Ask the Pastor with J.D. Greear

In this re-broadcast of one of our most popular episodes, Pastor J.D. looks at the creation narrative and explains that an open Bible and an open mind are key when contemplating the concept of evolution. A glimpse inside this episode: The short answer is, “Yes.” This is one of those areas where Christians should be free to disagree. There are many conservative Bible scholars who believe in something like evolution. Notable theistic evolutionists: Alistair McGrath, Francis Collins, and maybe Tim Keller(?) Others do not. But they are able to remain in close fellowship with one another, because this is not a “first order” issue. I have serious problems with theistic evolution, but I don’t consider it a first order issue. Now, just because we can charitably disagree doesn’t mean this discussion is irrelevant. It has a lot of implications for how we read Scripture, which makes it crucial. If you are a Christian who believes in evolution, you’ll have to believe in what’s called “theistic evolution”—that even though the earth is billions of years old and it took millions of years for animals to come to their present form, God was orchestrating it. Hence theistic evolution—God + evolution. Now, many conservative scholars have issues with this. For instance, Wayne Grudem has an article called “12 Ideas You Must Embrace to Affirm Theistic Evolution.” His whole point is that if you affirm theistic evolution, you deny basic principles that are plain in Scripture, such as: Adam and Eve were not the first human beings, were born from human parents. God didn’t act directly or specially to create Adam out of dust from the ground; God didn’t act directly to create Eve from a rib taken from Adam’s side. Adam and Eve did not commit the first human sins because human beings were doing morally evil things long before Adam and Eve existed. (and weren’t sinless) Human death did not begin as a result of Adam’s sin because human beings existed long before Adam and Eve and they were always subject to death. Not all human beings have descended from Adam and Eve for there were thousands of other human beings on the earth at the time that God chose two of them and called them Adam and Eve. God did not directly act in the natural world to create different kinds of fish, birds, and land animals. God never created an originally very good natural world—a safe environment, free of thorns, thistles, and other harmful things. After Adam and Eve sinned, God did not place any curse on the world that changed the workings of the natural world, making it more hostile to mankind. According to Grudem, this position is just too fraught with problems for a serious Bible reader. Doesn’t Genesis 1 teach that God created the world in six literal days? Many people look to Genesis 1 and they want to know timelines. Are we talking about 24-hour periods here? Or does each day represent a period of time—millions of years, perhaps? Maybe there were gaps somewhere along the way? This is one of those questions that some Christians take very seriously. It often acts as a litmus test for whether you’re a “real” Christian at all. With all due respect to those who consider this a Priority One issue, I don’t believe that Genesis 1 itself gives us enough to come to rock solid answers about the creation timetable. Remember: whenever you’re interpreting a passage of Scripture, you have to ask why it was written before you pepper that passage with questions. If you start with the wrong questions, you’re not going to get to the right answers. And it appears rather obvious that the author of Genesis 1 was not intending to weigh in on the scientific nuances of our contemporary creation v. evolution debate. The focus of Genesis 1 is not specifically how God created, but that he created. It’s an artistic celebration, not a scientific documentation. When it comes to the age of the earth, that’s a question that scientists and theologians should explore together. I know godly, biblically faithful theologians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and who think that the timetable of Genesis 1 was not a literal week (which, by the way, isn’t a new interpretation, but is a position that has been around since the first few centuries of Christianity). I know some who think that God used evolution as a part of that process. And I know highly intelligent, scientifically sophisticated, erudite scholars who believe that each of the days in Genesis 1 are literal days. My encouragement to everyone in this discussion is to study it out with an open Bible and an open mind—and not to look at other believers wrestling, in sincerity and faith, with disdain. If you believe in a literal 24-day in Genesis 1, don’t view your brothers and sisters who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible but approach interpreting Genesis 1 differently than you do as “enemies of the faith” or “compromisers of the truth.” That’s not always true. And if you don’t believe in a literal 24-hour day, don’t look down your nose on others as “primitive, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.” That’s not always true, either. Be charitable and assume that others are trying to be faithful to God’s Word and God’s world, just like you are. God’s Scripture is never wrong. But we theologians and scientists often are. So we’ve got to resist the temptation to turn into a dogma a question that Scripture did not intend to settle. As Christians, we can agree: the universe is not the result of blind, random forces (NOT nothing x nobody = everything); God is the miraculous author and creator of all we see. That’s actually a significant common ground. Great book: 40 Questions on Evolution and Creation by Ken Keathley and Mark Rooker, two of my professors at SEBTS

