I gave my daughter Voddie Baucham’s book What He Must Be if he wants to marry my daughter. I asked her the other day how it was and what she was learning. If you don’t know who Voddie Baucham is, I need to tell you, for the purposes of this story, that he is black. You also need to know that I and my family are as white as Scandinavian-Americans with roots in Minnesota and Wisconsin should be; that is, very white.

One section of Baucham’s book deals with inter-“racial” marriage. His view is that it is both wrong and foolish to narrow your matrimonial options based on ethnicity (I concur). As he discussed this issue, he personalized it in the context of his own pigmentally advantaged family. If a godly young man of differing shade wanted to court his daughter, and she was amenable, that would be fine with him.

So, when I asked my daughter what she was learning, she replied,

“I’ve learned that I don’t have to marry a black guy.”

In case you didn't see these links under On the Web, I want to draw special attention to them.

As evangelical Christians, we're called to be distinct in the ways we think and act about all issues that confront us and those around us. This topic is no exception. So, is there such a thing as biblical dating? If so, what is it? How can Christians think differently about this pervasive issue in media and culture? How are we doing so far?

The answer to that last question is "not well." Surveys consistently indicate that professing Christians behave almost exactly like non-Christians in terms of sexual involvement outside of marriage (in both percentage of people involved and how deeply involved they are — how far they're going), living together before marriage, and infidelity and divorce after marriage. In fact, depending on which statistics one believes, the divorce rate for professing Christians may actually be higher than for Americans as a whole. Granted, not all of these people are evangelicals, but we're not doing so well either. Indeed, the central issue we need to confront — and the reason I write and speak on this topic — is that when it comes to dating and relationships, perhaps more than in any other area of the everyday Christian life, the church is largely indistinguishable from the world. That truth has brought immeasurable emotional pain and other consequences to many Christians. Worse, it has brought great dishonor to the name of Christ and to the witness of individuals and the church.

It doesn't have to be this way. For Christians, the Lord has given us his Word, and the Holy Spirit helps us to understand it. We have brothers and sisters in Christ to hold us accountable and to help us apply the Word to our lives. If you're a Christian, that's the biblical life you're called to.

Continue reading—
Biblical Dating: An Introduction
What Does a Biblical Relationship Look Like?
Biblical Dating: To Kiss or Not to Kiss
(HT: The World From Our Window)

While I agree with these posts entirely, since they are on the Boundless webzine which is a publication of Focus on the Family, I offer this disclaimer: posting of these links does not imply an endorsement of Focus on the Family or James Dobson. I disagree very strongly with Dobson's view of integrated psychology and his methods of promoting his political agenda. I believe that both of these errors, especially the former, are detrimental to the Church and the Gospel. In spite of that disclaimer, there is a lot of good, helpful, and Biblical material available on the Boundless website.

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 want to draw special attention to a couple of posts that I have linked today. They will enlighten you, encourage you, or verify your suspicion that I am hopelessly backward. In any case, I agree 100% with both articles, and that doesn't happen often.

Recapture the nobility of home by Crystal Paine

The Future of Fundamentalist Music by Scott Aniol