The examined life....

How to Biblically Raise Kids

ReverendJayPhD — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:13:00 GMT

What does the Bible mean when it says, "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction (or, "admonition" as in the KJV and other translations) of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4, ESV).

"Provoke not to anger" is the Greek word parorgizo, which is to "draw out wrath," or "assist wrath" (in the sense of helping it, the picture of being alongside of it is contained in the preposition attached to the verb for being angry). The Amplified Bible uses the terms "irritate" and "exasperate." The idea is manifestly NOT "don't do anything that makes them angry," because any restriction, instruction, or punishment is likely to make a kid angry (and wait till they hit 16 if you doubt that), but the idea is to not be so constantly severe or nitpicking that the irresistable result is exasperation leading to anger. But it is rather, don't "help their anger along."

The great commentator, Matthew Henry, wrote on this passage:

"Be not impatient; use no unreasonable severities. Deal prudently and wisely with children; convince their judgements and work upon their reason. Bring them up well; under proper and compassionate correction; and in the knowledge of the duty God requires (Henry, M., & Scott, T. 1997. Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary . Logos Research Systems: Oak Harbor, WA.).

This, then, is the negative. What is the positive? Well, Paul then says, "Bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." "Disciplining" is the Greek term paideia, "chastening befitting that of one's own child." Would we chasten/punish our own child differently than we would an employee or a stranger? Sure. There would be a tenderness, a brokenheartedness, a desire to correct the problem so that the relationship might blossom that would motivate our chastening. This is how we ought to punish.

How ought we to instruct? Paul says "in the admonition of the Lord" (admonition is the term used in the KJV, and I preserve it here because it means something slightly different than "instruction" to the modern ear). "Admonition" is nouthesia, which means "to lovingly correct." "The admonition of the Lord" indicates that our admonition, or loving correction, needs to be modeled on that shown by God to us. How does God correct us? By patiently confronting us with the truth. Note how the verb form of "admonish" in Romans 15:14 is linked with the corrector himself being both full of goodness and knowledge.

Notice, though, that "the admonition of the Lord" can be both absolute and severe. God does not negotiate with us on what He expects from us. Our opinions really do not matter. Only truth and right and wrong matters. And eventually, His patience does run out and what can only be characterized as great severity in punishment may follow (Gen. 6:5, I John 5:16).

There are many ways to discipline children. Many folks whom I counsel seem to have a "gotcha!" kind of attitude, and rejoice in finding things their kids have done wrong so that they can express their displeasure. Others have an attitude that discipline is ultimately about a power struggle - a fight to the death that is really about egos. But there is only one Biblical way to correct a child: with a loving heart, based on the truth of the Bible (since we are filled with both knowledge and goodness), and with both punishment and instruction befitting the intimate relationship that is modeled by our Father for us.

Having said all that, discipline is certainly a zero-sum game. It is not negotiating with kids. It is not trying to find a golden mean between the rules of the parents and the will of the kids. Below are two passages from Dr. Laura Schlessinger that I occasionally share with folks that I think serve to cure the temptation to face rearing children as a communal project between the parents and the kids. Obviously, I don't agree with everything that Dr. Laura is about, but on the relationship between parents and kids, she is as good as gold.

“The power to make the rules is directly connected to the responsibility. Parents are responsible for food, a roof, education, medicine, clothes, and so forth. It is this responsibility, combined with the moral and legal obligation parents have to caretake their children, that gives them the privilege of being ‘in charge.’ Not only, however, is that a privilege, it is a necessity. Children can be as or more handicapped when brought up without the loving blessing of discipline as when born without a limb. It is harder to compensate for the former" (Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Parenthood by Proxy: Don’t Have Them If You Won’t Raise Them, p. 169.).

“Even in the healthiest of homes, children always complain about not getting their way and feeling unfairly punished and restricted. Although I counsel adults to be open to discussion, while maintaining their position as final authority, I remind children that their dependency on their parents for all things puts total responsibility on the parent for their entire well-being. This responsibility comes with a perk: power. I tell them that when they are entirely responsible for themselves (job, car, home, insurance, food, and so forth) then they have that power. Until such time as they are independent, their gratitude for their parents’ efforts and responsibilities, their awareness of themselves as ‘works in progress,’ and an acknowledgement of their parents’ superior experience and wisdom ought to lead them to respect their parents’ authority in spite of urges to the contrary. Most important, children must trust that their parents are functioning with the child’s best interests at heart" (Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Parenthood by Proxy: Don’t Have Them If You Won’t Raise Them, p. 175.).

If you have questions about a workable methodology of child rearing, I would recommend wholeheartedly a book by Dr. Kevin Lehman, "Have a New Kid by Friday."

Powerful Prayer to Pray for a Loved One

ReverendJayPhD — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:23:00 GMT

The below prayer is modeled on Paul's prayer in Colossians chapter one. It is a good starting point in praying for another person, and of course you can feel free to modify it and insert whatever specific needs that the target of your prayers has that you know of.

"Lord, help me to cease not to pray for [Insert Name], and to desire that he might be filled with the knowledge of God's will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding. Please help [Insert Name] to walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, let him be fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God. Please let [Insert Name] be strengthened with all might, according to Christ's glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness.

And for every spiritual need, I pray deliverance from the power of darkness, or translation into the kingdom of God's dear Son, or redemption through the blood of Christ unto the forgiveness of sins."

