Dead Man Blogging

My pastor is preaching systematically through Titus. Within the next few weeks (he goes s..l..o..w..l..y!) he’ll get to Titus 2:3-5, which says that women ought to be “keepers at home”. I know he will do a faithful exposition of this, probably reference 1 Timothy 5:14, and so on, and will preach that women ought to be “keepers at home”. My wife and I were discussing this, as several women in our congregation are employed outside the home.

My wife made a good observation, and since she doesn’t have a blog I thought I would share it.

The Bible does not say “women may not work outside the home”. That’s a negative command, a rule, a restriction. Instead it says that women are to be “keepers at home”. This is a lot broader than saying “women can’t do this or that or that or that”. It tells you what to do, not what you shouldn’t do. A woman who works a regular 40 hour week at a job is not being a “keeper at home”. But neither is the housewife who spends that same amount of time running errands, going to Bible studies, and so forth — even hauling kids around to ballet, karate, play group, the zoo, etc.

Similarly, a few verses later all Christians are told to deny “ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly”. Living “soberly, righteously, and godly” is a lot more than just keeping a list of rules. Does the Bible say I shouldn’t watch this TV show, or spend my money on that thing, or spend my time on this habit? No. But it tells me to be sober, righteous, and godly. That’s a much higher standard than a list of do’s and dont’s.

FOX is reporting that Ellen DeGeneres will play God in a remake of the 1977 blasphemycomedy “Oh, God!”

I guess she’s not as bad as Rosie O’Donnell, but still…

Ezekiel 1

And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire. … And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads, when they stood, and had let down their wings. And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.

Some very good friends of our sent their oldest daughter to kindergarten this week. She has reportedly adjusted to kindergarten very well, but she has a question.

Why can’t we sing songs about Jesus at school?

This speaks to the very heart of my decision to homeschool our children. My oldest son is almost four, and so far his life has been simple. I mean simple as “not complex or divided”. There have simply been no divisions in his world. He’s with his family all day, every day. Sometimes his family and other families get together to play. The fathers might not be there, but still, it’s one or more families getting together. He is not under the care of strangers. The closest he comes to that is for a couple of hours on Sunday, and generally the people teaching him there are the parents of his friends - the same people he plays with periodically. And the parents of his friends, are our friends. And sometimes his mother is there helping with the Sunday School class, too.

If you were to map out my child’s interactions with others throughout his week, there are no clean divisions in that map. His family, his friends, and his church are all part of one thick web of relationships. Blessed be the tie that binds, huh?

What’s more, is that _he is the same kid_ in all these situations. He doesn’t seem to have any clear idea that there are big differences between being at home, playing with friends, and being at church. Not surprising, considering that it’s basically the same set of people.

To tie this back to that perfectly framed question above, my son is not in situations where it’s OK to sing about some things, but not to sing about Jesus. I sing “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star” and “Amazing Grace” to him every night. They are not divided in his mind. He has not yet learned to compartmentalize his life. It’s still an integrated, indivisible whole. And I intend to keep it that way.

I don’t want my son to learn that it’s OK in this situation and that situation to sing about Jesus, but when you get to _that_ situation, you need to just kind of keep quiet about Him. Nobody in public schools is actively denying Christ. They are just ignoring Him. And that is by _design_. It’s the separation of church and state.

My son understands that God sends rain, and God makes sunrises and sunsets, and God provides for us. He knows that I discipline him because it will help him learn to be good and love God, and that God says good daddies have to discipline their children. He doesn’t know “Children, obey your parents”. He knows “Children, obey your parents _in the Lord_”. The knowledge and fear of the Lord permeates his entire life. It’s not like we say “Jesus” in every other sentence. We don’t force it. It just _naturally_ works this way. His life is undivided.

I want his education to continue in the same vein. He will learn far more than just “God sends rain”. But when he learns about the water cycle, it won’t be _instead of_ “God sends rain”. It will be _how_ God sends the rain. When he learns math, he will also learn that God is a God of order and not chaos. But he’ll learn that _explicitly_. Genesis 1:1 will serve as the framework for all his learning. And that will be by design. Church and state might be separate, but for my boys, education and faith will not be.

I hope for him to see God’s creation and design, as well as the effects of sin, when he learns about science. I will strive to show him God’s sovereign providence as he learns history and geography. I will teach him to be blameless and harmless, a son of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom he shines as light in the world. A good deal more than “good citizenship”. I will teach him to study to be quiet, and to do his own business, and to work with his own hands. More than economics or woodshop.

My son has not yet learned to compartmentalize his life. He does not understand how to divide himself. He does not know that there are sharp distinctions between his family, his community of faith, and the rest of his life.

I hope he never learns.

PS: It’s not my intent to criticize the 98% or so of parents who do not homeschool. I understand. These are just _my_ reasons, and I have absolutely no criticism for those who do not share my convictions. Scout’s honor. I do not believe you are condemning your child to a life of divided loyalties and corruption simply by sending him or her to public school. Please don’t take it that way.

My sister emailed me this morning about a guy at her church who thinks Christians shouldn’t vote, because after all we are citizens of the kingdom of heaven, and who cares about the kingdoms of men. There is also a very good thread over at the Thinklings by Shrode about preaching and politics. And there was a post the other day by Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpots about what constitutes a Christian worldview.

One of Joe Carter’s commenters suggested that a “Christian worldview” was as simple as:

1. Accepting Christ as your personal savior,i.e. the conduit to Heaven
2. Taking to heart and practicing the Gospels of Christ.

On the other hand, Alan’s comments on Shrode’s post included these good thoughts:

I think you go down a road that you’re not going to be happy with if you start asserting that there are areas of life over which God’s word has no dominion. Inescapably, you are left with zones of moral neutrality– cease-fire zones in the cosmic struggle between Christ and the evil one.

I think these quotes are good examples of a “mimimalist” or a “maximalist” view of Christianity, respectively. And I should be clear, I’m not equating “minimalist” with some sort of easy believism false profession of faith thing. I include serious, committed disciples of Christ in both categories.

The question is simply, to paraphrase Alan, aside from nonsensically trivial cases, do you believe that there are areas of life where God is silent? Where He just really doesn’t care what you do?

The minimalist would answer “Yes”. He obeys the explicit commands of the Bible but does not go beyond that. Absent a specific command or very clear reasons, he says that the Bible is silent and he is at liberty to do as he will.

A maximalist says “Generally, no”. He obeys the explicit commands of the Bible, and also works to understand what God’s will might be in those areas where the Bible does not specifically speak.

The danger of maximalism is that you can begin to add the traditions of men to the commandments of God. And we must be careful not to do that. But to take the specific and general commands taught in the Bible and carefully examine how they impact every area of our lives is commendable.

Many people seem to doubt that the Bible could possibly speak specifically to some aspects of our lives. We doubt very much that the Bible has much instruction about issues such as where we live, what sort of lifestyle we have, what work we do, how our familes are arranged (including what size families we have), how our churches function, and so on.

The Bible does not tell us “thou shalt be a carpenter, and have six children” or anything like that. Paul neglected to include a bulleting/order of worship for the church to use. But, even a simple application of clear Biblical principles will point us in the right direction.

For instance, the Bible does not specifically say whether or not I ought to be a computer programmer. 1 Thessalonians 4:11 tells me to “do your own business” and “work with your own hands”, though. Other commandments include not loving money, being able to provide for my family, working diligently, and so forth. And those handful of principles give me an awful lot of light to evaluate my career with. Working with my hands would rule out, for me, any career along the lines of a banker or politician, as I believe I should actually be _producing_ things. Building stuff, moving stuff, fixing stuff. I’m still convincing myself that “writing a program” is “working with your hands”. :-/

The Bible does not say that I must have a lot of children. It does tell me - both before and after the Fall - that man is to “be fruitful and multiply”. And we are taught that children are a blessing from the Lord, and we are blessed when our quiver is full of children (Psalm 127). That sheds enough light on the question that I believe it’s not a neutral area.

The Bible does not tell me that I must live in the city or in the country, or what level of involvement I should have in other activities. But it tells me to work to lead a quiet life (1 Thess 4:11, Proverbs 17:1) and to focus on my family (Deut 6:7-8, Ecc 9:9).

I am not a minimalist. I do not believe the gospel is a call of how to live within whatever culture you find yourself in. We are not under the Babylonian captivity (Jer 29:28).

Instead, I believe the gospel calls us to a different way of life, one set apart, sanctified, separated, and holy. I don’t remember who expressed it this way, but we typically think that I set the agenda but God sets the rules. Rather, I believe God should set both the agenda and the rules. So I should not ask “How should I portray Christ within my profession as a programmer?” but instead “What sort of profession is most honoring to God?”

Christians often speak of engaging and transforming the culture. The only way I want to “engage the culture” is in a military sense, like one engages the enemy!

I am not particularly interested in stopping gay marriage. I am not interested in stopping abortion. I don’t care about welfare reform, child abuse, and tracking down deadbeat dads.

What I want is for people to live their lives according to God’s law. I want to see Godly families. I want to see a man, his wife, and their quiver full (Psalm 127:5) of children (also see Gen 1:28 and Gen 9:7) subduing the earth. I want to see pure virtuous modest Godly women trained to be wives and mothers (Titus 2:3-5) betrothed to strapping young Godly men who are sober, self controlled, hard working, with a vision for a thousand generations. I want husbands and wives to honor one another Biblically (Eph 5:22-33, 1 Peter 3). I want children to honor their parents and fathers to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Deut 6:7-8, Eph 6:1-4).

I am not here to convert the state or transform the culture; I’m here to help overthrow the kingdom of Satan. This is an _invasion_, not therapy. I don’t want to make sinners get better in our “hospital”; I want them to die miserable deaths and be raised to walk in the newness of life.

I do not want a seat at the table so our voices can be heard. We ought to be overturning the tables and preaching from the rooftops what He whispers to us in secret.

Now I’ll be honest, I don’t really know what all that exactly means or will look like. I feel like I’m probably so far removed from where I should be, that I have no idea what the destination looks like. But I at least feel like I should be somewhere other than where I am. And I have a vague notion of which direction to go.

Husbands are the leaders in their families whether they like it or not. It is entirely possible to lead by not leading, and if I while my time away in front of the TV I’m certainly leading, in a bad direction. Not to choose is to choose.

Similarly, like it or not, the church leads the world. It’s meat, we’re salt. It’s darkness, we’re light. We set the tempo and direction. The gates of Hell will not prevail against us, unless we do not charge them.

Light does not seek to engage and transform darkness; it drives it out. Light _replaces_ darkness, as darkness is just the absence of light. When the church does not set the pace and direction, when we just let things sort of drift and drift along with it, then darkness sets in.

But how?

1 Corinthians 5:12-13 tells us that we have no business at this point judging the world. We have nothing to say to the world except “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved”. We have _much_ to do with judging and purifying and building up those within the body.

So the best I can come up with is:

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. (Matt 5:16)

… work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. … That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; holding forth the word of life… (Philippians 2:12-16)

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? … Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

… study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you; that ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing. (1 Thessalonians 4:11-12)

I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. (1 Peter 2:11-12)

… he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: (1 Peter 4:1-4)

Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:1-2)

If I’m holding to a steady course of living a life in line with God’s revealed will and one that helps my sanctification, then that life will deviate from the society I live in. The deviation will be greater or less based on the extent to which society has deviated from God’s line. So maybe I’ll only be a little bit weird, or maybe I will be a lot weird.

The key is, I am not going to play this game on society’s terms. I won’t seek to be a good Christian middle class American. I’m not interested in those last three words. I don’t want to try to play the “middle class America” game by the Bible’s rules, any more than I would try to play checkers using chess rules. I’m only interested in living a life that is maximally Christian. Christianity does not play well with competing allegiances. I can’t serve two masters. I can’t serve the culture and the Christ.
Engage the culture? Fire at will.

Once you accept a few unbiblical notions, there’s no telling where you will end up. Things like “It’s all about evangelism”, and “Jesus hung out with [unrepentant] sinners”. When you then lift “I became all things to all men” totally out of the context of the rest of the Bible and Paul’s life and Christ’s teaching, there is absolutely no telling where you will wind up. No telling where this purpose will drive the church.

First we had the First Baptist Bar and Grill. Now it’s the Hooters Bible Study.

“We’ve seen a few of the waitresses become Christians. One of the former managers here became a Christian. So it’s worked. The whole object, in reality, is that this is just to get inside the door.”
…
“We’re about reaching the lost, and I think we’re called to do that,” he said. “Our attitude is to go where the un-churched and the de-churched are.”
…
Bailer, who joined Single Focus two years ago, said he quickly began to appreciate the casual, nonjudgmental atmosphere at the meetings.
…
“It’s something Jesus would’ve done because he looked past what people may think and looked at what people’s needs are.”

And as if this isn’t enough, consider some of the comments from WorldMagBlog:

Jesus went to taverns and drinking parties.
…
The Son of Man came eating and drinking (with sinners and tax collectors) and they said he had a demon.
…
The Holy Spirit can work anywhere.
…
Jesus came to seek and save the lost. He went where they were, he didn’t wait for them to come to him.
…
I praise God that someone is going out and reaching the lost…where they live, work and play. It sounds just like something Jesus would do.
…
Much better by far is to encourage attractive young Christian women to infiltrate the HOOTER’S ranks as an employee and witness woman-to-woman in a collegial, non-sexualized relationship ministry.

