Things That Will Still Be True After Election Day

Things that will still be true after Election Day. God rules.

Vitriol and mud-slinging are not new to politics, but the last two presidential elections have been the worst in my memory. Emotions and tension are high on both sides.

But no matter what the outcome is on Tuesday, several things will still be true.

God reigns. “God reigns over the nations; God sits on his holy throne” (Psalm 47:8). Our church has read through large chunks of the Old Testament over the last year. No matter who was in charge of what earthly kingdom, God was always at work, sometimes overtly, sometimes “behind the scenes.” “The Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all” (Psalm 103:19).

This doesn’t mean we don’t vote. God often uses means and circumstances, and voting is the means by which rulers are elected here

Authorities come from God, even when they are not godly, even when we don’t agree with everything they do.

For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. (Romans 13:1b-2)

He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding. (Daniel 2:21)

The Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of men. (Daniel 4:17b)

We’re responsible to pray. “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

We’re to respect our leaders. Peter instructed, “Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor” 1 Peter 2:17). He wrote that, inspired by the Holy Spirit, when one of the worst rulers ever was on the throne: Nero. That doesn’t mean he obeyed authorities who told him not to do what God told him to do. That doesn’t mean we never speak up when a ruler is in the wrong: John the Baptist did, as did Daniel and many of the OT prophets (though they also faced consequences for speaking out and disobeying). Paul said the same thing: “Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed” (Romans 13:7), echoing what Jesus said: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17).

We’re to be subject to authorities. “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people” (1 Peter 2:13-15). The only exception is when the government tells us to do something wrong. The Hebrew midwives didn’t kill Jewish babies as instructed. The disciples still preached in the name of Jesus when told not to. People hid and helped Jews during WWII. People still printed Bibles behind the Iron Curtain.

Our responsibilities are not over. Very early in my first voting forays, some people seemed to breathe a sigh of relief and then sit back when their candidate was elected, as if to say, “Whew! That’s done. We’re okay for four more years.” But, we still need to be aware and use the voice we have, because . . .

No ruler is perfect. Some are better than others, but we can’t put our total hope in any of them. They may not see all sides of an issue or may be getting bad advice, so it’s important to be aware of issues and communicate our concerns and preferences.

We still have a voice. In this country, we have the right and responsibility to let our voice be heard, to vote, to write our representatives. No ruler has carte blanche.

Government can’t meet all our needs. It was never meant to. It has taken on responsibilities the church and others are supposed to bear. And while we need it to do what it’s designed for, ultimately our hope is in God. “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation. When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish. Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord his God, who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, who keeps faith forever” (Psalm 146:3-6).

God’s promises are still true. He has promised to supply our needs, answer prayer, never leave us or forsake us. God’s power and wisdom and love are not limited by earthly rulers.

I have preferences, hopes, and fears for this election. I know God doesn’t always answer prayer the way we think is best, but I am sure hoping He does this time. I’m praying, and I’ve voted. My responsibilities are the same: pray, trust, do His will moment by moment, love my neighbor, let my light shine. But ultimately, He is on the throne working out His perfect will. My hope is in Him.

This is my Father’s world:
O let me ne’er forget
That though the wrong seems oft so strong,
God is the Ruler yet.
This is my Father’s world:
Why should my heart be sad?
The Lord is King: let the heavens ring!
God reigns; let earth be glad!

Maltbie D. Babcock, This Is My Father’s World

The Most High rules

(Sharing with Sunday Scripture, Selah, Scripture and a Snapshot, Inspire Me Monday,
Hearth and Soul, Senior Salon, Remember Me Monday, Tell His Story, Purposeful Faith, InstaEncouragement, Recharge Wednesday, Let’s Have Coffee, Heart Encouragement), Grace and Truth, Faith on Fire, Blogger Voices Network)

Flawed people in a cancel culture

flawed people in a cancel culture

I have not seen the musical Hamilton. But I watched a special on TV called Hamilton’s America, which interlaced how Lin Manuel Miranda became interested in Hamilton’s story, early American history, the road to writing and production, clips from the musical, and commentary from several actors and observers. It was a fascinating special, and I learned much that I hadn’t known about our history.

The musical is famous for is using an ethnically diverse cast. As Miranda said in one interview, he wanted to represent what America looks like today.

In one of the most moving parts of the documentary to me, Christopher Jackson, a black actor who portrayed George Washington, visited Mount Vernon, George Washington’s home. He sat in Mount Vernon’s slave quarters, pondering the disparity of such a great man owning people.

Several of the actors portraying founding fathers wrestled with the fact that these men did both great and terrible things The only conclusion they could come to was that people are are flawed. Appreciating their contributions didn’t mean endorsing everything they said or did.

It doesn’t take much searching to find that most historical figures were flawed. Even most Bible people were flawed. My favorite Bible character, David, was guilty of some of the most heinous sins.

In our fiction, we don’t like a hero or heroine who isn’t flawed because they aren’t realistic.

But somehow, in our modern day, we can’t seem to allow for the fact that people can have sides of themselves that we don’t like or agree with. In today’s “cancel culture,” if you make a single mistake in the public eye, you’re out. People have lost jobs and even been personally threatened when a simple reprimand or correction would have been effective.

Last week when I opened Twitter, I noticed a particular celebrity’s name trending. I don’t follow many celebrities, and am not even all that interested in this man. But I was curious, so I clicked on the hashtag of his name. A backlash had erupted over one of his tweets, which probably could have been worded better. One of those enraged by his comment wrote of “taking great delight in destroying his career.”

It’s horrifying that anyone would enjoy destroying someone’s career in the first place. But it’s even worse to do so while swept along by the mob without taking the time to clarify what was meant or give the benefit of the doubt.

The cancel culture offers no understanding, empathy, forgiveness, or redemption. Just instant judgment, mob rule, and destruction.

We need to hear first.

It’s true, sometimes we need to take a stand or call people. But “If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame” (Proverbs 18:13).

By contrast, James 1:19 says, “Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger.”

People post links and commentaries fast and furiously online. We should give the benefit of the doubt and not assume. It’s always a good idea to fact-check, to wait to hear the whole story, before forming an opinion.

We need to be careful in judgment

Jesus said, “For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you” (Matthew 7:2). He went on to talk about the ridiculousness of trying to get a speck out of someone else’s eye when we have a log in ours. He also said that if we don’t forgive others, we won’t be forgiven.

Some things are obviously wrong. But if someone is on the opposite side of the political fence than we are, or has a different opinion on a major societal issue, the tendency these days is to write that person off completely. It’s all or nothing.

We need to react redemptively.

Maybe someone made an insensitive remark. Instead of trying to ruin their career or lives, wouldn’t it be better to tell them what was wrong with what they said and give them a chance to see the light?

In the passage mentioned above, Jesus did not say that everyone should just live with logs and specks in their eyes. “First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5). We’re supposed to help each other see clearly, after we see clearly ourselves. 

Our church has been reading through the major prophets in the Old Testament, and now we’re working our way through the minor prophets. Though God threatened judgment on His sinning people, His preference was that they repent and change their hearts and ways. Repentance would avert the judgment, as was the case with Nineveh in the book of Jonah. In the New Testament, chastening and discipline was not destructive but refining. If God gives undeserving people grace, shouldn’t we?