Pastor J.D. explains that it’s more about why than what we ask God. A glimpse inside this episode: Short answer is no, it is not wrong. Psalm 27:13: “I believe that I shall look upon the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living!” Examples of things Christians prayed for. Here’s a handful, in no particular order: Hannah prayed for a son (1 Samuel 1). Solomon prayed for wisdom (1 Kings 3). Manoah asked God to show him how to raise his son (Judges 13 v 8). David prayed for guidance and assistance in trouble (Psalm 86:1–2). Eliezer prayed that he would meet the right girl to introduce to his BFF Isaac (Genesis 24). Joshua prayed for the sun to stand still to have more time to get the job done (Joshua 10 v 12-13). Hezekiah asked God to turn back an invading army (1 Kings 19 v 19). Daniel asked God to show him the meaning of a dream (Daniel 2 v 3, 17-19). Jacob prayed for God to keep him safe from his angry brother (Genesis 32 v 9–12). Gideon prayed (twice) for God to confirm something he was calling him to do (Judges 6 v 36-40). Elijah prayed that it wouldn’t rain (James 5 v 17). And then he prayed that it would (James 5 v 18). Nehemiah asked God to give him the guts to make a big request of his boss (Nehemiah 2 v 4). James prayed for sick people to get better (James 5 v 15). In the gospel, desperate dads prayed for their dying daughters (Mark 5 v 21-43). Paul prayed that he’d be able to go and see his friends (1 Thessalonians 3 v 9-13). The early church prayed to not cave in fear in the face of persecution (Acts 4 v 24-30). John prayed for Jesus to return (Revelation 22 v 20). I could go on. Throughout the Bible, you find people praying about anything that matters to them: anything that seems essential to doing what they think they’re supposed to do. Just like God wants them to. Has to do with idolatry and motive: Solomon: asking for greatness for the sake of this people God’s not a genie or your own heavenly piñata.  Context: Christianity Today article about prosperity gospel in Africa In sub-Saharan Africa, prosperity-tinged Pentecostalism is growing faster not just than other strands of Christianity, but than all religious groups, including Islam (this was in 2007). This provokes concern — but also hope. Cars in many African cities display bumper stickers like “Unstoppable Achiever,” “With Jesus I Will Always Win,” and “Your Success Is Determined by Your Faith,” In a land where discouragement and denigration have been the norm, the gospel preaches dignity “…where some proclaim opulence, others simply uphold God’s provision for basic needs.” “It seems hypocritical for Western Christians who live in their nice suburbs to criticize Africans who want to ‘prosper’—when many of those Africans are just beginning to leave grass huts and experience for the first time the joys of owning a car, holding a decent job, or enrolling in college. Do we really believe it is wrong for them to want those things?”

Pastor J.D. talks about why the definitions of friendship and marriage are vital to understanding the Bible’s intent for relationships. A glimpse inside this episode: I’ve heard more and more people propose some sort of committed, same-sex, non-sexual romantic friendships for those who want to uphold the Christian sexual ethic. This, they say, avoids the supposed loneliness of singleness while upholding biblical standards of sexual behavior. Sam Allberry has written on this question and is, I think, very helpful on the topic. He writes: Friendship is different than marriage Marriage and friendship are not just two versions of the same type of love; they’re very different. Friendship is not just a less-intense version of marriage. So, you can’t just take the sex out of a romantic relationship and call it a friendship. Marriage by definition and necessity must be exclusive. It is covenantal. If it isn’t exclusive, its very essence is violated. This isn’t the case with friendship. Friendship doesn’t require exclusivity. My friendship with even my closest friend isn’t threatened by the growth of a similar friendship with someone else. Friendship isn’t exclusive Friendship often flourishes precisely because it isn’t meant to be exclusive. So when we try to turn it into something exclusive, which is certainly the case when we conceive of it in romantic terms, we’re actually turning from friendship to something else. It becomes quasi-marital.  C. S. Lewis wrote: In each of my friends there is something that only some other friend can fully bring out. By myself I am not large enough to call the whole man into activity; I want other lights than my own to show all his facets . . . . Hence true friendship is the least jealous of loves. (The Four Loves) That it might be non-sexual is beside the point: The moment it becomes romantic, we’re confusing two different categories of relationship, attempting to pursue friendship in a framework designed ultimately for something covenantal. The result (marriage without benefits?) becomes an unstable compound—something that will struggle to remain non-physical, or else won’t remain romantic and exclusive. Something will likely give. But we can’t think that keeping things firmly in the category of friendship relegates the same-sex-attracted people to a life without intimacy. Scripture shows us that such friendships don’t need exclusivity or improper physicality in order to become genuine and deep. Jesus testifies to this in how he describes his disciples as his friends (John 15:15): They know what is really going on in his heart. That’s real, deep, meaningful friendship.  

