Deborah_

To my mind, applause (clapping) is a spontaneous response to something worthy of praise. If it's done in response to someone else's instruction, it's not spontaneous and it loses its very essence. Therefore I feel very uncomfortable when a worship leader 'tells' the congregation to clap. I'm quite happy to raise my hands when worshipping, but my arms get tired very quickly so I don't keep them up for very long!

There are no "Christian" universities or colleges in the UK (as far as I am aware). So the secular worldview is unavoidable. But most universities have an evangelical Christian Union whose members can support one another on issues like this, or seek advice. Any Christian student doing a theology or Biblical studies course must expect to be presented with different theological viewpoints (although they shouldn't be steamrollered with them). How else can you develop your critical thinking skills and learn counter-arguments?

There are instances of this in modern times as well. My husband once met a Catholic priest who told him this story: The priest had been working for a Catholic mission in Belgium with a younger colleague. One day they heard the sound of a crash in the street outside their office and went to investigate. A young man (quite dark in appearance - not northern European) had come off a motorcycle and was lying in the road, apparently unconscious. Apart from putting him in the recovery position, there wasn't much they could do, but while they were waiting for the ambulance to arrive, they prayed for him - and the priest's colleague prayed briefly in a language that neither of them understood. The next day they went to the hospital to find out how he was - and found him sitting up in bed, obviously making a rapid recovery. They introduced themselves in French, but after just a few words he cut them off, saying, "Why are you speaking to me in French today? Yesterday you spoke fluent Turkish!" What had they said, they asked. "You told me that Jesus loved me and was looking after me, and I would be OK."

I've seen the use of anointing oil in a public service many times - and not only in "charismatic" churches. When I had breast cancer, I was anointed with oil by an Anglican bishop at a 'high' C of E church (not my own church; I was there for my daughter's confirmation service).

Anyone who regards the gifts of the Spirit as a replacement for reading and knowing the Bible definitely has a problem. It isn't a case of either/or - we need both! When Bible knowledge is combined with an openness to the gifts of the Spirit, then you get real spiritual power. Of course there are churches and individuals who abuse the gifts of the Spirit. (The church in Corinth got a sustained telling-off from Paul because they had succumbed to sensationalism) We need discernment.

There are some acceptable grounds for divorce and remarriage (adultery by one partner, for example). But whatever the reason for their break-up, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 would suggest not. The divorce and remarriage can't be "cancelled out" by trying to return to the previous situation; it just perpetuates the cycle of marriage failure. There is always the option of repentance and forgiveness. But breaking off the new relationship and going back to the old one wouldn't be part of it.

Where does your wife's church come into all this? (I presume she belongs to one) She needs to hear the Bible truth not from you or from us but from a senior church leader whom she respects. It may be worth contacting her pastor and asking him/her to mediate. (Of course, you may find out that it's her pastor who is the source of her false belief - in which case my advice won't be helpful)

Because it's a long-standing custom and very difficult to change - simply because the church members have already organised their lives around that service time and don't want to have to re-organise them. But having said that, there are plenty of churches that meet at different times - you just have to go and look for them. Many churches have a congregation too large for their building and split the morning service into two, with the first one starting at around 9 am. And I've seen many newer churches that meet at 10.00 or 10.30.

"Sexual health". As a specialty, it barely exists outside the UK, but it covers sexually transmitted infections, HIV and contraception. I came into it by "chance" (I'd just moved house, and was looking for part-time work), but never left. Office hours are very convenient when you're a mother.

I wanted to be a doctor ever since I can remember. I don't know why - there were no medical people in my family at all. Fortunately I was clever enough to get good exam grades, so I got into medical school easily. And I was a doctor for the whole of my working life.

Some of these things don't bother me, personally. So what if some of the actors are not Christian, or if the man who wrote the music is doctrinally unsound? God uses unbelievers to further His purposes, doesn't He? And if we restricted our entertainment to stuff produced by "sound" Christians, we'd never watch or listen to anything. I think that's overblowing it. The series makes no claim to be "the truth" in and of itself. It directs viewers to the Bible, it's not a substitute for or an addition to the Bible. Anyone who watches this kind of show needs to make a distinction between what is drawn from Scripture and what has been added to make the show realistic. So it helps to be familiar with the Gospels. But with that caveat, it's OK.

I've seen all the first series and started on the second. What I've seen so far has been very good indeed - not only in dramatising the story but also in explaining the social and political background. Any dramatic interpretation of the Bible has to make choices over how to show things, and what extra detail to put in. So everyone is bound to have a few gripes over how people or situations are portrayed. But overall, I've found it faithful to Scripture in essence, if not always strictly accurate. My best recommendation is this: every time I watch an episode, I feel good afterwards - as if I've actually been in the presence of Jesus, and been encouraged by it. Which is strange, as it's only a film and not "the real thing".

We came into this world with nothing and we will leave it with nothing. In between, everything that we possess is a gift from God - and it is all temporary. Even of we possess it until the day of our death, it won't be ours to keep. Job recognises that he has no right to prosperity or happiness. God is free to grant or withhold these things, as He sees fit. And what is His to give is also His to take away.

We discover what we are gifted in by "having a go". Someone will ask you to help them in their ministry. Or you will feel drawn to something in the church that needs doing. Or just volunteer for something and try it for a few weeks! (As a very young Christian, I volunteered to join a beach mission. Thus I discovered that I was not gifted in evangelism or working with children!) The main thing is: don't wait until you know what your gift is before doing anything. It works the other way round.

The ingredients are very nutritious.

