All right, I invite you to stay tuned with me. Normally we say turn to passage. This is our last Ask the Pastor time together for at least 2021. We'll resume this again as we have every year. We'll resume this again in 2022. I hope you've enjoyed this as much as I have. It's kind of fun. kind of a difference to our normal Wednesday night, but it just gives us an opportunity to delve into the different questions. For those that aren't familiar with how we do this, basically people submit questions to me. I choose from the lot of those questions and seek to do my best scripturally to answer those questions. And so tonight we have four questions that have been submitted to me, and the last one I asked myself. Is that okay? if I do that. So the last one I asked myself or asked the pastor. I started the series so I can write the rules, right? So I can do it that way. Now this first, yeah, this first question was actually a question that was asked in the open floor last time and I didn't feel like I did as good of an adequate of enough job in answering that question when it was asked to me at the end of the session. So I wanted to do a better job tonight answering that question. And the question was this, What is cancel culture and how should Christians respond to it? How many have heard the phrase? All right. I was thinking you're probably paying attention then. We're living in extremely polarizing times. I think that goes without saying. One where everyone has opposing opinions it seems. Just about everything and every other person from the lightning rod that is politics and always has been. to the future of law enforcement, to even just medical practices, and so much more. It is incredibly polarizing. It's rare to find individuals who disagree in that environment civilly or even compromise, as it were, on hot-button issues or issues they deemed to be hot-button issues. A mere casual glance at social media will find, you will often find language that presents itself as an us versus them mentality, as if it's war about all various different kinds. And one form of protest is now this cancer culture. It's widely adopted as common practice. It's a form of boycotting. It typically occurs and rapidly spreads online. Presumably, the more people join in canceling a person, product, company, or organization, the more successful the campaign for cancellation is. How do we respond to that? How can we confront that? I want to offer three that I felt like would be better than my other answer last time. First of all, I would argue that cancel culture has a real problem with forgiveness. The matter of forgiveness, in reality, is what separates true Christianity from every other major religion in the world. Scripture clearly teaches and establishes that we've all done wrong. In fact, most every other world religion also acknowledges that we have done wrong. But the difference is that all but Christianity are performance-based on focus on what people can do to better themselves. Conversely, Christianity states that we are all sinners, and we need someone outside of ourselves, a savior, to fix our sin problem. We find that gift in Jesus Christ. But cancel culture fixates on everything someone does wrong, overlooking nothing, and has no room for forgiveness. Paul penned a letter to the Church of Corinthians, widely referred to in that letter is the chapter 13, often referred to as the love chapter. It's appropriate to consider even with this first point because in it he tells believers how they are called to bear up and endure even when people are doing wrong towards them. He says this, charity, that's love, suffereth long and is kind. Charity envieth not. Charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, does not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. What is this verse telling us? Well, number one, it's defining what love is. And believers are called on here to not keep an account or a record of wrongdoings. They're actually encouraged to bear up under all things, and they're also called not to rejoice in iniquity, but instead to rejoice in truth, and to believe or hope in all things. In other words, one person, commentator rightly said, this is spirit-empowered optimism when viewed towards another person. In responding, though, to cancel culture, remember that love to God, as God calls us to love, is a love without keeping a mental checklist or a record of wrongs. Christ's work on the cross illustrates this level of compassion that we are called to model. And that is the love everyone should have in Christ, regardless of their transgressions. When I ask forgiveness of the Lord, the Bible tells us, He puts them as far as the east is from the west. He buries them in the deepest parts of the sea. Cancel culture is a real problem with forgiveness. Cancel culture also is a real problem with God's sovereignty. People intend through cancel culture to be a form of activism, but it begins with determining through groupthink many times who or what is bad. The Apostle James warns us about this. In James chapter four, he says in verse 11, speak not evil of one another, brethren, He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law. But if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is only one lawgiver who is able to save and destroy. Who are you to judge another person? James reiterates that there is only one judge and one alone. When cancel culture elevates men and women, even group think, to positions of judge, jury, and sometimes even we could say