Ask the Pastor with J.D. Greear

Recently, Pastor J.D. got to be a part of a special “Live AMA” with college students from Hardin Baptist Church in Hardin, KY. Listen in as Pastor J.D. answers questions submitted by the audience, including, “How do you have faith in something that you can’t prove exists?” Show Notes: How do you have faith in something you can’t prove exists? The first thing I would say is that there are a lot of things that we perceive that are not necessarily perceived through our sight or even our five senses. And think, for example, about our perception of love. We all know love is real, even though it’s not something we can taste, touch, see, smell, or hear. We all have an innate sense of the divine — that there is something greater out there — whether we want to acknowledge that or not. It’s like C.S. Lewis said: “If we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world.” Beyond that, there are several things that the Bible points to that philosophers have called the “arguments for God,” or evidences and fingerprints for God’s existence. The cosmological argument: essentially, the idea that nothing + nobody cannot = everything. And that matter cannot create itself, which is a strong evidence that there is some a Creator. The moral argument: the idea that we all have a sense of right and wrong, and that if we truly are just evolutionary accidents, there’s no such thing as right and wrong. The teleological argument: the idea that we seem to be created for a purpose, with a longing for eternity. The ontological argument: the idea that because it is possible that God exists, then he must exist. And I often just think about the significance of all that has happened since Jesus’ life. None of it is likely, and especially since the original Christians did not gain much from the founding of the faith. How can we share the gospel with grace and truth? The story of Jesus is the greatest of all forms of evangelism. Over time, my evangelism approach has changed from trying to get through whatever method or tool I was using as quickly as I could, to focusing on an invite to study the Bible with that person together. Because I know when we study the story of Jesus together, there’s a beauty there that is more powerful than the logical arguments I might be able to overwhelm you with. Michael Green wrote a book called Evangelism in the First Century. He drew a distinction between missionaries and defenders of orthodoxy. Both are gifts to the body of Christ, both are important, but they are different roles. Want to ask J.D. a question? Head to our Ask Me Anything hub to submit your question. As always, don’t forget to rate and review this podcast! Find Pastor J.D. on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

Have you ever wondered if Christianity is too good to be true? In this episode, Pastor J.D. answers the question, “Is Christianity Just Wishful Thinking?” Show Notes: Well, I don’t think my answer will take anyone by surprise, considering my occupation: no! But let me try to unpack why. Is Christianity all just a fairy tale to make people feel better about the afterlife? I think you can answer pretty definitely that this is not what Christianity is about. Think about some of the earliest Christians, like Paul. Paul did not want Christianity to be true! Instead, he was confronted with it and knew he had to believe. Some say that the other apostles, especially those who were Jesus’ disciples, convinced themselves that the resurrection happened because of how that would have benefitted their lives. However, N.T. Wright’s book, The Resurrection of the Son of God, explains that the idea of a resurrected Messiah was not part of the Jewish hope. They thought about a Messiah that would come and reign, but not a Messiah who would rise from the dead and would not reign politically. And the disciples were a little bit slow to believe this — all of the gospels read this way. Sometimes, it’s easy to think of people over 2,000 years ago being more gullible and less scientific than us — perhaps more likely to fall for the myth of a resurrection. But that’s an arrogant way of thinking — they knew, of course, that people didn’t raise from the dead. Beyond this, the earliest Christian leaders did not gain any great wealth, following, or social status because of their newly-formed religion… just the opposite! They had to give up everything because of the gospel, and yet they did so willingly. This contrasts to others who have started false religions, because others who have done so have prospered greatly in some way because of their religious lies. Blaise Pascal famously said: “Always believe witnesses who are willing to have their throats cut, and have nothing to gain for it.” I think that’s what you see in the earliest Christians. I’d encourage you to press into N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God for more on this. Want to ask J.D. a question? Head to our Ask Me Anything hub to submit your question. As always, don’t forget to rate and review this podcast! Find Pastor J.D. on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