I put these folks in a category I like to call “Nuts”.

Maybe if they would get out of Hooters they could pay enough attention to their Bible to know what it said. Maybe if we’d worry a bit less about being all things to all people we could focus on being faithful to Christ, and then minister from that position.

Christ did not require anyone to clean up their act before He received them. But He did not receive unrepentant sinners. He ran them off with His preaching. The light of the gospel will do that, you know. Turns sinners into saints, or turns them away. It calls out the elect.

Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the LORD.

Well, it’s the middle of August. That used to mean it was almost time to go back to school. Now, it means it’s time to _start_ school. Since most of my friends are about my age, several of them are sending their children off to school for the first time. Unsurprisingly, there has been a lot of conversation about this in the past week or so. I’ve been pretty quiet in those conversations. I had a lot I _wanted_ to say, but for one reason or another I was silent. Mostly ’cause I’m chicken I guess. These comments are not responses to any specific conversation, just several general themes I’ve heard. Here’s what I wanted to say:

You know, it doesn’t _have_ to be this way. There are other options. You can keep them at home.

You and your child are both upset about this. Moms, you say that you feel like you’re losing your baby, who has been with you every day for the past five years. You say it feels like you’re pushing her out into the wide world. And you know, _you are_.

You say that you don’t want to shelter your little boy, but you are lying. You both _want to_ shelter him and _do_ shelter him. I know you. I know what kind of parent you are — a good one. You are very careful with your children. You are strict about what kind of movies and TV shows your kids watch. You wouldn’t dream of letting him watch the evening news or reading a newspaper. You’d censor it. And rightly so! You are careful about who your kids spend time with. You reprimanded your daughter for using “potty language” which consisted of giggling about “poopy diaper”. You wouldn’t dream of letting that precious child walk around the block by herself. You’re a good mom. Don’t tell me you don’t want to shelter your children, because you _do_ want to, and you _should_. That’s a big part of what parents are for.

In fact, “shelter” is just another word for “protect”. Would you _ever_ say “Well, you can’t protect your kids”. Of course not. But the words are synonyms!

It’s true that you neither can, nor should, “shelter” your children _forever_. But is “five years” close enough to “forever” that you _really_ think it’s time to push your baby out of the nest? Is 10, 12, or 15 years really “forever”?

What if you waited? Waited until your son was old enough for a pocketknife. Until your daughter was no longer afraid of the dark. Until your children were old enough to go camping by themselves? You don’t think they are old enough to build a campfire, but you want to (in your own words!) expose them to the world?

This is why you spent that entire evening last week at the open house / orientation / meet the teacher event. Your couple of minutes of interaction with your child’s new teacher gives you some comfort - you fee like you’ve checked that teacher out and done your parental duty. “She seems nice. I’m sure she’ll be a great teacher.” And honestly, she probably will - I don’t mean to imply anything negative about school teachers. I mean, my _wife_ was one. But the fact is, your claim that you can’t “shelter” you child is just nonsense! You made it up precisely because you realize that your little baby _needs_ your protection, your shelter.

Think about it - “you can’t shelter your child” is an implicit _affirmation_ that going to public school will expose your child to many negative things. Nobody says “you can’t shelter your child” as they send them off to a safe, trusted environment. You don’t say “gotta’ expose them to the world one day!” to justify taking them to Grandma’s house. When you refuse to “shelter your child” you are admitting that you are exposing them to many things that they might ought to be sheltered from.

We Christians sometimes comfort ourselves with an unbiblical notion of the “age of accountability” before which we assume God does not hold a person responsible for his or her sins. And we typically put this age at 8 - 12 years old. Do you _really_ believe that your baby is old enough to face the rigors of the world, but still so young and tender and innocent that God will not hold her accountable for her sins?

I believe that a child is best exposed to the world in the exact same fashion as a child grows — gradually. You parents hardly take your newborn babies out of the house for the first 3 months. Then you take them to church, but not Wal-Mart. You gradually increase their expose as they grow, and we don’t see hide nor hair of you during flu season (largely because I, too, am hiding with my kids in my house during those months). _This is good_.

In virtually all cases, we expose our children to things very gradually. This is why the PG, PG-13, and R ratings exist. It’s why driver’s learner permits exist. It’s why there are wading pools and floaties. And training wheels for bicycles. Why don’t we do the same here?

As a child grows from birth to, say, 18, it’s perfectly reasonable for his exposure to the world to increase in a semi-linear fashion. But certainly not a stairstep at age 5 and another at ages 16 and 18! Children do not physically or emotionally grow that way. Why not make some attempt at matching their exposure to the physical, emotional, and spiritual dangers of the world, with their physical, emotional and spiritual maturity?

You also say that you don’t want to raise a social misfit. Again, you are partially lying. If your children do not swear, smoke, drink, or have sex, and if they are the spiritually mature and moral angels you want them to be, guess what? They will be social misfits. You are not going to let them listen to the same music and watch the same movies and TV shows that the other kids do, are you? Are you going to raise them to be moral, make them go to church, teach them to love God, and raise them to be respectful to you? YOU ARE?!?!? What are trying to do, raise social misfits?

One of two things is going to happen. Your kids are either going to compromise morally and maybe “fit in”, or they are _not_ going to compromise, and are going to be weird. (Although girls _may_ have it a little easier than boys; I don’t know). Look at your own lives!

So now, tell me again how normal you want your kids to be?

I could get into a whole bunch of stuff about how homeschooled kids can be well socialized, about the level of homeschooling support we have around here, about what socialization actually is, I could point you to homeschooled people who are quite normal, and so on, but I’m not. In my experience, most of the distinction between “cool” and “dork” goes away in college and adulthood anyway. All this will pass. Those things are only significant in jr. high and high school. And if you _don’t send them_ to junior high or high school, it’s not an issue.

But the point is, if your kids are as well-behaved in school as you should want them to be and try to raise them to be, they are probably going to be social misfits anyway.

I understand the vision you have for your kids. You want your daughters to be beautiful and popular cheerleaders, your sons to be handsome football players. You want them to be smart, funny, and well liked. This is quite likely what _will_ happen. I have no doubt of it, not at all.

But is this really what we should be striving for? Is it the right vision, the right view of success?

God does not tell us to try to raise popular, attractive children. He tells us to raise _Godly_ children.

Deuteronomy 6:7 says says we are to teach the law of God “diligently to your sons 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 up”. Ephesians 6:4 commands us to “bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord”. 1 Timothy 3:4 says an elder must “keep his children under control”. Not a word in there about making sure they are popular or “normal”. Do you really think a truly godly child will be either popular or normal? How did _you_ treat godly kids when you were in school? Or, if you were godly, how were you treated?

Our mission as parents is not to make sure our children are attractive, athletic, popular, socially skilled, smart, well educated, or financially prosperous. It is to raise them to be godly. We can either set ourselves up for success or for failure.

We will set ourselves up for success if we arrange it such that our children are protected from ungodly, evil influences until they are ready to handle those influences. And then allow them to be exposed to world in limited measure, according to what they can handle.

We will set ourselves up for success if we arrange our days so our kids actually spend it with us. Relationships are only built through time spent together. Godliness takes time to instill. A couple of hours each weeknight plus the weekends (minus time for extracurricular activities) doesn’t do it. Deuteronomy 6:7 doesn’t say “make sure they get to Sunday School and know their memory verse”. It’s much more than that.

And finally, are you really ready to turn loose of your child’s heart? At _five_? That stranger you met last week during open house, is about to become the primary adult figure in your child’s world. You heard your daughter talking about how _beautiful_ her new teacher was? That’s the spot _you_ used to have, mom. When a child accidentally calls his teacher “Mom”, it’s more than a slip of the tongue.

How quickly and easily we parents get crowded out of a child’s heart! Your child will no longer be content with _your_ love and acceptance of him. No, he is worried about whether or not his new teacher will like him. He’s afraid because he doesn’t know anyone at school. He’s already looking to the outside for acceptance and affirmation.

I’ve decided that my oldest son will stay with us during the corporate worship hour, and we were talking to him about this. You could see on his face the struggle going on in his heart. His teachers and the kids in his class had already supplanted me and his mom. And that’s a couple of hours on Sunday that has already done that.

Are you really ready for him to get his sense of self worth and approval from strangers? A woman that you don’t know, and a bunch of kids who just happen to be his age and live in the same general area? Are you ready to give up that place in his heart?

We were just talking on Friday about how many of the trees around here lean because of the direction of the prevailing winds. Which way do the winds blow at public school? Are you prepared for your child to grow into a tree leaning that direction? Is it the direction you want? If not, perhaps it’s wiser to keep that little sapling _sheltered_ for a bit longer until her roots are better established.

[Comments are closed again, on purpose, because I don't want to get into it.]