executioner, they have a deeply flawed system because it depends on the group or the individual to determine the morality of a situation. Who are you into that culture, then, James says, to judge? Who determined you, even the group, collectively, to determine what is true in moral ways? Several of the most influential world leaders have even criticized this progressive strategy. You can begin to hear that in terms of even presidents and lawmakers. They've criticized this strategy of canceled culture for its ability to elevate some people by not allowing room for their faults. and it discounts good that people may have done even within their own flaws. And you'll see that even in the news where they all of a sudden someone that they would prop up as their hero, Anthony Cuomo, all of a sudden turn around and now do we have to cancel him because We got all, you know, so a couple months ago he's a hero and now all of a sudden he's canceled, right. What's the, and even news makers will point out the flaw in that system. And the flaw in that system is people become the determiners of morality, not God. This adds, then, to the precious value of grace we have in Jesus. Thank God He hasn't canceled any of us. So before engaging in cancel culture, remember, none of us are without blemish. And thirdly, cancel culture has a real problem with peace. Cancer culture is rooted in exposure, and this goes beyond seeing something you don't like and deciding not to frequent that business anymore or having bad experiences with someone and choosing not to have a friendship with them. It baits people and organizations into quotes and soundbites and tweets. It encourages activists to take screenshots, create black ball lists, share hashtags, and record anonymously. A common cancel culture response on social media reads something like, if you support, buy, or follow XYZ, unfriend me now. Because within cancel culture, there is no middle ground. Now, this explosive attitude typically leaves a lot of collateral damage. but ironically, in itself, does not always further any true cause. In many ways, they're seeking, at least verbally, to create a peace about themselves, but collaterally, they are doing exactly what they hate. Scripture encourages us to do opposite of that. It encourages us to resolve conflicts, to seek peace, Always, again going back to James, it says, know this my beloved brothers, let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath, for the wrath of man produces not the righteousness of God. Cancel culture has a real problem with peace. And biblical peace doesn't emerge in docile times, absence of conflict. Peacemakers establish unity in the middle of troublesome times. not because of them. So before engaging in cancel culture, be quick to listen and pray for direction God would have you go in, particularly when it involves matters of justice. The Lord grants us wisdom. But here's the real application that was sobering. What is cancel culture and how should Christians respond? I would say Christians ought to respond by considering themselves. Most Christians, even Christian writers that I was reading up on, would decry cancel culture. And they would be right in doing so. Many Christians have already engaged in cancel culture themselves. You know, when you block, ignore, or avoid other members of the body of Christ, you are part of cancel culture. And that is wrong, too. So while we could say, I hate all that's going on with that cancel culture, be careful, right? As Jesus said, be careful about the beam in your own eye, right? We're pointing out the twigs and sticks in other people's eyes, and we're walking around with big beams sticking out of our eyes because we won't even say hello to someone in the very auditorium that we are in at that time, or hallway, or what have you. That's still cancel culture, right? And so there actually could be really convicting when we consider it. And honestly, it's pointed out, I would argue, as we consider it from a Christian perspective, the hypocrisy within the Christian church. Many people will say, well, where is our culture headed? And oftentimes, when culture, historically, when culture would go down a particular path, oftentimes, if you read history, pastors or churches or religious organizations could speak truth into that culture. And what you've found today is the church no longer has that voice. They don't have that strength. And it's not the culture's fault. Often, it's the church's fault. Because now the church may try to speak into canceled culture where they've canceled their own culture within their own walls. And the church and the culture would say, well, what do these hypocrites have to say about that? They're not living that. They'll teach us 1 Corinthians 13 and tell us to live like love and they can't even love themselves. So be careful before you start canceling cancel culture. Make sure you're not a part of it. All right. That was a fun one. And so I hope I answered that better this time than last time. Here's a really stumper. All right. So thank you whoever asked this one. Matthew 19.26 says that all things are possible with God. Is it possible for God to sin? Now, we've had a few repeat questions, and this isn't exactly a repeat question, but two years ago, I was looking at my notes, and someone asked me a question related to this, related to two key theological terms you've never heard before. This was two years ago. They asked me about peckability and impeccability, and we're not talking about bird feeders when we talk about pecks, all right? Peckable is a belief that Jesus was able to sin but he chose not to. That's Jesus' peckability or peckable. Impeccability is the belief Jesus was not able to sin and he did not sin. This is really important. Both sides of that argument agree that Jesus did not sin. Now before we answer the question, we have to also understand Jesus is God. So by virtue of what I'm about to read scripturally, and I've got four key verses and I could give you more, we also understand if Jesus did not sin, neither did God nor can he. 1 Peter 2 verse 22 says, who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. That's speaking of Jesus. 