Fasting and Prayer

ReverendJayPhD — Fri, 30 May 2008 17:42:00 GMT

At the urging of several clients who are going through extremely difficult times, and who feel the need to harness great spiritual power to deal with problems or opportunities that they are facing, I am sponsoring a weekend of fasting and prayer to run Friday June 6th through Saturday June 7th. After considerable consultation, we have decided to open up this opportunity for anyone who is interested in making a genuine commitment to pray in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and to fast on this weekend, seeking divine favor both for themselves and for the others involved in this commitment.

I will be posting daily between now and then [ed. - below are selected posts that occurred during this time] to sort of lead us up to the moment of the prayer and fasting. I will also be making some recommendations as to where you might obtain more information if you so desire, so check back on this blog often. I will also be publishing to other blogs on other services, and have not yet determined the best way to make everyone's requests known to one another. Any suggestions on this matter would be much appreciated. Finally, this fast will be being celebrated in several small groups related to my church, and your requests will be prayed for in a couple of actual prayer meetings.

I will be fasting and praying all day Friday and Saturday, with occasional timeouts for any emergency business that may arise and for sleep. However, I have arranged to have those two days commitment-free to be able to devote myself to petitioning for the needs of my clients during that time. My suggestion for you, if you would like to participate, is to pick only one of the days to fast and pray, unless you are accustomed to fasting. Either Friday or Saturday, depending on what your own schedule and lifestyle allows. And if you have any reason to believe that you have a compromising medical condition, please seek medical advice before fasting.

In addition to those who will be participating, we will be allowing ANYONE who would like to post prayer requests during this time to allow myself and others to pray for over the weekend. If you would like to submit a prayer request, I ask that you find the blog page marked "Prayer Requests" and that you include AT LEAST the following information: a name for you, whether it is real or not is not important; the specific request; the specific answer that you are seeking for the request; a summary story (between five and ten sentences should be enough) to allow others to know as much of the "ins" and "outs" of the request as possible so that they may intelligently pray for you.

If you are not comfortable with posting the request yourself, you may email your prayer request to me and I will post it for you anonymously. Please be aware that I will be posting all requests, word-for-word, offsite as well, for others who are participating in the fast. So only put as much information here as you feel you can reasonably make public.

I will be posting suggesting reading, Bible verses, and other materials as we lead up to June 6. Feel free to email me questions or to leave comments on this blogsite.

My sincerest hope is that through this small two-day ministry, we might lay hold of God in such a way that He will "answer our prayers openly" (Matt. 6:16-18).

--------------------------

Why Fasting and Prayer?

Why do Christians fast? And why couple fasting with prayer? Doesn't God hear the prayers of His children even when they do NOT fast?

John Wesley, in his sermon on Mattew 6:16-18, said about fasting that fasting "is not all, nor yet is it nothing. It is not the end itself, but is a precious means to a greater end; fasting is a means which God Himself has ordained through which, when it is properly used, He will give us blessing."

In fact, this agrees with the scripture, which in the passage above, assures us that when we fast in secret, "the Father, who sees in secret, shall reward you openly."

I. What is Fasting?

There are several legitimate kinds of fasting that have been used in Biblical or church history. The most basic, and probably what people anticipate when they read about "fasting," is the actual meaning of the Biblical term "fast" - to abstain from partaking of all food for a specified period of time. This type of fasting usually last for anything from one day to several days.

There is another type of fasting that has been popularized in church use, but which does not really have a Biblical antecedent - some people "fast" by eating very little. For a period of time they take smaller portions, perhaps even a single meal in a day, for a specified period of time.

A third type of fasting has to do with abstention from certain types of food. People who practice this type of fasting often call it "fasting from pleasant food" and it has a Biblical example in Daniel 1:8ff. In that passage, Daniel and his three friends rejected the sumptuous table of the King of Babylon and requested to merely be fed with vegetables as a show of their own separation from the ungodly influences of Babylon's political court. This type of fasting has been popularized in Lenten fasting, where people often swear off some preferred food for the 40 days of Lent.

A final type of fasting involves fasting until nightfall as a means of devoting one's self to seeking God during the day. This practice is foreshadowed in II Samuel 1:12 and other passages.

II. Why Fasting?

Of course, this is the real question. Our culture teaches the indulgence of the body, and if fasting is not required, why would anybody choose to engage in self-denial of something as essential as food. There are several Biblical reasons why people can, and should, fast.

First, people often fast as a demonstration of sadness - but more than a demonstration of sadness, an overt plea to God to relieve their sadness (Matthew 9:14-15).

Secondly, people often fast in order to focus themselves on prayer (Matthew 17:21). More than just a physical focusing, by practicing physical self-denial, we stir up and sharpen our spiritual senses for participation in the discipline of prolonged and powerful prayer.

Thirdly, fasting can be a means of seeking the Lord's will (Ezra 8:21, Acts 13:2-3, Acts 14:23). When we enter times of great confusion or when we have a special sense that we are in need of God's guidance, it may be time to couple fasting and praying as a means of gaining specific Divine direction.

Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, fasting and praying, when practiced together as a single discipline for a time, can be a means of obtaining great spiritual power, or of focusing the power of God Himself.

In Isaiah 58:3-6, the prophet notes that fasting was given to God's people in order to obtain certain spiritual objectives. Isaiah says that when a man fasts in such a manner as to "afflict his soul," then God will respond by "breaking the chains of wickedness, untying ropes [which bind our souls], setting the oppressed free, and tearing off every yoke [of bondage]."

In Matthew 17:14-21, Jesus Himself comes upon a person possessed of a spirit, whom his disciples had failed to help. Jesus approaches the oppressed person and frees him immediately. When the disciples asked Jesus how it was that He was able to free this person whom they had not been able to free, Jesus replied "THIS KIND does not come out except by prayer and fasting."

