4 Reasons for Parents to Keep Reading

© Pamela Hodson | Dreamstime Stock PhotosIt was the kind of question that makes parents quake in their boots!

The other day my 13 year old daughter was reading Leviticus—on her own!—and came across a passage that perplexed her:

16 The Lord spoke to Moses: 17 “Tell Aaron: None of your descendants throughout your generations who has a physical defect is to come near to present the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect is to come near: no man who is blind, lame, facially disfigured, or deformed; 19 no man who has a broken foot or hand, 20 or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has an eye defect, a festering rash, scabs, or a crushed testicle. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has a defect is to come near to present the fire offerings to the Lord. He has a defect and is not to come near to present the food of his God. 22 He may eat the food of his God from what is especially holy as well as from what is holy. 23 But because he has a defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar. He is not to desecrate My sanctuaries, for I am Yahweh who sets them apart.” (Lev 21:16-23)

Because we are advocates for Down Syndrome adoptions [read more here and check out Reece’s Rainbow here] and have many friends with special needs, my daughter began wondering whether this passage means that God does not find people with special needs acceptable as ministers. And then she asked me if her thinking was right.

What a perceptive question! I am so proud of her for thinking through this passage of scripture, and I told her so.

But let’s be honest: Even though it is a good question, it is a very hard question. How would you have answered? I mean, Leviticus is often perplexing because many of the social and theological issues it deals with are so foreign to us. Who among us could pull a correct answer out of thin air?

In God’s perfect timing, I have been reading Paul Copan’s book, Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God, which addresses exactly these kinds of questions. Though Copan is dealing with New Atheist misconceptions about God, he lays out some specific ways God expressed his will that Israel understand holiness, and did so through the rules and regulations we find in Exodus and Leviticus. And (praise the Lord) he also deals with the passage that challenged my daughter!

Because I had been reading this book recently, I had a good answer for my daughter.

But I wasn’t off the hook! The next night at dinner, my other two daughters had equally grown-up questions:

The seven year old asked, “Why did Eve want to sin and disobey God?” In God’s perfect timing I had listened to a sermon that morning that addressed this exact question in a way that provided me with new insight that dovetailed precisely with the way she posed the question.

She then asked, “How can we be God’s children and He be our Father when he doesn’t have a wife?” And then the eleven year old asked, “How did people get saved before Jesus died?”

Can I tell you—these are important questions with which Christians have been dealing for two millennia. And they were asked by my tween kids, over a single meal! This is why as parents we have to be continually feeding our own minds, growing our own faith, and building our grasp of the deeper things of the Lord. Four points come to mind.

It is important to keep reading and studying…

  1. So you can learn and grow as a Christian. This might seem obvious, but the ability to answer your own questions and those of others requires some self-education. Reading the Bible is mission critical to your own preparation. But you should also be reading other materials to give you insight as to how major themes of scripture and theology work together. (For example, the Bible itself does not tell us how its manuscripts were transmitted to us; the Bible does not tell us when the Trinity became an accepted doctrine in Christian history; nor does not provide much explicit information about the social and political contexts of first-century Judea, though its narrative corresponds well with what historians tell us, for example here).

The right materials can help you learn how to think biblically about your world. Scripture admonishes us to move from spiritual “milk” to spiritual “meat” or “solid food” (1 Cor 3:1-3; Heb 5:11-14); this means we are to seek deeper answers to deeper questions, on more challenging topics than you were satisfied with as a new believer. Moreover, you are responsible for your own spiritual education in this process; maturing believers are not just sitting back and letting their preacher do the work for them, letting them simply dump information into their heads for 20 or 30 minutes each week and then call it good. We often speak of our kids having to “own their own faith” once they leave their parents’ home, but adults also have to own their own faith, too, and part of that is taking responsibility for learning.