In this episode, we listen back to a recent sermon when Pastor J.D. answered the question, “When Should I Not Take Communion?” Show Notes: So, you ask, what exactly does it mean to eat “unworthily”? It can’t mean that we should only take communion when we feel worthy of Christ’s presence. Because that would be ‘never.’ None of us are worthy to take the bread and the cup. That’s why we take of the bread and the cup. None of us are worthy of Christ’s presence. Jesus said that at our best—on your best day, when you’re having the longest righteousness streak you’ve ever had, “18 days without a sin”— you are still unprofitable servants. Even though we’re forgiven, we have more corruption in our hearts than we can possibly comprehend. So it doesn’t mean “only eat when you feel worthy.” So what does it mean? Well, notice that “unworthily” is written as an adverb, which is how it is in Greek. You say, “What difference does that make? “Unworthy” as an adjective would describe you, and like we said, you are always “unworthy” to participate in Christ. But Paul’s focus is on something different: he’s talking about how you approach this table. You can approach this table unworthily. So what does that look like? A Spirit of Self-Righteousness: You don’t realize how dependent you are on Christ’s mercy. You don’t see how your only hope is the body and blood of Jesus. The irony is that you approach this table unworthily when you fail to see how unworthy you are to partake of this table. If you know you are unworthy, then you are approaching this table worthily. If you think you are worthy, you are approaching this table unworthily. Secondly, A Spirit of Defiance: If you partake of this table when you know that you are not submitted to Christ–that is, you are openly and intentionally living in a way that you know displeases him–you are engaging in the very lifestyle that put Jesus on the cross. Think about it: In taking the bread and the cup, you are saying, “Thank God for Jesus and his death, it is my life and my hope” but then with your life you are openly crucifying him.” God? With your mouth you are celebrating his cross while practicing the lifestyle that put him on the cross. You can’t shout “Worship him” and “crucify him” at the same time and not expect God’s anger. Friend, I say this with all humility: Do not touch the elements of this table if you are not surrendered to Christ. I don’t mean if you’re struggling with sin, or overwhelmed by your sin. Jesus came for people like that. His death is healing and help for those who know they are sick! What I mean is don’t touch this if YOU KNOW there’s some area you refuse to submit to him. Don’t add to your condemnation by hypocritically saying, “Thank you Jesus for your death” while stubbornly doing the very things that put him on the cross. Keep your rebellious, treasonous hands off of these elements. It’s dangerous for you. You eat unworthily when you come with self-righteousness, defiance, and lastly: A Spirit of Division This is, I believe, what was most in Paul’s mind when he said, “Don’t come to this table unworthily.” Because that’s the context of this passage, in vs. 33: Therefore, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, welcome one another. Don’t come when in your heart you are separated from others by some kind of pride or classism or racism. Don’t come when you harbor resentment or unforgiveness in your heart. Don’t come claiming to cherish the forgiveness of God when you won’t forgive someone else. Don’t come when you are divided from your brothers and sisters over some secondary, non-essential matter–a political perspective or a cultural bias. Some of you should not take of this table because you are more Republican than you are Jesus. Or more Democrat than you are Jesus. And I say that because you can’t stand someone who approaches politics differently than you, even if they love Jesus like you and you agree on all the essentials–the authority of the Bible, what it teaches about morality or being pro-life or whatever. Even though you agree on all these things, because they bring a different perspective or a different set of priorities with them when they come into the polls, you resent them. Truth is, you hate them and you wish they’d just go to another church; and if they don’t, well, you are thinking you probably should. Don’t touch this table if you harbor divisions and resentments unbefitting of the body of Christ. That’s eating in an unworthy manner. Jesus put it this way in the Sermon on the Mount: If you are offering your gift at the altar, and you have division with your brother in Christ, leave your gift before the altar and go reconcile with him. FIRST be reconciled with your brother, and THEN come offer your