Don’t say “I’m sorry” if you don’t believe you’ve done anything wrong.

Don’t say “I’m sorry” if you think you can justify what you have done.

Don’t say “I’m sorry” if you regret the consequences, but not the action.

Don’t say “I’m sorry” unless you fully intend never to do it again.

I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything through us. For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death.

—2 Corinthians 7:9–10

Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
—James 1:2–4

Life is hard. Working for a living is hard. Marriage is hard. Raising children is hard. Sometimes, just getting up in the morning is hard. Are you thankful? You should be. I don’t mean you should not grieve and mourn over serous calamities, or even cry out to God for deliverance. I mean, can you recognize God’s hand at work, stripping away your independence, self-sufficiency, and pride, strengthening your faith, and trusting him to work all things together for your good, thank him and be joyful?

These are hard questions for me. I think I have experienced my share (what is my share, exactly?) of trials, and I think I can honestly say that I have learned to be content and thankful for lessons learned and for the providence of God in those situations. I do pretty well, I think.

But wait; what did James write? “Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you look back on various trials, and see how God has worked through them . . .” No, he wrote, “Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials . . .” When, not after. This is a hard pill to swallow, and I’m afraid I haven’t quite choked it down yet.

Here is where I’d like to have a nice, inspirational, devotional book-like conclusion, but I’m afraid I haven’t one. It’s only the grace of God that brings me around to see in hindsight what I’m too selfish or stupid to see at the moment. Needle-point that and hang it on the wall.

I recently had rather odd dream. I was a kid again, and back at a Bible camp. At this camp, we were singing a number of the “7-eleven” songs that were popular twenty-plus years ago. The final song in my dream was Lord, Be Glorified.

In my life, Lord,
be glorified, be glorified
In my life, Lord,
be glorified today.

If you’ve sung this chorus, you know it can be strung out indefinitely by substituting any number of things for “my life.” In my dream, we were doing just that, but with even more absurd, mind-numbing repetition than ever in reality. “In my ____, Lord, be glorified, . . .” Fill in the blank with any noun you can think of, and we sang it. I was glad to wake up.

Trivializing repetition aside, it is, of course, good and right to pray that God will be glorified through us. This ought to be our chief motive in everything. But what came to mind was the fact that we ought not pray that God will be glorified through us as if it is possible that he might not. I think many, if not most, Christians believe that it is possible to live a life that does not glorify God; but that is just not true.

The truth is that God will be glorified through every one of us. He has been glorified through the lives of faithful saints throughout time, from the beginning of creation to this present day. But he has also been glorified through the failures of those saints, and even through the most heinous sins of history’s most notorious villains.

God was glorified in Genesis 6, not only through Noah, who “found grace in the eyes of the Lord,” but through the “wickedness of man” which he judged in the flood. God was glorified not only through Isaac, but through Ishmael also. He was glorified through Joseph’s brothers, who sold him into slavery. He was glorified through Joseph as Joseph was faithful and righteous and, by his God-given wisdom, saved a nation. He was glorified through Pharaoh as Pharaoh enslaved God’s people, and was then judged for it. And as Israel wandered away from God, God was glorified as he repeatedly punished them and extended his grace to them.

God was glorified through Christ and the apostles, and Mary, Martha, and Lazarus; but he was also glorified through Caiaphas, Judas, and Pilate.

In short, God will be glorified through us, one way or another, either as his grace is displayed in our lives, or his judgment is meted out to us. His grace may come to us in the form of discipline, as well as obvious blessing. His judgment on the wicked may be seen here, as with the Genesis flood, or it may not be seen until the final judgment; but it will be seen by all, and God will be glorified. He will be glorified through every act of every one of his creatures.

The question is not, will God be glorified through me, but how will he be glorified through me?

Before I begin, I want to say that I appreciate John Piper’s ministry immensely. I have listened to him preach, and, deo volente, will again. I have read some of his books, and there are a couple still on my shelf that I am eager to read. Nothing I am about to say should be taken as a slight to his character or ministry.

However . . .

Today I must strenuously disagree with John Piper. I’ve disagreed with him before, but never like this. In most other disagreements, I’ve at least had some empathy with his position. In this case, I have none; his logic is badly flawed.

If it was almost anyone else, I’d probably ignore it; but John Piper has a following of bloggers who run to their keyboards every time he moves, gasping breathlessly at the profundity of his latest twitch. So I expect to see his latest statement spread virally all over the blogosphere in this and following weeks. In fact, I’m seeing it start already, and it was only posted this morning (it’s Sunday as I write this). And, though his sentiments are noble, I think they are completely wrong-headed, and deserve a rebuttal.

I’m referring to his statement on the Desiring God blog concerning the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the 2nd Amendment was properly (though narrowly) upheld.

Dr. Piper made no statement on the court’s decision per se. His statement addressed why he would not use a gun to defend his home, and expressed his hope that no one else would, either. He used, as his example, Jim Elliot and his fellow missionaries, who chose not to defend themselves against the spears of their attackers because “The natives are not ready for heaven. We are.”

I tend to believe that those young missionaries made the right choice. However, I don’t believe their reasoning applies in the vast majority of home-defense situations. My reasons are as follows (none of them would have applied in the jungles of Ecuador):

• In the majority of instances of defensive firearms use, no shots are fired. The threat is enough to subdue or put to flight the perpetrators. Yet being confronted with a violent response increases their fear of other potential victims, most of whom “are not ready for heaven.”
• The knowledge that potential victims, most of whom “are not ready for heaven,” might be armed is a known deterrent to criminals. Violent crime is highest in unarmed cities, and is known to decrease when citizens of those cities arm themselves.
• When an assailant is shot, more is accomplished than stopping the immediate crime: his future crimes — primarily against people who “are not ready for heaven” — are prevented; and a societal atmosphere is created in which criminals are more likely to think twice before attacking.
• While you can be sure that an intruder in your home is “not ready for heaven,” neither are most of his past and future victims — and you can be sure that there are, or will be, others. Sacrificing yourself only leaves him free to move on to his next victim, who is most likely — say it with me, now — “not ready for heaven.”

Piper’s goal of saving the lives of those who “are not ready for heaven,” though noble, is myopic and misdirected. It would be better served by doing whatever is necessary to stop the violent criminals who kill them.

Postscript: That was to be the end of this post, but a couple of additional points have crossed my mind.

• I realize that John Piper’s children are all grown and it’s just he and his wife at home. But many of us have children at home, and I am not one who assumes my children are “ready for heaven” just because they say they believe in Jesus. Shall I not protect them? Shall I value the soul of a murderer above theirs?
• Can a Calvinist really believe that evil must be allowed to go unchecked because God hasn’t had a chance to save the evildoers yet? In other words, is this really a dilemma at all?

Addendum: James White addresses this issue in I Beg To Differ, Brother Piper. Dr. White takes a more wide-angle view than I did. Although the comments section of this post has taken in more, my intention was to focus on Dr. Piper’s single expressed reason for sparing the intruder, i.e., that he is “not ready for heaven.”

In order to live the Purpose-driven Life®, we must (according to the example of a certain Purpose-driven® author) search several Bible translations to find the one that suits us best. So here you go: your purpose in six different translations. Take your pick, and go to it.

2 Corinthians 5:9

Wycliffe: And therfor we stryuen, whether absent, whether present, to plese hym.

Geneva: Wherefore also we couet, that both dwelling at home, and remouing from home, we may be acceptable to him.

KJV: Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.

NKJV: Therefore we make it our aim, whether present or absent, to be well pleasing to Him.

NASB: Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him.

ESV: So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him.

I believe very strongly that Christians ought to take part in the political processes in the countries in which they live, from the national to the local level. I believe in promoting right political ideology at every opportunity. And I believe that there is an ideology that is right, and that Christians cannot land anywhere they want on issues of politics and economics and still live Biblically. There is a Biblically correct view of law and government that excludes all others, and I believe Christians ought to be actively promoting that Biblical view.

But . . .

I also believe that certain segments of the church — not just the apostate Gospel-free church that tends to lean left, but the true church that still maintains the Biblical Gospel and thinks it leans right (but, in fact, does not) — have, at best, badly obscured the Gospel and severely crippled their witness in the world, and worse, in many cases have completely abandoned and actually repudiated the Gospel in favor of a political transformation of society, which, ironically, can never be affected by anything but the Gospel.

While I would hate — really hate — to provoke you to political pacifism, I would much rather see you go Amish than join the religious right (with whose goals I largely agree) and prostitute your witness to politics. The Gospel is what we are to be about. The Gospel is everything we are to be about.

Now, the reason I wrote this post today: I want you to listen to a seminar presented last week by Phil Johnson at the 2008 Shepherds Conference entitled Politically Incorrect? How to shepherd your congregation in an election. You may now download this message free of charge here, or if that fails, find it here.

1 Peter 3:15 —

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

YouTube: John MacArthur Explains True Gospel

(HT: Gospel-Centered Musings)

This is not a treatise on the practical failure of socialism. I will not be telling you why socialism doesn’t work and capitalism does. If you’re looking for a lesson in economics, read Adam Smith[1], Milton Friedman[2], or Thomas Sowell[3]. This is an explanation of why — all pragmatic considerations and emotional motivations aside — socialism is wrong, and should be rejected by all Christians as an inherently sinful system.[4]

Before I begin, let me assure you that I am not cold and uncaring of the needs of others. I think it would be great if everyone had plenty to eat, nice clothes, and a solid roof over their heads. I would be happy to see everyone receive a good education and quality medical care. I would like to see everyone have everything they need in abundance. I would like to do what I can to make that a reality. Wouldn’t you? I hope you would. On the other hand, I know that all people should not have what they need. Scripture tells us that those who will not work should not eat.[5] The logical end of that, of course, is that those who are unwilling to earn a living should be allowed to starve. This, by the way, was not the word of the mythical harsh God of the Old Testament. This was the command of the Apostles to the New Testament Church. I am also not among the wealthy targets of the “tax the rich” mentality. This is not a crusade to protect my wealth from the IRS.

Socialism is often presented as the Christian response to poverty. Jesus cared for the poor, and so should we. The early church shared all things in common, didn't they? Therefore, it is right that the entire nation share all things in common with everyone. Governments ought to redistribute the wealth of the fortunate, privileged classes with the less fortunate and underprivileged[6]. There are a few problems with this thinking, however, one of which is the fundamental reason why I believe socialism is antithetical to Christianity. That problem is simply that governments do not produce and possess wealth to distribute. They must take it from those who produce it.

Now I’m going to get straight to the point. This will be short and seem very simplistic, but that’s only because it really is this simple. First, let me illustrate the difference between Christian giving and socialist “giving”.

Suppose I find someone in need and discern that their need is legitimate and they truly cannot meet it through normal means (something a government can never do). I dig into my resources and give what I can. Maybe that isn’t enough, so I alert others to the need and some of them are able to help, as well. The need is met and we give glory to God.

Or, I see people in need and think, “someone should help them.” I see that there are people who have more than they need, so I go about robbing them and distributing their money as I see fit.

You see, it’s one thing to give of your own resources and to exhort others to do the same. That is Christian charity. It’s something else entirely to give from someone else’s resources. We call that theft. We call it theft no matter how good the motivation behind it is. And when it’s done by force, we call it robbery. That’s what socialist governments do.

“Hold on, there,” you might say, “ours is a democratically elected government. They represent the will of the people, so it isn’t stealing.” Well, yes, it is. Just because the majority agrees that Joe Rich and John Middleclass should be robbed to keep Susie Singlemom in groceries — and let’s be honest, to keep Bubba Trailerpark in beer and cigarettes — doesn’t make it less than robbery. The majority does not have the right to democratically oppress the minority.[7]

It doesn’t matter how good your intentions are or how many people agree with you. It doesn’t matter how much good is actually done. The end does not justify the means. When you reach into your neighbor’s pocket to fund your good deeds, you are a thief. If you see a need that ought to be filled, go to it. Put your money where your mouth is. Just don’t put my money where your mouth is. I have my own conscience to deal with, and you are not it.

Now, I just know there is someone reading this and nodding, “You tell ’em, man!” Thanks for your support. But now is the time to look into your own heart and ask if you’re really practicing Christian charity. How many Susie Singlemoms[8] do you know who are living on public assistance because their churches — and you — have more exciting ways to spend the money God has trusted to you? That new car or plasma screen[9] — did you neglect one of “the least of these”[10] within your sphere of influence to acquire it? Are you decrying the increasing socialism in America (or where ever you may be) while living like a socialist by passively letting government do your job? You also need to put your money where your mouth is.

It has been said that we ought to vote and govern as cold, hard capitalists, because that ensures the greatest prosperity for the greatest number of people, but live as socialists, sharing our wealth with the needy. I agree with the first part of that statement, but the second part misunderstands what socialism is. Socialism is not giving what is mine. Socialism is taking what is yours and giving it away, and that is stealing, no matter how you try to justify it. We ought to live as Christians, following Christ’s example as we steward the resources God has entrusted to us. That is what the Bible teaches.

____________________
[1]The Wealth of Nations
[2]Capitalism and Freedom
[3]Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One
[4]Coincidentally, Chip Bayer posted on this subject the day after I wrote this article. Read his article here.
[5]2 Thessalonians 3:10
[6]The classifications of “fortunate” and “privileged” are Marxist inventions; but that is not the subject of this essay.
[7]This is why the American founders designed a republic rather than a democracy. Democracy is nothing but a tyranny of the majority.
[8]. . . or elderly widows, or families just “down on their luck” due to various difficulties?
[9]I’m not advocating a monastic lifestyle. God’s normal means of preventing poverty is through work. That means the best way to fight poverty is to purchase the products and services that people produce (read the authors mentioned above for a better understanding of this principle). However, we must not neglect those who may be temporarily, or in some cases permanently, outside the normal economic process.
[10]Matthew 25:31–46

A little more than a year ago I posted a short article called Forgive Yourself, in which I said that, as there is no such thing as a sin against self, there is no need or possibility of self-forgiveness. Today, an astute reader asked a question that deserved an answer, and I thought I would post it here for your consideration. She asked,

What about committing fornication? God clearly states in the Bible that that is a sin against yourself--and there are those in the Bible who did commit fornication. How does one personally repent of these sins against themselves? How do we ask God's forgiveness? How does this sin differ from others?

I answered,

That's a reasonable question. I assume you're referring to 1 Corinthians 6:18--

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

Sinning against your body is not sinning against yourself. Your body is not you. The real you is your soul, or mind. Your body is simply the vessel that you live in during this life. Furthermore, your body does not belong to you. Verses 19-20 continue:

19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

So, a sin against your body is actually a sin against God alone.

After further consideration, I would add that not even you, that is, your soul, belongs to you, so there really is no way you can sin against yourself.

Once, when I was visiting at a cousin’s house, I overheard a conversation between my cousin and his father (my uncle). My cousin owns a service station/convenience store, and he had just hired someone whom his father judged to be of dubious character. My cousin commented, with a touch of irony, to this effect: “That’s true, but sometimes we have to accept the fact that everyone is not as wonderful as we are.”

A few years ago I was visiting with a good friend of mine when the subject of a mutual acquaintance came up. I made a somewhat snide comment about a particular character flaw in this individual, to which my friend replied, “Yeah, I know. That’s something I’ve had to ignore in order to remain friends with him.”

I present these two anecdotes as a lesson that has affected my thinking more than it should have. I say “more than it should have,” not because it is wrong, but because it is not particularly profound, and because I should already have been thinking along those lines. Instead, both of those occasions were epiphanies. Now perhaps you are thinking, “Man, you must have been a real jerk!” Well, yes, I was, and sometimes still am. It is not easy to tolerate faults in others, especially when they are so many. Verily, everyone is not as wonderful as I! Some people are irritating and downright stupid. Can anyone deny it? Yet, we must be forbearing.

I’m not talking about overlooking blatant sin, or lowering our “standards” (assuming those standards are Biblical); but we ought to be understanding and tolerant, knowing that we are not without our own faults. Ephesians 4 exhorts us to “walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love” (vv. 1-2), and to “be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you” (v. 32).

When my friend said, “Yeah, I know. That’s something I’ve had to ignore in order to remain friends with him,” I was instantly smitten with this thought: I wonder what he has had to overlook in order to remain friends with me?

If you’ve been following Mark Lauterbach’s series on The Measure of a Sermon, which I have linked in OnTheWeb, you’ve already read the following quote:

[W]hile conviction is a gift to us, it is always conviction to lead people to the cross. I know the arguments about people needing to be slain by the law --- and agree that awareness of need of forgiveness is crucial. But if I leave them there, I have not been faithful to the Savior. Conviction should drive people to the cross -- and they should leave with hope toward the Savior. [full article »]

This article really resonates with me. I have spent the majority of my life so far thinking that a good sermon was one that was hard-hitting and left me with the feeling that “I’ve got to do better.” Then I would go out and try really hard to do better, succeeding to some degree, but failing over all. It wasn’t until just a few years ago that I came to see the folly of the kind of moralistic preaching that I had thought was so good.

Don’t take me wrong. I do not believe that the purpose of the Law is merely to bludgeon me on the head and send me, helpless, to the cross, as some say. I believe the Law actually represents God’s will for my behavior. (This simple statement should not be taken as a complete expression of my opinion on the subject; but I don’t want to go into that now.) But if all a sermon, or our witness, accomplishes is to convict us of our sin and send us away trying harder, all it has done is make us more dependent on ourselves, more self-righteous, and more doomed to fail. And I can testify to years of my life when that was exactly my condition, when my religion was all about me and how well I was doing in getting myself sanctified—and I failed, over and over, because the solution was always in myself and my better efforts.

Sin must be addressed. When a text is preached that deals with sin, it ought to result in conviction for any listening child of God. But what then? Our response ought not to be, “I’ve got to try harder,” but “I need to draw closer to my Savior. I need to cling to his Word. I need to stay close to Jesus, where no sin can dwell.” That is where the conviction of sin should lead. If it doesn’t, the result will only be a better legalist.

The cure for my sin is not my righteousness, but Christ’s righteousness.

My Scripture reading this morning was in the Gospel of Matthew. These are a few of my thoughts from that reading.

The Gospel is often sold as the answer to our life’s problems. People are told that if they “accept Christ” their life will improve. Their marital problems will be solved. They will experience success and satisfaction in all their personal relationships. But is that what Scripture teaches? Consider Jesus’ words in Matthew 10:34-38:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Not exactly “your best life now,” is it? “When Jesus calls a man,” wrote Bonhoeffer, “he bids him come and die.” If you follow Jesus, your life might not improve. You might be shunned by your family. Your marriage might fall apart. Your children might reject you. You could lose your friends and your job. It might cost you everything. But with that life lost is the promise of a life found:

He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. (Matthew 10:39)

Our best life is in eternity with Christ; but we can only find that life by turning our backs on our best life now.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. (Mark 16:24)

The dashing young fellow on the left is Steve Weaver, which regular readers of our On the Web links should know. I want to draw your attention to a series he has just begun called How I Prepare an Expository Sermon. “OK,” you ask, “why do I care how he prepares his sermons? I’m not a pastor. I don’t preach. I don’t care how General Motors or Ford builds cars as long as they build good ones. I don’t need to know where the nuts and bolts go.” Well, you need to know, and here are a few reasons why:

Some day you may be in the position, as I have, to interview pastors for your church. Believe me, asking if he believes in expository preaching is not enough. I have had prospective pastors say they always preach expositionally who demonstrated that they had no clue what “expository” means. Then there are those who really do know what it is, but don’t know how. You need to know the difference between wannabes and the real thing.

If you have a pastor who is giving you solid Biblical exposition, you need to know how much work goes into the finished product. That thirty minutes to an hour you get on Sunday morning represents many hours of diligent study during the week, and years of study and training behind that. You need to know why your pastor doesn’t have time for all the superfluous programs and activities you might like to see. You may only see him for a couple of hours a week, but he is working hard, and very likely putting in longer hours than you do at your job, and he is doing it for you. You need to understand and appreciate that. Your pastor needs you to understand and appreciate that.

Those are just a couple of reasons why you should care how an expository sermon is prepared. I have saved the most important reason for last:

The way an expository sermon is produced is the way you should study the Bible. The goal of the expositor is to understand what the text means, that is, exactly what God is saying through it. You most likely are not able to study in the original languages, but you can read Bible dictionaries and commentaries, and you can learn important principals such as context. Do you want to be a Berean? This is how it is done.

Update: The links to the entire series can be found here: How I Prepare An Expository Sermon: The Series.

It happens every year. Some school teacher tells the truth about the mythical fat man from the North Pole, and parents flip out as though something wrong has been done. Christian parents, whom I would expect to love truth, are often as outraged as the pagans. It has happened again this year. I’m not going to link to the story. I’m sure you can find it if you want. Besides, it’s the same story as last year, and the year before that, and the year before that, and next year too. Only the names and places have changed.

Now, I agree that it is within the parents’ rights (legally, not morally) to tell their children whatever they want. Let them tell their children that a jolly fat man who lives at the North Pole—there is no land at the North Pole, by the way—makes an annual visit to every good child on the planet via a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer. Let them say that the moon is made of cheese, that they can accomplish anything with enough self-esteem, that global warming is a legitimate threat, and that Ralph Nader would make an excellent President. Parents are certainly entitled to decide what to tell their children, and I am right out front in the battle against anyone who says otherwise. That is why we homeschool.

On the other hand, my right to teach my children whatever I see fit does not translate into an obligation on anyone else to back up my story. I have no right to wax indignant because someone says there is no Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, or Santa Claus.

“But,” you say, “They don’t have to go out of their way to do it. Furthermore, not all truth must be told. Some truth should not be told.” Then you might give an example of crossing the street to tell someone they’re ugly , which is a ridiculous comparison, for a few reasons. First, ugly is subjective. That anyone is ugly is neither true nor false. Second, supposing ugly is a fact, there could never be a good reason for saying so. What kind of person would do that?

Third, and most importantly, it would be highly unusual for anyone to be forced to declare someone to be ugly. Anyone who spends a lot of time with children will inevitably be faced with the necessity of either affirming or denying Santa Claus. Any teacher committed to telling the truth, no matter how studiously he avoids the subject, will eventually have to say, “No, sorry, it’s just a story.” You have no right to object to that, and to expect them to cross their fingers and lie.

Then there are the children who know the truth. Eventually, they learn to avoid the subject and keep quiet. Little kids haven’t learned that, and they don’t have the skill to maneuver through this minefield as adults can. Sometimes, they are just going to blurt out, “There’s no Santa Claus!” There is no malice or guile in that, and I would be ashamed to hear my children say otherwise when they know the truth. Children lose any illusion of innocence far too soon as it is. I will not teach them to lie for any reason.

“But,” you say again, “Surely you tell your children stories; not everything you tell them is technically true.” Yes, we tell stories, and some of them are real whoppers; but we call them fiction. We don’t actually convince our children that there really are trolls living under bridges or pigs that can build houses or bears that eat porridge. We never try to convince them of anything that is not true. The possible example you’re thinking of right now? No. I don’t need to know what it is, the answer is, “No. Absolutely not. Nope; not that, either.”

As aggravating and absolutely wrong as it is to expect complicity in deceit, worse is the scorn that is often heaped upon those who choose to tell their own children the truth. I’m talking about Christians who look down on others for telling their own children the truth. We are stealing joy from our children. We are miserable, dour adults who suck the fun out of Christmas. That attitude is astonishing. First, to be contemptuous of others for telling the truth—for telling the truth!—is audacious beyond description.

Second, to think that the legitimate focus of Christmas is somehow lacking, and that a fairy tale can add anything to the true story of God incarnate, born of virgin, without sin, who lived and died to bear my sin and secure eternal life for me! The true story of the incarnation alone needs a companion fairy tale, or Christmas won’t be fun! Such attitudes are unworthy of Christians.

Tell your children whatever you want. That really is not my concern, or the focus of this article. Your children will probably grow up just fine, although many have testified to the harm done to their faith when they learned the truth about Santa. Just don’t expect complicity from me. Don’t expect sympathy when you throw your temper tantrums over the gall of some teacher who told the truth. Don’t expect an apology when your child discovers that mine doesn’t believe in Santa. You see, if maintaining your deceit requires me to be deceitful too, you’re on your own. If that ruins your Christmas, I’m afraid you’ve missed Christmas anyway.

For the context of this quote, see the comments following this post at Amy's Humble Musings.

While many parents have various reasons for choosing to send their kids to public school, the most often given reason is that their kids are to be salt and light. The reasoning is: If Christians pull out of the public schools, it will go to pot.

Folks, it’s already gone to pot (see article in sidebar) and kids are not evangelizing other kids. As Dr. Phil would say, “How’s that workin’ for ya?”

The religion of the state, secularism, is a religion that opposes God. Did the Israelites hire the Baal worshippers to school their children in the law of God? Did the children of Israel send their kids to the Assyrian schools?

My question in question, “Why do Christians who advocate “salt and light” not send their children to the Islamic School of Jihad for evangelizing? Wouldn’t tuition fees count as giving to missions?” is my way of calling Christian parents to intellectual honesty. If you are really sending your kids to school to be “salt and light,” why not put your money out for the cause? Why not send your kids to a Jewish Day School? A Catholic school?

Each non-God-fearing institution is in need of the Good News. Why do you only choose the “free” one? (By putting the word “free” in quotes, I’m pointing out that robbing citizens of their money isn’t free. If one would disagree with me on this, try not paying your property taxes on a house that you own. But I’m digressing here.) Why not get serious and send our Christian 5-year-olds to Islamic schools?

To deny that the public schools have an agenda to indoctrinate your child into a drone of the secular state is dishonest. See John Taylor Gatto’s The Underground History of American Education.

Christian Day Schools and homeschools are the only viable option to today’s American Christian families. Admittedly, it is high time that Christian schools find creative ways to reduce their tuition and fees. Going back to a New Testament model of worship and living by forgoing all the riff-raff of extravagant buildings, programs, and Halloween festivals that rival a New Orleans’ Mardi Gras is one way to save money. Think of all the kids we could sponsor by TBN donations alone.

In the meantime, droves of parents are taking seriously the call of God to teach our children God’s law (Deu. 6). This responsibility to train belongs to parents, specifically fathers.

As evangelical children leave their faith in droves (see any Barna study), it is crucial that Christian parents stop the insanity–which is, of course, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

The reason that I write about family life issues here is because I believe that culture will be changed on a micro level, not a macro one. In other words, as more and more Christian families walk the narrow way, the Church will be made strong. The world doesn’t need another public Evangelical crusading against homosexuals, as recent news proves. Quiet, ordinary people who have presented themselves to God to use at His disposal will change culture. Little by little, a family here, a family there.

Like it or not, the majority of our neighbors—yours and mine—call October 31st “Halloween.” Unless you live in an Amish community, you cannot simply ignore it. Even if you choose to ignore it, you cannot do so passively; you must actively avoid it. So what should you do about Halloween? I don’t intend to answer that question; not directly, anyway. I will state a few facts, make a few observations, and tell you what we do and why.

Anyone who examines Halloween thoroughly and honestly must admit that it is, at its core, a celebration of evil. Evil spirits, ghosts (the souls of the dead walking among us), witches—all of these represent the evil (Satanic) side of the supernatural world. Those are the facts of Halloween. Another fact, and one that few think of, is that it is simply unacceptable to knock on a neighbor’s or stranger’s door and demand candy. How that ever got to be an accepted practice among civilized people is beyond me.

In spite of those facts, I grew up with Halloween. I went trick-or-treating. We had Halloween parties—not “harvest celebrations,” “All Saints Day” parties (I’m not recommending that, with all the Catholic baggage it brings), but Halloween parties—complete with scary costumes and paper skeletons. I went out as a vampire. I slicked my hair back and wore a black cape and fangs. On no occasion did I become demon possessed or engage in witchcraft. One year, however, I and my partner in crime did change costumes and hit every house in town twice. An early start, a good plan, and a very small town made that possible. All in all, Halloween was just good, clean fun, and no harm done. I see no reason to believe it is much different today. Yet we do not now participate in Halloween.

Our kids do not trick-or-treat, and we do not have Halloween parties, for the reasons stated in the second paragraph of this article. The axiom “no harm, no foul” does not apply in our home. It is a matter of principle. However, while we can choose not to actively participate, we do not have the option of ignoring Halloween. Let’s consider a few of our options:

1. Leave home, go to the mall (not really an option here in God's country), go anywhere so we’re not home when those pesky kids come to the door. I suppose this is an acceptable option, but really, what are we accomplishing by allowing a mostly benign custom to drive us from our homes?
2. Shut off the lights and sit in the basement watching movies (or something), pretending we’re not home. I agree with Tim Challies that this presents a poor witness. Not that I think answering the door and handing out candy is a particularly good witness; after all, every infidel in town is doing the same thing. There is no positive witness in handing out candy. However, there is definitely a negative witness in ignoring people who come to our doors.
3. What we do: stay home, answer the door, be friendly, hand out candy, eat candy, have fun, and don’t waste any time thinking about how much more righteous we are than those horrible parents whose kids are ringing our doorbell—because we’re not. Don’t misunderstand me, I didn’t say our choice is not more right than theirs—why else would we do it?—but right does not equal righteous.

This October 31st, we will be remembering the Reformation by going around town nailing ninety-five theses to every door in town. Each child gets a hammer, a nail apron, and . . . No, seriously, we will be at home watching Martin Luther (1953), spilling popcorn on the floor, and generally having fun. I might get this one and make it a double feature. At some point, someone will express the hope that not too many more trick-or-treaters come so there will be lots of candy left over. That someone might even be me. It really doesn’t matter, though, because we will surely buy more as it goes on sale November 1st. Nope, that doesn’t make me a hypocrite. Not at all.

I was probably about ten or twelve years old when I became aware of the “social gospel”. I learned that some churches were no longer preaching the Gospel of the salvation of hopelessly sinful men from the power of sin and Hell. They were preaching a gospel of redemption from social and economic inequities which, they said, were clearly the fault of anti-Christian capitalist economic policies. According to the social gospel, Jesus did not come to reconcile man to God, but to eliminate oppression of the poor. If there are any Democrats reading this, you can relax. That “social gospel” is not what I am writing about today.

This social gospel is concerned with our everyday business dealings and the spreading of the true Gospel, and how they are connected. My goal is to convince you to do business as close to home as possible, regardless of the cost. While I can build the case for doing this on economic reasons alone, showing how we all would benefit from it, I will confine my arguments to the spiritual implications of our business practices. How do we impact the kingdom of God through our day-to-day transactions?

I want to make it clear that I am not insensitive to those who find it necessary to economize due to the number of mouths they are feeding and limited cash flow. I fit that category myself, well enough to say that unless you are living in the most desperate poverty, what I have to say about this applies to you.

The current view of evangelism seems to be that evangelism is primarily a church activity – get unbelievers sitting in pews, where they can hear the Gospel. This view not only usurps the legitimate purpose of our assembling together, it lets us off the hook in regard to our responsibility in evangelism. Evangelism is not a profession; it is the calling of every Christian. It takes place as we interact with the people God has placed within our sphere of influence.

Many Christians have effectively removed themselves from a position of influence in their own community by going elsewhere to do business. They can save money by going to a bigger city where there are lower prices; so they hand their money to a stranger, whom they may never see again, in order to save a few bucks. This practice is baptized by calling it “wise stewardship”. I don’t want to minimize the importance of stewardship, but I ask, is God more concerned about how we spend his money, or how we interact with people? Does your good stewardship have the effect of limiting your relationships to the members of your church, and others in your immediate circle of friends?

Allow me to illustrate my point with a personal example. When I have a building project, I can save a considerable sum of money by going out of town to a large, impersonal building supply chain store. I could buy literally everything necessary to build an entire house, excluding the concrete, in one place at significantly discounted prices. Not only would that would be good stewardship, it would make sense, since I have to go there anyway to get the items that my local lumber yard and hardware don’t carry. It would benefit me personally by leaving more money in my pocket. Honestly, I can’t think of a single practical reason not to do business that way.

When I go to my local store, I pay higher prices for a smaller selection of products, but I have personal contact with the owner and employees. They know my name, and remember the last time I was in. We converse about everyday things going on in our lives. They ask me about my life, and I tell them how things are going, and vice verse. If I can develop a relationship with them, even just a casual one, I may eventually have the opportunity to share some Biblical truth with them. At my local hardware store, I have made a point of asking the owner if he can get items that are not in stock. When he suggests that Bigstore in Bigtown probably has it, I tell him, “I know, but I wanted to buy it here, if I could.” He appreciates that, and it opens the door wider for future witnessing possibilities.

There are practical limits, of course. I recently had to buy a car. There is only one automobile dealership in our small town. I could have driven to Bigtown, where there are several dealerships, but I made the decision to buy local, if they had a car that met our needs. It turned out that they did, and at a reasonable price. However, if that one dealer had been a Mercedes or Ferrari dealer, I probably would have to have gone elsewhere.

This policy costs money, and I realize that you can’t spend dollars that you don’t have; but every dollar you now have is a dollar that you previously did not have. If we commit to spending every dollar we have for the glory of God, the dollars will be there. After all, if we’re honest, we must admit that our wealth is not ultimately the result of our intelligence or hard work. It is a gift from our sovereign God, out of his loving provision for us.

From 1983 to 1989, I lived in one suburb or another of Minneapolis or St. Paul, Minnesota. During that time, I spent a lot of time behind the wheel of a work vehicle. A lot of that time was spent listening to the radio, mostly talk radio. One of my favorite programs was Garage Logic with Joe Soucheray. If you look to the left, you will see a link to a St. Paul Pioneer Press article, Directions offer food for thought, written by Joe. After listening to his down to earth wit and wisdom for so long, that’s how I think of him. Not as Soucheray, or Mr. Soucheray, but Joe, mayor of the fictitious, idyllic hamlet of Garage Logic, the seat of Gumption County, down the road from the liberal utopia of Euphoria. Sorry for the digression – this means nothing to you who haven’t been there – I’m just reminiscing. Anyway, go ahead and read that article before continuing here.

For those of you who were too lazy to read the article, or are reading this after it disappears from TwinCities.com, here is the conclusion, which should convey the salient point:

The woman going to the track meet at Hamline, for example, had to pass through that intersection literally minutes before the crash, maybe seconds. She sailed across the freeway on Snelling what had to be just moments before the chain reaction crash that killed two, injured nine and involved four cars.

Or the intersection.

I don’t know for certain what Joe’s spiritual state is. He’s a good man, one I know I would love to have for a neighbor. If being a good man could save, he would almost certainly be saved. Whatever the case, God has providentially demonstrated for him that what Scripture says is true. At any second, in any place, our time might be up, and we don’t know when or where that is.

Now, suppose you are at work with one of the Joes in your world, or leaning on the fence in your back yard visiting, on such an occasion as this. There has been a sudden, unexpected death, and with a knowing nod, he says, “Yep, you just never know.”

What will you say?

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear. 1 Peter 3:15

Tim Challies posted a good article today on discernment. This article might appear to be an exercise in missing the point, but, I assure you, I did not. However, the topic he chose to address in his discernment exercise, self-forgiveness, caught my attention and inspired a few thoughts. You would probably benefit from reading his post first.

I can't think of a single Biblical example of anyone sinning against himself. It just doesn't happen. The real motive of “self-forgiveness” is to put it all behind us. We are not supposed to do that. Continuing regret over sins of the past, although forgiven, is a good thing.

1. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” may not be a Scriptural proverb, but it definitely carries a true lesson. Forgetting past sins means forgetting the lessons learned from them.
2. Gratitude to God requires us to remember our sin. How can we remember how much we have been forgiven if we forget our sin? The memory of our sins should serve to increase our love for God (Luke 7:47). The desire to put it behind us is really a desire to justify increased self-love.
3. The memory of our sin should cause us to abound in grace towards those who sin against us (Matthew 18:23-35).

Remembering sin is not the same as wallowing in it. If you’re doing that, your problem is not guilt, but pride. Yes, pride. It is only pride that makes you focus on yourself and suffer from so-called low self-esteem. Get over yourself. Fix your eyes on Jesus, the author and finisher of your faith. Remember how much you have been forgiven, and give thanks. Never forget.

“You see everything as black and white.”

That accusation is leveled at me on a regular basis. Well, yes, as a matter of fact, I do. That, of course is because everything is black and white. For every question there is one correct answer. I am not exaggerating my opinion. As preposterous as it sounds, I believe exactly what I just said, and no less.

“All right,” you say, “I have forty-seven neckties in my closet. Which one should I wear?” Very clever, you are. You’ve got me there, you think. But not so fast; your question is too vague. Many, perhaps even most, questions appear gray on the surface; but on closer examination of the context in which they are asked, they become dark gray or light gray. Adequate knowledge of the situation, if that can be acquired, will always render an answer which is utterly black or white.

Now I no doubt must defend myself against the charge of situational ethics. Situational ethics is a system of ethics in which right and wrong are determined solely by the situation we are in at the time of the crisis, and there is no transcendent law governing our choices. That is not what I am suggesting. On the contrary, there is a law that encompasses all of life to the extent that it governs our most trivial choices. It is the law of God, contained in the Bible.

The Bible gives us, by my reckoning, three criteria for making choices. I want to say, in advance, that “a feeling of peace” is not among them. That is a myth that has been preached and written many times on the topics of “decision making” and “finding God's will.” (“Finding God's Will” is a much broader topic, and is not the topic of this article.) These are the three criteria:

1. Is it lawful?
2. Is it expedient?
   • Is it practical? (Luke 14:28-31)
   • Will it cause unnecessary offence? (Romans 14:13-23)
3. Do you want to?

Making correct choices is largely a matter of eliminating wrong choices. The first eliminating question is, has God forbidden it? This, of course, requires knowledge of the Bible. If you are too lazy, or uninterested, to dig into Scripture and learn, forget it. Second, is it expedient, that is, is it practical, and can I do it without offending my brother unnecessarily? Again, the Bible has much to say about wisdom, and there are myriad other questions to ask yourself based on the situation. Once you have eliminated the sinful and unwise choices (black), you are free to choose whatever you want (white).

This third choice, do you want to, is the trickiest part; for it requires that we live in such close communion with God that what he wants is what we want. Psalm 37:4 says, “Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.” Does that mean that God will give you the object of your desire, or that he will give you the desire? It means that he will give you a desire that is consistent with his desire, and it naturally follows, then, that he will give you the object of your desire.

Now for a caveat: I said that “Adequate knowledge of the situation, if that can be acquired, will always render an answer which is utterly black or white.” Of course, adequate knowledge of the situation is not always possible, so we are left to make the best choice we can with the information we have. Often, we lack the maturity to discern the right decision even when we have all the right information. In short, there are many reasons why we make wrong choices, even though the right choice is available. Sometimes God teaches us by allowing us to make mistakes. But just because we can’t figure out the right choice, doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

Now, back to your necktie question, which I have said is too vague. What Biblical principles can be applied to this dilemma? Believe it or not, there are some.

I heard of a pastor who received a tie at a birthday party. He was urged to don it immediately, which he did. Soon the cake was produced, and to draw greater attention to the multitude of candles, the lights were extinguished. The darkness also drew attention to his necktie, which had on it a phosphorescent topless hula girl. If you have that tie, don’t wear it.

There, now you’re down to forty-six ties to choose from. Where are you going? Let’s say a funeral. The navy one with the bright yellow smiley faces is out, as is the one with Bob Tomato and Larry Cucumber on it. What would be wrong with them? Of course there is nothing inherently wrong with them, but wearing them might display a frivolous attitude, trivializing the occasion and offending the bereaved family. In the interest of considering others more important than yourself, you should yield the right to wear them.

Now you are considering the one with the grizzly bear standing up on its hind legs that you got at Cabela’s. It’s a beautiful tie, the colors are subdued and it goes perfectly with the brown herringbone your wife told you to wear. Then you remember that the deceased was killed on a hunting trip by a grizzly. Maybe it would be best to choose something else.

Examining the rest of your selection, you find nothing objectionable. Even those paisleys you bought back in the eighties are morally acceptable, although some denominations disagree about that. Now you are finished. The ties you have ruled out are “black”, and those remaining are “white”. Any of them will be fine. The one correct answer that I promised you is this: whichever one you prefer.

But wait; your daughter walks in and points to the tie she gave you for Father’s Day two years ago. The fact that you have never worn it has not gone unnoticed. “How about this one?” she says, smiling sweetly. It still has the tag on it, because kids don’t know they should remove them. K-mart; clearance; $2.95. Even the dear departed will notice your lack of sartorial sense. It is truly hideous, but it matches your suit, and you will wear it. Oh, yes, you will - because your little girl’s feelings are more important than your pride.

Doctor flies into South Dakota to perform abortions

SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (CNN) -- Not a single doctor in South Dakota will [murder babies], which is why Dr. Miriam McCreary has come out of retirement.