  1. So you can answer questions from your spiritual children. As parents, our biblical obligation is to disciple our children—to pass on to them the knowledge of God and His ways to future generations. A central part of this is the children’s questions! (See Exod 13:11-15; Deut 6:20-23; Josh 4:5-7; 4:19-24.) Even if you’re not a parent, or if your kids are gone, the longer you’ve been a Christian, the more likely it is that someone else will see you as a spiritually-knowledgeable person. Therefore you owe it to them to be prepared. Again, you are responsible for seeking understanding and wisdom for the day in which you get asked that question.
  2. So you can be known as one who seeks truth. Your children will observe you feeding your mind and faith with the Bible and excellent materials that help you understand the Bible and God. As a father or mother, your children need to know that you are growing in your faith, so that they see that you believe growing in the faith is important. Not only will they tend to emulate you, but you will become known to them as a person who is trustworthy enough to ask difficult questions! In my children’s case, I also have to be honest about when I don’t know the answer to a question, and then seek out the answer.
  3. So you can listen thoughtfully. When you know what is true, you can more easily identify what is false, and this is a critical skill for Christians. If you are not feeding your mind with the truth, you will be less able to discern falsehoods that you will hear from the culture, from critics, and even from some teachers. How can you discern whether the teachings of Joel Osteen, Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism), Rob Bell, Billy Graham, or your pastor are true or false? By learning and educating yourself on Bible truth and the truths accepted by orthodox Christians for twenty centuries, you equip yourself to provide a reasoned defense of God’s truth and the gospel (1 Peter 3:15-16); to not be captured by this world’s false philosophies ((Col 2:6-8); and to critically evaluate false teachers (Matt 7:15; Matt 24:10-24; 2 Peter 2:1).

A few cautions…

Be sure that you are seeking God’s truth. Since the early days of Christianity, heresies have cropped up that, grounded in the spirit of anti-Christ, have pulled believers away from the straight path of godly knowledge and wisdom (1 John 2:18-24, 1 John 4:1-6). Truth does not just make you feel good about yourself, or confirm what you already believe (Heb 4:12), but is to teach us, rebuke us and train us out of incorrect behaviors and beliefs (2 Tim 3:16). And second, be humble and gentle, because you are accountable for what you teach others about the Lord (James 3:1). This is another reason to be sure that you are learning correct doctrine—you want to pass on correct doctrine, lest you be held accountable by God for perpetuating heresies and false doctrines, risking the souls of your children (Heb 13:17).

Thinking back to my daughters’ questions…I have found that God knew exactly what I needed to know and when I needed to know it. Through consistently reading and studying the Bible itself, as well as reading books and listening to sermons and apologetics podcasts, God prepares me to answer the questions that arise about our Lord, His Word, and His Kingdom.

Where is your citizenship?

US-Green-CardAs a student of politics I’ve been thinking about my citizenship. I love the United States, and I love our history, our diversity, and our shared values. At the same time, as a Christian I get frustrated by what I see in our nation’s evolving culture. While some changes have been good, many cultural changes have not been good, in the sense of being objectively good the way God sees things. If the US ever was a “Christian Nation,” we certainly aren’t anymore (even back in the 1970s Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer labeled the US as “Post-Christian.”).

It’s useful, then for me to return periodically to a biblical definition of where my loyalties actually ought to lay. That is, when I look at the culture of death that is growing in our nation, the intractability of human trafficking, the passing away of our society’s moral standards and fabric that for so long supported our culture, and the growing antagonism toward traditional Christianity in the public square, I wonder whether being American is all it’s cracked up to be. If I travel abroad and meet up with other brothers and sisters in the Lord, would I be proud to say I’m an American?

As usual, scripture must guide my thinking, so what does the Bible say about being an American? Nothing directly, of course. The British colonies were just a twinkle in Europe’s eye when the canon of scripture closed. But the apostles Peter and Paul both address citizenship in interesting ways. In Phillipians 3:20, Paul writes that “our citizenship is in Heaven,” which enables us to bear earthly problems with a heavenly mindset. But Peter provides a more thorough teaching.

Nestled between the metaphor of The Church being a building of “living stones” with Christ as the cornerstone and instructions on submission to governing authorities, such as the king or one’s employer, Peter writes,

But you are a CHOSEN RACE, a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD, a HOLY NATION, aA PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.

11 Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul. 12 Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation. (1 Peter 2:9-12, NAS)

The capitalized letters tell us that these phrases are quotations, and these are from the Old Testament—phrases that were used to describe the nation of Israel (e.g., Exodus 19:16, Deut 7:6; Deut 14:2; Hosea 1:10, 2:23). This is consistent with other New Testament passages demonstrating that Christianity is an extension of Judaism, Israel’s spiritual heritage and co-heir to the promises God made to Abraham (this is a major theme of Galatians and Romans, for example).

Our National Identity. But in the context of Peter’s first century letter the phrases suggest that Christians have a distinct national identity, just as Israel did…now Christians are the chosen race, the royal priesthood, a holy nation, and a people for God’s own possession. The identifying mark of our national identity is that we once weren’t unified (we “were not a people”) but now we are unified as “the people of God.” Our nationhood is based on the mercy we have received through Christ’s atoning sacrifice. We now have received mercy—the undeserved forgiveness for our sins—and that is what distinguishes us from other people groups, not circumcision, skin color, sex, socioeconomic status, or nation-of-origin.