We need to accept each other as flawed.

We know that we are not perfect. We know that no one is perfect. So why do we have trouble accepting people who are not perfect? As the actors of Hamilton came to grips with, good people can do bad things. We all have our blind spots. That doesn’t make wrongdoing okay. But we have to recognize that most people aren’t all or nothing, politically or any other category.

Granted, there are some people with whom it’s impossible to live peaceably. “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (Romans 12:18). I have unfriended or hidden toxic people on social media because there is just no peace with them. But that was not after the first disagreement; it was after long years of interaction.

There are even times the Bible tells us to separate from someone else. Again, that’s not for every difference or infraction, and it’s with the ultimate hope for the person’s salvation. But most situations don’t need to go that far.

And we need to remember, if we cancel each other out because of our sins, flaws, and mistakes, there will be no one left.

(Sharing with Inspire Me Monday, Global Blogging, Senior Salon, Hearth and Soul,
Literary Musing Monday, Purposeful Faith, Tell His Story, InstaEncouragement,
Recharge Wednesday, Worth Beyond Rubies, Share a Link Wednesday,
Let’s Have Coffee, Grace and Truth, Faith on Fire, Blogger Voices Network)


Stray thoughts about racism

Justice and righteousnessI usually avoid controversy here. But several things have been on my heart the last few days.

I appreciate what one pastor said about feeling the need to make a statement, yet needing time to process and be with his people first. I’m not in any kind of leadership. No one is waiting on me to make a statement. But I have felt the need to say something while also needing to listen and take in and process before responding to horrible events that have happened in our country the last several days.

Some have decried white silence. Personally, my social media accounts have been filled with posts denouncing Floyd’s death. But, please understand, some are fearful of saying something wrong and making things worse.

Others accuse whites who speak out of virtue signalling. Some have said they don’t need whites standing up for them.

What to do? I don’t have all the answers. I don’t even know all the questions. But here are some things on my heart:

No question, what happened to George Floyd was atrocious and criminal. I was sickened, saddened, and angry by his unjust death. I’ve read opposite views about what kind of person he was. But that doesn’t matter. No one deserves to be kneed in the back, pinned to the ground and unable to breathe, until their breath is gone. I’m thankful the officers involved have been arrested.

No question there are bad policemen on the force. But I know they are not all bad. I know many are just as grieved as everyone else over Floyd’s death.

I have friends and relatives on the police force. I appreciate their service. Many take their lives in their hands every day. They never know when a seemingly everyday traffic stop or call will escalate into violence. I would guess that the great majority of law enforcement personnel are just trying to do the best job they can.

However. I don’t think anyone can deny that there have been too many instances of black men unjustly stopped, arrested, and killed. One instance would be too many.

I think racism is only part of the problem, though it’s a big part. The other is power. We’ve personally experienced and observed instances where a policeman has been unnecessarily aggressive and unwilling to listen. Authority is one thing, and I appreciate a policeman’s authority to step in when needed. But stepping in on the basis of snap judgments and a desire to exercise one’s own power is another.

These issues need to be addressed before they end up in abuse and murder. I’ve seen a meme going around listing several previous issues with the policeman who killed George Floyd. If these are true, action on them would have prevented Floyd’s death. If this policeman had been reprimanded or removed from his position earlier, the events on that fateful day would have turned out differently.

Racist and power-hungry people will show themselves. They need to be called on the carpet and either educated or removed. Other law enforcement people need to feel free to report questionable actions of their brother officers. The public good needs to be more important than protecting the brotherhood. Really, the brotherhood is not protected by covering for abusive officers, because reactions to the abuse will come back to haunt everyone, as we’ve seen in the recent riots.

I believe in peaceful protests. I can understand the anger and frustration spilling over. But rioting and looting only hurt the cause, harming innocents. It’s not even revenge, because it’s not aimed at the people who have done wrong. People have died in these riots, and those who killed them are no better than the policeman who killed George Floyd. There have to be more productive ways to demand justice.

But from comments on social media, it seems that outrage over the riots is superseding the outrage over George Floyd’s death.

Some of the rioters are not after justice. Some are opportunists. I’ve seen accusations of political involvement from both parties. It will take time to sort all that out. But don’t let the riots drown out the voices that need to be heard.

As I’ve read and listened to several responses, the one that resonates most with me is, “I’m listening.” James 1:19 tells us to ” be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger.”

I admit that for most of my adult life, I didn’t think racism was much of a problem. Sure, in some places and among some people. But I thought that, by and large, we were mostly past that. I grew up in the 60s. With all the strides that have been made in the decades since, surely people had equal opportunities now. But I was wrong.

I bristled at the mention of white privilege. “Privilege” brought up images of mansions and butlers and high society, which most of us have not experienced.

Buy my friend Laurie put it this way: ” White privilege doesn’t mean your life hasn’t been without struggles; it means those struggles weren’t brought about by the color of your skin.”

As I have listened, I’ve learned that racism is still prevalent despite progress since the 60s.

A friend shared on Facebook My White Friend Asked Me to Explain White Privilege. I Decided to Be Honest (warning: a couple of bad words). Just one instance: her boyfriend had been repeatedly stopped by police while driving. He started keeping a teddy bear in the back windshield and baby wipes in the car so he’d look like a family man and would be stopped less frequently.

Some of you might know Paul Whitt. He was with the Northland camps for many years and is now an assistant pastor. He was a friend of our former pastor and spoke at our church. He interviewed four African-American friends here, all Christians, about their experiences, feelings, and fears. I don’t know Paul or any of these men personally, but I share several friends in common with a couple of them. This is a long recording, but well worth listening to.

My daughter-in-law is Indian. She has sometimes been mistaken for black. I’ve been astounded by ignorant and racists remarks and actions she has experienced. I’m sorry to say that sometimes I tried to explain away what she told me. For instance, once a lady almost mowed her and Timothy down with her cart in the grocery store. Mittu felt it was because they were brown. But, I said, not all offenses are racially motivated; some people are just rude. In fact, the very next week, the same thing happened to me.

But I should not have responded that way. I wasn’t there; I didn’t see the woman’s expression. Just like when someone has been abused, our first response should be to listen and protect.

A few of my daughter-in-law’s other experiences, shared with her permission:

She recently told us of working in an office as the only female. The men would constantly attribute something she said to did to her “just being Indian.” If she tried to say that those comments bothered her, they said they were just teasing, the same as if they teased someone about having red hair. One of them, while leaning over her desk to look at or answer a question about what she was working on, said, “You’re making me hungry for brownies,” referring to the color of her skin. That is a horrible thing to say on many levels.

She worked at a Christian camp one summer. After the counselors met with a particular speaker, he handed her a tract. He knew she was a counselor. She explained that she was saved, and suggested he keep the tract to give to someone who needed it. He insisted that she take it—as if, since she was brown and he was white, he needed to be a missionary to her.

My daughter-in-law told me of being in a store with her mother and aunties, who all spoke in Hindi. Someone passing by muttered “Stupid foreigners.”

I admit, I used to be of the mindset that people who move here should learn English. I still think that’s a good idea for a number of reasons. But then I realized that if I moved to another country, even if I learned the language there fluently, I would still speak English when with other English-speakers. So why should it bother me when other people speak in their native tongue?