Pastor J.D. discusses the purpose of the Second Amendment and a Christian perspective of self-defense. A glimpse inside this episode: Is self-defense ok for the Christian?  Yes (Biblical evidence: Old Testament law; Jesus letting disciples have swords.) What about turning the other cheek? In Romans 12, God tells the Christian to not ever seek vengeance, but to leave it to God. And then as an application of that, he says that God has given governments the responsibility of earthly justice in his name. So, if that government gives a part of it back to you, is it ok to defend yourself with lethal violence against an intruder putting your family in harm’s way? We’ve been talking about the 2nd amendment in terms of self-defense, but the real purpose of the 2nd amendment is a protection against tyranny. Founding Fathers were terrified of a government that could very easily overwhelm the people and force them into submission of a tyrant. Governments will always have superior power, of course, but a well-armed populace will make that much more difficult. And, it was one of their safeguards that made foreign occupation nearly impossible. As Prisoners of Geography noted, if some foreign government (or even are own) tried to take over an area, because of the number of guns in Amercan’s hands, entering every single town and hamlet in the nation would feel like entering Fallujah. Eventually you could prevail, but at what cost? The Founding Fathers wanted any government to have to consider that cost as a safeguard to liberty.  Christians can disagree on this.  Other ways of looking at this?  Jim Elliot example as missionary

Pastor J.D. explains original sin and why it’s bad news that makes the good news of salvation possible. A glimpse inside this episode: Original sin is where we all sinned in Adam. Romans 5:12 says, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all people, because all sinned” (CSB). The result of this choice was that death (physical and spiritual) spread to all people. Even if we struggle with the logic behind why original sin works like it does, we at least have to concede the presence of its effects. As G.K. Chesterton put it, “Original sin is the only doctrine that is empirically verifiable.” Everybody dies. Death and disease affect everyone—nice people as much as cruel people, smart people as much as ignorant people, rich people as much as poor people, innocent infants as much as adults. And, the kind of death mentioned in Romans 5:12, spiritual death, means we’re all born in a posture of rebellion toward God, with a fist clenched toward the heavens, assuming our way is better and our desires most important. Original sin sounds like bad news: We are all born in sin. But it is bad news that makes good news possible. Because if the whole world was put under sin by one man, that means salvation could also come to everyone through one man. And that is precisely what happened in Jesus Christ (Romans 5:14–17). The first Adam selfishly disobeyed God and ate from the forbidden tree, bringing a curse on the earth. And in that moment, he made the same decision we all would have made. When Adam sinned, we all sinned. The second Adam, Jesus, sacrificially obeyed God and climbed up onto a cursed tree to take that curse into himself. The first Adam brought death upon the whole human race. The second Adam restored life to all who would receive it. That’s much better news.   

We have an extra special episode of Ask Me Anything for you. Pastor J.D. wrote a short evangelistic book this year called, Searching for Christmas: What if There’s More to the Story than You Thought?, to put a gift in the hands of Christians for those they’re reaching out to. A lot of the normal Christmas Eve services, you might not be able to invite someone to, but this book creates a way to still have fruitful conversations this holiday season. We’re happy to be able to present to you the full audio book in its entirety to enjoy and pass along to others. You can purchase copies of this short evangelistic book at thegoodbook.com. If you’d like a copy of this free audio book (in non-podcast form), you can access it as a free gift now. About Searching for Christmas:  Discover the awesome God at the heart of the familiar Christmas story. Most of us are familiar with the events of the first Christmas—the manger scene, shepherds watching sheep, angels singing their songs, and wise men arriving—but what if there’s more to the story? What if the birth of Jesus is actually the most significant event in all of history and can transform our lives? In a compelling, insightful, winsome, and personal way, J.D. Greear shows that if we get to know the God who lies behind the Christmas story and at the heart of the Christmas story, we’ll discover the joy, hope, purpose, and belonging we’re all searching for.