gift. Paul is saying something similar: First, feel a real sense of unity with your brother and sisters, and let that be reflected in your attitude toward them, and how you behave toward them, and how you fellowship with them, and only then partake of these elements. And what happens if you don’t? What happens if you disregard the body? What happens if you disregard the lordship of Christ? What happens if you eat from this table “unworthily?” Paul says, vs 30 “this is why many are sick and ill among you, and many have fallen asleep.” You say, “What does that mean?” There’s no way to sugar coat this. Paul means that many people have gotten sick and died for not taking this moment seriously. Not everyone who participates in communion unworthily dies, but Paul says that sometimes that happens, and that at least shows you how God feels about those who don’t take this sacred moment seriously. The Theologian DA Carson tells the story of a pastor friend, who had a church of about 200 and sin was so rampant that he could not even discipline, for the leadership was involved in a lot of the sin and didn’t want to do anything about it. This pastor prayed for 3 months for God to change the church or move him out. The next year, he said, he had 34 funerals. 20% of the church died in the space of a year! The year after that he baptized 200. Does that always happen? No. Thank God. In his mercy, he doesn’t always do that. But Paul says the fact it sometimes happens should make you realize how seriously God takes this. We see a similar thing happening in Acts 5 when Ananias and Sapphira come into the church with an offering, and they lie about the offering they are bringing. (They told everyone that they were bringing the full price of the land they sold when in fact it was only half. The sin was not bringing half–they were free to do that. The sin was lying to the church, and to God, about what they were doing.) Now, thank God that he does not strike dead everyone in church who exaggerates their giving. What a moment that would be each Sunday, when the CP says, “Take out your phone and text ‘Give’ to 33933” and someone thinks, “I’ll just pull out my phone so people think I’m giving, even though I’m really just starting my Wordle game” and we start seeing the glow of lights and then hear people keeling over dead. God doesn’t strike dead everyone who exaggerates their offerings in church, but Acts 5 gives you a glimpse into how he feels about people who posture and lie and are phonies in church. Worship is a deadly serious thing. How does God feel about those who take this bread and cup, saying, “I’m thankful for this bread and cup, it’s my salvation,” all the while harboring in their heart the sin that put Jesus on the cross, or relishing in sinful resentments against their brothers and sisters that Jesus died to make into one family. This is supposed to be a moment of incredible gospel clarity–where the church puts on visible display the unity of the body Jesus died to create. Where we declare, our common hope in Jesus is more important to us than any secondary thing that divides us. Communion is supposed to be a time of togetherness, where we feel the warmth of family. Want to ask J.D. a question? Head to our Ask Me Anything hub to submit your question. As always, don’t forget to rate and review this podcast! Find Pastor J.D. on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

In this episode, Pastor J.D. is answering a listener question from Ashley: If you were baptized as a baby, should you be re-baptized as an adult? Show Notes: I want to answer this question in three ways: theologically, practically, and also try to expand the question for those who aren’t sure they were saved when they were baptized. Biblically speaking, baptism is a ceremony — a celebration — that goes along with conversion. In the New Testament, baptism and conversion are tied incredibly close together. Baptism is a confession of faith. So, if you were baptized as a baby, whose faith was that a confession of? It has to be your parents’ — which by the way, is nothing to be ashamed of. At our church, I usually tell people that when you’re re-baptized as an adult, you’re actually fulfilling your parents’ hopes for you when they had you baptized as a baby in the first place. The simple fact is, every baptism we see in the New Testament is in response to a confession of faith. Now, what about if you were baptized already and you’re not sure if you were saved at that time? If you know for certain that you weren’t saved at that time, then yes, you should be re-baptized. But, unless you know for sure, I think it’s better to look at it like that was the beginning of your faith journey (which is when your baptism should happen), and the proof that what was going on inside of you was real is the fact that you’re following Jesus now. Baptism isn’t something you achieve, it’s something you start from. Want to ask J.D. a question? Head to our Ask Me Anything hub to submit your question. As always, don’t forget to rate and review this podcast! Find Pastor J.D. on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