I didn’t know until recently that on the day my grandson was born, one of my daughter-in-law’s reactions was fear and dismay that she had brought a brown boy into the world because of what he would have to face growing up. A lot of things that she just put up with before, she’s speaking out about now so that we understand the kinds of things Timothy might have to deal with.

It breaks my heart that my sweet, adorable, witty, kind grandson may someday be stopped and harassed, or worse,  just because of his beautiful skin tone. Recently his school assigned a book on Martin Luther King, Jr. My grandson was horrified as my daughter-in-law explained what civil rights meant and what happened to Dr. King. I was sad not only that his innocence was stripped away, but that he’ll have to hear more on these topics in the future.

As I said, I don’t know all the answers. The problem is so big and pervasive, it’s hard to know where to start. But I think these are good steps:

  • We need to invite friends from other races to share with us, safely and openly. Ignorance is not the same thing as malice, and some of us are just ignorant and need to be helped to understand. I saw one post that said education is not the answer; reconciliation is the answer. But education is a step towards reconciliation.
  • We need to listen to and take seriously these kinds of experiences without trying to explain them away.
  • When someone says we’re making them uncomfortable or they’re offended by what we say and do, we need to stop.
  • We need to avoid sweeping generalities. All white people are not racist; all cops are not abusive; all black people are not threats. All Indians are not doctors and lawyers. All middle Eastern men are not terrorists.
  • We need to get over our idea that anything “other” is bad. God made a big, wide, wonderful world with people in all shades and cultures of every kind.
  • We need to be careful what we post on social media. We need to take the time to fact-check anything we post so that we’re not spreading misinformation.
  • We need to teach our children from their earliest years that “different” is okay. We need to get over the idea that “kids are going to be kids” and it’s okay to tease. Along with racial slurs and digs, we need to eliminate words like “four-eyes” and “retard” and anything else that’s demeaning and hateful. We need to model kind and thoughtful speech for our children.
  • We need to be genuine and consistent. I saw on someone’s Facebook post one meme with a white and black hand intertwined and a promise of standing with the other, and a meme just below it with the “n” word. Posting “I’m with you” memes doesn’t mean anything if our other words and actions contradict it.
  • We need to understand that every person is created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27). We all come from the same ancestors: God “made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). Heaven will be filled with “people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9).
  • We need to ask God to search our hearts and show us whatever is wrong there. We need to confess and repent of our wrong heart attitudes.
  • We need to weep with those who weep. (Romans 12:15).
  • We need to “Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor” (Romans 12:10).
  • We need to “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31, NIV).

I heard the story of the Good Samaritan for years before I realized the racial implications. The Jews and Samaritans were enemies in New Testament times. When a man was beaten, robbed, and left for dead, two of his own countrymen, religious leaders, passed him by. But a Samaritan, a person of a mixed race, the Jews’ enemy, stopped, helped the man, took him to an inn, and paid for his care. Jesus told this story as an example of what it meant to love your neighbor. Jesus ministered specifically to a woman of Samaria, who then led her whole village out to hear Him (John 34). How have Christians missed the implications of this for so many years?

I’ve seen many good people say that there is no such thing as race, that we’re all one race, that race was not a thing until Darwin. It’s true that, as I said above, we’re all from the same ancestors. But there are different people groups or ethnicities or whatever you want to call them. The Bible speaks of different people groups, especially Jews and Gentiles, and their conflicts through the years. I think people who emphasize this point that we’re all one race are trying to emphasize the unity we should have as people made by God in His image. However, think how that makes a person of color feel when they express sorrow and dismay at mistreatment because of their color, and we say, “We’re all one race. There are no distinct races.” It’s like we’re deflecting and not taking seriously their very real pains and problems.

Forgive me, this has become twice as long as my usual Monday posts. There’s even more swirling in my head, but this is enough for now.

For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility (Ephesians 2:14).

Do justly, love mercy, walk humbly with thy God

(Sharing with Inspire Me Monday, Global Blogging, Hearth and Home, Senior Salon,
Literary Musing Monday, Tell His Story, Purposeful Faith, InstaEncouragement,
Anchored Abode, Recharge Wednesday, Worth Beyond Rubies,
Share a Link Wednesday, Let’s Have Coffee, Grace and Truth,
Faith on Fire,
Blogger Voices Network)


Why Laura Ingalls Wilder Is Still Worth Reading


I have hosted the Laura Ingalls Wilder Reading Challenge during the month of February for the past eight years. In recent years Laura Ingalls Wilder’s books and legacy have come under closer cultural scrutiny. There’s evidence that Pa knowingly homesteaded on land that belonged to Indians and skipped town to avoid debts. Last year Laura’s name was even removed from the Association for Library Service to Children’s award due to perceived “inconsistency between Wilder’s legacy and the association’s core values of inclusiveness, integrity and respect, and responsiveness” and “anti-Native [American] and anti-black sentiments in her work.”

Some who charge Wilder with racism fail to read the concerning passages in context. For instance, one oft-quoted passage states that “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.” But, in context, this statement was made by the Ingalls’ neighbor in Little House on the Prairie, and “Pa said he didn’t know about that. He figured that Indians would be as peaceable as anybody else if they were left alone.” In The Long Winter, Pa advocates believing and following the advice of an Indian predicting a severe winter ahead. Another troubling sentence in Little House on the Prairie reads, ” … there were no people. Only Indians lived there.” When an editor pointed out to Laura that the sentence made it sound as if Indians weren’t considered people, Laura had the sentence changed to “‘… there were no settlers.’ She wrote to the editor, ‘It was a stupid blunder of mine. Of course Indians are people and I did not intend to imply they were not.'”

Pa participates in a minstrel show in blackface. But the family enjoyed and respected a black doctor whom they credited with saving them from scarlet fever. Pamela Hill Smith has a section in Pioneer Girl explaining how blackface was viewed at the time, saying that “Before the American Civil War, many abolitionists embraced minstrelsy as a way to reach a broader American audience, and some minstrel troupes performed songs with distinctly abolitionist themes” (p. 254, note 62). It was not considered offensive then, though it is now.

Even the ALSC said that “Changing the name of the award should not be viewed as an attempt to censor, limit, or deter access to Wilder’s books and materials…This change is not a call for readers to change their personal relationship with or feelings about Wilder’s books, nor does it suggest that anyone stop reading Wilder’s books, talking about them, or making them available to children. The change, however, may prompt further critical thinking about Wilder’s books and the discussions that can take place around them.”

Here on Laura’s 152nd birthday, I want to share why I believe Laura is still worth reading:

1. Her books depict accurate, if not right, views of the times. Parents and teachers who use Laura’s book should discuss the larger picture. Probably most of the settlers’ negative feelings about Native Americans sprang from fear. A major massacre by Native Americans occurred during this time in history, so naturally settlers were afraid and wary. But study can be made about why the Native Americans reacted as they did and the ways they were mistreated. Our country’s treatment of Native Americans is one of the worst marks on its record. But it would be anachronistic to have the characters of the late 1800s depicting enlightened thinking of the early 2000s.  The books can also act as a springboard to discussion of how times and attitudes have changed over the years. No time or culture has every aspect right. It takes long years to change cultural thinking. We don’t learn from history by excising the parts we disagree with today. Wrong attitudes can be viewed in light of the times, not to excuse them but to understand them and to trace how those attitudes have changed since that time. Society still has a long way to go, but we can look back and see that progress has been made.