Our National Mission. Peter provides a mission statement for this nation: “so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.” This means the purpose for our existence is to proclaim the truth of God’s excellence to those around us, and the most excellent thing we could proclaim is the gospel message. Thus, we are to be about acting out Jesus’  Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” (Matt 28:19-20). By definition, this means we ought to be known by our unusual message, wherever we are. If we are going out and making disciples our values are going to conflict with the culture where we find ourselves. This is likely to be uncomfortable and it will sometimes get us killed. (Just this week the North Korean government executed 13 Christians for obeying Christ in this way.) If we compromise this message and the teachings of the Lord out of some sense that we don’t want to be offensive to others or “old-fashioned” or intolerant (the values of a certain nation in which I happen to reside), we will be soon be off-track in obediently pursuing our true mission.

Our Immigration Status. Peter then uses two interesting words to describe us: “aliens and strangers.” These actually are two legal terms in the Greek.  The word translated “alien” is paroikos, “a stranger, a foreigner, one who lives in a place without the right of citizenship,” while “stranger” is parepidēmos, “one who comes from a foreign country into a city or land to reside there by the side of the natives” or “sojourning in a strange place, a foreigner.”

Did you catch that? Christians are foreigners wherever we live. We have come from our home country into a place that is not our home to live side-by-side with the natives. Our loyalty must not be displaced: we are Christians who happen to be living in a foreign land called the United States, China, Nigeria, or [insert where you reside]. This helps us make sense of our mission, because we don’t have to proclaim the excellencies of God to our countrymen, because we already know about them. It’s the citizens of the nation where we temporarily reside that need our message, so they will want to acquire naturalized citizenship and we can help our King grow our nation.

Our testimony in a foreign culture. We serve a different king than whoever is in charge of the country where we happen to reside, and we therefore represent Him where we live.  In the same way that we observe foreigners and make judgments about their people group or nation, our behavior reflects on our King and the rest of our nation. Thus, Peter instructs his countrymen to “abstain from fleshly lusts” and “keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles.”  Why? Because when we speak and act just like the people who belong to the country where we live, there won’t be anything special about us. If we’re thinking and acting just like the Gentiles around us, adapting the teachings of our true nation to the values of our temporary lodging, why would any of them see the need to change their citizenship?

Our good deeds are supposed be evidence to counteract what our opponents will say about us. Imagine living in a country where your motives are questioned, your language is defined as “hate,” you’re accused of being a threat, and your values are so unusual that people will trash you and say bad things about your home country. They’ll slander you because of your foreign ways and values; you won’t talk like them, act like them, you’ll disapprove of things they tolerate, and this will earn you their ire. UNLESS your good deeds outweigh your weirdness. It will be our good deeds that testify to why we sojourners are good to have around, why our King is righteous, and why it’s worth renouncing one citizenship for a better one. As Jesus put it, “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt 5:16).

Fellow Christian, you are part of a multi-ethnic, multi-generational, diverse, chosen, redeemed, holy nation of priests, who are temporarily residing in a foreign country. If you’re pursuing the mission our King has assigned us, expect to be rejected and hated, because His ways will contradict the ways of this land. Nevertheless, live uprightly and do good in this land so that your King and citizenship in His Kingdom will be attractive to others. In the same way that the United States was for two centuries the destination of choice for people around the world because of its freedom and opportunities, let us make citizenship in our true Kingdom a desirable thing.

A Response to “How to debate a Christian apologist”

Last week atheist physicist Victor Stenger blogged on Huffington Post a series of principles and counterattacks for atheists who are going to debate Christian apologists. His hope is to provide instructions for how to effectively debate common Christian arguments on such topics as the existence of God, creation versus evolution, and the historical existence of Jesus. Nick Peters has provided a (mostly) point-by-point response to Stenger here.

In Stenger’s own words (the whole post is here):

During their opening statements and throughout the debate, apologists are likely to make arguments with which atheists may not be so well versed. So, when the time comes for rebuttals, atheists often cannot provide cogent responses, or any responses at all, and so lose debating points….

In what follows I will provide a primer on the most common arguments made by apologists and suggest canned responses. By memorizing or bringing notes containing these responses to the debate, the atheist can be just as smooth as the preacher.

Thus the key is seen early on. Rather than engage with Christian arguments, which Stenger thinks “have been refuted many times,” Stenger’s “suggestions are meant to be short, punchy statements to use during your rebuttals.”