2 Corinthians 5 verse 21, for he hath made him to be seen for us who knew no sin, that he might be made the righteousness of God in him. Or 1 John 3 verse 5, and you know that he was manifested to take away our sins and in him is no sin. And 1 Peter 1 verse 19, but with the precious blood of Jesus Christ as a lamb without blemish and without spot. So both key theological terms agree and affirm that Jesus did not sin. those who argue Christ was peccable, were able to sin but chose not to, use Hebrews 4 verse 15 as their proof text. Hebrews 4 verse 15 says, he was tempted in all points, like as we are, yet without sin, right? So they would say, see, Jesus was able to sin, he was tempted in all points like as we are, but he did not sin. Herein then lies the crux of the question. So was Jesus not able to sin or was he able not to sin? Now, in order to answer those questions, we must distinguish some clear, clearly affirmed truths in Scripture. Number one, Christ and God never actually sinned. You can reference again the above references I just read. There should be no question of that truth. It's repeated often. Number two, scripture clearly affirms that Jesus was tempted and these were real temptations recorded in Luke chapter four. We cannot conclude that Christ was not tempted for that conclusion contradicts scripture. Luke four, again, the temptation of Christ. And scripture clearly affirms at the same time that God cannot be tempted by evil. Now here is where the question becomes more difficult, right? If Jesus was fully God as well as fully man, then how can you reconcile B and C, or on the screen, 2 and 3? This is as far as we can go in terms of clear and explicit affirmations. Wayne Grudem puts it this way. At this point we are faced with a dilemma, similar to a number of doctrinal dilemmas, where Scripture seems to be teaching things that are, if not directly contradictory, at least very difficult to understand. For example, with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, we affirm that God exists in three persons, but each is fully God and there is only one God. This would fall, according to Wayne Grudem, under that similar category. Here, the situation is somewhat similar. We do not have a contradiction. Scripture does not tell us Jesus was tempted and that Jesus was not tempted. It doesn't tell us that. But the Bible does tell us Jesus was tempted. Jesus was fully man, Jesus was fully God, and God cannot be tempted. At this point, we move beyond clear affirmations of Scripture and attempt to suggest a solution to the problem of the question that is raised. If Jesus' human nature had existed by itself, independent of his divine nature, then it would have been a human nature just like Adam and Eve's, free from sin but able to sin, right? Jesus' human nature was not like Adam and Eve because it never existed apart from his divine nature. From the moment of his conception, he existed, from the moment of his conception rather, he existed as truly God and truly man. Are your heads spinning? I'll put them on the screen. I would say, therefore, I would make this conclusion. Jesus was not able to sin. I do not believe Jesus was able to sin, and I'll give you four reasons why. Number one, if Jesus could sin, he would still be able to sin today, because he remains forever, according to scripture, both God and man. So if he could then, he still could. Number two, to believe that Jesus could sin is to believe that God could sin because the Bible tells us Jesus is fully God. Colossians 2 verse 9, for in him all the fullness of the deity lives in bodily form. Number three, and I'm building my case, number three, although Jesus, oh, I'll go backward. Although Jesus was human like we are, he was not born with the same sinful nature that we were born with. He retained God's nature. He certainly was tempted as we are, but he was incapable of sinning because God is incapable of sinning. Now, how can I know that Jesus' nature was different than our nature? A really key Christmas doctrine comes into play here. What is it? This is when I ask the question. The virgin birth, right? So I'm gonna say how important is the virgin birth to our belief system? It's crucially important. This is, as we learned about when we looked at Jesus being the second or final Adam two weeks ago, this is so very important to that. And fourthly, and this is an inclusion I'll add, someone does not have to experience something in order to understand something. I add that to understand what that Hebrews 11, or that Hebrews challenge that those would argue for his peccability is. The question then remains, how then could Jesus' temptations be real? The example of turning stones into bread is most helpful, though, in this regard in Luke 4. Jesus refused to rely on his divine nature, which would have been able to perform that