MENU

Family and Children
Category

On March 3, 2015 By In Family and Children

Moralizing our Children?

Guest post by Pastor Mark Jones

As I think about Ephesians 6:1-3, a number of questions come to mind concerning the way I treat my children (ages: 4, 4, 7, 9).

 This post does not in fact aim to raise a challenge to Baptists, but rather to get Reformed Presbyterians to think through the implications of how we should read the Scriptures. There are the dangers of “hyper-covenantalism” and “hyper-conversionism” that nobody holds to in their own thinking, but we all know these people exist. How about the ubiquitous “middle-ground” for us as Presbyterians? What is it? I don’t know. But this post is an attempt to wrestle with the fact that we might, perhaps unwittingly, be guilty of moralism with regards to our children and the obedience we demand from them.
Does this command to children have any sort of indicative present, whether in the verse itself (“in the Lord”) or in the rest of the book (chs. 1-5)? If there is no indicative (i.e., what God has savingly done for these children), is this then a “bare command”?
When we read this verse to our children, do the principles regarding “good works” apply to them? Such as the principles found in WCF 16.3,
Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ. And that they may be enabled thereunto, besides the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit to work in them to will and to do of his good pleasure…
Did Paul expect the children to obey their parents in the power of the Spirit or from their own natural strength? What type of obedience would he – and more importantly, God – have been pleased with? Mere outward conformity to a command or true obedience from the heart? I expect he had the latter in view when he wrote Ephesians 6:1, which has certain theological implications for how we apply the text.
If our children disobey us, and we then rebuke them, do we then call them to evangelical repentance (assuming they have the Spirit to do such) or to legal repentance (assuming they do not have the Spirit but must still “be sorry”)? (FYI, I call the Sikh players on my U10 soccer team to “legal” repentance when they harshly foul each other).
If our children repent, can we assure them that God has indeed forgiven them? Or, if they repent, should we simply be thankful they are sorry for being disobedient, but refrain from telling them their sins are forgiven when they ask God for forgiveness? I am curious what parents tell their young children when they repent and ask God for forgiveness. Personally, I assure them, as I do with anyone in the church, that God forgives the penitent.
My worry is this: if there is absolutely no indicative present in the command in Ephesians 6:1, am I guilty of moralism concerning my children when I tell them to obey me?
Or, as a father, can I command my children to obey me “in the Lord” because they are covenantally in the Lord, and thus part of the unity of the body (Eph. 4:1-16)? Can I appeal to God’s gracious acts towards them (chs. 1-5, e.g., Eph. 5:1-2) as the basis for why they must obey me? That is to say, they must be holy (Eph. 6:1-2) because they are holy (1 Cor. 7:14). The indicative leads to the imperative, not vice versa.
Assuming this latter model is correct, I am able to do three things:
1. Press home to my children the need for daily repentance (against a form of unhealthy presumption).
2. Press home to my children the grace of God, who willingly accepts those who repent and also rewards children for their obedience (Eph. 6:2-3).
3. Treat my children as Christians because that is how Paul treated the children in Ephesus, knowing of course that this judgment of charity is not infallible but answers to the promises of the covenant.
This way of raising our children also helps us to make sense of Colossians 3:20 where Paul writes: “Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.”
Surely our children are able to please the Lord because they obey from a heart of faith (Rom. 14:23) with the power of the Spirit at work in them, just as husbands love their wives according to the same inward principles (Col. 3:19). Colossians 3:20 could be a sort of: God is pleased even when Muslim children obey their parents. But contextually – at least in Paul’s corpus – Paul has already said children are to obey “in the Lord” (Eph. 6:1), which means that a specific/particular type of “pleasing” is in view, namely: the pleasure God receives from the obedience of his people.
Ephesians 6:1 and Colossians 3:20 are thus consistent with the language of WCF 16:6,
Yet notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in him, not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable and unreprovable in God’s sight; but that he, looking upon them in his Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.
In sum, I do not think the indicative-imperative model goes out of the window when it comes to our children. It was there in the Decalogue, and it has only been heightened in the New Covenant (Jn. 13:34). Paul addresses children as those who are “in the Lord” and, as such, expects them to obey based on the realities of being “in the Lord” (this is called “proper reception”).
For me as a Reformed pastor, the issue over whether our children are covenant children or not has major practical implications regarding the manner in which they are expected to obey their parents and how the relate to others.
Guest post by Mark Jones
Here’s a practical example: Having twin boys, aged 4, can I appeal to an indicative in order to drive home the imperative? If Matthew sins against Thomas, can I appeal to Thomas to forgive penitent Matthew, as Christ has forgiven him (Eph. 4:32)? Or should Thomas only forgive Matthew because it is the right thing to do? Does Eph. 4:32 have any real connection to Eph. 6:1? I think so.
If this is true, then Ephesians 3:19 is something my children are able to know and enjoy, which (contextually) is a type of love for God’s people and God’s people alone.
Far from ruling out the need for daily repentance, this view actually provides us with the proper grounds for which we constantly plead with our children, both at home and from the pulpit, that they, like us, must improve upon their baptism (WLC 167). They must never, ever presume upon the Lord’s grace which has been offered to them (Heb. 3:15).

This post was originally published at Ref21 and is used with permission here.

Read more

On January 9, 2015 By In Culture, Family and Children, Politics

Same Love, Different God: A Gay Anthem

Since I first heard Macklemore’s Same Love in 2012, I’ve had a strange resonance with its message. This is odd because I’m a Conservative-Christian. That is, I not only adhere to the historic creeds of the church, but I’m seeking ordination in a denomination which adds even more confessional standards to the bunch! Perhaps more to the point, I’m a Christian-Conservative. By my early twenties, I’d devoured the works of Christopher Dawson, William F. Buckley, and Russell Kirk. If I thought they’d come, I’d invite Charles Krauthammer and David Brooks to my birthday party.

With such an Alex P. Keaton-pedigree, how could I be drawn to the lyrics of a song which gives voice to the liberal cry for LGBTQ rights? Was I falling victim to the ol’ snappy rhythm-stupid lyric trap? Well, after hearing the song almost weekly for two years now, I’ve come to realize that my affinity for the message is not in spite of the lyrics, but because of the lyrics. In fact, I think the song can work as a sort of tract for explaining the position of Christian-Conservatives and Conservative-Christians. At its heart, Same Love argues: (1) Our view of sexuality is influenced by the culture. (2) Our personal sexuality is influenced by our “innate” selves. (3) Our sexuality is accountable to the one, true God.

First, our view of sexuality is influenced by the culture. At the beginning of the song, we’re given a story.

When I was in the 3rd grade I thought that I was gay ’cause I could draw,

My uncle was and I kept my room straight

I told my mom, tears rushing down my face, she’s like,

“Ben you’ve loved girls since before pre-K”

Trippin’, yeah, I guess she had a point, didn’t she?

A bunch of stereotypes all in my head

I remember doing the math like “Yeah, I’m good a little league”

A pre-conceived idea of what it all meant

For those who like the same sex had the characteristics

Macklemore thought he was gay because he had certain characteristics generally thought of as “feminine.” Thankfully, he had a thoughtful mother who told him that his sexuality is deeper than just his interests and sensibilities. In this regard, the church could learn a lot from Macklemore’s mom. Let me tell you a story not dissimilar to the one Macklemore recounts. This one, an amalgamation of the stories of a number of my gay friends who were raised in conservative, evangelical churches, only to leave the faith for a gay lifestyle: 

“With my friends from school, I was reading Dostoevsky, playing Mozart, and reciting Shakespeare. At youth group, I was playing ultimate cow-tongue Frisbee, Call of Duty, and sitting through services which reminded me of a pep rally. Because of my “weird” sensibilities, I was called gay by my church before I was ever accepted as a gay man by the community with which I now identify.  At first, I didn’t think of myself as a homosexual; I just knew I wasn’t straight by my church’s standards. Two communities–two options–were before me; church community or gay community. Both groups told me that I had the sensibilities of the second group. So, eventually, I believed them both. Subsequently, I was embraced, nurtured, and freed by a loving community of gay friends at school.”

Perhaps our sharpest, most gifted church members left the faith because their church didn’t have the theological or liturgical tools to show them how the creation and preservation of art fits into the redemptive schema of God. Sure, as Christians, there are certain character-qualities that should typify the life of a man or woman. These qualities complement the qualities of the opposite sex. However, there are numerous sensibilities and personality traits which must not be viewed as statically masculine or feminine.

One of the reasons it’s so easy to create theories in which a figure from the past (like Abraham Lincoln) is gay, is because the traits typical of masculinity and femininity are constantly in flux. In Lincoln’s day, to have a public display of emotion was more acceptable of a man than a woman. Obviously, in Ronald Reagan’s day, that had changed. Thus, a modern reader can anachronistically infer something about a 18th or 19th century man’s sexual orientation from his “feminine” traits. Like Macklemore’s mom, the church needs to recover a healthy, biblical doctrine of masculinity and femininity-a doctrine which avoids stereotypes and accounts for the artist and the athlete.

Second, our personal sexuality is influenced by our “innate” selves. Now, we’ve seen that cultural views of masculinity and femininity have something to do with how we view “gay” and “straight,” and thus influence how we judge our own sexuality. However, that is not the whole story. The song goes on to say that we can’t allow these cultural stereotypes to influence our personal sexuality.

You [can’t] be cured with some treatment and religion

Man-made, rewiring of a pre-disposition

Playing God

To change your sexual identity is like playing God. You can’t just go through a procedure to “fix” your orientation. It is innate to you. Now, a tension is set up in the song. On the one hand, we’re born with physicality, with bodies. On the other hand, the song suggests, just because one is born with female genitalia, does not mean that one *is* female. One may be born female, but, in fact, be male. Here, the song prioritizes the metaphysical over the physical. What you feel is innate and right. What you are physically is subjective and possibly wrong. 

Here is the tension: that which is “innate” is sometimes physical and other times metaphysical. When it is the feeling of hate (which the song mentions), it is wrong and should be changed. When it is the feeling of attraction toward someone of the same sex, it should be embraced. When the physicality is your gender, it can be amended. When the physicality is your race (which the song mentions), it must be embraced and accepted. The song is right, you can’t play God; you have to submit to your innate self. The question, however, is how do we know what is innate? Asked differently: “should I ‘play god’ and deny my feeling of same sex attraction?” or “Should I ‘play god’ and have a sex change?” You see, the decision isn’t as easy as “to be myself or not?” No, the issue is “what part of myself will I ‘not be?’”

This brings us to our third area of agreement with the song; our sexuality is accountable to the one, true God.

Whatever God you believe in

We come from the same one

Strip away the fear

Underneath it’s all the same love

The song is not promoting a squishy relativism. It doesn’t say “whatever god you believe in, it doesn’t matter.” Nor does it say, “Whatever god you believe in is true.” No, you may (subjectively) believe in the Muslim god, or the Wiccan god, or the Buddhist god, but actually there is only one (objective) god.

Of course, having a god speak to us is the only way to resolve the tension of what is “innate” and “non-innate” to our humanity. To say something is innate is to say it can exist apart from brokenness and sin. The metal of a ship is innate, the rust is not. Our age is made up of only broken things, so the only way to know what is innate is to know what existed before there was brokenness, and what will exist when the brokenness is taken away. Someone who knows the Alpha and the Omega has to tell us what is innate. Given our “situatedness” in history, we can’t know such things on our own.  Our sexuality can’t be “discovered,” it has to be given to us by our Creator.

Well, who is this one, true God? Macklemore claims to know him; indeed, he speaks for him. He lets us know that this god deems race (physical) and sexual preference (metaphysical) as innate; but judges hate (metaphysical) and gender (physical) as non-innate. Macklemore doesn’t think you should put your trust in a book “written 3,000 years ago.” I get that. However, what’s the alternative? Macklemore’s told us that there is only one god, but what’s this god’s name? How did he and Macklemore meet? Macklemore is telling us what is innate and what is extraneous, what is good and what is bad, what is clean and what is unclean, what is holy and what is profane. Are we supposed to take his word for it that this is god’s opinion?

While I agree that there is only one, true God, I think He is Yahweh; the one in whom Abraham put his trust, the one who Moses encountered in a cloud, the one who Paul knew, the one from whom Jesus claimed to be. Not only are other “gods” subject to Him (including Macklemore’s god), but I am subject to him. My sexual orientation, gender, and proclivities are subject to him. You see, we can’t base our sexual identity on the culture’s view of masculinity and femininity, it’s relative and ever fluctuating. We can’t base our sexual identity on our own impulses. How would we know which are innate and which are bad? How would we know which to neglect and which to embrace? No, we have to base our sexual identity and practices on the one, true God. He created our gendered-bodies, and he has a plan for them stretching beyond this short life.

