Honor Your Parents

I was reading in Jeremiah this morning and came across the story of the Rechabites in chapter 35. The context of this story is the continued disobedience of the people of Judah and Jerusalem despite being given clear instructions through the prophets. However, the Rechabites were unique in that they demonstrated a lifelong commitment to the instructions of their father, Jonadab.

8 We have obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab, our father, in all that he commanded us, to drink no wine all our days, ourselves, our wives, our sons, or our daughters, 9 and not to build houses to dwell in. We have no vineyard or field or seed, 10 but we have lived in tents and have obeyed and done all that Jonadab our father commanded us. (Jeremiah 35:8-10 ESV)

God valued this honoring of their parents and made a promise to this family that He would preserve them despite all the disaster that would come to the land where they live.

18 But to the house of the Rechabites Jeremiah said, “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Because you have obeyed the command of Jonadab your father and kept all his precepts and done all that he commanded you, 19 therefore thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Jonadab the son of Rechab shall never lack a man to stand before me.” (Jeremiah 35:18;19 ESV)

Now, this is a promise to a particular family in time, but it demonstrates the principle of the value that God places on honoring your parents and the process of discipleship. The parents instructed the children, and the children obeyed their instruction.

In my sermon last Sunday, I talked at length about the importance of education as discipleship, but I didn't really talk about the responsibility of the children to honor their parents. Really, though, that is a very important part of the process of cultivating a God-honoring culture. The 5th commandment lays out that children need to honor their parents so that their days may be long in the land given to them. If children grow up with an attitude that their parents are simply killjoys that are to be tolerated until they can break free, then all of the foundational truths needed to withstand the flood of humanism will not help them. The probability is great that they will depart their parents' house with a different view of the world.

We see in our own culture how rebellion is glorified. Foolishness and rebellion has been a problem for all of us since birth, and more and more, rebellion against authority and the previous generation has been presented as "cool" or desirable in the media. When we glamorize rebellion and then remove the conduit of influence for parents by shipping them off to the state schools to be discipled by the state, then we have no expectation that children will do anything but rebel against the world view of mom and dad. The encouragement to rebel goes in direct opposition to the expectations of the 5th commandment. Such encouragement would be like encouraging the children of the wise builder of Luke 6:48 to leave the well built house to go live with the foolish builder of verse 49 during the flood. The obedience to the truths of Scriptures which protect is left behind, and a great ruin in their lives ensues.

Back in Jeremiah 35, God made a point of demonstrating His valuing generational faithfulness by promising to preserve them, just as the 5th commandment says. Even when we aren't perfect in what we teach or how we parent, this chapter gives me hope that our focus on restoring parental influence, dicipleship and home education is pleasing to God. When God looks at our culture and sees a people who do not incline their ear and listen to Him (Jer 35:15), my hope is that he will see a community like ours and be pleased.

The Battle for Civilization

Geoff Botkin is leading the production of a new seven-part television series entitled The Battle for Civilization. This aim of this project is to uncover the events leading up to periods of civility in our world's history in a way that helps modern viewers understand the state of the world today, especially the conditions we find in the United States. When complete, the viewer will better understand the nature of the disintegrating disciplines of economics, science, history, art, politics and religion. Mr. Botkin seems to have a special gift for discerning the culture and times in which we live, and The Battle for Civilization will undoubtedly be a special production.

Protecting the Family

Here is an excerpt from a recent Family Life Today radio broadcast with the hosts, Dennis Rainey and Bob Lepine, and the guest, Voddie Baucham. The topic and the basis for this excerpt is a discussion on the problems with youth ministry.

Bob: So a pastor who would say, "Well, I hear you, and we've got kids in our service as well, and we're trying to challenge dads to do what you're trying to challenge dads to do, but on Wednesday night the youth group gets together, and we've got a young pastor, and he's ministering to those high school and junior high kids and it seems to be a good thing that the families appreciate." You would say it's a problem?

Voddie: I would say a couple of things. Number one …

Bob: Now he's – he's not sure how much he wants this boat to rock, is he?

Dennis: Bob's trying to see how far you're going to rock this boat.

Voddie: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Number one, let's just say, "Okay, great. We've got this Wednesday night service for the youth." What purpose would we have for that meeting? Why do my children need a pastor who is not my pastor? That's my first question. And it automatically assumes this myth called "the generation gap" – that my children somehow cannot understand the language of a culture that is not their own. That creates egocentrism in my children; that creates animosity between my children and myself; it also creates an allegiance with my children spiritually to a person who is seen as being able to minister to them because they understand my children and their culture.

My children's responsibility is to understand culture at large, not to think that the world revolves around them. Well, what if the youth minister is just teaching the Word, and it's solid. Well, if he's teaching the Word, and it's solid, how come they can't come in where the rest of us are having the Word taught, and it's solid.

Again, the Scriptures do not dictate this segregation. They don't even allude to this kind of segregation, and the only reasons that we can come up with for this kind of segregation come directly from our culture and the un-biblical portions of our culture that move toward this age segregation.

I liked Voddie's response to the question because it sounds like a question many of the folks in my church have had to answer in our own minds or from people around us. What's wrong with a little fun on Wednesday nights for our children, given the assumption that great biblical truth is being preached on Sunday mornings? I like the first aspect of his response...

Why? What is the reason for doing this?

