“Is It Bad?” Is the Wrong Question
The next time you have a choice to make…ask the question, “Is this good?” We want to pursue those things that build up, as well as avoiding the bad; to walk in righteous paths rather than just avoiding the sinful ones.
Me: “Hey Stacy, do you remember that kids movie?”
Stacy: “Sort of.”
Me: “Do you remember if it’s bad? Should we show the kids?”
Stacy: “I don’t know if it’s bad, but is it good? I think that’s the question we need to be asking.”
Me (in my head): “Ouch. Thank you Lord for a godly wife.”
Sometimes you need a good knock in the head to get your eyes watering and your brain to thinking straight. “Is it bad?” What a terrible question. There are a thousand things that are “not bad” that offer no net positive. And that is especially what we are aiming for with our children. We want to do more than avoid harm. We want to actively pursue good!
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Remember Sybil
Our cultural moment tells us to affirm, affirm, affirm; when in reality we are destroying human bodies because the medical professionals have told us that this is the right treatment for this type of problem. Soon we will have our Sybil moment. Sybil was a fraud and eventually the egg on the face of society was exposed. According to a 2011 NPR article, “Shirley Mason was the psychiatric patient whose life was portrayed in the 1973 book Sybil. The book and subsequent film caused an enormous spike in reported cases of multiple personality disorder. Mason later admitted she had faked her multiple personalities.”
Orlando just had its Pride Weekend, complete with a fair-like atmosphere downtown, thousands and thousand of sexual tourists, a rainbow themed parade, and an evening of fireworks. The parade’s Grand Master was an 11 year-old boy who believes he is a girl. He was featured on the front page of the Orlando Sentinel and was being praised for knowing his true self and living his best life. He’s eleven. We ought to remember Sybil.
Remember Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD)? The 1980 diagnostic manual called DSM-III defined MPD for the first time, but the psychiatric professionals in 1994 changed the diagnosis (in the DSM-IV) to Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). According to Psychology Today the change was “to reflect a better understanding of the condition—namely, that it is characterized by fragmentation or splintering of identity, rather than by proliferation or growth of separate personalities.” (PT, 9.21). Splintering rather than separate.
In other words MPD was not real, although it was really experienced. The professionals realized that the condition was not truly different personalities, rather one identity (person) that was a “fragmented” or “splintered” identity. The professionals then amended their definition, diagnostic criteria, and the name of the disorder.
The psychological community knew about these symptoms as early as the late 1700s, but it was extremely rare. In 1973, the book Sybil was published and cases began to skyrocket. Daytime Television began featuring persons with MPD and the amount of personas and complexities increased. Phil Donahue, Sally Jessy Raphael, and even Larry King interviewed persons with the disorder. The more exposure the disorder got, the more popular it became. Eventually the Soap Operas were on board as well: All My Children; One Life to Live; Guiding Light, and others all featured characters with MPD.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Because Words Are Necessary
Words are needed for our growth in sanctification because the words of Scripture are “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17). Thus, words are indispensable for the creation and maturation of the new life in Christ.
In 2018, in the territory of the Kimyal tribe in West Papua, a plane landed. It was carrying the most precious cargo that the Kimyals could imagine. Was it food, medicine, or perhaps some advanced technology? No, the plane brought the first Bibles in the Kimyal language—the words they had awaited for forty-seven years. You can watch the video of how the community celebrated the plane and its prized shipment. People were crying in joy and praising the triune God whose words they held in their hands.
This is the sight that we seem to forget in our Western world. Bibles are all around us, but most of them are unopened and unread. Even well-meaning Christians think that in evangelism we need to be sparing with the use of the Bible and show the gospel’s message with our lives instead. Think of the popular phrase that catches this sentiment: “Preach the gospel at all times; if necessary, use words.”
The phrase is usually (but incorrectly) attributed to Francis of Assisi. It is intended at least to emphasize that our words and deeds should be linked together. We should not preach one thing and do another, but we must live by the words that we say. And this is all true. The saying, however, is often used to mean more than that. It states that there are two different ways to preach the gospel: by our lives and by our lips, suggesting that words are not always necessary to communicate the gospel.
How shall we think about this? First, this thought flies in the face of the common teaching of the Bible. Take euangelizomai, for example, the Greek word from which we get the word evangelism. It means “to proclaim, to announce, to tell the gospel message.” This activity can be done only in verbal form. Thus, not surprisingly, we find that the Christian life, from beginning to end, grows out of the Word of God. Peter assures us that “you have been born again . . . through the living and abiding word of God” (1 Peter 1:23). Paul tells us that “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). Through the hearing of the Word of God, we were regenerated and given faith.
Read More
Related Posts: -
The Biggest PCA News You Never Heard
Between November and March, Sauls’ views changed in a way that made him incompatible with the PCA: He became (or revealed himself to be) an ecclesial egalitarian, meaning he believes that all of the roles and offices in the church are open to men and women. When the face of a denomination changes his views in such a dramatic way (think Rick Warren and the SBC) it is, as they say, kind of a big deal. But it is not something readers of ByFaith ever read about: There has been no reporting on the May presbytery meeting where he was removed (as far as we can tell) from the presbytery’s rolls—as much for his intention to join another denomination as for his new views.
YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD that one of the Presbyterian Church in America’s most notable ministers got in trouble, was suspended by his presbytery, went through a lengthy discipline process, eventually resigned his church, and two days later was restored as a member in good standing by his presbytery. You might have heard that much and no more, because as far as the PCA’s denominational organ ByFaith1 is concerned that was the end of the story.
ByFaith is in a tough spot. They have to balance the varied roles of “internal” (for the PCA) messaging system, outward-facing…well, face of the PCA, news bureau, and public relations organ. They do a pretty good job covering the annual General Assembly but often opt out of controversial issues. And because of the broadness of the PCA they sometimes promote figures who later become problematic or leave—loudly or quietly. An old puff piece on the “ministry” that factored heavily into pastor Greg Johnson and his historic church leaving the PCA under duress, for instance, lives on.
The innovative is often favored over the boring, but controversy is sometimes handled with kid gloves or passed over in silence. Such (so far) has been the case with news about departed celebrity pastor and prolific author Scott Sauls whose visage, byline, and opinions have been all over the pages of ByFaith for years. It appears that he wrote more ByFaith articles in the last decade than any other PCA pastor, and he was Tim Keller’s golden boy understudy2—arguably the face of the PCA, the exemplar of pastoral piety and practice.HE IS PCA NO MORE. But you might not know that. You probably don’t know it because the facts of his departure were not covered by ByFaith.
Read More
Related Posts: