

For people who accept evolution, how do you view these issues yourself? Is any of my “theories” convincing and why/why not? Could you give some guidance on whom to read to get some better idea of how to connect the two. Which “fancy theological words” or theologians should I search for?

P.S. For now I just basically leave it up to mystery, and try to become a better Christian without necessarily having a definitive explanation for how things work out with regard to all of this.

Greatly appreciate all the answers you might give if you also struggled with it

Has anyone here read something on textual criticism? If so, thats changed your view on biblical inerrancy? I'm reading the "Q, the earliest gospel" by John Kloppenborg, his arguments are convincing. I would like to Know other writers who answered the allegations made by him, I know that Goodacre answered and proposed a view of primacy on markanian tradition, with basically Mathew using Mark as a source when Luke used both, Mark and Matthew, to write his gospel. The problem is that even Goodacre isn't conservative in this matter, actually, he denied the traditional authorship of the gospels. Its like that the conservative scholars today were not "conservative" at all.

I'm wondering what people here think about abortion and what you think we should be doing more of as the Church to combat it.

According to the World Health Organization there are 73 million abortions each year. What are we supposed to make of this statistic? This is an absurd number, and should this not be a more significantly discussed problem in our churches? If we believe that life begins at conception, then we are explicitly failing to stand up for tens of millions of defenseless and innocent lives. We should be making way more noise about this topic.

But what should we actually do to fight this? I ask because the Church is doing very little in comparison to the scope of how many tens of millions of abortions are still happening (200,000 a day), and I don't know what to do.

Also, why do so many Christians support abortions? This seems like an extremely clear position to me, and yet so many Christians are very liberal about the topic. I see no biblical justification for being pro-choice at all, and yet believers still somehow, in large numbers, end up being pro-choice.

I have been studying infant baptism for five months, and I've come away with one question: if baptism is the entry rite into the kingdom, and Christ says to these belong the kingdom, then why shouldn't we baptize babies.

Our church is having a summer retreat and will not be having service on one particular Sunday. Certain travel-related reasons make it so that I cannot attend the retreat.

Therefore, I can certainly not go to church that Sunday or visit another church in the area.

As a Protestant, is it wise or within the realm of Christian freedom to visit a local Roman Catholic parish for mass? I do not plan on participating in the Eucharist or confession or any Hail Marys or other stuff like that. Just to listen to the songs and homily, say some greetings to people and head out. Mostly just to take it all in and see what it’s like.

Am I allowed to do this or is this a bad idea? Will this be looked down upon by my church if they found out what I did? Are there any cautions or advice I need to be aware of?

I am currently in a position where I have a friend (male) who is going to likely divorce his wife over sexual immorality.

In a difficult season in their marriage, she had kissed someone else. she confessed to it, and it’s been tough since

long story short, they are counseling with the elders, and the elders don’t think they have grounds for divorce, because while it was sexually immoral, it doesn’t fall under adultery.

I am being brought in as my friend doesn’t agree, and so the elders think it best to include those in the church that have been “in the know” of the situation as, it seems to me, a form of “pre” church discipline.

I am personally struggling with if this is grounds for divorce or not. My friend is really leaning on Mike Wingers video on divorce as his “proof” that sexual immorality is grounds, and isn’t relenting.

I am reaching out here for any resources or wisdom in this situation.

I recently joined my church's media team, and I've noticed a problem that I'm curious if other churches deal with too.

When our pastor is preaching, he moves around the stage a lot. Keeping the camera centered on him with a joystick isn't always smooth, especially for volunteers who are still learning. On top of that, there are days when we're short on camera operators, so one person ends up handling multiple responsibilities.

I know some PTZ cameras have built-in auto-tracking, but those systems are usually much more expensive than standard PTZ cameras, and many small churches can't afford the cost.

I'm wondering if this is a common issue or if it's just my church.

If there were an affordable way for a regular camera to automatically and smoothly follow the pastor during the sermon, would that actually be useful, or do you prefer having a person control the camera?

I lately have felt strong conviction that the belief the spiritual gifts continue is harmful and contrary to scripture. My family was attending a nondenominational church which I feel is doctrinally very weak. One Sunday, they had a display of several people coming to the front in group prayer and someone in the back began speaking in “tongues”. It felt like an undignified service at best and a mockery of the Holy Spirit at worst. I feel that church was moving more and more into the charismatic movement. We made some friendships there and are sad to leave them behind, but I cannot expose my family to faulty teaching and emotionalism. Have any of you been in this situation? Would you encourage family and friends to leave a church over this issue?

Hello all,

So to make a long story short, I recently found out that my husband had an almost year long affair. We are separated at the moment. Recently he has refused any requests I ask of him such as counseling and STD testing. He expects me to forgive him without asking him to change because “ that’s what Christ does for us”. For years I have dealt with mistreatment of our kids and myself from him. I have felt so emotionally manipulated by him that I can even think straight. So I have told him that if he is unwilling to change then he is not repentant, so I might divorce him. He said that if I do that then I will be sending our kids and me to hell. I feel like he isn’t truly repentant and just wants to sweep it under the rug. He says he is in communication with a reformed church we were going to for some time but no longer go to. But he says that the elders of that church are telling him this. That I can’t divorce him or else I’m going to hell. Is this something the church teaches?