2. Laura is not responsible for her father’s wrongdoing. She was a child when he made his decisions.

3. Laura’s books are historically based fiction. Some have faulted Laura for not including some aspects of her family’s history in the books and for changing some details. But the books were not meant to be completely autobiographical. Laura originally wrote her life story in Pioneer Girl, but then changed her focus to stories for children.

4. Laura’s books represent a significant swatch of American history. Through story Laura shares with us what is was like to travel in a covered wagon, build a homestead, establish a town, and so many other aspects of pioneer life.

5. Laura’s book depict strong family values like industriousness, independence, frugality, hospitality, community, resilience through hardships, thoughtfulness towards others.

6. Laura’s books can spark discussions, such as:

  • Every culture has its blind spots. What were some of theirs? What are some of ours?
  • Every person and culture has good and bad points. What were some good and bad attitudes in the Little House books? (Good: industriousness, frugality, hospitality. Bad: wrong views of other races, Laura’s wanting to “get back” at others, particularly Nellie Olsen).
  • What led to the hostility between settlers and Native Americans? How could things have been handled differently?
  • Look at how far society has come in its thinking about other races over the years. But our racial attitudes on an individual and national level are still not what they should be. How can we grow in this area?
  • Were there any signs in the books that attitudes were changing? (For instance, Laura’s family was treated by a black doctor at one time. Pa interacted with the Indians sometimes, assured Ma it was fine to do so, and in The Long Winter believed an Indian who came to warn the white men that a bad winter was coming).

7. Laura’s writing is realistic, not idyllic. Some have charged Laura with painting the pioneering family and life as idyllic. But…locusts? Blindness? Bilzzards? Wolves? Fire? Drought? Lack of food and resources? No, nearly every book deals with some kind of calamity. And Laura even realistically depicts sibling squabbling and parental tension.

8. Laura’s writing is excellent. Her stories would not have been read and loved all these years if they were not readable and enjoyable.

9. If we stopped reading people with flaws, we wouldn’t have anyone to read.

I agree with Katrina Trinko’s conclusion here:

Wilder — an amazing writer who poignantly and vividly depicted a crucial part of American history — deserves to remain honored as an icon of American children’s literature. By all means, let’s pair reading her with conversations about America’s past and what was right and what was not and what remains debated.

But let’s encourage critical thinking, not purging.

See also:

The Real Story Behind “The Little House on the Prairie” Controversy
Learning From Laura Ingalls Wilder
Historical Perspective or Racism in Little House on the Prairie?

(Sharing with Literary Musing Monday)

The Bible and Slavery

Perhaps you’ve been troubled, as I have, by wondering why the Bible doesn’t condemn slavery outright. Over the years I’ve come across several thoughts and quotes that have helped me in my own understanding of it.

I found that the Bible actually does condemn kidnapping and selling people: “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death,” Exodus 21:16. “Enslavers” (in the ESV, “menstealers” in the KJV), defined by as “those who take someone captive in order to sell him into slavery,” were listed alongside liars and immoral people as sinners in 1 Timothy 1:8-11.

The main type of slavery mentioned in the Old Testament came about because of a debt that could not be paid in any other way, something like an indentured servant (which makes more sense than a debtor’s prison, where there is no hope of paying off the debt). In the MacArthur Study Bible notes for 1 Kings 9:21-22, John MacArthur says “The law did not allow Israelites to make fellow-Israelites slaves against their will (Ex. 21:2-11; Lev. 25:44-46; Deut. 15:12-18.)” But people could offer themselves as slaves to pay a debt. Slaves were to be released after 7 years (Deuteronomy 15:12): they weren’t ruined for life. They were not to be sent away empty-handed when they were released: they were to be supplied “liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him” (verses 13-14). Masters were told, ‘You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today” (verse 15).

There were also cases of slavery by one nation conquering another, and there were differences in dealing with slaves from other cultures. One source I read said that when one nation conquered another in those times, the conquered citizens were either killed or enslaved. Thankfully that is no longer the case for the most part, although there are areas of the world where it still is.

Slavery in the NT is usually this latter type. In Be Complete (Colossians): Become the Whole Person God Intends You to Be, Wiersbe says:

Slavery was an established institution in Paul’s day. There were sixty million people in the Roman Empire, and many of them were well-educated people who carried great responsibilities in the homes of the wealthy. In many homes, the slaves helped to educate and discipline the children.

Why didn’t the church of that day openly oppose slavery and seek to destroy it? For one thing, the church was a minority group that had no political power to change an institution that was built into the social order. Paul was careful to instruct Christian slaves to secure their freedom if they could (1 Cor. 7: 21), but he did not advocate rebellion or the overthrow of the existing order.

Something should be noted: The purpose of the early church was to spread the gospel and win souls, not to get involved in social action. Had the first Christians been branded as an anti-government sect, they would have been greatly hindered in their soul winning and their church expansion. While it is good and right for Christians to get involved in the promotion of honesty and morality in government and society, this concern must never replace the mandate to go into all the world and preach the gospel (Mark 16: 15).

He shares how Christian masters and slaves were being instructed to treat each other in the epistles was a radical departure from the way things were in the Roman world at that time. He goes on to say:

The gospel did not immediately destroy slavery, but it did gradually change the relationship between slave and master. Social standards and pressures disagreed with Christian ideals, but the Christian master was to practice those ideals just the same. He was to treat his slave like a person and like a brother in Christ (Gal. 3: 28). He was not to mistreat him; he was to deal with his slave justly and fairly. After all, the Christian slave was a free man in the Lord, and the master was a slave to Christ (1 Cor. 7: 22). In the same way, our social and physical relationships must always be governed by our spiritual relationships.

Similarly, in the introductory notes for Philemon in the MacArthur Study Bible, John MacArthur says:

The NT nowhere directly attacks slavery; had it done so, the resulting slave insurrection would have been brutally suppressed and the message of the gospel hopelessly confused with that of social reform. Instead, Christianity undermined the evils of slavery by changing the hearts of slaves and masters. By stressing the spiritual equality of master and slave (v. 16; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1; 1 Tim. 6:1-2), the Bible did away with slavery’s abuses.

At least, it did away with them in instruction: it condemned mistreatment of other people in general with specific instruction on how slaves and masters were to treat each other, which rose above the standard of the times. But it took many years for the system to change. Some thoughts in regard to that:

1. God does not generally deal with everyone’s sins all at once, individually or as a people. I remember a few years after I became a Christian feeling convicted over something that I would not have thought twice about in my earlier life and being glad that God didn’t show me everything that was wrong right off the bat. That would have been so overwhelming. But as I read more of the Bible and sat under good teaching, I grew in Him, and then became more aware of things that didn’t please Him that I needed to confess and forsake. In the Bible there are things pointed out as sin in Exodus that aren’t mentioned in Genesis. Polygamy was tolerated for a time, though it was not how God designed marriage, and specific instruction was given later. In the gospels, Jesus goes beyond the mere letter of the law (thou shalt nor commit adultery) to the inner workings of the heart (if you look lustfully, you’re guilty. Matthew 5:27-28). As people have had more history and received more light, they’re more responsible.