There is something unusual that goes on in the lives of people when they become serious enough about their prayers to practice self-denial and humble themselves before God. When we fast and pray, God says that we enable him to break chains, set people free (and since Jesus set ANOTHER PERSON free, we know that sometimes God will do this for third parties when we fast and pray), and overcome all sorts of spiritual oppression.

We lay hold to some sort of special power - a power sufficient to accomplish something that prayers alone will not do - when we fast and pray.

Whatever your need is, I hope that you will bring it to God for our weekend of fasting and praying. Whether you intend to join the fast or not, we encourage all to post their requests so that those who are fasting and praying will be able to pray for God's special working in your life, or in the lives of those whom you love.

--------------------

Intercessory Prayer

Intercessory prayer is prayer that is offered to God on behalf of another. Intercessory prayer can be offered for anything - from salvation, to moral reform, to some sort of blessing, to a cessation of oppression.

Frank Hammond, in his book "Pigs in the Parlor," deals with getting things done for others through intercessory prayer. He writes that the first thing that should be a matter of prayer, before anything else is asked, is that the person's spiritual condition be brought to right standing with God.

Then, he writes: "Sometimes we are led to enter into direct spiritual warfare on behalf of those who are not directly open to other avenues of truth. The person's will may be so overridden by darkness that he is unable to respond to available help. No amount of reasoning or persuasion will cause that person to open up for ministry. His will is dominated by forces he himself does not understand....

"Jesus has given His church the power to overcome and bind the powers of darkness....

"'Upon this rock I will build my church," [said Jesus], "and all the powers of hell will not conquer it. And I will give to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.'....

"One caution!," [adds Hammond]. We must realize that we cannot control another person's will. Intercessory prayer is the process, and has as its goal, the releasing of that person's will in order that he can respond directly to the truth and receive the help that God has for him."

In cases in which the person is in bondage by decisions of his own free will, even where the will is released and God's help [through prayer, counseling, or anything else] is offered, and he nevertheless chooses bondage again, he is responsible for his own decisions.

However, it has happened many times in my own life and in the lives of thousands of others, that when a person's will is freed through intercessory prayer and the person is offered help or the truth, they become able to respond and God is often able to do amazing things in people's lives.

Change your Mind, Change your Life

ReverendJayPhD — Fri, 23 May 2008 20:56:00 GMT

Imagine, if you will, a man who was reared in a jungle village in the deepest parts of Africa or the Amazon. Imagine that he has grown up in a small village of hunter-gatherers in which mud huts or basic lean-tos are the structure in which he and his immediate ancestors have lived, and imagine that minimal clothing, short lifespan, day-to-day existence, and a cycle of hunting and warfare has marked his existence for the years of his life. He has never seen an airplane, a cellphone, knows nothing about the internet, and has never tasted the benefits of electricity or any of the niceties which typify our civilization.

Now imagine this man miraculously transported to Times Square. Imagine as he peers up at skyscrapers, sees flashing lights, is surrounded by automobiles, and is nearly mauled by the crush of people heading in every direction. Imagine as his feet touch concrete. Imagine as he sees glass storefronts. Imagine as he hears horns, and looks in vain for a tree or bush behind which to hide just long enough to compose himself.

Imagine how he must feel....

Do you think that he would feel like fleeing? Do you think that he would feel like fighting? Do you think that he would be incredibly disoriented? Stressed? Confused? Fearful? Frustrated? Might he turn to violence or self-destruction out of desperation?

Back in his own village and his own country, he was likely a man who was perfectly comfortable with existence. He may have been respected and considered wise. But in this environment he is presented with a reality that he does not understand and in which he cannot function effectively. How soon do you think that he would begin to show one or more of the "emotional disorders" that plague our society generally?

One of the reasons why modern man is so spiritually, emotionally, and intellectually afflicted and conflicted is because he does not live in reality. Society tells him that there is no reality. Postmodern society tells him that the very category of "reality" is illegitimate - everything is just as we perceive it, and everybody's opinion matters equally, and there is ultimately no objective reality that any of us can respond to or internalize.

Yet every single time one of us comes to a stop light while driving, we behave as if the theory that "truth is as I perceive it" is wrong. We all recognize "red" as "red," and interpret it to mean "stop." Can you imagine the chaos and destruction that would ensue if we all believed that "the only truth that exists is what is true to me" when we drove?

Yet, we accept society's false assertions about reality (it is necessarily false to say "There is no absolute truth" because that statement itself is a statement of absolute truth), and allow those false assertions to organize our thinking, while at the same time living in a world of objective reality. And the farther man gets from objective reality in his thinking culturally, the more emotional disorders of every type proliferate.

The Bible says that God is the ultimate reality. All reality is grounded in Him. "In [God] we live, and move, and have our being" says Paul in Acts 17:28. And the character and Person of Jesus Christ is considered the ground of all morality, salvation, and truth (John 14:6).

It can be easy to ignore the fact that we need to change our thinking - after all, almost everyone around us believes exactly as we do! Yet the Bible, over and over again, tells us that a crucial aspect of becoming successful in life and learning to live the right kind of life is molding our minds to fit reality.

* "We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ." (II Cor. 10:5)

* "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind...." (Romans 12:2)

* "Finally brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good report, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, think on these things." (Phil. 4:8)

To the extent that our thinking fails to anticipate actual reality, we are commanded to change our thinking. In fact, the New Testament word for "repentance," metanoia, literally means "to have a change of mind" or "to have a change of heart" about the way that we are living or about the things that we are doing.

Many years ago, Dr. Maxwell Maltz, a plastic surgeon, wrote Psycho-Cybernetics when he noticed that many of his plastic surgery patients maintained their negative self-image long after he had "fixed" their appearance in whatever way they had requested. His solution? In order to change one's self-image, it is first necessary to change one's thinking about self-image.