For whatever we do, we need to know why we are doing it. Before we talk about whether it's bad or good, first state the reason that it exists. Just accepting things because we did them as youth or because most people around us do them is not sufficient. Without understanding why we do what we do, we are opening up our families to things that could be unprofitable and even detrimental. We should identify what the intended or desired outcome is. In other words, we must take everything back to the vision we have laid out for our families which of course is based on being transformed by Scripture to join in God's good work.

And another aspect of his response...

What is it bringing to the family?

For the so called good that this may bring, what bad comes along with it? We should examine carefully the things we choose to do in order to understand what baggage comes along when we participate. For example, when my family used to rent videos more frequently, we often skipped past the previews because they were typically inappropriate, even to the point of causing us to stumble. Now we're too busy doing other things to rent movies much at all any more.

Sports is another mixed bag. Despite all of the defiling advertising that comes with sports (which might be able to be filtered), what appetites are being nurtured and fed in our children (and us) with sports? Am I giving my children an appetite for something that will consume a large part of their time and attention and compete with the time they need to prepare and train for righteousness? Do I myself struggle with participating in and watching sporting events which takes away valuable time from my family or my own training in righteousness?

And in the youth ministry case, the Wednesday night fun brings into the lives of my children a new Spiritual authority in the form of a youth pastor. With whatever biblical truth he may speak, he is also bringing a temptation for my children to begin listening more to him than to me. Sure it might be biblical truth, but is it necessary or even important enough to expose my children to the temptation? Again, a family vision helps to determine what is worth doing and not doing and what to watch out for when doing it.

And finally....

What does it assume about the family?

This one is tougher. What must be true in the family in order for the good to actually be good? In the youth ministry question, we see that an assumed generation gap must exist in order for the methods and techniques used by so many youth ministries to be good for our kids. It assumes that the parents aren't able to fully reach their children because of a gap, and the hip, funny, cool youth minister can finish the job by "relating" to the children "on their level" and then attempting to squeeze a bit of biblical truth through that relationship.

The church really ought to spend its time and money teaching fathers to turn their hearts back to their children, so that the fathers can recapture trust, obedience, and loyalty of those whom he is responsible to train. And really, this question opens up a big can of worms when you go down the path that flows from it. When you begin asking the questions about what an activity assumes about the family, it often leads to what is assumed about biblical discipleship. And when you take that topic further, you hit the topics of manhood and womanhood. And when you keep going, you end up ultimately at what authority is played out as the basis for an activity. Is it the Bible? Is it man's thinking?

The youth ministry, as demonstrated by its actions, assumes that it is more important for the church to try to reach the children than it is to reach the parents. And this stems from a view that the child's spiritual training is best led by the church. After all, if the church actually believed that it was the job of parents to train their children, then they wouldn't give them "an out" in the form of a youth ministry.

Having now stripped the children away from the parents, the adult spiritual training is so often structured in a way that splits the husband and wife. Women's ministries abound, and it is highly encouraged for a woman to learn and be discipled outside of the teaching of her husband. Husbands, with nothing left to do because the church has convinced them that their wives and children are covered become bored and disinterested and so they go off to the golf course (or wherever). Passivity is encouraged in the husbands because there is nothing left to do, and men recoil away from the idea of stepping up to the plate and doing the jobs themselves. Women grow in knowledge with training that is structured in a way that reinforces their natural tendencies to supersede the headship and authority of their husbands. It builds into the women a sense of spiritual superiority that breeds a victim attitude when the truths of submission are taught and women are faced with the weight of confessing pride and coming under the leadership of their husbands.

And this ultimately goes back to what is the source for our instructions on how to treat men and women in the church. Is the plain teaching on headship and submission taught as sufficient for all husband-wife relations? Or is a rebellion against submission and a weak, soft view of family order mixed in to what the Bible says in an attempt to make it palatable? It really does go back to the concept of the sufficiency of Scripture. Where do you find the authority to do what you do?

What a tangled web we weave in our churches today.

We Shelter, Yet We Teach

Last night I was reading Thoughts for Young Men by J.C. Ryle to my son, who is 6. He's too young to grasp all of the nuances of the warnings that Mr. Ryle gives, but he understands enough for it to reinforce what we've been teaching him already about issues such as pride. I have to admit that I was wondering if he was enjoying Mr. Ryle's emphatic warnings about the natural tendencies of young men, but when I finished a section on the dangers of pride, he very enthusiastically asked me to read more. So I obliged and we went to the next section on the dangers of youthful passions.

Everything was fine, until we got to a section where Mr. Ryle transitioned to the discussion that a certain kind of passion was especially dangerous to young men, that being sexual immorality and lust. Now, I know that he was talking about the types of passions that lead young (and old) men into the throes of sexual sin, but my son had no clue of the depths and ugliness that sexual immorality brings. When we finished, I felt that my son needed a little explanation, since the words "sexual immorality" had occurred so frequently in the reading. I told my son that, for him, sexual immorality means not protecting a girl.

This may seem like a strange way to describe it, but it fits. We have been teaching him for some time that boys are to protect girls, and one sinful aspect of sexual immorality lies in the offending man's taking advantage of the women with whom he is transgressing (whether it be a mental or physical act of sexual immorality). The offending man has moved away from the righteous principle of protecting women and children and landed fully on selfishness and rebellion. That principle is quite understandable to my young son, and he really doesn't need to know (nor does he really care right now) about the gory details.

So, by defining sexual immorality principally to my son, he is able to process the words that he finds in books like Thoughts for Young Men as well as the Bible in a manner that is consistent with the details that he does know. We as parents are training him on the realities of the world, but we are doing so in a manner that works in cooperation with the moral framework that has been built up to this point in his upbringing. We are indeed sheltering him from the full force of the sin in question, but we are not sheltering him from it altogether. As he grows in moral maturity, so also will the force with which he is trained.

So, yes, we shelter. Yet we teach also. And in all things, we choose not to defile.

Not a Clue

A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher.
Luke 6:40 (ESV)

When I came across this verse recently, I was reminded of a time when I was still in college, attending a retreat for a Christian men's club to which I belonged. At the retreat, the chaplain for our group spoke on the topic of personal excellence and challenged us to become the man we would want our sons to emulate. It was a great thought for me to ponder as a young, inexperienced, ill-prepared Christian man because it was a thought that was filled with vision.

The picture for us given by the chaplain was one of whole-life discipleship. Our future sons would be patterning themselves after us one day, and we really needed to hear that our own Christian walks would be the basis for our sons' walks. They would copy us and share, to a degree, in our strengths and weaknesses, so there was no time like the present to confess our weaknesses and seek repentance.

When I think about that group of men who heard such a visionary message, I have to wonder how many of those men were themselves sons of fathers with such vision. How many of those men were trained and discipled by their fathers in a specific and focused fashion? How many of those men had been sent out by their fathers to college because they had reached the point of maturity to be ready to start their own families?

It seems unlikely that any of us were. After all, our culture seems bound to the idea that higher education must happen in the University or College. Our children, we are told, must leave their homes and live the "college life" on their own so that they can learn how to live in the "real world". This however is so dangerous to our children because hardly any of them are ready to handle the world when we send them away. Rarely, if ever, are children ready to withstand the barrage of immature, self-centered, atheistic, immoral, and close-minded institutions that we call Universities or Colleges.

Before my son leaves my house, he will need to complete his training and be ready to start a family. That means he must be have completed an intensive liberal arts education, completed enough vocational training to earn a living that can support a family, completed enough theological training to disciple his future wife and children, and prove that he is mature enough to wield the responsibility of being a husband and father. He will know what it means to be a man, and he will be so well versed that he can withstand the attacks our culture will launch at his worldview.

When I remember the group of men at that retreat, I really don't think any of us were ready to be out from under the discipleship of our fathers. So many of us didn't have a clue about what it meant to be a husband or father, yet there we were, listening to one of our peers teach us. By the grace of God, a nugget of visionary truth made it through, but I doubt any of us knew what to really do with it. It really is sad to think about such a promising group of men who went largely untrained before they were sent out to be husbands and fathers. I can only wonder what kind of family dynamics have been formed in the families touched by that group of men. Will the pattern of sending our children out as sheep to the wolves repeat itself? I sure hope not.

In thinking about Luke 6:40 and how it applies here, I am reminded that when fathers don't take the lead in discipling their children, their peers will. And, as Luke 6:40 says, the students will become like the teacher in the end.

Fathers, who do you want teaching your children? If the answer isn't yourself, then your children will follow along with someone else's children and become whatever the children think is best. What is the result? You have just lost the hearts of your children, and the influence in their lives. Try being a parent when that happens! You really can't be, and you've lost all influence in who your child grows up to be.

Why Children In Worship?

At my church, we choose to encourage parents to keep their children in the worship service with them. Our rationale for this speaks to a more general principle at work in churches today -- that is, a church's programming reveals what it believes about discipleship and the family. Specifically, my church believes that the most basic building block of Christ’s church is the family and that family worship is the key to discipling families. At the core of this belief is Deuteronomy 6.

7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. (Deuteronomy 6:7-9 ESV)

We believe that the instructions given in Deuteronomy 6 describe the manner in which spiritual training in the life of the family is to take place. It should occur "when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise". This is describing what families ought to do every day of the week. It describes a discipleship model that is life-based, not Sunday-based.; family-integrated, not age-segregated. It describes a family that learns about God and worships Him on a daily basis. Ultimately, it describes God's plan for extending His kingdom throughout the earth. Christ's church lives on through the generations as God's people who faithfully prepare their children to know and love the Lord. Based on Deuteronomy 6, the day-to-day family worship is key for this to happen.

By encouraging the parents to keep their children with them during the whole worship service, our church is structuring the Sunday morning experience to reflect and complement a family-integrated worship experience during the week. It reinforces and strengthens in the minds of the families the concepts in Deuteronomy 6 which describe family worship as the normative way for spiritual growth and discipleship. It is especially impacting for the children as they see their parents worship in song, prayer, and teaching from an elder. Also, in my church, the children hear the fathers read Scripture each week, reinforcing a father's duty as prophet to his family, proclaiming God's word to those in his care. Children further experience the covering of their father's prayers as he demonstrates the role of priest for his family bringing them to the altar of God to experience His presence through prayer and supplication. And not only with their own parents, but the children also witness their friends' families doing the same thing. What if a family doesn't know where to begin with family worship? No problem. The elders of the chruch can help as well as other families who have been doing it for a while. After all, it is the job of the Sunday meetings to equip the saints or the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ.

Is it difficult to worship with young children? Yes. Is it worth it? Yes -- for both the parents AND the children. Some people say that their children don't really get anything out of adult worship. However, children get something out of everything. In addition to the benefits listed previously, Scott Brown, one of the leaders of the National Center for Family Integrated Churches, writes:

There is great value for a very young child experiencing the deep and authentic worship of the church. Something is being transferred as they watch their fathers give of the family resources during the offering. As they grow up, their understanding will increase. Something is being transferred as they watch the adults “worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23). They don’t get everything, but they can get something from observing the fervency and genuineness of the church’s expression of love for God, dependence upon Him, and joy in Him. This is the value of having children in church. Children progressively understand what a parent and the wider church members love and appreciate. Year after year, their understanding builds. Year after year, the well is filling up. The cumulative effect of deep and significant thinking and activities is what we are looking for.

I couldn't say it any better. In conclusion, keeping children together with their parents in worship is beneficial for families by emphasizing and reinforcing the instructions of Scripture that they worship at home in their day-to-day lives. It is beneficial for the children by growing them and stretching their minds and hearts. And by extension, it is beneficial for the church. If the families in a church are healthy, then the church itself is healthy.

My Help Meet

During the time when our baby was in the breech position, my wife and I were discussing the options for doing a breech birth. We considered all sorts of complications, and we often came to the hypothetical situation of what to do if it came down to choosing a course of action where we could save our baby's life or my wife's life. We talked about this situation with the doctors we saw and with some of our friends. It was always interesting to hear what people's opinions were on the topic. Ultimately, God is sovereign over what happens or not, but I think it is very instructive to think about the principles at work in these types of conundrums.

First of all, I believe that since the situation involves the life and death of my wife, that it needs to be properly framed by reviewing what the Bible has to say regarding my wife's created purpose and her identity in God's eyes. We see in Genesis 2 the origin of the woman's role:

2:20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”

Particularly in verse 20, Adam learns that there is no helper fit or suitable for him, and this realization leads to the woman's creation to fill that purpose. Great significance in the woman's being a helper suitable created for her husband is taken from this passage. Look at what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11 in reference back to this created order:

11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Paul also directly speaks to the woman's role in Ephesians 5:

5:22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

Based on a quick look at a few passages describing the manner in which God brought women into existence as well as God's characterization of the husband-wife relationship, it is clear that there is an authority structure in the family, and that the husband is at the head. The passages I have cited are not the only ones which touch on this structure, but they represent a good sampling of what is usually referenced on the topic. There are more detailed explanations out there, but I will leave that to an exercise for the reader. :) Also, at this point it is always good to remind everyone that the family government is not designed to be a place for any man to exercise unbridled, selfish, domination over his wife. There are plenty of resources (including the rest of Ephesians 5) which can help a man understand the way in which he is to lead his family. Again, I leave that as an exercise for the reader. For the purpose of this discussion, I am assuming that the authority exercised is done so with all humility and proper biblical restraints in place.

Therefore, the way in which a family operates is not an egalitarian, 50-50, two-chefs-in-the-kitchen democracy. There are distinctions in the roles for men and women, and one facet of those distinctions relates to authority. This, I believe, should be included when forming the context for all family discussions, particularly when such weighty decisions about life and death are involved.

So as my wife and I processed the implications of whether we would choose the child's life or her life (if forced to choose only one), we asked ourselves, what has God called my wife to be? What is her identity in the light of the biblical descriptions of her role?

We remembered that she is first identified as a child of God. Second, she is identified as a helper suitable for me. And third, she is identified as a mother to three children (at the time). Those identities are not equal in and of themselves. The order in which they are listed is also the order of precedence and priority. Her first love is to her God, then to me as her husband, and finally to her children.

In situations like this life or death circumstance, the decision extends beyond her own personal priorities though. As her husband, I am her head, and I will be held responsible for how I lead my wife through decisions such as this. Therefore, I believe that the life and death decision ultimately lies with me because I will ultimately be held responsible by God for what happens. Now please don't take this line of thought farther than I intend. The way in which these "final say" types of decisions are made in a biblical marriage is again something that is covered in other places. Trust me that my authority in decisions like this is not mutually exclusive with my wife's decisive influence. However, what I am saying is that I as the husband must be a foundational and final part of the decision, and this seems to be somewhat counter-cultural.

For our family, I would choose saving my wife because I believe that choice would protect the foundation of my family to the greatest extent. The husband-wife relationship is the core of the family, and the family operates best when its core is healthy. Our three other children need their mommy and daddy to have a strong, healthy marriage. If my wife is no longer with us, the very core of the family is damaged. Everything about family life will be changed and numerous challenges will arise. However, if the fourth child doesn't survive, the family is still intact in the sense that all of the necessary roles remain as they were prior to the incident.

I don't believe the issue here is to avoid a difficult family life. To me, the issue is being a good leader and steward of the family God has blessed me to lead. I completely submit to God's sovereign providence in life's events, but we must remember that this whole discussion was framed in a way which is intended to discuss what principles are at work when we, the created beings, make choices according to the principles as laid out in the Creator's revelation in the Bible. Obviously, the Creator can override the creature's will to suit His good pleasure.

To me, one of the most instructive aspects of this discussion is the way in which it really explores the most basic features of the husband-wife relationship in a manner which rarely happens in our culture.