Pastor J.D. discusses how the Summit approaches multisite and what the Bible has to say about it. A glimpse inside this episode and some bonus material: I continue to get questions about the “multi-site” strategy on a regular basis. It’s not nearly as bizarre as it was when we began, but is still controversial for a lot of people. In light of that, I’ve revisited and expanded a post from a few years ago about our decision to go multi-site. In 2005 we at The Summit Church moved to a multi-site strategy for spatial necessity. God was graciously bringing to our doors more people than we could handle. We were doing as many morning services as we could in our rented school facility, and were having to turn people away. So we opened another campus 3 miles down the road, where I preached between our other services at the main campus. Since that time, we’ve stuck with the multi-site model for the church because we believe it’s both biblically sound and practically helpful, and we have embraced multi-site as a strategy for growing our church and reaching our city, not merely as a temporary way to deal with a space problem. We currently are a church of about 12,000 attenders, meeting on 10 campuses and 12 venues throughout Raleigh-Durham, NC.  First, let’s cover whether or not multi-site is biblical. The essence of a local church is a covenant, not a manner of assembly. Some argue that since a local church is by definition an assembly, a multi-site strategy fundamentally skews the nature of a local church. The essence of a New Testament local church, however, is not “assembly” but “covenant body” and one of the functions is assembly.  The New Testament nowhere demands that a local church meet all together each week. Nor is a single-service assembly the only model given in Acts. While it is certainly true that we see evidences of local churches assembling all together (1 Corinthians 11), we also see evidence of single local churches which met in multiple locations. The new congregation in Jerusalem is frequently referred to in the singular, one “church” (Acts 8:1; 11:22; 15:4). However, they obviously had to meet in different times and locations. Historians tell us there was no space in Jerusalem available to the disciples in which three thousand or more people could have met on a weekly basis.  Quite simply, the New Testament neither demands nor uniformly models that all members of one local church are to assemble weekly in the same place. General rule: The New Testament gives guidelines, but not specific details, on how to best organize a congregation for pastoral care and effective ministry. John Piper has written, “Neither here [in Acts 2] nor elsewhere in the New Testament do we get detailed instructions on how to organize the church for pastoral care and worship and teaching and mobilization for ministry. There were elders in the churches (they show up very soon in the Jerusalem church) and there were deacons, and there were goals of teaching and caring and maturing and praying and evangelizing and missions. But as far as details of how to structure the church in a city or in an area or even one local church with several thousand saints – there are very few particulars.” Why is The Summit Multi-Site? 1. We believe it’s the most effective way to reach people, especially in our city The multi-site strategy has allowed us to have a greater reach in the Triangle and surrounding communities by enabling members to worship and serve in communities closer to their homes. We have always and only launched campuses where members of the Summit already live. These are people God has called to be a part of this church to reach their community. We believe that the multi-site strategy platforms them to fulfill this call. 2. The Best Way to Keep Pace with Growth Statistically, we can’t plant churches fast enough to deal with the growth God is giving to our church. We are very committed to church planting, having sent out over 660 of our members in the last ten years to plant 54 churches in the United States, including several right here in the Triangle. When we plant a new church, we are typically able to send a core group of about 25 to 30 people. By God’s grace, we replace those 25-30 people in just a week or two. When we plant campuses, however, the core group we send out averages several hundred, sometimes as large as 1,000. Church planting is one of our most important missional assignments, but it will not by itself deal with the growth God has brought to our church. Multi-site is not an alternative to church planting; it’s an alternative to building one big, gargantuan building. 3. A Better Pastoral Alternative to Building “Six Flags over Jesus” At one point, we considered building one central building for all of the people of the Summit to attend for worship. Fortunately, logistical reasons kept us from making this decision, because we now see that no central building could possibly be expanded fast enough to account for the growth at our church. Building megachurch buildings is time-consuming and resource-exhausting. We’d rather use our time and resources to multiply campuses throughout the Triangle than erecting some kind of mammoth “Six Flags over Jesus” facility. The longer we’ve done this, the more we’ve found that multiplying people into smaller campuses is more effective at pastoring and shepherding than having them all together in one large gathering. The multi-site strategy has provided us a way to effectively pastor a congregation of 12,000. It takes a problem (too many people for “the pastor” to shepherd) and makes the solution more obvious (diversify and expand your pastoral team). The hardest ecclesiological shift for me happened when we grew to a size where I realized I couldn’t know every member in a meaningful way. I think that happened when we went to about 500 weekly. Most research shows that pastors can’t personally pastor a congregation of more than about 150. If you are willing to grow above 150, you’re going to have to adopt a “multiple elder” model, where everyone is known and pastored by an elder, though not necessarily the “lead” elder. Things we wrestle with: –We believe the “one body” needs to assemble ever so often, but how often? —What is the best way to organize budgeting and staff structures so that each campus has freedom to organize its ministries effectively while at the same time ensuring that each campus retains the DNA of the whole church? –How do we best do membership and discipline in the multi-site model? How much can a subset of the congregation represent the entire congregation? –How can congregations vote on issues when gathering everyone takes a good bit of planning? Can online gathering techniques be used for voting? –We believe local churches should be local, and thus won’t plant campuses in other cities. But how far is too far when planting a new campus in our own cities? Even if we never went farther than 15 minutes in planting a campus, eventually you could span the state of NC. How far out does our “city” extend? –If people rotate which campuses they attend, will that make it difficult for elders and other leaders effectively to watch over them? –How exactly will we know when a campus would function better as an independent church? Learn more about North American church planting at The Summit Church at summitcollaborative.org.