2. God redeems people, not institutions. A former pastor said this about a different modern-day situation, but it applies here as well. As Warren Wiersbe put it in Be Faithful  (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon): It’s Always Too Soon to Quit!:

Was Paul hinting in Philemon 21 that Philemon should do even more and free Onesimus? For that matter, why did he not come right out and condemn slavery? This letter certainly would have been the ideal place to do it. Paul did not “condemn” slavery in this letter or in any of his letters, though he often had a word of admonition for slaves and their masters (Eph. 6:5–9; Col. 3:22—4:1; 1 Tim. 6:1–2; Titus 2:9–10). In fact, he encouraged Christian slaves to obtain their freedom if they could (1 Cor. 7:21–24).

During the American Civil War, both sides used the same Bible to “prove” their cases for or against slavery. One of the popular arguments was, “If slavery is so wrong, why did Jesus and the apostles say nothing against it? Paul gave instructions to regulate slavery, but he did not condemn it.” One of the best explanations was given by Alexander Maclaren in his commentary on Colossians in The Expositor’s Bible (Eerdmans, 1940; vol. VI, 301):

First, the message of Christianity is primarily to individuals, and only secondarily to society. It leaves the units whom it has influenced to influence the mass. Second, it acts on spiritual and moral sentiment, and only afterwards and consequently on deeds or institutions. Third, it hates violence, and trusts wholly to enlightened conscience. So it meddles directly with no political or social arrangements, but lays down principles which will profoundly affect these, and leaves them to soak into the general mind.

Had the early Christians begun an open crusade against slavery, they would have been crushed by the opposition, and the message of the gospel would have become confused with a social and political program. Think of how difficult it was for people to overcome slavery in England and America, and those two nations had general education and the Christian religion to help prepare the way. Think also of the struggles in the modern Civil Rights movement even within the church. If the battle for freedom was difficult to win in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, what would the struggle have been like back in the first century?

3. God often works from the inside out. Some of the quotes above touch on this concept, but in addition, in Be Faithful, Wiersbe says, “Christians in the Roman Empire could not work through local democratic political structures as we can today, so they really had no political power to bring about change. The change had to come from within, even though it took centuries for slavery to end.”

It does seem that, long before the Civil War, people in general and Christians in particular should have realized the problems with slavery and certainly should have realized that just because slavery was in the Bible doesn’t mean it was an example we should follow. There are examples not to follow in the Bible as well as examples to follow. Someone once said that the “Golden Rule” alone, “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31), should have been enough to stop people from having slaves.

In the Civil War era, and likely before, some people used passages in the Bible about slaves being beaten as justification for their mistreatment of slaves (Solomon Northup tells of a situation like this in Twelve Years a Slave). But I think by and large those passages are just expressing what would happen in those days to disobedient slaves rather than justifying slavery and beatings. To pick out isolated verses to justify slavery as it was before the Civil War is to misuse the Bible: reading the whole Bible and reading in context within the big picture would avoid that problem.

Northup also said of one kind, Christian master, whom some might wonder at having had slaves, “The influences and associations that had always surrounded him, blinded him to the inherent wrong at the bottom of the system of slavery. He never doubted the moral right of one man holding another in subjection. Looking through the same medium with his fathers before him, he saw things in the same light. Brought up under other circumstances and other influences, his notions would undoubtedly have been different.” Booker T. Washington said something similar in Up From Slavery, not excusing slavery, but understanding that the economic system and years of history had masters firmly enmeshed in the system.

Thankfully God raised up people like William Wilberforce and Abraham Lincoln and others who worked against slavery until it was finally broken, at least in England and America. Unfortunately it still goes on in other areas, and even in our country people enslave others in other forms, like the horrible sex trafficking trade. I have no idea how to help, but Scripture encourages us to:

Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. Psalm 82:3-4

Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh? Isaiah 58:6-7

Before I leave this subject, there is one more aspect I must consider. Throughout the Bible, our relationship with God is described in various aspects: father/child; shepherd/sheep; groom/bride; king/subjects, and others. I wrote more on this here. One of those aspects is a master and slave or bondservant. Some have said that because we’re God’s children, we’re no longer slaves, and there is a sense in which that is true. But all through the New Testament, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude, who very much preached our sonship in Christ, also called themselves servants. Jesus Himself was called a servant and took on a servant’s duty when he washed the disciples’ feet, even though He was the Son of God (Philippians 2:5-8).

In the Old Testament, there was provision for a situation in which a servant who was due for his freedom but wanted to stay with his master because he loved him could be bound to his master forever. I think this is one picture of our relationship with Christ. He doesn’t forcefully snatch us up or forcibly make us obey Him. He wants us willingly to yield ourselves to Him out of love for Him and acknowledgement of Who He is. It is an atrocity for any man to think he has a right to own anyone else, but God does “own” us, because He created us and because He paid the price for our sin. But He wants us to yield ourselves in complete trust and obedience to Him. And He wants us to serve others in love (Galatians 5:13). We were “servants of sin” before believing in Christ; now He wants us to become “servants of righteousness” (Romans 6:17-18).

Studying out what the Bible says about our servanthood would probably take another blog post, but it involves realizing that He is Lord, that He takes care of all our needs, that we owe all to Him, that we really have no rights apart from Him, that He deserves our all.

For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. Mark 10:45

And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” Mark 9:35

If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.John 12:26

And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 2:24-25.

For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 1 Peter 2:15-16.

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. Galatians 5:13.

As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. 1 Peter 4:10-11.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.  And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Philippians 2:5-8

Some other good sources on this issue:

Does the Bible Allow For Slavery?
Why Was Slavery Allowed in the Old Testament?
Why Was Slavery Allowed in the New Testament?
A Bondservant of Jesus from My Utmost For His Highest

(Sharing with Inspire me Monday, Literary Musing Monday, Testimony Tuesday, Tell His Story), Woman to Woman Word-Filled Wednesday, Faith on Fire)





Thoughts on the election

Image courtesy of David Castillo Dominici at

Image courtesy of David Castillo Dominici at

I don’t think I have said much, if anything, about this year’s presidential election. There have been too many voices carrying on ad nauseam about it, and I figure if I have been sick of it for weeks already, probably most of my readers have as well. Plus I don’t like stirring up controversy, and this election has been the most controversial in my memory.

But there are some things on my heart, and this is my outlet, so I am going to try to lay them out here. Who knows, I may get to the end and then delete it. But I want to take the swirl of different thoughts and try to set them out and examine them one by one.

Most of the blog and social media posts I have seen on election eve have been reminders that no matter who wins the election, God is in control. And that’s true.

The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will. Proverbs 21:1

For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another. Psalm 75:6-7

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.  Romans 13:1

Some take these truths to mean, “God’s in control so it doesn’t matter what I do or whether I do anything.” While there is a sense in which that’s true, God most often uses means (like prayer to accomplish His purpose or witnessing to bring the gospel to the lost). We can each only do in good conscience what we feel God wants us to do, but we should at least do that: pray about it and then act accordingly. I don’t think God ever intended for us to take no notice of what’s going on in the world and never participate in it because He is in control. Throughout the Bible He calls people to action even while asserting His sovereignty. Sometimes He works in spite of people or without people, but most often He seems to work through people.