As a straight man, I resonate with Same Love because, in a sexually “open” and “evolving” world, I need a sure and steady word from God just as much as my gay friends do. Macklemore claims to have such a word. In fact, Jesus and Macklemore are making the exact same claim; both claim they know the will of the one, true God. Here is your choice: put your faith in the one who rose from the dead, or put your faith in the one who wrote Thrift Shop.<> оптимизация а ов рекламное агентство

Read more

On December 11, 2014 By In Family and Children

Sexting and Parental Oversight

We live in an age of quick pleasures. Pornography is an epidemic. It ruins lives. It ruins productivity. It ruins imagination. With the advent of smart phones pornography is easily accessible. Children as young as nine have already been exposed to an array of images. Many have seen things and have trained their brains to process them storing and accessing those images at whatever time they deem suitable. These images have an incredible capacity to cycle themselves. They remain and re-invent themselves again and again. It’s a cycle of death. Many have become aware of this trend. Some parents continue to live in naïveté assuming their children would never willingly submit themselves to such images. Indeed these images are little virtual icons. Their appeal eventually causes you to bow before them.

I posted a link recently warning parents to take heed of a phenomenon in our technological world: the world of sexting. At one time erasing internet history was a way to avoid being caught. In our day, the use of acronymns has taken its place. Most parents are unequipped to decipher the vast world of shortened communication. This world has developed quickly. Quick pleasures lead to quick actions mediated by quick texts. We are talking about a lot of acronyms. I am sure some of them rare, but some of them more common than we would imagine. Sin always finds a way to be subtle. Screwtape is on the move.

Some responses to the article linked above treat it as a scare tactic. “Some of the acronyms simply cannot be as common as this article makes it out to be,” they say. Perhaps. The phenomenon exists, however. And this seems to be the main point. Take heed, parents. Children are exchanging body parts like baseball cards. They are giving it out to the world freely. The sacred has become profane. This is taking the culture by storm. Godly communities are not immune to its manifestation. One sociologist observed that the question, “have you ever seen porn?” is outdated and should be replaced by “how often do you see porn?” This is frightening.

Covenant Oversight

I live in a culture where words like covenant succession is thrown out quite often. Covenant succession simply means that parents play a fundamental role in the outcome of their children. Mind you, they do not play the only role, but a fundamental one. In covenant succession the Spirit of God is wrestling with our children; guarding, preserving, and leading them to righteousness. Parents point their covenant children to their covenant Lord and pray that the Spirit might always wrestle with them throughout their lives.a

Among the many responsibilities of parents is the responsibility to deliver their children from evil. This means that they are to direct their children from intentionally tempting temptation; poking a dormant ferocious animal for the mere high it provides. “Deliver us from evil…”Lead us not into temptation.” Yes, the Lord’s Prayer presents us a parental paradigm in many ways. Children mature at different levels and throwing them to the lions before time can be devastating. Parents need to exercise wisdom. No good parent would throw their children into a dangerous situation, but they may unknowingly. The world of cell phones–and social media by extension–provide such an opportunity. The question is not whether we should wait until a certain age or whether we should trust them with such a tool, but rather, “are they equipped to handle such a responsibility?” Cell phones represent the opening of communication. Are our children equipped to handle this new world? How have they behaved and reacted to the local communication they experience? Have their experiences been positive? Or have they been quickly sucked into a false community where communication serves our selfish ambitions and desires? Communication is stewardship. How they use it locally determines how they will use it broadly.

Experiences also shape this question. One respondent to the link said that if we teach them diligently they will stray from such a problem or avoid it. Through self-discipline our children would avoid the world of sexting and the consequences that come with them. This is a healthy observation. It fits into much of the covenantal model, and I should add the Solomonic principles we see in Proverbs. Some who have experienced the overburdens of legalistic backgrounds may simply react to that background by making all things accessible that once were taboos. If covenant education is exercised and a sense of godly discipline is taught then early exposure to certain tools like cell phones can be seen as a reward to good behavior and faithfulness in the little things. At the same time there is a danger of overexposing and assuming too much self-discipline from the son/daughter. We need to remember that once that world is opened it is almost impossible to close it again. Again, images cannot be quickly erased.

Awareness and Maturation

I wrote a short book last year that focused on the need to raise boys to be warriors. The premise was that fathers need to be kings training their sons to assume their thrones in a new kingdom. My hope is to revise that book with a few additional chapters in the next few years. I don’t have the last word on the issue and find myself learning new lessons each day. Specifically, I find new ways in which parents would greatly benefit in applying the Trinitarian model to their own roles in the home. Luke 2:52 says: “And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man.” This offers us a three-fold strategy–one might call it tests–to consider before opening our children to the world of cell phone and social media in general:

First, are they increasing in wisdom? Has there been a general trend towards maturation in their lives? Does his/her communication manifest a sincere desire to see life under the lordship of Jesus? Also, do others affirm this maturation? Parents can be deceived and so the wisdom of the community becomes a great platform to determine such realities. Is his maturity a maturity that extends to the heart issues? That is, are his concerns merely outward, or does he express an interest in reforming his imagination and conforming his thoughts and motivation after our Lord?

Second, are they increasing in stature? This is certainly connected to physical growth, but also ties in with the first set of questions. Is he at age 14 easily mistaken for an eight year old when speaking to an adult? In other words, is his physical growth matching his maturational growth? Are his physical abilities and strength being used for good? or are they being used for selfish-gain?

Finally, are they finding favor with God and man? Are they human benedictions in their community? Again, these all overlap and are meant as amplification of the other points. But this last point is the application of the previous two. Wisdom and growth–physical and spiritual–are not meant only in relation to God– for to live before the face of God is necessarily to live before the face of created man–but also for the benefit of mankind. The question of whether or not a covenant individual is prepared to use certain tools depends on a pattern of using the tools he already has for the good or detriment of his fellow brother/sister. Faithfulness in the little things hopefully will mean faithfulness in the big tings.

Parental oversight needs to keep these questions in mind. Parenting successfully is the ability to give gifts to our children and then to see those gifts used wisely for the good of our neighbor and the exaltation of the name of God. The world of quick pleasures need not appeal to us or our children when we consider that the pleasures of God are everlasting to everlasting and his pleasures lead to life abundant.<>обьявлениеуслуги раскрутка а

  1. Wrestling here is synonymous with the consistent move of the Spirit in our lives engaging and confronting us in our war against sin  (back)

Read more

On December 6, 2014 By In Culture, Family and Children

Concluding Observations on the Ferguson Case

I am deeply humbled by all the responses from my Ferguson post. I did not expect all the responses. In fact, I noted from the start that it was a less than eloquent analysis. I said so because it was more autobiographical and less technical or statistical. It was further confirmation in my mind that people still listen and expect certain responses from local priests and pastors on these heavily debated issues.

Yesterday I received a call from someone inquiring whether I would go to Washington D.C. to stand alongside a certain figure and group to discuss issues not only pertaining to Ferguson, but also immigration reform. The world is listening and I am glad the church through her ministers still have a voice. That voice should be more nuanced than politicians’. Politicians generally speak out of fear or for political points and lack biblical stamina when they communicate. This is why one of my central points was to exhort myself and others to be cautious about taking a one-sided narrative on these matters. It is always wise to open our ears.

With this in mind, let me attempt to add some broad conclusions over the Ferguson chaos:

First, as I have reminded my own children again and again, beauty comes from chaos. So, we need to ask ourselves questions about how redemption can be seen in this situation, and what can we do to provide a redemptive outlook to this tragedy.

Second, the looting and robbery that occurred following the announcement of the police officer’s not-guilty status were not justified. There is no excuse to breaking God’s commandments. Private property is a treasured possession in the sacred scriptures., not merely because of modern economic reasons, but because God’s Word sees land and home as fundamental environments for gospel nurture. Businesses that served the local community and were the livelihood of many black business owners also suffered great damage. Some protested peacefully, but were overshadowed by the outrageous reactions of many.  Some have attempted to make the case for looting by observing that the cops do not want looting, because the cops (white) do not want the looters (black) to possess anything. The reality, however, is that possession by force is wrong in almost every case, and this is a clear example of one. You do not destroy to make a point. You do not rob to make a point. These exercises only lead to further chaos.

Third, race issues are still very fresh in the mind of many African-Americans. It does no service to act as if it does not. We say it does not. They say it does. If I am in the former camp I will be willing to open my ears in order to hear from those who believe they have been victimized. In what ways do you feel victimized? In what ways do you believe the law enforcement is out to get you? Why do you feel insecure as a black person when you are a productive citizen in society? What stories have been passed down to you that have shaped your understanding of your own race and its relation to other races? What perception would you like me to have of you and others like you? Where have we misinterpreted your story? Where have we misappropriated your narrative for our own purposes? Have there been people in your own community that have used your message for their personal gain by creating further unecessary tension?

Fourth, there is a problem with how white police officers have dealt with the black community. There is further a problem with how they have dealt with blacks in any community. Marcus Pittman offers this example. Take the time to read this, since I am convinced this can be multiplied by the thousand. We cannot deny this. We need to affirm it and then begin to ask ourselves certain questions as to why we don’t express greater frustration with these inconsistencies in our system.

Fifth, abuses in the system exists. These abuses stem from sinful practices and unethical behavior from individuals, rather than the institution itself. In other words, we need to focus on individual abuse before condemning an entire enterprise equally. Many police officers are honest men seeking to do right and love mercy and maintain order in white, hispanic, and black communities. We need to praise these individuals more often for their service, whether we agree or disagree with the institution at large.

Sixth, white and black churches ought to find ways to work together for the good of their communities. Political differences aside, we need to strive for the betterment of our humanity. And the only way we will come to any real agreement on these issues is by proclaiming a Messianic King who binds us together in His love. The Gospel is more than Jesus saves you from your sin. The Gospel is also now live together in the union I have given and prayed for in John 17.

Seventh, the quick nature in which many in the media or twitterdom assume a certain narrative of those killed by police officers because they a) saw a random picture of a black man with a gun or smoking pot or b) read somewhere that said subject came from a dysfunctional family is a disturbing reality in our culture. We need to assume the best of each human being created in the image of God. Many could claim a similar dysfunctional background or even a mention in a police record somewhere. God redeems us from our sins and takes us from our familial dysfunction and rescues us from chaos. He does it again and again.

Finally, while some may find genuine discomfort with certain racial expressions and cultures, whether in white or black communities, we need to orient our discomfort in ways that does not express itself into tangible discomfort towards a race or community of people. God has made us all into one renewed humanity; one race. Respecting both our oneness and diversity is a way forward.  Though we affirm distinctions in cultures and practices, ultimately, we must affirm the oneness of our lives together in the One true Man, Jesus Christ.  He is the one who reconciles and in Him alone do we place our trust.<>внутренняя оптимизации а

Read more

On November 15, 2014 By In Culture, Family and Children

Knocking on the Paedo Baptist Door

Here is an older article by Tim Challies on when credo baptists should baptize their children. He is gracious with those who believe that young children can believe and be baptized, but he suggests that Baptists should wait until children are older, particularly the later teen years. This position is similar to Capitol Hill Baptist Church where Mark Dever is senior pastor.  I realize that the position Challies holds is not what all Baptists hold. But it is a common one and the dominant paradigm in my experience.  There are several points I want to make about this article.

First, Challies’ definition of “credible profession of faith” is not found in the book of Acts. He argues that someone must have knowledge and maturity in order to have a credible profession of faith. But almost every baptism in Acts immediately follows a response to the preaching of the Word. There is no delay to determine whether or not someone has knowledge or is mature enough to receive baptism. In Acts 2:41 3,000 people are baptized the day that Peter preaches to them. In Acts 8:12 we see that Philip baptized people who heard him preach the same day. At the end of the same chapter Philip baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch. There are numerous other examples in Acts (10:48, 16:15, 16:33, 18:8) of baptisms quickly following a profession of faith. There does not appear to be any biblical reason to delay baptism following a profession of faith. In some cases, like Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, there could have been discussion about the faith. Even here it would have been only rudimentary. But almost every case in Acts there is nothing other than preaching and response. With the 3,000 on Pentecost there would not have been time to evaluate the participants knowledge and maturity. May be Challies is pulling his definition of credible profession of faith from another book of the Bible. If he is, he does not say so. This brings us to one of the central problems with the Baptist “credible profession of faith” approach. If we use the Biblical text then we baptize immediately upon “profession of faith.” That is the example in Acts. But with children and many adults Baptists often wait. Why? And if a Baptist would immediately baptize an adult who professes faith, why would they not immediately baptize a child who professes faith? What makes an adult profession of faith more valid than a child’s? In Acts knowledge and maturity is not a requirement for baptism. This means a four year old child who says, “I believe in Jesus” should be taken as seriously as a 24 year old.

Second, he does not mention a single passage that talks about children. The New Testament mentions children numerous times. It is odd to develop a thesis about baptizing children without at least referencing passages on children.

Third, he seems to think the only problem is baptizing children too early. But what if a child really does trust in Christ, which Challies says can occur, and we refuse to baptize him? Doesn’t that create doubt in his mind about his own conversion? What if credo-baptists teach their children that “your profession is not good enough?” Do Baptists create doubt by making them wait and then they fulfill the prophecy by acting unregenerate? Baptists tell their children, “We don’t know if you belong or not.” Then are surprised when the children act like they don’t belong. At the end of the article he states that by postponing baptism Baptists allow the child to pass through periods of uncertainty. But what if a period of uncertainty is created by postponing baptism?

Fourth, it sounds like he is arguing that we should not treat someone as truly saved until they leave their parents behind.  Where is the Scriptural proof for this particular point? Parents are told to instruct their children in the faith and the ways of Christ. If a parent does this well then Christ will be present in the child’s life from the moment they are born. An obedient child is one who listens to their parents and obeys their commands. This would include the command to trust in Christ. Where is the Biblical data that says, “Once someone shows years of being faithful then we can baptize them?”  Where in the Bible are parents told, “Wait to treat your children like Christians until they show years of faithfulness?” Again, this paradigm creates a culture of doubt for both parents and child.  Parents are never quite sure of their child’s standing and not surprisingly the child doubts any conversion as well.

Fifth, it is not inevitable, but there is a danger that his perspective leads to baptism by works. If you stay faithful after you leave your parents then we will know you are really saved. If you show enough theological knowledge then we will know you really believe. If you show enough maturity then we will know truly trust in Christ. Once we know you really believe, then we will baptize you. Under this view baptism is no longer an entrance into the Christian life, the beginning of someone’s discipleship (Matthew 28:18-20). It is an entrance to graduate school. It becomes a sign of spiritual maturity instead of a sign of God’s grace. It makes assurance of salvation through works a prerequisite to baptism instead being a fruit that springs from baptism. Need less to say, that seems backwards. I know that Baptists will refute this, but logically it is hard to see how baptism is not something you earn using Challies’ paradigm.

A couple of closing points.

A Baptist who refuses to baptize quickly upon a profession faith is not holding to the explicit pattern of baptism given to us in Acts. This might be fine, if they are drawing principles from passages outside of the baptisms in Acts. But an accusation often hurled at paedos, especially in popular books, is that we do not take seriously enough the explicit pattern set in Acts. However,  it is hypocritical of credo-baptists to accuse paedo-baptists of ignoring the explicit baptismal pattern in Acts when Baptists are doing the same thing with their profession of faith theology.

Popular credo-baptist theology often does not deal sufficiently with the New Testament passages on children.

Making someone’s acceptance into the people of God dependent upon their spiritual maturity would seem to contradict numerous passages in the Bible, including Jeremiah 31:34 where the  New Covenant includes the least to greatest. It can also create a works oriented paradigm and lead to doubt.  Creating doubt is one way we cause little ones to stumble (Matthew 18:6), which makes doubt just as dangerous as premature baptism.

Finally, a Baptist paradigm rooted in Acts would baptize quickly upon profession of faith and would take the profession of a three year old as seriously as that of 23 year old. There is no reason to do otherwise, unless you  make maturity a prerequisite for baptism, which is unbiblical. Of course at that point they are knocking on the paedo baptist door. It is only a matter of time before someone opens and says, “Welcome, you and your children.”<>стоимость баннерной рекламы в интернете

Read more

On November 11, 2014 By In Family and Children

Three Lessons I Learned in Talking to the Dying

It was late at night. My wife’s grandfather (Pops) was battling an infection. His cancer was getting the best of his 88 year-old body. I had met Pops on many occasions. His talkative and gracious persona was quite captivating. He visited us on numerous occasions. When I was in seminary he and his wife came to visit us. Being the useless handy-man that I am, there were some lingering duties in the home that needed fixing. Pops came along, and with his decades of experience offered us a helping hand around our little townhome. At other times, he was gracious to us in letting us use his time-share for vacation. He was a generous soul; a soul deeply grounded in faithfulness to his God.

Pops was what some of us would call an old-time religion man. He liked his religion served with altar calls and Fanny Crosby. Rumor has it that I won he and his wife’s approval to marry their grand-daughter when I played every imaginable Fanny Crosby song I knew on my guitar one night. But that’s just a rumor. He was a church-man; one of those rare birds who stayed in the same church for three decades.

It was a late night. My wife thought she’d give Pops a call. The doctor had called the family. It was just a matter of time. Pops had remembered his Creator in the days of his youth, and now in his last hours he was ready to meet Him. My wife asked me to step out of the room as she said her last good-bye. I didn’t think Pops would be able to talk… perhaps just listen. But he was relatively lucid. My wife spoke to him and said her good-byes. She had always loved him. I was reading in my office when she walked in and said, “Pops wants to talk to you.” I was a bit nervous. I didn’t think that in his last hours of life he would want to talk to his granddaughter’s husband. But he did. In fact, he made a point to do so.

As a pastor, I am always prepared for such situations. But this one caught me off guard – it was so sudden. When I receive a hospital call, I have a drive to think through what I’ll say, but this time the phone was handed to me and I had the honor of saying good-bye to a dying man possibly hours before his death.

Pop’s voice was stammering due to heavy medication. He used his last words to encourage me and to tell me how proud he was of me and my call to the ministry. He was quick to remind me that he did not agree on everything with me. I was tempted to tell him that sometimes I don’t even agree with myself, but I gently reminded him that I was glad that we are agreed in our union with Jesus Christ. He gave a hearty amen. He repeated himself a few times and thanked me for everything. I think there is peace in the heart of a dying man who knows that his children and grandchildren are cared for.