In that same way, the Bible teaches that before we can overcome negative behavior patterns, emotional disorders, or chronic frustrations, we must first change our thinking.

The Importance of Family - Unconditional and Complete Commitment

ReverendJayPhD — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:31:00 GMT

James Q. Wilson, in the March 1996 issue of Reader's Digest, wrote:

"The family is not one of several alternative lifestyles. It is not an arena in which rights are negotiated; it is not an old-fashioned barrier to a promiscuous sex life; it is not a set of cost-benefit calculations. It is a commitment for which there is no feasible substitute.... There is no way to prepare for this commitment other than to make it.... Married life is shaped by the fact that the couple has made a solemn vow before family and friends that this is for keeps....

Keys to Effective Communication

ReverendJayPhD — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 01:02:00 GMT

One of the most difficult aspects of my job is watching relationship and marriage problems worsen simply because of a lack of effective communication. For all of the apparent "education" of the modern world, one of the areas in which people often need help is in knowing how to effectively communicate with each other.

People who are involved in romantic relationships would improve their interpersonal communication exponentially by simply remembering a few simple propositions:

1) When you rely on the other person's ability to read between the lines to effectively communicate, you introduce subjectivity into the communication process. Subjectivity is necessarily going to sometimes mean that the other person comes to a different conclusion than you had hoped. Don't depend on another to *catch* your meaning - effective communication is the process by which we make it impossible for our meaning to be missed by another! Spell it out. Repeat it. Use illustrations. Suggest concrete steps to take. But don't hint at what you are trying to say - say it!

2) Remember that men and women use language differently. Women often use words as a means of establishing intimacy. This confuses men, because language to men has to contain propositional truths or problems to solve. Men need to listen closely to women to try and determine whether they are discussing a problem that needs solving or merely trying to establish verbal intimacy. But women need to help men understand what their purpose is - and there is no way to more certainly make your purpose known than to say, "I just need to talk because it makes me feel closer to you" or, conversely, "I have a problem that I would appreciate it if you could help me to solve."

3) Use complete sentences. It is amazing the number of couples that I have counseled in my life who look at each other, speak in incomplete sentences, and then, with frustration building, shout, "You know?!?!?!" Well, no, they don't know. And they won't know unless you tell them. Speaking in complete sentences, though it may sound like pedantic advice, requires you to go through the mental discipline of organizing your thoughts which results in better communication to begin with. But it also ensures that the other person has the opportunity to understand - linearly and logically - the information that will allow him or her to catch your meaning.

4) Listen. Proverbs 18:13 says, "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame to him." While active listening - repeating what has been said or offering to complete a sentence when someone is at a loss for words - is good, interrupting is not.

5) Be truthful, but gentle. The Bible says in Colossians 4:6, "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye might know how ye ought to answer every man." And Ephesians 4:15 says that we must always speak the truth to each other - even if the truth is difficult - but that we do it in love.

Genuine love is built upon effective communication. So when we improve our ability to communicate with the opposite sex, we exponentially increase our ability to have a permanent and successful love relationship.

Consistency, Coaching, and Kids

ReverendJayPhD — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:35:00 GMT

When I was coaching a high school basketball team in the mid-90s, during certain key game situations I would dictate which offensive plays or defensive formations to run from the sidelines by hand-signaling my point guard. He would then relay the proper signals to the rest of the team and the play would be executed.

During one game, with the score knotted near the end of the game, I relayed the signal for the "scissors" offensive play in which the shooting guard would receive the ball behind a screen set by both the power forward and the center and, theoretically, either pop an open basket from behind the screen or, if covered, drive off of the screen and get an easy layup.

Some of the players had seen my signal to the point guard and went ahead and set up for the "scissors," but the point guard failed to signal for the play. Two players were set for the "scissors," two players were unaware of what was going on, and the point guard went ahead and penetrated the lane, tossing up a futile shot with all of his teammates out of rebounding position.

Strange, I thought, but figured that the point guard had not seen my signal. On the next play down the court, with our team now trailing by two points, I again signaled for the "scissors" play. Once again, the point guard ignored the signal and the play degenerated into minor chaos. Next time down the court I stood up, yelled out the point guard's name, and when he looked over I shouted, "SCISSORS!"

I pulled the player from the game and had him come down and sit next to me. I asked, "What's going on?" I expected him to claim that he had not seen my signals, but rather, he replied rather frankly, "I didn't think that 'scissors' was the right call in this situation."

Both slightly dazed and utterly aghast, I looked intently at this ninth grader upon whom all of the basketball wisdom of the ages had descended and said, rather animatedly, "Listen here! We are a team! We have twelve players, two coaches, two trainers, a whole passel of cheerleaders and dozens of fans who are depending upon us here. Sometimes I am gonna make the wrong call, but let me tell you this - we have a whole lot better chance of winning if we have five guys properly executing the same play even though it may not be the best call than we do if we have five guys on the court with veto power every single time a play is called or a defensive formation is set up. This is not your team - you are only a part of it. And until you learn to function as a part of a team, you aren't getting back into the game." I sent him to the end of the bench to sit out the remainder of the game.

Our culture teaches all of us to be rebellious little point guards within the context of the family structure. Our culture teaches adults to act as if children actually know enough to make important life decisions. Our culture teaches adults to think in terms of their own happiness rather than in terms of "what is best for the team," or, as the case may be, "what is best for the family."

And the carnage is inescapable. Broken families, broken lives, broken children, and broken psyches litter the landscape while the most unhappy, over-medicated generation in human history sits around and ponders who has the best moral philosophy: Jerry Springer or Oprah Winfrey?

There is a reason why, in God's economy, the buck stops with Mom and Dad. First, a cursory look through the Biblical book of Proverbs makes it very clear that wisdom (which in the Bible can loosely be defined as "the skill of living life in a way that is pleasing to God") is completely atypical for the young. Children are presented in Proverbs as being sinful, bent on self-destruction, and incapable of making right decisions. Instinctively, we realize that this is an accurate portrait, even in our child-glorifying culture. That we demand that children attend school up to a certain age is an implicit recognition that without a certain age, a certain body of factual education, and a certain life experience, people just are not equipped to make it in the world.

Secondly, though, the Bible assumes that Mom and Dad love their kids enough to make decisions to benefit them - even at a personal cost to the parents. There is a sense in which Mom and Dad are the "coaches" of the family: they are responsible for seeing the whole picture and making sure that everybody behaves in a certain way so that the best interests of all are advanced.

Thirdly, the buck has to stop somewhere. Somebody has to be entrusted with the ultimate decision. In a basketball game with only seconds on the clock and our team trailing by two, somebody with the ability, perspective, disinterest, and skill at decisionmaking needs to have the recognizable authority to demand that players run a certain play and exploit whatever opportunities present themselves. Can you imagine the chaos if five players, the coach, the cheerleaders, and the fans all had equal input as time was running out and everyone was under pressure? Would a team have a chance?

Neither a basketball team nor a family has a chance when proper authority and leadership is not implicitly recognized. With the stresses of finance, romance, extended family, school for kids (and perhaps even school for an adult!), job requirements, and the sort of random chaoes that ensues anytime there is a plumbing problem, somebody who can see the whole picture, understand everyone's needs, and respond with coolness and wisdom needs to have the authority to make decisions for the group. Kids who are having trouble mastering algebra cannot be expected to meaningfully contribute to decisions involving a family's financial future. Kids who are having trouble maintaining a positive relationship with the next door neighbors or even their own brother cannot be expected to show sufficient insight into family dynamics to determine which course of action is going to benefit every member of the family the most. Since the buck has to stop somewhere - and stop in the same place consistently - it can only stop with the parents.

Here are some principles that guide my wife and I's dealing with out kids. I hope they will prove helpful to you as well.

1) We always support each other in front of the kids. Always. Without exception. That doesn't mean that we always agree with each other - but when we disagree, we disagree in private with the doors shut. Presenting a united front of support and authority helps to deflect the temptation of kids to play one parent against the other in order to get what they want.

2) We are consistent. When we say that bedtime is 10 pm and all electronics are to be turned off at 10 - we mean it! Every school night, bedtime is 10 pm with no computer chatting, TV, ipod, or cellphone. But we are also consistent in letting our kids stay up till 10. If one of us is feeling badly, it doesn't mean we collect the toys at 9 pm and send everyone to bed - it means that one adult ends up staying up alone to supervise kid's bedtime so that the adult who is feeling ill can hit the sack a bit earlier.

3) Our philosophy is to have very few rules - but strictly enforce them. God, after all, manages to govern mankind with ten commandments. That means that we spend our time teaching moral principles rather than making new rules. And it also means that we don't have any rules that we are not willing to enforce. A multiplicity of rules confuses kids and parents too! So we have a few rules that are as non-negotiable as the laws of the Medes and the Persians.

4) We admit our mistakes. When we look back and see that we were wrong, we always tell our kids not only THAT we were wrong, but WHY we were wrong. This furnishes excellent opportunities to talk about moral principles. And trust me, our kids already know we were wrong - might as well admit it and clear the air!

We take seriously our responsibility to love, nurture, and discipline our kids. We love them too much to put them in the bind of making decisions that they cannot possibly foresee the consequences of, or of which they are not possessed of enough wisdom to choose rightly. In the same way that a basketball coach is going to make wrong decisions, a parent is sometimes going to goof. But we also recognize that even if a coach might have called another play, the team has a better chance of winning when everyone is executing the same play - even if it might be the wrong play! In that respect, it is more important for kids to understand their role in the family, and execute it, than it is for parents to be right every single time.

The Positive Side of Arguing

ReverendJayPhD — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:57:00 GMT

Frequently in my pastoral counseling, I hear people say something like, "I think it is time for us to end this. We have begun arguing all the time."

But there is arguing and there is arguing.

When a lawyer presents the evidence and asks the court for certain relief for his client, he is arguing his case. When a philosopher presents a cogent, logical discourse which insists that a certain viewpoint must be right, he is said to be presenting an argument. In an essay, the statement of the thesis is followed by the argument - a reasoned presentation which backs up what is asserted in the thesis.

What all of these illustrations have in common is that argument is a means of presenting one person's views in an attempt to arrive at the truth. When the lawyer has finished his argument, the jury will weigh all of the evidence, determine what is true, and will render a verdict. When the philosopher has presented his argument, another philosopher will come along and evaluate or rebut it. When the essay writer has finished his argument, he will submit it for evaluation to an editor or teacher.

Arguing, then, is not a bad thing when it is done in an attempt to arrive at the truth.

Unfortunately, when people argue, especially within a family or relationship context, the truth gets lost in everybody standing up for their own rights.

When an argument is a means of getting one's own way, it is indeed a destructive force. This is an argument used as a weapon - an argument used to bludgeon someone into accession to our own will. This is an argument with closed ears and mind, but open mouth. This type of argument does not seek the truth - it seeks the surrender of the other person.

But an argument in which people passionately, even heatedly, present their view of a situation with a mind toward seeking the truth, an argument can be a positive thing. This is an argument in which we may passionately stand up for ourselves, but in which we also listen to the other person and treat him fairly. This is an argument that seeks the solution to a problem rather than one that seeks to have our own way.

Arguing can be a sign of a healthy relationship - it shows that both people still have the concern about the relationship to invest spiritual and emotional energy into it. But we should always remember that an argument - just like a court case - involves presentation by two parties and an objective evaluation of both sides. Anything less than this is a poisonous and destructive force.

The Bible says, "Be ye angry, and sin not - let not the sun go down upon your wrath" (Eph. 4:26). Why does the apostle insist that our anger be put aside by bed time? Perhaps to make sure that our arguments are always about finding solutions - not about getting our own way.

Many Truths

ReverendJayPhD — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:23:00 GMT

It is fashionable in our culture to insist that truth is not absolute. Everyone has their own opinion, viewpoint;, and our views are all fashioned by virtue of our upbringing, experiences, and even our prejudices. Therefore it is impossible for anyone to ultilmately say that one person's choices are either absolutely right or wrong - rather those are just the decisions that person made and must have been right for them at the time.

But wait.

Let's take a look at what we are ultimately saying here.

It is helpful first to define our terms, I think. If we define "Truth" or "Absolute Truth" as something that is true for everybody in every historical period, all over the world, regardless of personal experiences or the prejudices of culture, then ultimately our conversation has to focus on whether or not such a truth really exists

Some would say, yes, there is absolute truth. It doesn't matter whether you lived in the year 2600 BC or the year 2007, whether you are male or female, rich or poor, educated or uneducated, Christian, Muslim, or Agnostic - certain things are always true and always either right or wrong.

For folks who believe that absolute truth exists, the ultimate issue that they have to struggle with is simply finding that absolute truth.

But there are those who deny absolute truth.

They would say that everything is dependent upon your circumstances, or your sex, or your upbringing, or the rquirements of your religion, or determined by your culture - so that what is right for you may not be right for me, and what I consider to be morally wrong might actually be right for me.

But let's examine that standpoint.

If we boil both positions down to an easy to understand claim, the two claims look like this:

1) There is an absolute truth.

Or,

2) There is no absolute truth.

For the person who asserts that there is an absolute truth - there is no logical contradiction. He merely has to decide where to find absolute truth. Is it in the Bible? The Koran? Something else? But the statement itself is not contradictory.

But for the person who asserts statemetn 2), "There is no absolute truth," the statement is a contradiction of itself.

Because if there is no absolute truth, then it is absolutely true that there was no absolute truth in 2600 BC just as there is not in the year 2007; it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth whether you are black or what, male or female, rich or poor, educated or uneducated.

"There is no absolute truth" is itself a claim of absolute truth - and therefore the statement itself is self-contradictory.

Solving problems, whether personally or as a society, necessarily begins with the first step of asking - "What is true about this problem?" When the truth is discovered, we can work at finding timeless moral principles that apply and actually solve problems.

Our culture, in its attempt to be tolerant, engages in an implied logical error that has both moral and practical consequences. As long as we believe there is no absolute truth, we have no motivation to change our ideas to reflect that which is real and true.

And as long as we believe there is no absolute truth, we are not likely to test our life philosophies, worldviews, and beliefs by their practical effects. And if we have no motivation to move toward the truth, we may find ourselves trapped in false beliefs which imprison us and have negative practical effects on our lives.

Morality and a Life Worth Living

ReverendJayPhD — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 02:51:00 GMT

I have great sympathy for those who have determined that their soul-mate is someone who is married to somebody else.

This sympathy flows from two realizations: first, in my 20 years of counseling, I have never seen one of these relationships actually work out over the long term. If s/he is cheating on his/her spouse with you, what possible rationale could they have for not later cheating with someone else against you? (And of course, I am not saying that such a relationship has never worked out, but I think that I have not seen it happen in 20 years is indicative of something)

Secondly, I feel sympathy because such infatuation is indicative of how the modern mind has achieved the ability to separate happiness from the concept of duty - a false dichotomy.

In short, nothing that we ought not do - and committing adultery is certainly something we ought not do - is ever going to reliably lead us to happiness.

Whether you believe in God or karma, there is no doubt that when we do that which is morally wrong, we reap a harvest of pain and suffering in our own lives and very often produce similar effects in the lives of those around us. Be not deceived - whatever a man sows he will reap (Gal. 6:7).

Centuries ago, the wisest man of his day began a search to try to transcend the meaninglessness of life. King Solomon had determined that life was merely vanity - smoke rising and disappearing, a vapor, something insubstantial - and he began a search to try to figure out how to make his life worth living. He thought he would find fulfillment in wealth, power, knowledge, even sex and love - and all of it left him hollow and yearning for more.

Eventually he found fulfillment in the knowledge that when we do what we ought to do - when we do our duty - happiness naturally follows. He concluded his investigation by noting, "Fear God, and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man."

Modern man fools himself into an irrational belief that he can conduct himself any way that he likes, that he can take what is not his, that he can ruin the lives of others, and still be happy. But ten thousand years of recorded human history teaches us that when we do wrong, evil consequences always follow.

The best rule for personal happiness is still to seek the happiness of others. Remember the Golden Rule - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

And having done our duty to treat our fellow man with respect, we will find that happiness invariably follows - even in the midst of what might otherwise be considered to be a hardship.

Self-love or selfless love?

ReverendJayPhD — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:38:00 GMT

The most important moral precept of all is, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and you [shall love] your neighbor as yourself."

The most common malady diagnosed by our culture, however, is "low self-esteem." Every book of psychobabble available on the groaning bookshelves of our local bookstore assures us that if we merely learn to love ourselves, others will love us as well.

When Jesus responded to the query of his disciples as to what was the most important moral precept with: "Love God - and love others as much as you love yourself," he was implicitly assuming that we all already love ourselves. The problem, in the mind of Jesus, was not that people didn't love themselves enough. It was rather that people are so actively engaged in self-love that they find it difficult to conjure up sufficient amounts of love for either God or for their fellow man. The real problem with man is not that he has low self-esteem, then, but it is that he has low esteem for everyone other than himself.

By way of analogy, imagine a completely unrelated situation. Imagine, if you will, a drug addict who is told that the solution to his problems is to intensify his high with yet more drugs. Perhaps we would expect some momentary improvement in this person's life - it may be that at least the longing for drugs is satiated, and to that extent our imaginary drug addict may seem to have improved his life. But what would we expect over the long term?

Over the long term, we would expect our addict to careen over the edge of complete addiction, destruction, and waste. We would expect that whatever symptoms he had experienced before we prescribed yet more drugs to him would be intensified and would ultimately consume him.

In just this same way, the problem with a culture which reduces all problems to those of self-love, when in fact all of us love ourselves too much, is that ultimately we would expect those who buy into the self-esteem diagnosis to go careening over the edge into a consuming narcissism, moral relativism, and utter disregard for others.

When the snake oil of self-esteem is offered to those who already love themselves too much, the real problems that we all experience - loving ourselves more than our neighbor and loving ourselves more than God, are merely intensified. Our culture's endorsement of "low self-esteem" has actually produced a nation of narcissists who cannot comprehend that there is a truth beyond themselves, that one's own interests should be subjugated to the interests of others, and that what one desires is not the equivalent of what is right.

Nowhere has the pox of self-esteem wreaked its havoc more than in the realm of relationships and marriage. True love always involves sacrificing one's self to the interest of another. The great "love chapter" in I Corinthians 13 states very plainly that love "seeks not its own benefit" (I Cor. 13:5). Jesus said that the greatest proof of love was a willingness to lose everything, even one's own life, for those that are loved (John 15:13). And Christ demonstrated that kind of love by emptying himself because of his love for mankind (Phil. 2:5-11).

But when "self-esteem" is the only gospel accepted by our culture, anything that may seem to compromise one's own desires or perceived interests is deemed an assault on the ego, and therefore something to be shunned. The seeming endless line of divorces, adulteries, and broken lives that have littered the American landscape for the last 30+ years stands as an eternal testimony to the ineffectiveness of "self-esteem" as a guiding principle for life.

The philosophers and religious teachers of the past understood life more than Oprah ever will. The problem is not that we love ourselves too little. The problem is that, in loving ourselves too much, we lose our ability to love God and man as we ought to love them. And the poisonous doctrine of self-esteem only confirms our poor choices and continues to wreak social, psychological, and spiritual havoc upon those who subscribe to it.

Somebody to Love....

ReverendJayPhD — Wed, 23 May 2007 00:13:00 GMT

In 1979, Christopher Lasch wrote a book called "The Culture of Narcissism," in which he made the argument that our self-centeredness would destroy us as a culture and as individuals. He predicted then that a culture that was hawking the snake oil of self-love would erode the foundations of civilization in every area: politics (the very idea of "identity politics" is narcissistic to the core), education ("student-centered" educational methods which have, as their goal the building of "self-esteem" rather than master of an objective corpus of knowledge), business (Enron), and relationships. He predicted an increase in crime (violent and otherwise), psychological disorders, and a further erosion of the family.

Welcome to the nightmare.

In another context, I once wrote about helping a woman figure out "how to make her husband happy." Within a few hours, I received a note from someone who had seen the writing who said, "It is very politically incorrect to speak of a woman learning to make her husband happy. As long as she is happy with who she is - as long as she loves herself - that is all that matters."

Is it?

First of all, all of human experience argues against this. From the writings of Shakespeare to Queen's song, "Somebody to Love," there is a yearning in our hearts to progress beyond self-love to a life lived sacrificing for and sharing with another human being. We all feel an incompleteness until we are sharing our existence with someone else, until, as was said in one movie, there is "somebody to witness our life."

But secondly, Biblical truth itself argues against this. The Bible teaches that God eternally existed. God is a perfect being. God certainly loves Himself. Yet for some reason, God chose not to leave the universe (if it be proper to speak in such terms prior to creation) as existing only in Him. He chose to create man (Gen. 1:1ff). And further, when man became God's enemy through his fall into sin, God found that loving man was so important that He became incarnate as Jesus Christ and died to redeem mankind through His love (John 1:1ff, John 3:16).

Now, if God loved Himself, and God is eternally perfect, yet God's love for Himself was not "enough," in what odd sense can imperfect humanity be contented simply to learn to love himself?

It would shock many to know that prior to the rise of the positive-thinking movement in the early 20th century, there never were any issues with "self-esteem." Mankind was assumed to love himself - his real problem was that he failed to love others sufficiently. But now that the concept of self-esteem is spread throughout our culture, men and women spend all of their time learning to love self - but failing to love one another. Crime, abuse, divorce, and all kinds of social animosity have contaminated every institution in this country.

And while every episode of Oprah Winfrey spreads the intellectual poison of self-esteem, for the first time since such statistics were kept, last year in this country more women were single than were married.

The legacy of self-love is an evident failure. We must be willing to learn how to love others - how to please others - how to change to be what we ought to be, even if that is different from what we want to be. Positive change can never be a bad thing - and changing to become more of what our loved ones love is the very kind of change that Christ Himself preached (John 15:10-14).