So there you have it. I, as the husband, am responsible for the decision in this conundrum. And in my case, I choose my wife. After all, she was made to be especially suitable for me. :)

The Miracle Is Upon Us

I'm at a birthing center right now with my wife and few other women from my church. It's time for my next child to join us outside of the womb. It is both a wonderful moment and an exciting process that we are beholding here.

And to think some people think this is just a product of chance plus time plus matter.

Update: She is here! Everything went well -- mom and baby are resting now.

When Head Over Heels is a Problem

For those of you who know us personally, you may have heard that our newest baby was sitting in a breech position in the womb. Given that she was 38 weeks in utero, it was getting pretty close to the delivery and being in the breech position makes things a little more complicated. God's design for delivery works most naturally when the baby is head down, and it is quite amazing all of the things that happen in the womb as the baby descends down the birth canal. This 3D animated childbirth video is pretty cool, showing the normal motions of a baby as it is born. (no real people, no nudity in the video)

In most situations doctors recommend a cesarean section to surgically deliver the baby when it is breech, but my wife is minimalist when it comes to intervention, so a c-section was the absolute, utter last thing she wanted to do. There are also a collection of "old wives tales" on the Internet which purportedly help to encourage a breech baby to turn. My favorite is one that our kids dubbed "The Pineapple". It involves propping up the pregnant mom on a negative incline as much as possible to keep the baby from settling into the pelvis. We called it The Pineapple because my first thought when I saw it was a pineapple upside down cake The kids seemed to like that, so it will forever be remembered as The Pineapple.

It was really quite humorous as we placed plywood ramp on the edge of the couch to create an incline. A 38-week pregnant lady isn't quite at her pinnacle of maneuverability, so my job was to lift her legs and pelvis up onto the ramp so that she assumed a head-down position herself. Besides having problems with her stomach falling "down hill" into her throat, it really wasn't very comfortable for her at all! Just imagine doing a headstand for 20 minutes 2-3 times per day.

After a week and a half of The Pineapple, we decided it was time to see a doctor about doing an External Cephalic Version. This is a procedure where doctors resort to physically pushing on the baby through mom's tummy in order to move the baby into a head down orientation. Many moms report that this is a very painful experience, even more so than normal labor. Our doctor, in particular, wouldn't schedule a Version unless the operating room in Labor and Delivery was unscheduled. (It's also possible for the baby to crash during this maneuver or even for mom to hemorrhage to the point of needing an emergency c-section.)

After visiting with the doctor and scheduling a Version, we went to the midwife for a normally scheduled appointment. As my wife was laying on the exam table, our midwife began to massage my wife's tummy. As she stroked, she realized that she could slowly and gently guide the baby into a new position. She continued to massage until the baby had turned a full 90 degrees. At that point, I thought if she had a few extra hands, she might be able to turn the baby all the way. So, I got up and added my own pressure to "encourage" the baby to slide around to a head down position. In the end, it worked beautifully, and all the while, my wife felt no discomfort. The midwife checked the baby's heartbeat and then we went to the ultrasound facility to double-check the baby's position. Everything turned out great, and we are very releived to have a baby headed in the right direction now.

Update (8/31/2007): It turns out the doctor who would have done the Version in addition to being willing to breech delivery has been injured. I recently found out that he had a ladder accident and seriously injured his hand/wrist and some vertebrae. My heart grieves for the pain this kind man is in, and I am also amazed at the providence of my God. If the baby didn't end up in a normal, head down position, I'm not sure what we would have done given the injury to the doctor. I am such a small, small person in the hands of a big, big God.

Real Life Aesthetics

I was at The Home Depot recently buying supplies to protect my windows from a potential hurricane. When I presented my credit card to the cashier, he noticed that there was a picture of children playing on the card instead of a graphic logo or design. Now it's not my kids; it just happens to be the picture chosen by Chase for the Toys R Us MasterCard that I like to use. This picture prompted the cashier to tell me about a commercial he had seen that goes something like this:

A woman arrives at the cashier in order to pay for her merchandise, and she hands the cashier her customized credit card. The cashier looks at the card, noticing the custom photo of a man on the card. Curiously, the cashier questions the patron, "Oh who's this?" The woman answers, "That's my boyfriend." Breaking off the transaction for a moment, the cashier plunges into her purse only to reveal a credit card customized with a photo of the same man. She declares to the woman, "Mine too!"

Back in my world, I laughed at the humor of the story. However, when I walked out of the store, I was troubled by something. I began to think about the story and how I reacted to it. Upon further review, I discovered that this story of the two-timing man with “card-carrying” girlfriends was actually a very horrible story. It describes a man with no integrity purposefully deceiving (at least) two women for his own pleasure. It’s a story about betrayal and the likely brokenness ensuing in the wake of discovery by the two women. What makes it even worse is this story’s use as a mechanism for humor.

The reason I point this out deals with the subject of aesthetics. I’ve heard aesthetics described as those things in the world around us which we perceive through our senses. Think about walking into someone’s house. The aesthetics of the house are all of the sights, sounds, and smells that confront you as soon as you walk in the door. It can include taste and touch if you further interact with the house’s occupants.