I’ve even seen a few saying that since Christians are citizens of heaven and this world is not our home, we don’t even really need to participate in the election process. That, to me, falls in the category of being so “heavenly minded one is of no earthly good” and seems a slap in the face of myriads who fought and died for us to have this privilege. We have this incredible gift to have a legal say in our government, and I can’t understand not using it. I think the above truths apply here as well.

But most of the chatter I have seen has not been along the lines of opting out or disregarding the privilege to vote. It’s been more along the lines of the best way for Christians to use that vote, often fraught with deep disagreement.

My biggest problem with some of the political bantering on social media is the idea that if person A has a different view on things than person B, then B thinks there must be something defective with A’s understanding, reasoning, intelligence, motives, sanity, character, patriotism, Christianity, etc. It’s possible for good people to have very different views on what should be done and how and who should do them.

Almost every election, I’ve heard the phrase going around about choosing the lesser of two evils, meaning neither candidate is ideal. This is the first year I have heard Christians objecting to that. But no candidate is ever going to line up 100% politically and spiritually with how we think. No one like that would make it that far because that’s not how the majority of the country thinks any more. And we differ so much on some of the finer points, we wouldn’t all agree on a candidate like that anyway (that, in fact, is how I believe we ended up with the Republican candidate we have: most Christians I know were splintered between 3 or 4 of the other candidates in the primaries, dividing their votes and resulting in none of them winning). We can’t hold out for the ideal candidate: we have to choose between what we have, rather than wishing for what we don’t have.

There is such a deep divide over the issues and candidates, I fear that whoever wins, the other side will be discontent and continue to complain for months to come, if not until the next election. But once we’ve studied not only the candidates, but the platforms, and prayed, and before God in good conscience made the best choice we know how to make, we have to accept the results.

We need to remember, too, that no president operates in a vacuum. We do still have a voice: we need to be alert and use that voice to let our representatives know our views on issues.

And once it is all over, our response is to be:

Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:1-4 (NKJV)

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. 1 Peter 2:13-17

Those verses have all the more poignancy when we remember the kinds of rulers those writers were under.

In some ways, Christians tend to be more watchful and prayerful when their preferred candidate is not the elected one. Otherwise we tend to sit back and relax and trust everything will go well and forget about it all until the next election. But I do pray for God’s mercy in this, and, as a guest speaker prayed in church yesterday, ask that we’ll get the candidate God knows we need, not what we deserve.

And though I do believe the political process is important, and some are called to participate more than others, ultimately that’s not what helps people’s hearts or brings lasting change. Only the gospel can change hearts; only God and the Bible can change people’s thinking. Doing our part to be informed and vote is vital and necessary: doing our part to share the gospel and make disciples is even more so.




Christians with political differences


Photo Courtesy of Ambro at

Normally I stay far away from politics online, especially here. It’s just too volatile a subject, with good people on the opposite sides of some fences.

While differences and their tensions are present every election, I’ve been dismayed this year by comments such as, “I don’t see how any Christian can vote for that candidate.” We don’t need to call each other’s spirituality into question over politics.

I came across a couple of good posts this morning on the subject. Especially now that it looks like the final nominees are not the ones some of us wanted, we have been pondering what to do. In Can You Vote For Trump With a Clear Conscience? Andy Naselli discusses the options, none of which is ideal, but makes the point that believers can vote in totally opposite ways or think in different ways about this and still have a clear conscience. He’s obviously against Trump, but I’m sharing this for his delineation of the different ways a Christian’s conscience might lead him to vote, not necessarily for his views on Trump, even though I agree with many of them. For or against, “fellow Christians who are members of the same church should be able to disagree on these issues and still have close fellowship with each other” – and fellow Christians who don’t go to the same church should be able to do this with disputable matters as well.

Joel Arnold brings out many good points as well in Trump vs. Clinton: The Story of the Great Evangelical Predicament. He notes, “It’s entirely possible that there is not a single ‘right Christian response'” and “red vs. blue isn’t light vs. darkness.” “Don’t call your friend a liberal/heretic/moron because he didn’t agree with you.”

In this arena as well as all others, we need to remember:

  1. To “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person” (Colossians 4:8).
  2. To be “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Matthew 10:16).
  3. To spend more time praying than arguing over these options.
  4. Though we do have a responsibility to be aware of issues and vote our conscience, our ultimate hope and the greatest need of any citizen is not in a political candidate.

See also:

Thoughts on Inauguration Day.
Thoughts About the Election.
Post-election Blues.

Book Review: Being Mortal

Being MortalI could wrap up my comments on Being Mortal by Atul Gawande succinctly by saying that if you plan on getting old or dying or helping a parent as they age, you need to read this book. But I’ll try to give you a bit more to go on.

I don’t know that I would have noticed this book at all except that Lisa and Joyful Reader both mentioned it. I knew they had dealt with deaths of parents and grandparents, Lisa’s mom had been in assisted living and Joyful’s grandmother lives with her, so with their experience, their praise for this book meant a lot.

I ended up marking many more pages than I can possibly share, but it’s safe to say that much in this book resonated with me.


The subtitle of the book is Medicine and What Matters in the End, and it’s a frank treatment of end-of-life issues. Medicine, Dr. Gawande asserts, is geared to fix things. But in some cases the treatment is worse than the disease itself. And this tendency is part of what had led to institutionalizing people as they age and making it a medical matter rather than trying to give people in such situations the best days they can have in the time they have left.

Gawande notes that until fairly recently, most deaths occurred at home. Now most occur in hospitals and nursing homes “where regimented, anonymous routines cut us off from all the things that matter to us in life” (p. 9). In addition, it used to be that, unless you had a long, wasting illness like consumption, most deaths came suddenly like a thunderstorm. Modern medicine has been a marvel and a gift from God: many things that used to be fatal can now be treated. But like any gift, there are good ways and not so good ways to use it.

“The simple view is that medicine exists to fight death and disease, and that is, of course, its most basic task. Death is the enemy. But the enemy has superior forces. Eventually, it wins. And, in a war that you cannot win, you don’t want a general who fights to the point of total annihilation. You don’t want Custer. You want Robert E. Lee, someone who knew how to fight for territory when he could and how to surrender when he couldn’t, someone who understood that the damage is greatest if all you do is fight to the bitter end.”

I appreciated his explanation of how the style of doctoring has changed over the years, from the authoritative “Dr. Knows-Best” who made all the decisions for you, to “Dr. Informative,” who merely laid out all the options and let you decide. The problem with the latter is that we don’t always know how to process the options. When the author’s own father faced a tumor in his spine, he, his father, and his mother were all doctors yet felt overwhelmed by the information and options they were receiving. A third kind of doctor is called “interpretive” and gives information as well as guidance after asking what’s most important to you and what your concerns are (pp. 100-102).

Gawande proposes a series of questions to consider when the diagnosis is terminal, questions concerning what’s most important, what one’s goals and fears are in facing the time they have left. One man said he wanted to continue to eat ice cream and watch football on TV, and he wasn’t interested in any treatment that interfered with those activities: life wasn’t worth living without them. Some are willing to live with different degrees of disability and pain: some don’t want to suffer at all. It’s good for a family to have these discussions so they have some idea what would be the most important to their loved one. Sometimes it requires more than one hard discussion: “Arriving at acceptance of one’s mortality and a clear understanding of the limits and the possibilities of medicine is a process, not an epiphany” (p. 182), and your preferences might change over time as well. But these discussions are necessary to find the best means of “living for the best possible day today instead of sacrificing time now for time later” (p. 229).