miracle. It would have been easier for him, in his divine nature, he could have, do you not agree, turned rocks into bread. And at that point, having been starved at that point, not eating for a while, it would have been easier for him. But he did not rely on his divine nature to make it easier for him to face temptation. And his refusal to turn the stones into the bread at the beginning of his ministry is a clear indication of this, that he was grieved like as we are. Therefore, we can confidently conclude Jesus was tempted in all manners like as we are. But this is the most important truth. yet without sin. So I hope that helped answer that one. That's a bit of a head scratcher spinner, is it not? But it's a fun one to wrestle with. Here's a troubling one. And I'm thankful that it was asked, because it's probably been on a lot of people's hearts. But it's still, nonetheless, a troubling one. It's a longer question. Here's the question itself. Ravi Zacharias was a highly influential apologist. After his death, we learned some rather troubling things about his lifestyle. How should we as Christians plan to respond to this? What lessons can be learned? Now, who here knows who Ravi Zacharias is? All right, many, many hands. I'll tell you, first of all, this caught me as a shocker as it probably did for many of you. If you don't know a little bit about my family, I'll give you a little bit of how I was introduced to Ravi Zacharias and his ministries. My brother-in-law is actually, he was born in India and trained there and came over to the stateside where he met my sister at Clemson University. My brother-in-law finished his doctorate in biomedical engineering and is now and the head of the research department at Clemson University for their biomedical engineering department. And as part of that, he's a believer. And his department helped head something that eventually invited Ravi Zacharias to their campus. And so I was able to go and listen to Ravi Zacharias at the Little Caesars Coliseum, which is the basketball stadium where Clemson University plays. And I got to sit up real close and personal and hear him. And it was really quite amazing to listen to him both give his lecture. And then afterwards, he would do ask not ask the pastor, but ask Ravi. And he didn't have any pre-planned questions. They could just come to an open mic and he would answer them. It was really quite fascinating. But this comes as a shocker to me when I first read it. First of all, to me, it didn't seem right to make accusations about someone after they died. But in this case, the evidence was overwhelming. And it was pretty tragic. If you want to read about it, you can find them on Christianity Today has exposed those details very clearly. I won't for sake of time and really I would rather not read the details to you even tonight. It's pretty staggering. And that was the first break of those. And then the ministry itself, the Ravi Zacharias Ministry, which I doubt will survive this, did in fact do their own independent investigation and came up to find that yes, that was all true. None of this was fake. You can read both of those on your own time, by the way. They are tragic and so read them with your own discretion. But there are some lessons to learn. and they are sobering lessons to learn. Number one, this is not a new phenomenon. For that, I go to 1 Samuel chapter 2. and the sons of Samuel, Hophni and Phinehas. Hophni and Phinehas actually led very similar double lives to Ravi Zacharias' leading. I didn't put them all on the screen. I put just the first phrase. Now the sons of Eli were the sons of Belial. They knew not the Lord. I'll continue the reading. It says, and the priest's custom with the people was that when any man offered sacrifice, the priest servant came while the flesh was in seething with a flesh hook of three teeth in his hand. He struck it into the pan, or cattle, or cauldron, or pot. All the flesh-hook brought up the priest, took him for himself. So they did in Shiloh unto all the Israelites that come thither. Also, before they burnt the fat, the priest's servants came and said to the man that sacrificed, Give flesh to the roast of the priest, for he will not have sodden flesh of thee, but raw. And if any man said unto him, Let them not fail to burn the fat presently, then take as much as thy soul desires, then He would answer him, Nay, but thou shalt give it to me now, and if not, I will take it by force. Wherefore, the sin of the young men was very great before the Lord, for the men abhorred the offering of the Lord. They were doing this in the practice of ministry, they were doing it. They took advantage of people financially in that passage, and they used their ministry position as an excuse, an occasion to gratify their own sexual desires. I'm not claiming I know, by the way, in all of this who is a believer, who is not. Certainly, these kind of situations like Robbie's do make you wonder, but that's ultimately for the Lord's discretion to decide. I heard this and I appreciated it. There's a man by the name of Pastor Kevin Shaw. He's a pastor in Arizona. I preached for him when I traveled in evangelism. He wrote about it. And he relayed, excuse me, this story, he said, I was sitting with a group of pastors as a young minister listening to Richard Rupp preach on the subject of moral failure among pastors. Richard Rupp asked us, what heart sin most often leads to moral failure? Kevin Schall said, I raised my hand timidly and said, lust, to which Richard Rupp said, no, it's arrogance. Pride leads to destruction, and the foolishness of it is that pride springs from a lie. God's great gift to his servants, his greatest gifts to his servants, often become the thorns of their own flesh. Whenever a preacher begins to read or go into his own press clippings or the well-intended compliments of someone and say, that was a great sermon, and they begin to allow that to puff their heads up, they begin to get themselves, and I can say this even as a preacher myself, into dangerous waters. Pastor Kevin Shaw continued and said, the church member who questions everything we do might be strategically placed in our lives by God to remind us that we are not all that. And he's right. This is not a new phenomenon. Number two, this does, this kind of thing takes time. Sit on the level that Christianity described, Christianity today rather described, does not happen all at once. It grows gradually over a long period of time as sinful behavior builds layer upon layer, and as he gets away with one thing, he goes to the next, perhaps even worse. It starts by justifying small indiscretions, and then it multiplies until you find yourself trapped in your own web of deceit. As you read Zacharias' story, it prompts you, I trust, to examine your own life. What small things are you willing to excuse? They will add up. And be sure, your sins will find you out. Rabi Zacharias' legacy will forever be tainted. Forever. I very strongly doubt that the Rabi Zacharias ministries will survive this, and I don't think they should, quite frankly. There are other good ministries that we can look at for apologetic ministry. But this did take time, and that's why, thirdly, accountability is for everyone. No pastor No Christian leader should be considered so gifted or so important or so critical to the ministry that he is exempt from accountability. Churches that refuse normal accountability practices are not obedient New Testament churches. They are sinning churches. Even the Apostle Paul said he wanted to be held personally accountable As Paul prepared to send a large offering from the churches of Macedonia to the church at Jerusalem, you'll read how Paul took great pains to make sure there was not only accountability before God, but also visible accountability before the world and the church. The church chose Titus, you'll remember, to travel for the specific purpose of giving oversight and accountability to the Apostle Paul's ministry. It's in 2 Corinthians chapter 8. Rabi Zacharias' books will fall by the wayside. Even if there were good content in them, I've lowered them on my bookshelf to bottom shelf books, right? He is no longer on earth, but what Paul feared for himself is the ultimate legacy of Ravi Zacharias. First Corinthians chapter nine, verse 27, Paul said, I discipline my body. I bring it unto subjection, lest when I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified. Disqualified means to be taken out of the service, out of the ministry, to be put on the shelf, not to be read. If the Apostle Paul was deeply concerned about the possibility of his apostleship ministry being a disqualified ministry to the point where he believed it is possible he could cross a line that he could no longer be a preacher, then certainly every preacher ought to be cautious, and every believer ought to take heed. Certainly I should, and certainly you should too. There are a lot of challenging things that have come as a result of this. There are a lot more questions to be asked, quite frankly. There was an addendum to this question. Do you believe Ravi Zacharias was saved? That is not for me to decide. I do read in scripture that the Bible does tell us that the sexually immoral have no place in the kingdom of heaven. That is in scripture. I do not know. I do not know. I do know it's very easy to say the right things and not actually be saved, however. I do know that. But ultimately, it is for none of us to decide whether or not it is salvation. What it is wise for us to do instead is take a very close look at our own lives and our own ministries. And also to understand, and I can say this more transparently now as a preacher and a pastor, it is not ever appropriate for a church member to extend more grace to a pastor when he fails than they would someone else in the pew. The pastor ought to be held in higher esteem and therefore held into a higher level of responsibility. And so when his failures are made clear, they should be made public and they should be declared as such. And it's very critical that we do. And so for that reason, I can conclude and say, I'm actually very thankful for the board members of Rabbi Zacharias' ministry. Those that are alive and remain, if you go on their website, they have made very clear what happened. This was wrong. They have done all that they could to publicly state this is sin. And would it be that believers would do exactly that? Call sin, sin. Sometimes, by the way, when it comes to sin, we don't like to call sin sin because we mistake doing so and thinking, well, that wouldn't be loving. And just the opposite is true. Calling sin sin is loving. because that's what our God did for us. He told us we are sinners, that he may bring us to himself, that we may repent. And while Abulakari's ministry was ultimate and apologetic ministry, perhaps the great apologetic ministry any of us can have is simply to say, sin is wicked, sin is terrible, sin needs to be repented of, and we need a savior. So, thanks for that question, I guess.