All of our lives are more shallow, more lonely, and more unhealthy for spending our time trying to learn to love ourselves. What we need, as Freddie Mercury wrote, is "somebody to love...."

The Big Picture on Love (What is REAL Love?)

ReverendJayPhD — Sat, 19 May 2007 23:23:00 GMT

I recently had a really great call that allowed me to not only get into some great material, but also so spurred my thinking that I thought it was necessary to memorialize some of the things that we had talked about in an email Out of that email grew a short article that others have found to be quite helpful, which is posted below.

There is no question that our culture is totally wrong about love. Cultural influences, politics, and the personal-fulfillment movement has so changed the thinking of Americans about love that what we believe to be significant is often not love at all, but is antithetical to genuine love.

THE BIG PICTURE ON LOVE

People often confuse love with a complex of feelings (attraction, pleasure, devotion, respect, even pity) that are, unfortunately, changeable. That popular culture often portrays love in terms of happiness, great sex, or self-fulfillment encourages them to equate love with good feelings. The problem is that good feelings never last - so while love will certainly have good feelings accompanying it, if our devotion to another is not based on more than good feelings, our relationships are doomed to be as temporal as our good feelings.

In the Bible, good feelings are rarely (though occasionally) associated with the concept of love. Rather, the common ideas associated with love in the Bible include sacrifice, submission, and loyalty. And even the most basic reading of “the love chapter,” I Corinthians 13, reveals a basic difference between the modern conception of love and the Biblical conception: while we tend to think of love as being all about self-fulfillment, Biblical love is all about serving another.

Love is sacrificial: I Corinthians 13 is called by many "the love chapter." It is the most extensive treatment of the concept of love in a single passage in the whole Bible. It is instructive that, when the King James Version translators attempted to capture the "flavor" of the chapter, they translated the Greek term for "love" (agape) in a unique way in this chapter. Instead of using the English word "love" in this chapter, as they had throughout the Bible, they chose to translate the Greek term with the English word "charity." They did this because they reckoned that in this one chapter, love is revealed to be not so much about what one gains, but rather about what one gives. Charity/Love gives patience to others (13:4), gives due regard to others (13:4), gives higher priority to the needs of others (13:5), gives others the benefit of the doubt (13:5), and charity gives what it gives forever (13:7-8). Charity/Love then, is not about what we get out of something, but it is rather about what we put into it. So it is legitimate, in a Biblical sense, to speak of love in terms of "investment."

God Himself demonstrated his love for us by what He gave (John 3:16) - and note that in this passage He loved with no reservations; He gave his only begotten Son. No sacrifice is too great for love then, right down to the giving of our whole lives for the object of our love (John 15:13). But love is reciprocal - the one who gives all in love to another has a right to expect that the object of his love will also live his/her life in such a way as to please him (compare John 15:13-14).

Love is submissive: The Biblical concept of love is intimately bound up with the idea of submission. While the concept of "submission" is looked upon with disdain by feminists, the Biblical concept of "submission" is NOT that women are submissive to men - but rather that women are submissive to their husbands who are in turn submissive to their wives (Eph. 5:21-33). The Biblical concept of submission does not demand that either party be a doormat for the other party, but rather assumes that neither party is seeking their own good, but rather is focused on the good of the other (I Corinthians 13 says that "Charity seeketh not her own [benefit]", and the submission of the wife in Eph. 5 has as its ultimate goal the husband's sanctification of the wife [5:25-28]). At its root, Biblical love assumes that the one who loves places the needs, wishes, and desires of the other above his/her own needs, wishes, and desires (John 15:13, I John 3:16). Love is not a feeling, it is rather a complex of actions (I Cor. 13:1ff, John 15:13).

Love is loyal: Biblical love demonstrates its loyalty to its cherished object in both a positive and a negative sense. First, the negative - love separates itself from any interest that may compete with our love for the cherished object. By way of example, Jesus speaks of ultimate loyalty to him as being demonstrated by his disciples being willing to abandon their families and mundane lives and pursue him alone (Luke 14:26). Similarly, the marriage relationship has a negative element - we are told that marriage consists of leaving our father and mother and holding fast to our spouse (Genesis 2:24, Eph. 5:31). That we are told to leave father and mother is a circumlocution which indicates that we should be willing to leave everything - the most important obligation in the ancient world was the obligation of a child to his parent - so when the Bible tells us that we leave father and mother for spouse, it in effect means that we must be willing to abandon everything and anything for our spouse. There is also a positive element - in our abandoning everything else, there is a need that we cleave to (the Hebrew term means to "be fused together with," think of being "glued") our spouse. In abandoning all, we free ourselves to pursue the development and riches of a one-to-one relationship ased on a complete giving of ourselves to another, and complete reception of another. In fact, the relationship between spouses in the scriptures is so close that the two individuals that comprise a marriage to an extent lose their identity in the marriage and the marriage is figuratively spoken of as becoming a third, organic entity that is larger and more important than the two individuals that comprise it - the Biblical language is that, in marriage, the two spouses "become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24, Eph. 5:31). That this third, organic unity is more important than either of the two persons who comprise it is revealed in the general rule given by Christ that the marriage relationship is so important that neither individual (nor the rest of society) has the right to dissolve it (Matt. 19:4-6). The marriage relationship is thus revealed to be the most important relationship in a person's life - more important than the relationship with parents, children, friends - so important that society itself must leave the workings of the marriage relationship to the two people invovled.

This is by no means an exhaustive look at the Biblical data on love, but I do think these are the big-picture principles that both help us define what love is, and hopefully help us to see how far we (both as a culture and as individuals) have strayed from the ideal.