Gawande also details the journey from being independent to needing assistance to needing full time care that elderly and their families face. We’ve faced much of this with my mother-in-law over the last few years. I especially appreciated the history of nursing homes and assisted living facilities and the goals and purposes that Keren Brown Wilson, who “invented” assisted living, had when she started, and how those were originally implemented and maintained and then encroached upon to the point that she had to resign from her own board. Nursing homes themselves “were never created to help people facing dependency in old age. They were created to clear out hospital beds” (p. 71).

Many of the problems he lists in assisted living and nursing homes were the same as what we had found: loss of autonomy and privacy, loss of purpose, “tasks [coming] to matter more than the people” (p. 105), “safe but empty of anything they care about” (p. 109). “Making life meaningful in old age…requires more imagination and invention than making them merely safe does” (p. 137).

In older history and in other countries, the old are revered as having great knowledge and wisdom: “Now we consult Google, and if we have any trouble with the computer we ask a teenager” (p. 18). At least one sibling used to stay with the elderly parent(s) and help care for them, and then got a larger portion of the inheritance or perhaps the family home in place of what they gave up. Now both parents and adult children value their independence. But “our reverence for independence takes no account of the reality of what happens in life: sooner or later, independence will become impossible” (p. 22). Yet the author researched and visited several creative ways for an older adult to retain as much independence and autonomy as long as possible.

One problem is that even though geriatric specialists have been shown to enhance the lives of the elderly, geriatric units are shrinking or being closed rather than growing. “97 percent of medical students take no course in geriatrics” (p. 52). One reason is that it doesn’t pay well; another is that insurance doesn’t see the need for it. It remains for those of us who deal with the elderly or who look ahead to our own old age to be aware of issues.

When I was first looking at information about the book, I was wary that the author might promote assisted suicide for those with terminal illnesses. He does not promote it, but he would support legislation to enable giving people lethal prescriptions if asked, noting that half of them don’t use them: they just like the assurance that they could. He does note, though, that in countries where it is legal, use has grown: “But the fact that, by 2012, one in thirty-five Dutch people sought assisted suicide at their death is not a measure of success. It is a measure of failure. Our ultimate goal, after all, is not a good death but a good life to the very end. The Dutch have been slower than others to develop palliative care programs that might provide for it….We damage entire societies if we let this capability [assisted suicide] divert us from improving the lives of the ill. Assisted living is far harder than assisted death, but its possibilities are far greater, as well” (p. 245). (A good Christian source on some of these thorny issues is When Is It Right to Die: Suicide, Euthanasia, Suffering, Mercy by Joni Earacekson Tada.)

He also points out that it is difficult to know exactly where the lines are sometimes. “We also recognize the necessity of allowing doses of narcotics and sedatives that reduce pain and discomfort even if they may knowingly speed death” (pp. 243-244). Sometimes it is wrong to turn off a ventilator: sometimes it is right. If a 20-tyear-old was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes and wanted to let “nature take its course” rather than treating the illness, we’d try to convince her that the quality of life she could have with treatment would be well worth it despite the complications: it would be ridiculous to die of diabetes when there is treatment available and the possibility of a long, productive, and happy life. On the other hand, when my father was dying of various other issues and they suspected he had colon cancer, they decided not to put him through what would be involved in diagnosing, much less treating it, because in the long run it would not make a difference in how long he would live and would only make his last months miserable.

The author writes from a secular viewpoint. As a Christian, I thought a lot about how a Christian worldview would affect this topic. As Christians we know where we and our believing loved ones are going, which takes some of the sting out of death. But we don’t take it lightly or flippantly, either. Death is still called an enemy. We hold life as a gift from God and believe He is the only one with the right to end it. It is to be given back to Him and used for His purposes. Sometimes that includes suffering, yet we’re also called to alleviate suffering if possible. While there are fears about loss of independence and abilities in older age, we can trust God to help us through that time: And even to your old age I am he; and even to hoar hairs will I carry you: I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you.  Isaiah 46:4. But issues and question the author brings up are needful to consider, preferably before crises hit. In some cases there is no one right answer for what kind of treatment to pursue: the answer will vary depending on a number of factors.

I like this summation near the end of the book:

I am leery of suggesting that endings are controllable. No one ever really has control. Physics and biology and accident ultimately have their way in our lives. But the point is that we are not helpless either. Courage is the strength to recognize both realities. We have room to act, to shape our stories, though as time goes on it is within narrower and narrower confines. A few conclusions become clear when we understand this: that our most cruel failure in how we treat the sick and aged is the failure to recognize that they have priorities beyond merely being safe and living longer; that the chance to shape one’s story is essential to sustaining meaning in life; that we have the opportunity to refashion our institutions, our culture, and our conversations in ways that transform the possibilities for the last chapters of everyone’s lives (p. 243).

(This review will also be linked to Semicolon‘s Saturday Review of Books.)

Is it nice to call someone a false prophet or a false teacher?


I don’t know whether it’s nice. But sometimes it is necessary, and oftentimes it is the most loving thing one can do.

The Bible has some pretty serious things to say about false prophets and false teachers:

Jesus said, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” Matthew 7:15

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. II Peter 2:1-3

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. I John 4:1

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:6-9

If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. Deuteronomy 13:1-4

I don’t recall seeing in Scripture anything along the lines of “He doesn’t speak the truth, but he is very kind…or gives food to the poor…or has such a nice family…” or whatever. For one thing, those “good works” don’t give anyone points with God. For another, the falsehood is such an important issue that it trumps whatever else the person might be doing.

And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. II Corinthians 11:12-15, ESV.

I’m not talking about every little thing people can disagree about in the Bible. People can have different views of baptism, church government, election and free will, the best Bible versions, standards of modesty, etc., and still each love God and teach the major truths of the Bible. While all of these are important and we should study the Scripture to be fully persuaded in our own minds, the Bible also teaches that people can have different convictions and should be able to still get along. I think as modern day Christians we have spent way too much time fighting amongst brethren on these things and have gotten sidetracked from the bigger picture of sharing God’s Word and making disciples (for Him, not for our views).

But there are majors issues – the fundamentals, if you will – truths that to deny would be to deny Christ and mislead people into tragedy: who God is, how a person can be rightly related to Him, the Deity of Christ, the inspiration and verity of the Bible, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, among others. When a person is wrong on these, I believe it is harmful to dwell only on the “good” he seems to be doing without warning people of his falsehoods. We don’t want to do anything to give credence to his message. That’s why I said earlier that calling a false prophet or teacher what he is can be the most loving thing you can do if it keeps someone from blindly following him into error.

I don’t think that means we have to set up web sites as false teacher watchdogs. I have come across a few like that, and though I am sure the owners meant well, the sites I have seen come across as harsh and unbalanced.