In this episode, Pastor J.D. is answering a listener question: Can a Christian support abortion? Show Notes: The way I hear the question is, can a Christian consciously support abortion and is this an area where Christians can disagree? My answer to that would be no. What I’m not hearing in this question is, is every person who has ever voted pro-choice or said they were pro-choice automatically not a Christian? That’s a different question. So, to answer your question, I want to talk about the heart of the abortion issue. That is, that all people are instilled with the imago Dei – the image of God. And all those made in God’s image are precious to God and their lives deserve protection. Attacking the unborn is tantamount to attacking God since all life is created in his image and that includes life in the womb. Now, there are always objections to this from the pro-life side.  People say, “Well, the baby is a part of a woman’s body, and we need to respect her right to privacy and sovereignty over her body.” And I agree that the right to privacy over our bodies is precious.  But here’s the thing: The baby is not part of her body. That baby is intimately attached to her body for a period of time, yes, but it’s not part of her body.  Scripture certainly presents the preborn child as its own person: The Psalmist of Psalm 139 says that in the womb God knew me by name, as a person; there I was fearfully and wonderfully made, knit together according to the plan of God with his purpose for me already in mind.  Someone says, “But it’s still IN my body.”  Yes, but we all know our rights over our bodies are not absolute as far as the law is concerned. Prostitution is illegal in most states, and I don’t know of anywhere in the US can you legally pour drugs into your body just because it’s your body. Your rights to your body stop precisely at that place where they begin to affect someone else’s. And that’s exactly what is happening to the pre-born. Others say,“Well, saying life begins at conception is a matter of opinion, and you shouldn’t force your opinion on others.” But we’re not in the realm of opinion, here; we’re in the realm of biology and Scripture.  I would argue that the more helpless a person is, the more vulnerable–the less viable–the more we as a society should do to protect them.  Even if you are unclear on this, and are not convinced that personhood begins at conception–shouldn’t you err on the side of life? “If you’re hunting in the woods and hear a rustling in the bushes and you’re uncertain as to whether it’s your friend or a deer, morality and common sense dictate that you don’t pull the trigger, given the potential risk of murder.” I’ve heard people say, “Abortion sometimes help poor women escape crushing financial burdens. Banning abortion would cause overpopulation and massive poverty.” This kind of statement confuses “finding a solution” with “eliminating a problem.” Think of it this way: If the neighbor’s dog keeps pooping in your yard… you go out and shoot the dog. You’ve eliminated a problem, but you haven’t come up with a solution. If poverty is a problem, let’s keep working to find a solution.  Again, the point is–the pre-born are people. You can’t justify killing a person because it eliminates a problem. I mean, if you use that reasoning there, where does it stop? Couldn’t you use that same line of reasoning to justify eliminating other financially burdensome groups?  Listen: That little human life, that little person, regardless of how they got there, when it’s no bigger than a speck, the size of a period at the end of the sentence, is made in the image of God. That speck has more value than all the planets and stars in the vast cosmos! It has a soul made in the image of God, that Jesus died, that has an eternal future. BONUS: Why does The Summit Church Plant Churches? We believe in the power of multiplying churches — planting churches that plant churches. It’s not about one church, but multiple churches being raised up. So, we measure our church’s success not by seating capacity but by sending capacity. God has really blessed us in this — we’ve planted 59 churches in the United States, and If you are someone who wants to be a part of a church plant or even plant a church, we’d love to have a conversation with you. The goal is to plant churches that plant churches. To facilitate that, we’re trying to raise $1 million. We’d love you to be a part of that, and I can’t think of a greater impact in the kingdom of God. For more information, email Matt Love at matt@summitcollaborative.org Want to ask J.D. a question? Head to our Ask Me Anything hub to submit your question. As always, don’t forget to rate and review this podcast! Find Pastor J.D. on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