The essence of Stenger’s complaint is that the Christian apologists get to spend more time preparing for debates than atheists do, and so have a systematic advantage. (This reminds me of a public school teacher friend who complained about home schoolers “cheating” in spelling bees by spending so much time preparing for them.) For Christians, however, this preparation is a central element of explaining the reasons for our faith: “always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). And his response is “short, punchy statements.”


Election 2012: A Difficult Choice (Detailed)

For my introduction, go here.

Which of the candidates more closely matches God’s intentions for civil government, as expressed in the Bible?

1. The civil government is to encourage people to do good (Rom 13:3-4; 1 Peter 2:13-14). 

Both candidates encourage people to be “good citizens” and to engage in acts of charity. However what Peter and Paul most likely mean when they refer to “good” includes living a righteous life. Romney’s personal life and actions, including stewardship of his own resources (e.g., charitable giving) model this idea. I also believe that Obama’s compassion for the poor, a righteous character trait, is genuine.

My conclusion:  A Draw.

2. A. The civil government is to discourage citizens from doing evil, and to punish people who do evil (Rom 13:3-4; 1 Peter 2:13-14). B. This includes managing a just criminal justice system (e.g., Deut 16:18-20; Psalm 72:1-2).

Obama. He encourages socially just attitudes and behavior and an earnest desire for economically fair policies. However, he also directly and indirectly encourages and legitimizes evil (i.e, sinful) behavior through his strong support for abortion rights in the US and abroad, which licenses and promotes murder of unborn innocents; and through his strong support for same-sex marriage, which licenses and legitimizes sinful behaviors.

Romney. I think he also genuinely believes that his economic policies will produce a more economically just set of outcomes. He supports the biblical ideal of marriage. His tepid anti-abortion position seems mostly designed to win the Republican nomination; but even half-hearted support for pre-born children is better than Mr. Obama’s policies.

My conclusion: Romney

A just criminal justice system, according to the Bible, is one in which justice is applied equally regardless of the social and economic position of the accused or the victim.

Romney. His judicial philosophy seems to be based on Natural Law theory, which coincides with ideas such as the “rule of law” that make the basis for judicial decisions the constitution and stated intents of law writers. This should, though doesn’t always, lead to more evenhanded application of the law.

Obama’s judicial philosophy emanates from Critical Law or Legal Positivism theories, in which judges’ discretion is broader, and which views the legal system as a primary means for undoing and remedying systemic social injustices against historically “oppressed” groups. In this philosophy traditionalistic religious views are viewed with suspicion and are generally falling under the category of “hate speech.”

My conclusion: Romney, because Natural Law theory, justly applied, does not advantage any one, rich or poor, whereas Critical Law and Legal Positivism assume someone must be oppressed and freed from something.

3. The civil government is to provide a secure and a tranquil social environment in which the gospel can be freely proclaimed (1 Tim 2:1-4). 

I believe both candidates care about the United States’ national security; in general their foreign and defense policies don’t really differ all that much.

Obama. The president’s policies toward freedom of religion are rather antagonistic. His administration re-defined the “free exercise” of religion to include merely “freedom of worship.” This means that your freedom of religion extends only to the ways in which you specifically worship, and not in the way you live your life; thus, for example, Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services requires every company, except for churches, to include abortificants (pills that cause abortion in case of “accidental” pregnancy) in their health insurance coverage, even if the company is religiously opposed to abortion. (Technically, HHS requires the company’s health insurance provider to include this “benefit,” but the effect is the same because the company still pays the premiums.) Obama’s Department of Justice has specifically said that a company owner gives up his or her right to religious free exercise when they offer services to the public. This is inconsistent with an environment that permits free discussion and application of the gospel to people’s lives—basically, DOJ says you’re allowed to believe the Bible, you’re just not allowed to act like you believe the Bible. In the international arena, the Obama administration has virtually ceased any efforts to systematically report on or promote freedom of religion around the world.

Romney. Appears to hold the more traditional view of free expression of religion. Since Mormons were historically persecuted because of their religious beliefs, they tend to be tolerant of alternative religions in the public sphere.

My conclusion: A draw on national security; domestically: Romney,because of the Obama administration’s policies that limit freedom of religion to freedom of worship.

4. The civil government is to facilitate a just social and economic environment in which the poor are not oppressed (Ps 72:3-4; 12-14) .To provide for those in society who have no family or church means of support (1 Tim 5:3-16; Ps 72:12-14), but without discouraging people from laboring to provide for themselves (many Proverbs praise diligent labor and criticize slothfulness; 2 Thess 3:8). 