I also don’t think it means that if someone said they read a book or listened to a message from someone we would consider to be a false teacher, that we have to “pounce” on them and rip the teacher to shreds. We should be kind and compassionate with the person we’re speaking to, and part of that may be acknowledging that the person they are listening to might have some good points. We can prayerfully continue and bring biblical truth to bear in the conversation. If a person is really entrenched, we may need to just deal with one aspect at a time.

Jude 1:3 says, “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” We are called to contend for the faith. Many of the epistles do just that in dealing with falsehoods making the rounds, even to the point of naming names. Interestingly, I had this started this post last week and saved it, and then last Sunday our Sunday School teacher started teaching from Jude. He said the Greek word for “contend” is used only one time in the Bible, and that is in this passage, and it has the idea of an athlete pouring everything into competing and winning with total commitment. Ephesians 5:11 goes on to say, “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”

Besides contending for the faith, we need to clearly separate from false teaching.  Romans 16:17-18 says, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned ; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” 2 John 1:9-11 says, “Whosoever transgresseth , and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any * unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”

Considering the above, when I quote someone or review a book, if I have some minor issues I might say something like, “I don’t agree with everything he said but I think there are good things to be gleaned from the book.” But if the author is wrong on the major issues, I can’t leave at “I disagree with some things he says”: I feel I must warn my own readers about this person’s falsehoods. Then if they want to go on and read the book, that is up to them, but at least they’ll know to compare what was written with what the Bible teaches (something we should be doing anyway.)

Warning of false teaching is one way we can we can contend for truth; we also need to be sharing truth proactively, as the Biblical writers did as well. Some years ago when David Koresh was in the news, I was astonished to hear an interview with one of his disciples commenting on his knowledge of the Bible. That person had to have had an amazing lack of previous Bible teaching or reading to think a thing like that. That’s one reason, among many others, that I have a passion to get people into the Word of God for themselves: it teaches us to know Him and His truth, helps us grow in Him, and keeps us from being deceived by false teachers who would lead us astray.

While we don’t need to set ourselves up as the False Teaching Police and become consumed with ferreting out falsehoods, we should be in the Word of God enough to recognize when we come across false teaching of it and be able to articulate the truth. It may be one thing that makes a difference in the hearts of those who hear us.


Book Review: Out of a Far Country: A Gay Son’s Journey to God. A Broken Mother’s Search for Hope

Far CountryI’ve been wanting to read Out of a Far Country: A Gay Son’s Journey to God. A Broken Mother’s Search for Hope by Christopher and Angela Yuan ever since seeing it recommended by Tim Challies, and I am glad to have finally done so. I’m predicting it will be one of my top ten books of the year.

Christopher and Angela take turns with the chapters, describing events from their different points of view. They open the book with Chris’s coming out to his parents that he was gay. Angela did not object on Biblical grounds: she was an atheist who hated Christians. I don’t think the book ever explains just why she was against his homosexuality, except that they had hoped he would follow in his father’s footsteps and become a dentist, and patients would probably avoid a dentist who had the potential to be HIV positive. Maybe it just didn’t fit in with her idea of a perfect family, but it was devastating to her.

Angela had come from an unhappy home and had put great stock into having a good family. But over the years her husband grew cold and distant, her oldest son rebelled, and now Christopher was going in a direction completely unacceptable to her.  She gave him an ultimatum between his family and his homosexuality, and, believing he had no choice in his orientation, he left home to be with friends who would accept him as he was. Angela crumpled to the ground in despair, feeling she had nothing left to live for. She made plans to end her own life, but wanted to talk to a minister first. Though he was kind, nothing really changed in her heart. He gave her a booklet which she later read, and her eyes were opened to the truth that her lifelong desire for belonging could be fulfilled in belonging to God. It was even a relief to know and admit that she was a sinner, that though she was far from perfect, God still loved her. “I had not been seeking God, but I was found by him” (p. 19).

Chris, for his part, was glad to get away from the “Chinese-mother guilt-trip drama” (p. 8). Coming out to one’s parents and the inevitable negative reaction was a rite of passage among his friends. He finally felt free to live as he wanted to. He “started going to gay clubs and began tending bar” (p. 23) at night while attending dental school during the day. Eventually the party scene took over his life. While feeling low after a broken relationship, he accepted someone’s offer of the drug Ecstasy, and within a very short time started selling drugs to support his own habit, then became a popular and leading seller in his area and even across the country. His schooling suffered to the point that he was eventually expelled, but it no longer mattered since he was making money hand over fist and enjoying life and popularity.

Until he was arrested.

During this time Angela had been growing in her own faith and her husband Leon had come to the Lord as well. At first she tried various things to get through to Chris but finally realized that she could not “fix” him. She could only fast, pray, show him love, and not shield him from the consequences of his actions. She and her husband did not intervene when Chris was threatened with expulsion from school and after he was arrested asked the judge to give him a sentence just long enough to bring him to God. Once after reading Psalm 46:1, “Be still, and know that I am God,” she knew “as hard as it was, I knew I had to quit striving and trying to make things work my way. But rather, I had to let God do things his way and in his timing” (p. 73). “It may have just been easier for us to give up on our son, but God said, Wait! He gave us faith to hope against all the evidence we saw and to trust he had a plan, Leon and I committed to focus not on hopelessness but on the promises of God” (p. 109). She “prayed specifically that God would do whatever it took to bring our son to him — not to us, not out of drugs, not out of homosexuality…but to the Father” (p. 159).

With Christopher’s arrest, his popularity vanished. None of his “friends” wanted any more to do with him. One day in prison, he saw a Gideon’s New Testament on top of some trash, and he took it back to his cell and began to read mainly just as a way to pass the time. Over time, both with reading the Bible on his own and studying it with others, Chris came to believe on Christ.

Being in prison had taken care of getting Chris off drugs and out of the party scene, and he came to admit they were both wrong and he needed to stay away from them once he got out. When he talked with a chaplain about his homosexuality, he was told that the Bible did not condemn homosexuality and gave Chris a book explaining that view. That sounded wonderful to Chris, but as he read the book and then studied the Bible, he felt the book did not line up with what the Bible taught. He did discover that in “Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 — passages normally used to condemns gays and lesbians…God didn’t call lesbians and gay men abominations. He called it an abomination. What God condemned was the act, not the person. For so long, I had gotten the message from the Christian protestors at gay-pride parades that the God of the Bible hated people like me, because we were abominations. But after reading these passages, I saw that God didn’t hate me; nor was he condemning me to an inescapable destiny of torment. But rather, it was the sex he condemned, and yet he still wanted an intimate relationship with me” (p. 186). Being gay had been a major part of his identity, but as he continued to study the Scriptures, he “began to ask myself a different question: Who am I apart from my sexuality?” (p. 187). He details his thought processes and conclusions in a chapter called “Holy Sexuality.” One conclusion was:

God’s faithfulness is proved not by the elimination of hardships but by carrying us through them. Change is not the absence of struggles; change is the freedom to choose holiness in the midst of our struggles. I realized that the ultimate issue has to be that I yearn after God in total surrender and complete obedience (pp. 168-169).

This book touched me on so many levels. What a joy to see the journey of how God brought both Christopher and his parents to Himself.

Christopher’s testimony from a documentary is here:

You can read more of Christopher’s life and ministry at his web site,

(This review will also be linked to Semicolon‘s Saturday Review of Books.)