I'm going to assume that the question refers to religious belief (not the "poisonous mushrooms are nutritious" kind of belief). From a secular/government point of view, people should be allowed to believe what they like - otherwise you get religious persecution. My belief is that non-Christians are facing the judgement of God and eternal destruction. Therefore I will try to persuade them to follow Jesus. But I can't force them to believe, and I won't persuade them by ramming Christianity down their throats. So if they reject Christianity, I have to allow them to do so - and I have to stay on good terms with them, in case they change their minds in the future. I Peter 3:15,16

This is my take on it: Blasphemy “Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven.” (Mark 3:28,29) Sometimes called the “unforgivable sin”, it has attained considerable notoriety – and caused no little confusion over what it actually means. First of all, what is blasphemy? It’s more than ordinary insults or angry words; it’s a deliberate attempt to destroy God’s reputation through slander. Now people blaspheme against God and against Christ all the time, very often through blindness or ignorance. These sins are serious – but not unforgivable, as the case of Paul proves. “Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief.” (I Timothy 1:13) So what is different about blasphemy against the Spirit? The Holy Spirit is God engaging with the world, the Person of the Trinity who works with unbelievers to convict them of sin (through their conscience), reveal Christ to them (through Scripture or the Church), and bring them to the point of repentance (see John 16:8-11). Those who set themselves against the Father or the Son are still open to the Spirit; but those who turn knowingly against the Spirit cut themselves off from the Father and the Son as well. The reason that Jesus warns the theological experts from the Jewish Sanhedrin so solemnly about the unforgivable sin is that they are in danger of committing it (note that He doesn’t actually say that they have committed it). They think that by attributing the Spirit’s work to Satan they can dismiss the claims of Jesus (Mark 3:22); but such deliberate and calculated defiance of God’s revelation is the essence of blasphemy against the Spirit. So ‘blasphemy against the Spirit’ is a sin unlike all others. It is NOT the same as ‘grieving the Spirit’ (Ephesians 4:30). It is NOT a sin committed by a Christian who ‘should have known better’. David sinned like that when he committed adultery with Bathsheba and murdered her husband – but even he was forgiven (II Samuel 12:13)! It is NOT the same as backsliding. Peter denied Jesus three times – but even he was forgiven (John 21:15-19)! Someone who blasphemes against the Spirit has passed the point of no return. They have hardened their conscience irretrievably; they have no sense of sin and no fear of judgement. They cannot be forgiven because they cannot repent; they have put themselves forever outside the reach of God’s grace. So all those people who worry about having committed the unforgivable sin cannot possibly have done so! The fact that they are concerned about it is proof that the route of repentance and forgiveness is still open to them. The very few people who should worry are the ones who do not care – the ones who are so determined to go to Hell that not even God can stop them… Poster's Approved Link: Offences against the Spirit | Discovering the Bible (wordpress.com)

Paul is talking about sorrow for sin here. There are two types of sorrow for sin, which superficially can look very similar but which have very different outcomes. Both Peter and Judas were grieved by their sins against Jesus on the night of His betrayal; but Peter was restored (see Luke 22:60-62), while Judas committed suicide. (see Matthew 27:3-5) ‘Godly sorrow’ is appropriate (it's focused on particular, identifiable sins) and active (it seeks forgiveness, and leads to a change in behaviour). ‘Worldly sorrow’ is not virtuous, because it's self-centred. It focuses not on the offence that my sin has caused to God or to other people, but on its adverse consequences for me (embarrassment, humiliation or punishment). So it causes me to wallow in self-pity, and leads to bitterness and despair.

Submission is the opposite of self-interest. Church members should have an attitude of humility towards one another - a willingness to serve any, to learn from any and to be corrected by any, regardless of age, sex or social status. That doesn't mean obliterating things like age or seniority. Those in authority will submit to those under authority, but in a different way - Christian leadership means serving the congregation, not lording it over them.

I do think otherwise, but even if they're right, how would the completion of the canon of Scripture render the gifts unnecessary?

I have never understood what tongues have to do with the 'completeness' of Scripture. Paul wasn't lacking in knowledge of Scripture (he wrote over half the New Testament himself!) - yet he was able to speak in tongues and found the gift useful. (I Corinthians 14:18) Two thousand years later, I am an individual thoroughly familiar with the Scriptures (in their 'completeness') - yet I still find the gift of tongues useful! The functions of Scripture and the functions of the gifts don't overlap, so how can the former replace the latter?

Yes. It doesn't follow that everything that is claimed to be a gift of the Spirit actually is.

It's also a general principle: Violence breeds violence. Even weapons kept for self-defence only can be problematic ("accidental" deaths account for a large number of gun deaths) And as Christians we're called to love our enemies.

Statistics like this one give a false impression of the state of the Church. There may well be 45,000 denominations on paper, but what does that mean in practice? Very very few of them claim to be the "only true church". Most merely represent different styles of worship, different ways of organising church government - or even just different languages (in countries where many language groups live alongside each other). In practice, most Protestant denominations have good relationships with one another. We co-operate in community service projects and in evangelism. We're different - but not divided!

"Did I really mean it?" is the wrong question to ask. It's far too subjective - whenever you feel low, you'll convince yourself that you didn't. (And even quite young children can become Christians, by the way - my daughter was only five) You want to look for objective evidence. Either it's there, or it isn't. No arguing about it. If you are genuinely saved, the Holy Spirit will start changing you. That's how you know. Can't say exactly how, because everyone is different. I became a Christian when I was 17. I didn't know what I'd done at the time, but I knew that something very strange had happened to me because four days afterwards, I noticed that I had stopped arguing with my younger brother. But I didn't know why. I also became addicted to reading the Bible. Six months later I went off to university and in the first week I went to a Christian Union evangelistic meeting. The preacher's message could be summed up as, "If you don't ask Jesus into your heart, you will go to Hell!" Oh dear, I thought, I've never invited Jesus into my heart so I'd better do it now! So I tried... but I couldn't do it, because I discovered that He was already there.