In this episode, Pastor J.D. is addressing whether or not a church should be disfellowshipped from the SBC if they have a woman serving in the role of pastor. Show Notes: The SBC is convictionally complementarian — I would say unwaveringly so. So, if you are saying your church does not believe in gender roles, or our lead pastoral team is women, then yes, you are clearly not in line with our statement of faith. But there’s another principle at work: the principle of cooperation vs confessionalism. From Adam Greenway’s article: “Many Southern Baptists would be surprised to learn that a local church is not required to affirm explicitly the BF&M statement to be deemed a cooperating church. Article III of the SBC Constitution, which defines what it means to be a cooperating church, simply states that the church must have “a faith and practice which closely identifies with the Convention’s adopted statement of faith.” The linchpin of cooperation in the SBC may well be three words: ‘closely identifies with.’” One of the challenges is how quickly our use of terms and words shifts. So, does a church which has a woman with “pastor” in her title need to be disfellowshipped? Is it a disfellowship-able error?  The BF&M states that baptism is a prerequisite for the Lord’s supper — yet many Baptist churches would serve communion to a Presbyterian if they happened to show up at church that day. Technically, that’s a violation of the BF&M. Should a church like that be disfellowshipped? Honestly, it depends — if a church has an otherwise complementarian structure but they seem to misuse labels and titles, no, I don’t believe they should. If they clearly do not hold a complementarian point of view, that would be a different matter. Disfellowshipping a church is a grievous thing. I don’t think the BF&M ever intended to get into these types of issues. Want to ask J.D. a question? Head to our Ask Me Anything hub to submit your question. As always, don’t forget to rate and review this podcast! Find Pastor J.D. on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

In this episode, taken from one of Pastor J.D.’s recent sermons, we answer the question: what is love? Show Notes: What is love? According to 1 Corinthians 13: Love is patient and kind…. Patience means you expect others not to be perfect. And you’re ok with that. One of the things the Holy Spirit has recently been dealing with me about is how little patience I have for others’ dysfunction and how much patience I expect God, and others, to have for my own. I’ll think about someone else’s weakness or dysfunction and just despise them for it. But I’ve got way more problems in God’s eyes than they do in mine–what if God accepted me like I am accepting them? Love is patient; Love is kind. Kind here really means “considerate.” It means that love considers others’ needs instinctively; it’s not just happy when it’s ok; it’s concerned about you being ok, too. Naturally we consider ourselves; love considers others, also.  …love does not envy or boast To not even means that you rejoice in someone else’s blessings even when you aren’t experiencing that blessing and want to. What happens when that person gets the house that you wanted? Or that promotion? Or that boyfriend? When their ministry or business grows and yours doesn’t?  Parents, what’s your attitude when someone else’s kids are doing well and yours aren’t? It’s fine to be sad about yours, but are you envious of them? Do you despise their blessing–secretly wishing their kids would struggle, too? Love is not like that. Love rejoices in others’ blessings even when you aren’t experiencing them.  How about when someone gets honor or recognition while you are being overlooked? Love delights in the happiness of others even when you are unhappy.  … it is not arrogant Arrogant means always thinking of itself preeminently. Always focused on its rights and entitlements. Believing you deserve blessings and irritated that you are not delivering them. …or rude Some scholars translate “rude” as “dishonoring,” and I think that is more of what Paul had in mind. Love doesn’t dishonor a person by treating them like a commodity for the fulfillment of your needs. Evaluating someone by how well they fit into your scheme of what you need in life: emotionally, sexually, or whatever, like cogs in the machine of your happiness.  Paul puts these two together–arrogant and rude–because he is saying that a person of love doesn’t approach life as if life is all about them and it is everybody else’s purpose in life to provide happiness for them!  …it does not insist on its own way (When you live with self-focus, you see other people as coming into your life to fulfill your needs, so you want to make sure they play their part. And if not, you get angry. Love takes this attitude toward others in your life, too. How many times have you been upset at a friend for not understanding what you needed in the moment and giving that to you? …it is not irritable Irritable means “easily triggered.” Because self-centeredness sees the world primarily through the lens of what it needs and wants, it’s quick to get angry when you don’t fulfill its desires. But love doesn’t think through that filter, so it is more patient when you frustrate or disappoint them.   …or resentful That means you “keep no record of wrongs.” In fact, the NIV literally says that, “Love keeps no records of wrongs.” When someone hurts or disappoints you, do you drag up all the previous ways they’ve let you down? Some people, when they get angered, get hysterical; others get historical. “You did this and that connects to that previous time where you did this and then there was that time in 2009 that you said this, and your mom told me that when you were in high school you did this…” I know spouses who actually keep journals of the ways their spouses have disappointed them. Yeah, that’s setting up for a good marriage. Some of us don’t do that because we keep it all up here. Do you see how out of step you are with 1 Cor 13? Love keeps no record of wrongs. Past wrongs are like spent ammunition; bullets that can’t be fired again.  …it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.  Love never delights when someone else struggles, and it cares enough to speak up when a friend is doing something that will hurt them.  Love bears all things… When you love someone, you patiently endure the wounds of their selfishness and immaturity.  Love bears all things. It’s used to feeling under-appreciated. C.S. Lewis asked, “How do you know if your friendship is selfish? (He answered) If you get upset when the gratitude does not come and you give up.” He went on to say, “If you do good things for your friends in the hopes they will see what you do and appreciate it, you’ll be disappointed.” Love bears all things. …(love) believes all things, hopes all things. Let me put these two together: Love never gives up hope for this person; never stops believing in who this person could be; who God created them to be. “Love believes all things, hopes all things” means that love never stops recognizing the incredible creation God made this person to be, or giving up hope of what God can do in their lives. We serve a Savior who prayed for forgiveness of the ones nailing him to a cross and then raised from the dead. There is nothing he can’t fix, redeem, or heal. There is still hope for this person. And love believes those things for them. The last quality of love, vs. 7 …(love) endures all things. Again, it never gives up. It can’t. It’s bound its heart to yours and can’t be happy until you’ve been completed. Want to ask J.D. a question? Head to our Ask Me Anything hub to submit your question. As always, don’t forget to rate and review this podcast! Find Pastor J.D. on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

In this episode, Pastor J.D. answers a question about whether or not we should still have denominations. Show Notes: One of the criticisms of Martin Luther was that there would be as many kinds of churches as there are protestants. But while I would love for the church to be totally united, I think you’ve got to seek truth over seeking unity at times. Did Jesus give authority to the apostles? Sure. But I don’t see anywhere in Scripture where he intended for that same authority to be passed down from one leader to another. Instead, we think that authority was then encoded in the New Testament which outlines for us the rules about heaven and hell and what the church is. The Word of God is always the authority in the church. We’ve got to hold the tension between truth and pursuing unity. Want to ask J.D. a question? Head to our Ask Me Anything hub to submit your question. As always, don’t forget to rate and review this podcast! Find Pastor J.D. on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

In the second of two parts on the topic, Pastor J.D. addresses whether or not a Christian can be a socialist. Show Notes: Two ways socialism fails as a worldview biblically: Human depravity: all humans in power grow depraved.  The US has typically understood that it is better to keep power distributed via checks and balances. Government by its nature has incredible power, and when they are put in charge of everyone’s livelihoods, massive corruption is almost always the result. Best to keep the economy free and let the market keep people fair.  If you assume everybody is depraved, the question is how powerful you want any one group depraved people to hold. I’d rather them hold a knife than a gun. So I prefer the way a free market keep’s people’s depravity in check to a group of government bureaucrats with much more expansive power. Second thing: Human dignity: God gave humans the ability to prosper. Government needs to get out of the way. When humans are given freedom and obstacles are removed, they prosper.  Governments don’t help people by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.  So, bottom line: Government can help us play fair, but it can’t replace human initiative and should itself be held in check because government leaders are still human, and subject to the same vices they are trying to prevent in others.  What does the Bible say? We always need to be careful, because terms like capitalism and socialism are terms developed long after the Bible, but there are certain principles that apply: The Bible encourages human initiative—it certainly commends private property ownership, and it warns us against unchecked depravity. Economically: Time and time again, socialism has destroyed countries that embrace its ideology.  A lot of modern socialists cite countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Norway as examples of socialism’s “success.”  But those countries don’t really have socialist systems – at least not fully. They’re more like welfare states, with some state-run entities (like health care), but those state-run entities are supported by an underlying market economy.  We live in a fallen world… it will never be perfect. Socialism is a utopic vision. The free market is built on the understanding that until Jesus comes back all human structures, including economics, will be depraved, and the best way to keep depravity in check is to keep power distributed across people than concentrated in the hands of a few. Want to ask J.D. a question? Head to our Ask Me Anything hub to submit your question. As always, don’t forget to rate and review this podcast! Find Pastor J.D. on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

In the first of two parts on the topic, Pastor J.D. addresses whether or not a Christian can be a socialist. Show Notes: This is a great question, and while we don’t usually get into partisan politics on this podcast or in my preaching, this is a little different. If we’re honest, socialism is a worldview that’s also becoming increasingly prevalent in our culture, both explicitly and implicitly.  A 2020 poll showed that 40% of Americans had a favorable view of socialism, up from 36% in 2019. I saw a survey that said 47% of millenials and 49% of Generation Z viewed socialism as favorable.  So, what is socialism? The World Socialist Party (WSP) of the United States says: “The establishment of a system of society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of society as a whole.”  The government becomes the sole authority and controller of the means of production. So, in reality, it’s under control of an oligarchy, not individuals. What is the difference between communism and socialism? Interestingly, the WSP/U.S. says that these terms are synonymous. But, technically socialism usually refers to an economic system in which the state controls most businesses and factories (the “means of production”) while communism usually refers to a system where the state controls not just those things but also owns most of the property. We should at least recognize that socialism definitely arises out of an underlying ideology. Specifically, Marxism, put forth originally, of course, by Karl Marx. Marx was not a good man: He was a misogynistic, racist tyrant. His own son called him a devil. He hated Christianity, which he labeled as a source of oppression. Religion, he wrote, is the “opium of the people,” and for communism to prosper, the church needed to be replaced by the state in the hearts and minds of the people.  Marx’s successors – Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, etc.–have all shared that same view. Dr. David Jeremiah has a great little book on this called Socialism: What It Is. What It Means for You. Dr. Jeremiah writes that… Marxism is totalitarian One of the key ideas of Marxism is a total, undying devotion to the state. There is no individual ownership of property, there is no free thinking, there is no free speech–in fact, totalitarianism essentially removes the meaning of truth, and the state attempts to define truth as whatever the state says truth is.  Marxism seeks the destruction of the nuclear family. Marxism is divisive It splits people into two categories: the oppressed and the oppressors, pitting them against each other. Marxism is deadly Socialist countries have a staggering death toll resulting from political carnage and state-ordered deaths to political opponents: Latin America: 150,000 Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths Vietnam: 1 million deaths Africa: 1.7 million deaths Cambodia: 2 million deaths N. Korea: 2 million deaths USSR: 20 million deaths China: 65 million deaths Next week, we’ll talk about two ways socialism fails as a worldview from a biblical perspective. Want to ask J.D. a question? Head to our Ask Me Anything hub to submit your question. As always, don’t forget to rate and review this podcast! Find Pastor J.D. on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.