A biblical policy for this area would be to (1) strongly encourage people who can provide for themselves to do so, strictly limiting benefits for able workers; (2) strongly encourage family members to care for their own “truly needy” family members; (3) strongly encourage churches to care for their church family members who are truly needy and truly can’t provide for themselves; (4) strongly encourage churches to care for those in their communities who are truly needy and truly can’t provide for themselves [By the way, this requires Christians and local churches to genuinely step up to do these things.]; and (5) identify those people who are left (after policies 1-4)  and who are truly needy and truly can’t provide for themselves, and facilitate their temporary support until their needs can be met by family or a local social support network or agency. The benefits of all of these family- and local-based support are clear—help is available from my family, church, and local community when I need it, but because these are “my people” I will be less likely to keep going to them when it isn’t really necessary. The creation of a remote, faceless bureaucracy for getting help provides no social accountability for my actions.

Neither candidate poses a public policy agenda that looks like this. So which comes closer?

Obama. I believe he is strongly motivated by compassion for the poor and this is worthy of praise. One of his major solutions has been to expand access to government support by redefining “poverty” to include a lot more people. While I don’t think this is wrong in and of itself, there are well-known “unintended effects” of these kinds of policies, including the tendency to discourage people from providing for themselves while encouraging them to continue seeking government support even when they could provide for themselves. (The Heritage Foundation—a conservative think tank—has reported that the Obama administration weakened federal requirements to seek work in order to continue receiving social welfare benefits; if this is true, this moves the government’s programs even further from the biblical model.) Support in the administration has dwindled for Faith-Based Initiatives, in which local faith communities had expanded access to federal social welfare support grants; while I have problems with churches going to the government for funding, the principle was a step in the right direction; that the administration de-prioritized faith-based solutions was a step in the wrong direction.

Romney. His personal record is also one that reflects compassion for and service to the needy, but his public plan deals with poverty less directly than Mr. Obama’s. His plan seems to have more general macro-economic focus, in which economic improvement for all will lift many out of poverty. The budgetary priorities of Paul Ryan include dramatic cuts for many government programs, including social welfare programs that support the newly-expanded definition of people in “poverty.” Simply cutting these is not a solution for poverty, nor does it move us in the direction of a policy that strongly develops local solutions to support the “truly needy” in society. On the other hand, Romney’s emphasis on locally-based job retraining programs suggest a step in the right direction. Romney’s stated plans for ensuring the long-term stability of federal insurance programs for the elderly and “truly needy” also don’t ensure local engagement.

My conclusion: A Draw. Neither set of programs come close to the Bible’s approach to caring for society’s “truly needy.” Obama’s policies emphasize government benefits, but have a high risk for encouraging dependency on the government. Romney’s policies don’t adequately emphasize local solutions to poverty.

Election 2012: A Difficult Choice (Brief)

This is a tough one.

Ideally, the 2012 elections would have produced a viable presidential candidate who is a Christian committed to understanding and applying the principles found in the Bible, both for personal righteousness and government action.

Neither candidate fits in this category: Mitt Romney is a Mormon, whose faith tradition differs significantly from traditional and historical Christianity on many important points, including the nature of God and Jesus. Barack Obama is a Mainline Protestant, whose church and preacher in Chicago preached primarily Liberation Theology, a Karl Marx-informed version of the social gospel that tends to reject traditional biblical standards of personal righteousness. (I do not believe Mr. Obama is a Muslim, because so many of his policies are directly against Islamic teaching, including support for abortion, same-sex marriage, and his continued prosecution of the wars in which Muslims are the primary people who are killed.) Both candidates show that they and their campaigns are willing to be selectively honest about their own and each other’s’ records.

As a Christian in this less-than-ideal situation I must then decide which of the candidates, regardless of his religion, more closely match God’s intentions for civil government, as expressed in the Bible. (There are many examples in the Bible of God’s people temporarily partnering with non-believers in the political arena, including Joseph, Daniel, Esther, Haggai and Joshua, Ezra and Nehemiah.)

There are four main purposes of government, according to the Bible. Below, I briefly list each one, with core verses, and describe how I think the candidates measure up. I should note that both candidates envision a much greater role for the civil government than can be supported by what the Bible says its role ought to be.

If you’re interested in a more thorough statement of my reasoning, I go into more detail here (or scroll down to the previous post).