I had my pastoral companion with me. I carry it everywhere. It’s a Lutheran book on ministering to people in various situations in life. There is an entire section for ministering to the dying. It was absolutely perfect. The psalms I read and the prayer I used were affirmations that this phone call was not untimely, but perfect, as is God’s timing in every circumstance.

Pops died early in the morning. His family surrounded him and comforted him. It appeared he died in his sleep. Precious in the sight of God is the death of His saints, indeed.

I have been pastoring for less than a decade now, so my experience is very limited. But I have spoken to the dying on several occasions. For those who are younger in the ministry than I, or for those who simply want to be prepared to speak words of peace to the dying, here are three lessons to keep in mind:

First, be biblically prepared. The companion book I use has Psalm 23 in the King James Version. Maybe things will change 50 years down the road as modern translations gain greater notoriety, but in our generation, Psalm 23 ministers most effectively in the King James Version. Its sounds and rhythms speaks profoundly to the elderly. It is one of the psalms they have all memorized at some time in their lives. Additional passages may include Psalms 4, 27, 31, and 73.

Second, don’t pray for miracles in the presence of the dying, especially if the doctor has said they have only hours to live. Older saints at this stage in life have gone through every possible prayer for healing. Their community may have already prayed fervently for recovery and healing. But now, they are seeking rest – eternal rest. Praying for healing to the dying is a contradiction to their own petition to commit unto the hands of the Lord their spirit. If someone suddenly discovers he is ill, pray fervently, and call for the elders to anoint him with oil. But if he is in his last hours of life, pray that God would grant him comfort on earth before he meets his Messiah in heaven.

“At your chosen time, grant him a peaceful departure and a joyous entrance into everlasting life.” Amen.

Finally, if he is able to talk, listen. Listen attentively. Listen carefully. Listen lovingly. If he has been faithful to Christ, thank him for running the race well and for setting an example to you and your children of how Christ expects us to run the race on earth. If he is not able to talk, speak softly. In most cases, they are still able to hear you. Speak words of comfort. Read the psalms. Sing a song or hymn he is known to have loved. Share stories with him of fond memories together.

In these precious moments, God uses the weak to minister to the dying. What an honor to speak peace in the last moments of those making ready to meet the King of peace.<>online rpg mobile gamesяндекс анализ запросов

Read more

On October 2, 2014 By In Culture, Family and Children

Patriarchy & Parental Consent in Geneva

At my personal blog, I am working through John Witte Jr and Robert Kingdon’s book Sex, Marriage, and Family in John Calvin’s Geneva. While the title is a bit dry, the book was a great example of historical scholarship that helps the reader think through contemporary problems.  I thought my summary of and thoughts on this chapter might interest the readers of Kuyperian.

In most cultures parental involvement in who someone married was a given. Children assumed that the approval, especially of the father, was good and in  many cases necessary for a marriage to move forward. Geneva was no different. Eight of the first ten articles in Geneva’s 1546 Marriage Ordinance were devoted to parental consent. The prominence of parental consent issues in this document show the importance of the doctrine to John Calvin. Here is a summary of those eight articles.

1. Any son under twenty and daughter under eighteen years of age had to have the father’s consent to marry. After that age they were free to marry whom they wished though the father’s consent was still desirable.

In this article the age at which a child can marry without parental consent is given. However, there was “no minimum age children needed to be to enter into marriage in the first place.” This was flexible. The child had to be able to bear or sire children and thus must be post-puberty. In theory, any time after puberty a child could be given consent to marry. In reality, the maturity or lack thereof of a child played a big role in when consent was given.

2. If the father was dead, a ward or guardian could take the father’s place. Relatives of the child were to be consulted about a child’s marriage choice if the father was dead.

3, If two people under-age have entered into a secret marriage it can be dissolved at the parents’ or guardians’ request.

4. Secret promises to marry between under-age couples were not valid.

Note that the marriage “can be” dissolved in #3 at the parent’s request. It does not appear that it had to be. 

The authors make this note. “All the leading Protestant reformers allowed parents to annul their children’s secret engagements. The question that divided Protestants sharply was whether parents could annul their children’s secret marriages, too.”  By 1560 Calvin decided that secret marriages, which had been consummated, could not be annulled just because the couple was under-age.

They later add

The medieval canonists used sacramental logic: even secret marriages could not be dissolved because they were sacramental. Calvin used prudential logic: Even secret marriages could not be dissolved because that catered to parental tyranny, left despoiled virgins vulnerable to spinsterhood, and consigned any children of the union to the bane of bastardy.

5. A father cannot withhold the dowry if a daughter above age has married lawfully, but against the father’s wishes.

6. A father cannot compel a child to marry against their will. If a young person refuses consent the father cannot punish them for this.

7. If a child rebels against their father’s will and marries badly the father can refuse to provide for the child.

This is the balance to #5 and #6. Children had freedom in who they married, but if it could be proven that they married a wicked or immoral spouse then the father had the right to refuse financial support.

8. A previously married child is free to remarry without the father’s consent though it is desirable.

Calvin felt that parental consent was essential in making the decision to marry. It gave the child guidance and direction in determining whom to marry. Here are few quotes from Calvin on the matter:

Since marriage forms a principle part of human life, it is right that, in contracting it, children should be subject to their parents, and should obey their counsel. This order is what nature prescribes and dictates.

It is not lawful for the children of a family to contract marriage except with the consent of the parents. And, certainly, natural equity dictates that, in a matter of such importance, children should depend upon the will of the parents.

However, Calvin was no fool and he knew the doctrine of depravity extended to parents as well as children. He often condemned men in the Bible, such as Caleb, for holding out their daughters as prizes of war without consulting them. Here are some quotes that show the balance between the consent of the child and the will of the parents:

Children should allow themselves to be governed by their parents, and that they, on the other hand, do not drag their children by force to what is against their inclination, and they have no other object in view, in the exercise of their authority, than the advantage of their children.

Although it is the office of parents to settle their daughters in life, they are not permitted to exercise tyrannical power or to assign them to whatever husbands they think fit without consulting them.  For while all contracts ought to be voluntary, freedom ought to prevail especially in marriage that no one may pledge his faith against his will.

Here is a quote from Theodore Beza, John Calvin’s successor:

Are children to agree necessarily with those in whose power they are? I reply that they are not forced since a free and fully voluntary consent is a first requirement for marriage. But still the respect owed to parents  and to those who take the place of parents demands that [a minor child] should not disagree with them, except for a very serious reason. But in turn, it is only fair that parents treat their children with moderation and not force them into this or that marriage against their will.