The hosts discuss their favorite sermons they have preached and the fulfillment they derive from preaching. They reflect on a two-sermon series on the book of Ecclesiastes, highlighting the theme of vanity and the goal of any sermon being worship. They also mention sermons turned into books and promote the 'Group Answers' podcast.

Pastor J.D. shares his personal struggles with quiet time and emphasizes the importance of consistency. He recommends One Year Bibles, Gospel: 90 Day Devotional, YouVersion app, Joshua Project, and the 15/15/15 method for Bible study and prayer.

Pastor J.D. discusses three common objectives people have surrounding the death penalty. A glimpse inside this episode: Three objections people have: 1. It is immoral (this is contradicted by ample biblical support both Old and New Testament) Some will say, “One of the 10 commandments is, ‘Thou shalt not murder.’ So, we shouldn’t administer the death penalty, either.” But Dr. Wayne Grudem, who I find helpful on this topic, writes that this is not meant to forbid all forms of taking life. He drills down to the Hebrew word for murder, ratsach, which literally means to slay. The 6th commandment is talking about premeditated, intentional murder, which God obviously forbids OR causing human death through carelessness or negligence. In the Old Testament, the idea of justly executing a human who murdered another human predates even the law given to Moses and the Israelites. Dr. Grudem talks about how in Genesis 9, after the flood, God told Noah, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” (Gen. 9:5). This was foundational to human life on earth after the flood. So, you can’t say, “Well, that’s part of the Old Testament Mosaic covenant, and we don’t have to follow that anymore.” That word for “shed” meant to pour out, or to intentionally cause someone to die. The reason this is so important is because, when you murder a human being made in God’s image, you’re destroying something that is most like God. Dr. Grudem says it’s the closest thing we can do to attacking God himself.  In the New Testament, I look at Romans 13:4: “But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he (the one in authority) does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” (What does the sword mean?) Now, remember that this comes right after the end of chapter 12, when Paul was talking about never avenging yourself, and allowing vengeance to be the Lord’s. Paul’s logic: you are not the avenger; the government is. So, the answer to the question, “What right do you have to take another life?” is “I don’t, but God does. The government is God’s avenger who carries out God’s wrath on evildoers. In other words, we can see the civil government executing someone who has executed another human as God’s wrath carried out on an evildoer.  1 Peter 2:13-14 carries the same theme — it talks about “governors sent by God to punish those who do evil and praise those who do good.” (NO human has the right to take the life of another human.) Correct. But God can commission them to. Same is true, of course, of other punishments. Punishment is not primarily restorative, but also retributive. Paul in Acts: “If I have done something worthy of death, I do not object to die.” 2. It is not effective as a deterrent Many times, people object to the whole concept of deterrence, which I have more of a problem with. Ecclesiastes 8:11 says, “Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil.” This also gets back into our previous point: is civil punishment meant to deter crime, or to carry out retribution for acts of evil that have been done? The punishment is a statement about life. I would argue if the loss of your own life is not a deterrent against doing an evil act, there is no deterrent that can stop you from doing it. Is punishment a deterrent?  Data: That’s not my area, but arguments are fairly persuasive to me: Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five, and 14). Also, the time factor: Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor. Grudem, Politics: For each murderer executed, as many as fourteen to eighteen additional murders are deterred (David Bl. Muhlausen, Ph.D., “The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives,” Heritage Foundation, Aug., 2007). Notes that because executions take so long, we have not in recent years been able to see a reliable evaluation of the deterrent effect if the death penalty were carried out more quickly when someone is clearly deteremined as a murderer (and cites Eccl. 8:11 as reason for doing so). 3. It is unjustly administered in our country due to past racial sins, so we should call a moratorium on it until we get stuff sorted out). This one I’m less of an expert to speak on–I was deeply bothered by Just Mercy. But the answer is not to throw out the concept of retributive justice altogether. (1) Each case should be decided on its own merits. (2)Supreme Court- the right to require fairness in each situation.