Questions you love to hate

That's an easy one isn't it? Because it describes something that is found in the Bible.

 

Which word? Any word that doesn't appear in our particular translation? If so, my answer would be that we can use such words, provided they mean something which is described in the bible. Some examples of what I mean are:
Missionary, prayer-meeting, bible-study, evangelism, Second Coming, and even baptist (in the sense of one who believes in the baptism of believers, rather than someone who baptises, as in "John the Baptist").

 

Here's another one, Saggy: What does your church have to offer my family? (asked by newcomers who are "shopping" for a church)

Sometimes I'd LIKE to reply "What can you do to encourage/participate/support the church?" What I usually do is descripe our kids' activities, etc. since that's what they are getting at.

 

How about, because the Bible was not written in English so no english words are in the Bible.

As far as

My immediate responses might be

Not a thing, what can you offer us? or

Everything, our God is all sufficient. or

Our hearts, our love, our encouragement, our support, a place at our table and membership in our family. What was it you were looking for?

 

What does this Bible verse mean to you?

As if the Bible has different meanings for different people. Drives me crazy! :BangHead:

 

When we homeschooled and I heard that question, I'd reply that when I was in school my teachers always told us not to talk because we were there to learn, not to socialize! I would also ask where they got the idea that socialization was only between people in the same age group. At work, at home, at church, and in public, we socialize with people of all ages, so why do people assume that children must always socialize with other kids the same age? That's how peer pressure got started.

 

As a pastor, the question I loved to hate was, "How large is your church?" Why do I hate that? Let me count the ways.

First, it was not "my" church in the sense that the questioner usually implied, namely that I was "in charge" of it and therefore was to some extent the determinant of its size.

Second, size is secondary to effectiveness. Let me not wax eloquent on that right now, but sometimes the smallest churches are the most effective. I think of the Church of the Savior here in Washington, DC, which, to my knowledge, never exceeded 125 members, but maintained a discipline and a focus on mission that allowed it to have tremendous impact on the city and on the lives of both members and those to whom it has ministered.

Third, most churches have bloated membership rolls, so that the number of people on the roll is not a significant indicator of the effective size of the church. I preferred to talk about average worship attendance and, more to the point, about how many people we touched in a given year (much larger than average attendance) -- if we were to talk about size at all.

And so when asked that question I usually grumbled out loud, "The question no pastor likes to answer!"