Parental consent like individual consent was essential to a valid engagement in Geneva.  Here are a  few closing thoughts on Geneva’s laws regarding parents involvement in the marriages of their children.

There is a wonderful balance, at least on paper, between the will of the parents and the will of the child. We tend towards extremes. Many evangelical parents have little say in who their children marry. They assume a child can make their decisions with little guidance. In reaction to this many family-centered types have made the will of the child of little consequence. If dad doesn’t like the boy then the daughter cannot marry him even he is a godly man. In Geneva, neither the child nor the parent got to dictate. Both were to work together towards a mutually agreed upon marriage. Parents should be involved in whom their children choose to marry, even if the child has left the home. But the will of the parents does not trump the will of the child.

In Geneva, the father had real authority, but not absolute authority. In family-centered/patriarchal churches it is often assumed that whatever dad thinks must go. A father makes decisions about his daughter’s future and assumes there is no one above him to whom he is accountable. But in Geneva fathers would be chastised by the Consistory if they were exercising their power in a tyrannical fashion. Children could appeal to the Consistory if the father refused consent for selfish reasons. It was specifically said that if a child and parent could not come to an agreement then they should go to the magistrate. Beza said, “Severity of fathers in all aspects of their role should be shunned, and likewise fathers must be warned against abusing the power entrusted them by God.”  Patriarchy, as understood by the reformers, meant that fathers were accountable to the elders, the broader community, and the magistrate. The fear some have of patriarchy could be alleviated if there was more authority over fathers and if fathers submitted willingly to that authority. On the flip side, some of those anti-patriarchy folks need to remember that fathers do have real authority over their children.

The above paragraphs show how Geneva tried to functioned as a community, not a collection of individuals. The decision to marry was not left up to the man and woman only, as is often the case in our society. The parents, extended family, community, state, church, prospective spouses, and of course God speaking in the Scriptures all had a say in who married who.  Today if one person “loves” another person that is assumed to be all that is necessary for a marriage to be formed. But in Geneva that would have been impossible. Outside consent was as necessary as individual consent.  The decision to marry was built on the consent of the community not just on the feelings of the individuals involved.<>сервис определения позиций

Read more

On September 30, 2014 By In Family and Children, Theology

Paedocommunion and Three Year Old Levites

An Intellectual Fence?

Does scripture allow us to fence the table of the Lord from covenant children on the basis of an ability to articulate propositional doctrine? Can I keep my baptized son from the meal because he cannot explain the intricacies of substitutionary atonement? No. For while communion may represent a whole package of difficult theological truths that could take a lifetime to understand, what is necessary for participation…every three year old covenant member should be assumed to possess.

Why do I say this? Let’s look at a passage of scripture that gives God’s call to church ministry starting at age three.

Three Year Old Levites
2 Chronicles 31 calls for Levites to begin holy work at the Lord’s house at the age of three:

11 Then Hezekiah commanded them to prepare chambers in the house of the Lord, and they prepared them. 12 And they faithfully brought in the contributions, the tithes, and the dedicated things. … [Certain men] were faithfully assisting him in the cities of the priests, to distribute the portions to their brothers, old and young alike, by divisions, 16 except those enrolled by genealogy, males from three years old and upward—all who entered the house of the Lord as the duty of each day required—for their service according to their offices, by their divisions. (2 Chronicles 31.11-16)

God expected Levites who worked in the house of the Lord do their work beginning right after they were weaned (age three). How does this compare to how we treat the children already marked out by God’s covenant in baptism, today? Do we assume them to be automatically capable for faithful ministry to the Lord? We should.

Baptism is the right fence, and we have already rightly brought our covenant children inside. But where some push for an intellectual fence, usually around twelve, our passage in 2 Chronicles 31 pushes us back out of the realm of making intellect a credible fence. It calls us back to the scriptural action of charitable presumption for the young in the Lord.

Too Faithful
Some want to bar children from the table until they can articulate their faith in the Lord in the right fashion, to the satisfaction of the elders. I have known of a child in one such church who was well trained by his parents in the truths of the faith. When he was interviewed by the elders, they thought his answers were too good – he was actually repeating the catechetical answers.

But to these guardians of the table, an accurate answer indicated that the answers were not genuine, because the child did not come up with them in his own child-like words. They failed to pass the child into the communing community within the larger number of the baptized in that church.

The child had been too diligent at learning according to the faith of his parents. Too ready to obey. This resulted in a flawless test, which, in their eyes could only indicate that the child’s obedience was practiced and not genuine. Did they not see this as fruit of faithfulness in that home?

But that test is nowhere found before the calling of young Hebrew covenant members to holy work for the Lord.

We Know Which Jesus
The prime worry of the people who hold out for crystaline doctrinal explanations is that the child may not have true faith, and that they won’t understand Jesus correctly before coming to the meal. They fear that somehow this defies warnings in 1 Corinthians 11.

Let’s imagine a child of our own church, baptized, and as usual, he is giving no troubling evidence that he is worshiping the wrong Jesus. He is just a child raised in our Trinitarian church. Should we restrict him from the table because we can’t know whether he is orthodox in his heart?

Should we just accept every claim to faith we hear? How do we know the child isn’t full of heresy?

There is an answer, and we can see it by comparing the children of our church to a man who wants to join our local body on the first day he visits. You would need to verify who this man is… what does he truly worship? Is he part of the Church?

Now of course, we should be able to reserve a right to judge when any random adult says “I love Jesus, let me join your church!” In that case, we still need to take pause to make certain he is talking about our Jesus, and not the Mormon one, or the Jehovah’s Witness one, because we do not know where this man is coming from. We need to see that he wishes to worship the Triune God of the historic (apostolic) church.

But the key point is knowledge of where a person comes from. For on the other hand, when a tiny baptized saint, and member of a household in our church says, “I love Jesus,” we must already be assured that they are loving the Jesus of that orthodox house.

In fact, if it is a child of our own church, let us act out of certainty that they could not under normal circumstances be referring to any Jesus other than our own Jesus. The child knows only the Jesus he is given in your body of believers. Are your church’s elders orthodox in preaching, and in guiding the child’s parents? Then be assured he is asking for your own orthodox Jesus.