Once or twice a month, the 70-year-old grandmother takes a 45-minute flight from Minneapolis, Minnesota, to Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to [murder babies] at the last clinic in the state willing to [be an accomplice to murder].

“I want every child that’s born, to be born into a family that wants a child. I don’t want children to be born into a family where they are not wanted and can’t be cared for carefully. That’s the tragedy,” McCreary said.Read full article

“That’s the tragedy.” Do you know something? She is right. That someone would not want a child that was created by God at that exact time according to his will (yes, I believe every pregnancy is a part of God’s divine plan) is indeed a tragedy. That anyone would rebel against God’s right to create whomever he pleases, whenever and wherever he pleases, is tragic.

Some would say that the greater tragedy is the murder itself. I disagree. Certainly, it is a horrific crime, and it is tragic, but it is not the greatest tragedy. That child is in the hands of God. The life that has been taken from that child is a mere heartbeat in time as he passes into eternity. In the scope of eternity, it matters little to the victim.

The greatest tragedy is the soul-damning hardening of the killer’s heart.

At 70 years old, a grandmother who has given birth and held her own babies and their babies in her arms takes her turn in the rotation of killers who fly to Sioux Falls to spend the day killing babies, sixteen on this particular day. Sixteen cold-blooded murders. Think of her, and weep. No doubt she has handled the bodies of fully developed babies, lifeless in her hands on countless occasions. Does she think of them when she visits her grandchildren? How hard her heart must be.

Every day, 3,700 American women choose to kill their babies, 1.37 million each year. World wide, the numbers are 126,000 per day, 46 million per year. We must assume that there are approximately the same number of men complicit in these murders.

The real tragedy is the tens of thousands of men and women who, at this very moment, are hardening or have already hardened their hearts in preparation to kill. They are hardening their hearts against the voice of God. They will not hear him, and so they cannot hear him saying “You shall not murder!” Yes, he is saying it, even to those without Scripture, for he speaks through his creation, as well, and his Law is written on our hearts. He speaks, through the life that is felt in the womb, to anyone who will listen.

But there are other hard hearts involved. People who would never kill a baby, yet go to the polls and knowingly vote for candidates who have promised to protect the right to kill. They are guilty, too, and must harden their hearts to choose, for whatever the cause, to enable the killers. Many of them call themselves “Christians.” Are you one of them? Perhaps you voted for a “pro-choice” candidate because he stood on the right side of a more important issue. Perhaps you hardened your heart against the lives of children in order to “save the planet,” or “fight poverty.”

I pity those whose hearts are so hardened that murder is an acceptable choice. You see, that is where the battle lies: in the hearts of men and women. The battle is not for the lives of children, it is for the souls of killers, and we have only one weapon in this battle. It is not our vote, or letters to congressmen, or any other political action. It is the Gospel, and nothing else.

I believe in civic duty. I believe in supporting candidates that stand for righteousness and justice. I believe in promoting good government. But I entertain no hope that the governments of men can subdue evil, and I see only limited value in what they can accomplish. Our battle is not for good government and just law, but for the souls of men and women.

Am I repeating myself? I hope I’m making my point. We can work for just law, and we should. We can oppose wicked laws and lawmakers, and we should. But lost sinners whose evil intentions are restrained still go to Hell, and redeemed saints who are filled with the Holy Spirit don’t kill babies.

Before Jesus ascended into Heaven, surely he knew the evil that would come in our day. Yet his last words to his disciples were not of social or political action. His last command was this: As you go into the world, preach the Gospel. Make disciples. Teach them. Not only is that our mission, it is the only cure for the evil around us. It is the only thing that can penetrate hard hearts. God help us to keep focused on the task he has given us.

Fred Butler of Hip and Thigh wrote an article last week called Why exactly is it considered “Groundbreaking?” in which he discussed the media reaction to a new movie called Brokeback Mountain, the story of two homosexual cowboys. Fred writes,

I was driving in town the other day when my eye caught a bus stop kiosk with a poster of Brokeback Mountain and at the top was a critic review stating: Groundbreaking... I thought, "ground breaking? What's so ground breaking about another gay themed movie?" Ground breaking is a word we use for something that has not been done before that sets a standard. Disney's Steamboat Willie is ground breaking. Star Wars, for example, was a ground breaking film with its special effects, and Jurassic Park was ground breaking for the CGI technology. However, the umpteenth gay themed film is not ground breaking. full article

Fred is right. Homosexual themes in movies are now common. We see yet another movie about homosexuality and those of us who are not yet calloused toward them are disgusted and have no interest in seeing them. Not too many years ago, the majority of Americans would have shared our disgust. Now they are apathetic, at best.

Even Christians are becoming desensitized to the normalization of sodomy (it sounds worse when it is called what it is, doesn’t it?). How has this happened? Well, Hollywood didn’t go directly from Old Yeller to Brokeback Mountan. They have fed us their morality piecemeal, and we have accepted it. They gave us implicit fornication, and we overlooked it. Then they gave us explicit fornication, and we thought, “As long as it’s under the covers or behind closed doors, it’s not so bad.” Now we are faced with fornication in plain sight on the screen, with careful camera angles being their only salvation from an X rating.

Now the same path is being traveled in the normalization of sodomy. First, we laughed at men who appeared a bit effeminate in comedy situations. Then they began slipping homosexual characters in minor roles into otherwise harmless movies, again often used with comedic effect. I don’t see a lot of movies, but a few come to mind – Remember the Titans*, Sweet Home Alabama, Blast from the Past – you can probably think of a few yourself. These are movies that are basically good, clean entertainment, but have a homosexual character that could just as well have been heterosexual. There is no actual sodomy implied, so we overlook it. Where can we expect this to lead?

I am not saying that movies would be cleaner if Christians stayed off of the slippery slope that Hollywood has created. I am saying that those who have accepted homosexual characters in nonsexual roles should not be shocked to see filmmakers becoming increasingly brazen in their promotion of homosexuality. If you can laugh at a homosexual’s effeminate gestures, you might as well be entertained by explicit sodomy. To do otherwise is inconsistent.