The interesting thing about aesthetics, especially in the case of someone’s house, is that they effectively reveal the culture of the occupants. For example, a library full of woodworking books reveals that the at least one of the occupants likely values the hobby of woodworking. A kitchen full of cookbooks and well-used pots would also reveal that the occupants value cooking at home. These things may not seem to terribly informative at first, but if you examine why those activities are important, more information is uncovered. For example, it’s possible that the woodworking hobby is really part of a plan for the father of the house to develop a family business because he values time spent with his family more than time spent serving a corporation away from home. Likewise, cooking at home might be a reflection of a belief that regularly eating meals at restaurants is not a good use of the household resources.

Back to the credit card story…

The aesthetics of the credit card story are all the sights and sounds which proceed from the television during the commercial. Those sights and sounds are intentionally chosen to paint a picture of a make-believe world in which the commercial's characters live. It describes for the viewers what the culture of the commercial is like. By and large, the culture of the commercial is very much like our own. It’s supposed to be a world with which the viewers identify as being familiar and likeable. Through the specifically crafted elements presented to us, the producer draws us into the make-believe world of the commercial. Once we’re captured, the characters' elements with their personal relationships come into play. We learn relevant details of those relationships to the degree that is necessary to communicate the intended plot line. In the end, we are taken through an unexpected twist that is designed to elicit a humorous response and in some way encourage us to use a particular “brand” of credit card.

What I find troubling is the commercial’s use of objectionable elements and their presentation in a way which encourages the viewers to lose focus of them and look past them. I don’t know of many people who would think that being deceived and dumped is a good thing. Yet, we find ourselves laughing at this very thing, as if the lying and deceit aren’t there. When we lose focus of those things, allowing them to exist in our mind unchallenged, we are providing tacit approval of them. More and more in the media we consume, the moral underpinnings of our culture are being eroded away in our minds by this tacit acceptance of immoral behavior such as that in the commercial. The behavior in question is rarely the main topic of a story, but it is provided as context which frames the plot. We are encouraged to look past these “peripheral issues” to the main plot, but in doing so, we are accepting more than we realize.

Consumers of media need to be aggressively aware of what the media is doing to them. We should not allow the world view of media producers to influence our own without first analyzing their teachings to determine how their world view fits with our own. Television and film are by nature teaching media. With enough exposure, we become disciples to those who craft the views presented in our media.

This is precisely why I strive to be vigilant in screening what media my family and I consume. Jesus says that we cannot serve two masters. If I’m not careful, I may end up allowing false teachings into my home through my television, computer, or DVD player. Heaven forbid that I be so derelict in my duty to protect my family from deception!

What Causes the Onset of Secularization?

In today's blog by Albert Mohler, he leads with this paragraph:

Does worldview determine behavior or does behavior determine worldview? In the end, the process must certainly work both ways. An individual's basic worldview surely determines moral choices and behaviors. But habits of life and moral context can also lead to modifications in worldview.

The rest of the blog discusses an article by Mary Eberstadt in which she discusses the causal link to the secularization of a culture.

In a nutshell, the dominant theory on secularization of a culture postulates that the cause of a cultural secularization is the erosion of a religious world view into a secular world view. As the authorities inherent in the religious world view are removed, the view of marriage and children as divine callings is also removed. So in a sense, a secular world view causes the family to break down and results in a secular culture.

Mary Eberstadt postulates the causal link to be the opposite. She points to examples such as Europe where family decline preceded the onset of secularization at the expense of Christianity. The United States is also held up as an example where the U.S. leads the world in many dimensions of "modernity" or secular thinking, but that most Americans claim to believe in God and large portions of the population attend church.

This is where I begin to take some issue with the categories being used here. I think that it's important to note that not all who are "religious" actually have world views which are non-secular. Many reports from the Barna Group reveal that a great deal of "religious" people in our culture have secular world views. It is quite common, in fact, for people's actions to be in complete opposition to their claimed world view. Even where great attempts to be internally consistent are made, contradictions are there. This is why in Christian theology, sanctification is seen as a process in addition to being seen as a state of being. Truly religious people will continue to grow in their faith and understanding, and the contradictions will be reduced as maturity increases.

In my opinion, I think Mary Eberstadt may miss the point a little bit on what causes secularization, that is, what causes a society's character to change towards a secular view. As we know, the world view of the next generation is shaped by the parents of that generation independent of family size. In my opinion, a society changes towards secular, not because families are breaking down or because the thinking of the culture is secular. To me, the causal link to the secularization of a culture is the lack of generational vision in the parents. If parents of a generation do not disciple their children in a particular world view, then the world view of the next generation is "up for grabs". Without consistent pressure by the parents through the training of their children's minds, the world views of the children are free to drift away from their parents' views. It doesn't matter how many children you have, if you disciple them properly, there is a very good chance they will share your world view. I think the growth of Islam supports this point. (to my dismay)

This then brings up another question. If the parents are not faithful in passing their views of the world to their children (and thus maintain societal continuity), is there a "default" world view when none is actively trained? I would say, yes, there is. Based on the fact that our minds are corrupted by the curse, we do not have the natural capacity to truly know the spiritual truths which lead to Life. Without the Spirit enlightening our minds, we will do what "seems right". And Proverbs 16:25 says that the ways which seem right to a man will lead to death in the end.

Thus, the default world view is inherently secular, and is the world view which naturally results when the parents exhibit no leadership or improper leadership in the discipling of their children.

In summary, I believe that having one world view or another doesn't have much bearing on the shaping or changing views of a culture over time. To me, the successfulness of passing of one world view or another to the future generations is what maintains cultures and prevents the onset of secularization.

Like Arrows in the Hand of a Warrior

Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD,
the fruit of the womb a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior
are the children of one’s youth.
Blessed is the man
who fills his quiver with them!
He shall not be put to shame
when he speaks with his enemies in the gate. (Psalm 127:3-5)

We are by no means unique in this, but this verse really typifies what we think about children. It wasn't always this way.

Both my wife and I began our marriage thinking we knew what our family would look like. I thought two kids was the perfect number -- one boy, one girl (just like my family growing up.. imagine that!). My wife thought that 6 was a great number to shoot for. Blissfully ignorant of how a real compromise might happen regarding the discontinuity between 2 and 6, we walked forward into our marriage.

For the first few months, we thought that it would be nice to get settled into our careers, pay off some debt, and generally get the marriage thing figured out. Kids weren't really on the radar -- a few years out maybe, but not then. After all, kids are expensive. Kids take away free time. Kids change your standard of living.

Six months into the marriage, God decided we needed a wake-up call from our self-absorbed slumber in the form of an unplanned pregnancy. It was a real shocker for us because we thought it would be years before the kids came. In any event, we adjusted to the idea of being parents (or at least what we thought parents should be) and began life with a baby boy. Having only one child doesn't really change much though. We were still able to be pretty self-absorbed in our schedules and leisure activities.

The second pregnancy came about 2 years later, and since it was a girl, I thought we were done. That is at least until I mentioned the idea to my wife! The discontinuity between 2 and 6 quickly became a discontinuity between husband and wife. When our second child was born, life became more complicated because it wasn't as easy to be self-absorbed!

The third pregnancy came about 2 more years later, but this time, things were different. No longer did we believe that children were a burden or a drain on resources.

God opened our minds and hearts to the truth of Psalm 127. In Psalm 127, He clearly states that children are a blessing, and we felt that it was completely self-centered of us to think that we could "correct" the truth of Psalm 127 in our views that they weren't blessings but rather burdens. If God is God, and He says that children are blessings, then why would we want to turn down more blessings from God? He also says that they are rewards. Who would turn down a reward from the Almighty?

We completely understand that each child brings more responsibility in all areas of life, but the idea that additional children are burdensome is foreign to Scripture. God will supply what we need to accomplish what He desires in our hearts as well as in our physical lives.

And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus. -- Ephesians 4:19 (ESV)

Do I think about how many children we might end up having? Yes. Do I get worried? No. I choose to believe God when He tells me through Ephesians 4:19 that He will supply all my needs. It is my job however to submit my heart to Him in order that He might define for me what my needs are.

It's more than just having needs met, though. It's far greater than that. God also says that children are like arrows in the hand of a warrior. Why would I want to turn down blessings from God that are also weapons to destroy the enemy? If I care about fighting for God's kingdom, then it behooves me to take seriously what God tells me my weapons can be. You see, children are a means to establish a heritage for God. Children are the means to fill the earth with God-fearing souls. If I have 10 kids, and my liberal, abortion-minded counterpart has 2, then I have 5 times more children who can be trained in a Christian world view than those who will be trained as God's enemies.

I understand that it is God who chooses, not me. But, I also see that families have always been a prime centerpiece in God's dealings with His people. Deuteronomy 6:4-7 clearly lays out a framework for multi-generational faithfulness that is pleasing to God, and that framework is founded on the family. Deuteronomy 6:4-7 is a framework, but it is also a command. If I love God, then my obedience ought to naturally follow. If I can't obey Deuteronomy 6:4-7, then there are bigger issues in my heart than children.

Praise God that he changed our hearts. We are blessed. We love God's rewards He has given us. We will work our hardest to make them deadly weapons for Christ.

God's Trumpet Blast

My son asked me tonight on the way home from Wal-Mart why God chose the curse as a consequence for Adam and Eve's sin. He wondered why God didn't choose grace instead of the curse. I told him that the curse is actually evidence of God's grace. For the very existence of the curse implies that Adam and Eve weren't killed for their sin. To even have a world in which the curse exists is a direct result of God's grace. Every breath of every day is only possible with God's grace.

I found this point from a sermon by John Piper to be especially noteworthy:

The reason this terrorized and troubled world exists is because God subjected the natural world to futility. That is, God put the natural world under a curse so that the physical horrors we see around us in diseases and calamities would become a vivid picture of how horrible sin is. In other words, natural evil is a signpost pointing to the horrors of moral evil.

Before I say another word, hear this word of clarification: some of the sweetest, most humble, godly, Christ-exalting, heaven-bound people carry some of those signs. Listen to Romans 8:18-21:

The sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

In other words, God subjected the creation to futility and bondage to decay and misery and death. He disordered the natural world because of the disorder of the moral and spiritual world-that is because of sin. In our present condition blinded by sin and dishonoring God every day, we cannot see how repugnant sin is. Hardly anyone in the world feels the horror that our sin is. Physical pain we feel! And so it becomes God's trumpet blast to tell us that something is dreadfully wrong in the world. Diseases and deformities are God's portraits of what sin is like in the spiritual realm. That is true even though some of the most godly people bear those deformities. Calamities are God's previews of what sin deserves and will one day receive in judgment a thousand times worse. They are warnings. And that is true even when they sweep away Christ-followers and Christ-rejectors.

Oh, that we could all see and feel how repugnant, how offensive, how abominable it is to blackball our Maker, to ignore him and distrust him and demean him and give him less attention in our hearts than we do the carpet on our living room floor. We must see this, or we will not turn to Christ for salvation from sin. Therefore, God mercifully shouts to us in our sicknesses and pain and calamities: Wake up! Sin is like this! Sin leads to things like this. (See Revelation 9:20; 16:9, 11.) The natural world is shot through with horrors to wake us from the dreamworld of thinking sin is no big deal. It is a horrifically big deal.

Naked Art from a Christian Worldview?

Should nakedness be considered artistically appropriate from a Christian worldview? The issues around this type of question showed up in Scott's blog, Generations Of, recently in response to a post by Dr. George Grant on his blog. Dr. Grant has this to say when questioned about the appropriateness of nakedness in Christian art:

The human form poses particular difficulties because it is itself a remarkable and glorious aspect of Creation. Alas, our own thinking has been skewed so grotesquely by both Modernity's Bacchanalian Aesthetic and Antiquity's Apollonarian Aesthetic that we are often left us with only a pornographic context for the nude form.

Scott responded in this manner:

Yes, indeed, God made the human body as a great thing of beauty, but the body is a holy thing, being created in His image, image-bearers as both male and female. But we were also covered by Him on account of sin. That which reflects the intimacy of holiness between God and his created people, our bodies and their design for intimate communion between husband and wife, were covered by God due to the corruption of sin.

I agree with Scott. I think God's providing Adam and Eve clothing as a means to hide their public display of nakedness, which became shameful after their sins, is indicative of what our view of nakedness in public should be. I respectfully disagree with Dr. Grant that it was an aesthetic from Modernity or Antiquity which corrupted our thinking in regard to nakedness. Our minds' view of nakedness was permanently altered in the Garden of Eden through the sins of Adam and Eve.

God has provided a context in which beholding the beauty of God's creation through nakedness is appropriate,and I believe that to be restricted to the marriage bed.

Do We“School at Home” or Do We“Home School”?

The wording of the question is subtle, but the differences are striking because it gets to the heart of character training and raising up children to serve God.

In our culture, education has primarily become the transfer of knowledge in the intellectual and technical areas of life (e.g., reading, writing, and arithmetic, etc.) An instructor teaches his pupil certain rules and procedures which may help to develop an aptitude the student might possess or fill the student’s mind with collections of facts.

Every educational approach is designed with the end product in mind. In the case of public education, the goal is to produce well-adjusted productive members of society. However, to be successful at doing this, the state-run approach must adopt the convictions, values, and goals of the state. R.C. Sproul Jr. says this:

Education is the sacrament of the Enlightenment world view...It's how you get saved.

As mentioned earlier, the transfer of knowledge and facts are seen as primary. All other goals (such as character training) are subservient to maintaining the schedule and progression of information transfer. It resembles a factory's production line designed to produce a billion carbon copies cut from the same mold. The children in the classroom jump on the conveyor belt when they arrive, and 12 years later they pop off the conveyor trained to know what the state thinks they should know. To make matters worse, the mold which guides the assembly on the production line consists of knowledge and facts which are interpreted for the students with a view of the world that is markedly anti-Christian. The end result is a product in which biblical character training has not happened.

To “school at home” is to borrow the production line approach of our culture and bring it home. We copy the subjects, timings, methods, and expectations of the corporate classrooms and reproduce them at home. Only the location of the classroom is changed.

The problem comes when home school parents sense the need to "add" character training to the production line (or anything else for that matter). Unfortunately, the production line isn't designed for additional content, and often times the result is a home school experience that is amazingly frenetic and fast paced with little room for error. There is no margin and no flexibility. Life happens, but the school schedule doesn't include room for life. Many home school parents feel as if they are doing something wrong when the scheduling train wreck hits their house. After all, with such a favorable student-teacher ratio, homeschooling is supposed to be more efficient, right?

An alternative to the scheduling train wreck of "schooling at home" is true "home schooling". A home school education begins with a blank slate and adds to it the activities which truly educate a child for service to God. Knowledge and facts are seen as secondary to character in that they are built upon the foundation of character.

Everything we learn is built on the foundation of our character. If my child grows to be a self-centered, me-first, materialistic adult, it doesn’t matter how many graduate degrees he has, they will never fix his heart. And what is more important to God, knowledge or character? This is what Paul says:

..we know that "all of us possess knowledge." This "knowledge" puffs up, but love builds up. -- 1 Corinthians 8:1b (ESV)

Not only is the emphasis on content different in home schooling, the method of implanting the content in the student is different. Deuteronomy 6 gives a nice picture of how a true home school education should be taught:

You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. -- Deuteronomy 6:7 (ESV)

Home school education is discipleship; it's not textbooks and tests. Home school is about training children to live life in a biblical, God-honoring fashion. Home schooling is walking through life with our children much like Jesus walked with his disciples during his Earthly ministry. In fact, learning how to deal with real life is a big part of a true home school education.

We never stop learning information, but no amount of information can address selfishness and pride. When we as parents choose a true home school education over a "school at home" education, we're on the path to getting it right.