1. The civil government is to encourage people to do good (Rom 13:3-4; 1 Peter 2:13-14). 

My conclusion:  A Draw. Both men encourage “good citizenship,” though Romney personally models it more clearly than Obama.

2. The civil government is to discourage citizens from doing evil, and to punish people who do evil (Rom 13:3-4; 1 Peter 2:13-14). This includes managing a just criminal justice system (e.g., Deut 16:18-20; Psalm 72:1-2).

My conclusion: Romney, because of his support for the biblical ideal of marriage (as opposed to Obama’s position that legitimizes sinful behavior), and support (though tepid) for the unborn. Romney’s legal philosophy is based on Natural Law theory, as opposed to Obama’s, which is based on Critical Law and Legal Positivism.

3. The civil government is to provide a secure and a tranquil social environment in which the gospel can be freely proclaimed (1 Tim 2:1-4). 

My conclusion: Romney, because of the Obama administration’s policies that limit “freedom of religion” to “freedom of worship,” and its assertion that company owners give up their freedom of religious expression when they enter the public economy.

4. The civil government is to facilitate a just social and economic environment in which the poor are not oppressed (Ps 72:3-4; 12-14) .To provide for those in society who have no family or church means of support (Ps 72:12-14; 1 Tim 5:3-16), but without discouraging people from laboring to provide for themselves (many Proverbs praise diligent labor and criticize slothfulness; 2 Thess 3:8). 

My conclusion: Draw. Neither set of the candidates’ programs come close to the Bible’s approach to caring for society’s “truly needy.” Obama’s policies emphasize government benefits, but have a high risk for encouraging dependency on the government. Romney’s policies don’t adequately emphasize local and faith-based organizations’ solutions to poverty.

My final conclusion: I will vote for Mr. Romney, because far fewer of Mr. Obama’s policies match what The Bible says are the appropriate roles for the civil government.

Regardless of whether you agree with my reasoning, it is critical that faithful Christians show up to vote on November 6 (or earlier where that is permitted). If we do not express our beliefs in the political arena, we should not expect our government, society, or culture to be friendly to us. To paraphrase a famous saying, “All that is needed for non-Christian views to succeed is for Christians to do nothing.”

Again, you can check out my detailed reasoning here (or scroll down to the previous post).

When your children say to you…

ExodusPageReading about the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt today, I was reminded of how God views our jobs as fathers (and parents). While giving the instructions to the Israelites about the Passover lamb and the unleavened bread, God foretells three specific conversations

  1. And when your children say to you, ‘What does this rite mean to you?’ you shall say, ‘It is a Passover sacrifice to the LORD who passed over the houses of the sons of Israel in Egypt when He smote the Egyptians, but spared our homes.’” (Ex 12:26-27 NAS)
  2. You shall tell your son on that day, saying, ‘It is because of what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt.’ And it shall serve as a sign to you on your hand, and as a reminder on your forehead, that the law of the LORD may be in your mouth; for with a powerful hand the LORD brought you out of Egypt. Therefore, you shall keep this ordinance at its appointed time from year to year. (Ex 13:8-10)
  3. And it shall be when your son asks you in time to come, saying, ‘What is this?’ then you shall say to him, ‘With a powerful hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery. It came about, when Pharaoh was stubborn about letting us go, that the LORD killed every firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast. Therefore, I sacrifice to the LORD the males, the first offspring of every womb, but every firstborn of my sons I redeem.’  So it shall serve as a sign on your hand and as phylacteries on your forehead, for with a powerful hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt.” (Ex 13:14-16)

What can we learn from this? 

  1. As parents we have the first and foremost responsibility to explain to our children the reasons for our beliefs and worship, not just dictate that we go to church, say grace before dinner, or any other part of our Christian walk. This is central to discipling our children.
  2. These conversations are regular and planned, not random. For Israel, the conversations took place at specific times–it wasn’t left to chance.
  3. The purposes of the conversations are to pass on the knowledge and understanding of the Lord and His ways, and the basis for our faith. If we fail to do this, we should not be surprised when our children don’t hold onto the things we believe are important.
  4. These conversations are between parents and children, not youth group leaders, or Sunday school teachers, or pastors. Parents, you can’t delegate this to others, because you are in the best position to equip and influence your own children. Pastors, youth leaders, and Sunday school teachers come alongside you in this process.

The apostle Peter wrote, “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15). 

Being ready to make a defense includes preparing conversations with our children. Have you explained to your kids why you do what you do, and why it is important? Find an opportunity to do this sometime this week; your drive to church will be a great time!