If we question the heart intention of a child of our own church, we must likewise question his parent’s grown up orthodoxy, and even our own preaching. In such a case we would similarly be driven to absurdly question whether “I love Grand-Mom,” means what he thinks it means. But we know it is fully possible for a child to love Grand-Mom, and to mean it, even after rote learning of this phrase on the road right before entering Grand-Mom’s house at Thanksgiving. We would question an outsider, an insurance salesman who said, “Hey, I love grand-mom too!” But we don’t need to question our children, to accept their love as genuine though it has little intellectual formation.

The insurance salesman may indeed love Grand-Mom, but we should test it. We owe him no charitable presumption of love for her. Likewise, it world be absurd not to charitably presume our kids to love Grand-Mom.

We know which Jesus a baptized catechumen is referring to, no matter how young that disciple is. The baptism is of that church and through those parents. So that baptism implies the faith of that church is indeed the faith the child is attached to. And not merely sociologically, but also theologically…spiritually.

My Point
Of course this whole thing is an unnecessary exercise, because my point is not that I think we need a verbal profession before opening the Lord’s table to a young baptized eater. I believe the Bible tells us plainly that if a person is baptized and is an eater, then he or she should eat the common meal that is owned by all the baptized. (1 Cor 10 – one body, one loaf). We accept the normativity of faith in the womb (Ps 22, Ps 71, Ps 8).

Rather, my main point is that even if we were to ask for such a confession of verbally expressed faith before allowing the child to the food of the Lord’s house, we would have to work within the restrictions of scripture. And the Scripture will not let us ask for a test that is beyond the complete capability of a three year old. If he cannot pass our session’s inquiry, then we are defying the pattern set in scripture. Three-year-olds have holy work to do for the Lord.<>games for mobileподбор слов google

Read more

On September 19, 2014 By In Family and Children

About Killing Dragons

We were chatting about something. It was common. But then he brought out the uncommon. “Daddy, I’ve never killed a dragon. Have you?” It caught me by surprise. I wish I had a handy answer for that one. I looked at him for a second and pondered what was going through his mind. It was so honest and pure. One of those out-of-the-mouths-of-babe moments. “I have never killed one, but I know who did,” I answered. “Who?” he asked enthusiastically. “Jesus.” I know as a trained theologian that when in doubt Jesus is the answer. And what an answer He is.  I told my son about that old Serpent, Satan, who abandoned heavenly glory because of his deception. I told him that this dragon is the father of lies and how he loves to draw children’s hearts away from God. I told him that this dragon wanted glory for himself.

“Does he know how to fight? Does the dragon know how to hurt Jesus?” “He does. He certainly does,” I answered. I was now willing to develop this a bit. It doesn’t take long to get a preacher going. I said that the dragon/serpent knows how to grieve our Lord when he draws away those whom God created. He is a liar. So, when we lie we are being bad representatives of Jesus. Does the dragon fight? Yes, he does. He fights like a coward. He would love to shoot people on the back without having to look at them in the face. “Well, will he hurt us?” “No, he will not. Because Jesus also knows how to fight.” Now, I’ve reached common ground with Batman’s greatest fan. Every child is invested in hero admiration. He wants to be a hero, but more importantly, he wants to be on the side of the hero who wins.

“Did they ever fight?”

“Did they ever?” This is where I got really creative and probably a little too creative for his comprehension. But biblical narratives are powerful little things.

God had promised many centuries earlier that Jesus would bruise Satan’s head, and that Satan would  bruise Jesus’ heel. It was a big, cosmic fight. The dragon thought he had the upper hand, so he tried for centuries to kill off the seed of the woman. He kept women barren and killed little infants by using wicked men to do his bidding.

But it was hopeless for him. God had promised and when he promises something it will happen.

There was a story about a little boy named David. We had read that story many times. The kids love to hear about the giant’s–the dragon’s–taunting of the people of God and how David took courage to fight on behalf of God’s people and not let the name of God be corrupted. That crazy, gigantic, dragon/creature was a little Satan. He loved to mock God’s people just like the dragon. But God will have none of it. His name will not be mocked. He send Davids and new Davids to defend His Name. And at the right time, He sent the final David. “Jesus?” he inquired. “Yes, Jesus!” He will defeat His enemies and not allow God’s Name to be mocked. That same Jesus will kill the dragon. He will crush the dragon’s head. He will protect and defend His father’s name and He will protect us, his children. And we are His children.

“Will the dragon ever come to our house?” “No!” I said emphatically, but not too emphatically for fear of waking up his little brother. God put the dragon in a big hole. “Will he ever come out?” “Yes, in the great eschaton he will come out, but for a short while before He will be crushed again for ever (Don’t worry. I didn’t use the word eschaton).” 

He was concerned that the dragon would pay us a visit. So, I made that question worth it. “The dragon,” I said, “will never pay us a visit.” That old serpent looks around and sees all the homes that are baptized with Jesus’ Spirit. “Are you baptized?” “Yes, remember, daddy?” “Of course, I remember!” It was a wonderful day for our whole family. Do not fear that the devil will get you. Jesus is in our house and in us protecting us from harm. We are baptized with His Spirit and the dragon fears Spirit-indwelt-people. But there is one lesson for us. Just like we don’t go near a barking dog, neither should we go near the dragon. We should always stay away from him.

I could tell the conversation was getting long and the information was getting heavy. It was wonderful to see him thinking through these issues. He said he didn’t want to tell his siblings the story for fear that they would be scared. “Maybe we can tell them together.” He was satisfied with that answer.

No, I never killed a dragon. But I know who did.<>anonymizer-vkontakteпроверить тиц и pr

Read more

On September 15, 2014 By In Family and Children

The Birds, the Bees, and the Eleven-Year-Old Trip

My children know that when they reach their eleventh birthday, they get to go on an overnight trip with Papa, i.e., me. They get to pick where we go and what we do for that entire day (within reason, of course–in other words, Disney world is not an option.) We have a grand time doing the things that they enjoy, and as a dad, I rejoice in the opportunity to focus on them entirely for the weekend. However, the primary motivation for the special trip centers around getting them alone for several hours in order to begin more detailed discussions about those ‘birds and bees’ that can be so uncomfortable to discuss. The goal is not to talk about it all, all at once, but to invite them to engage in a conversation with their dad. My hope is that this conversation will continue through their teen years and up until they say, “I do,” before God, their minister, and the gathered witnesses, and the chosen, complimentary mate says, “I do,” in response. (more…)

Read more