If you’d like to hear Amy and me discuss this issue in greater detail, listen in to this episode of A Word Fitly Spoken, Cussing, Profanity, and OMG.
(You can also read the transcript at this link if you’re more of a reader than a listener!)
Why is it bad for Christians to cuss? Why are certain words considered “bad words”?
For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. James 3:7-10
Ouch. Our mouths can really get us into trouble, can’t they? We can lie, boast, and say all kinds of hurtful things to others. And one way that God definitely did not intend for Christians to use our mouths is to use profanity or vulgar speech.
But why? What makes one string of four letters good and noble, such as “love,” “pray,” or “holy,” while another string of four letters is cause for washing out mouths with soap and more restrictive movie ratings?
It’s because of the meaning attached to the word. Human beings don’t deal with words as random assemblages of letters. Human beings deal with words in terms of meaning. And God doesn’t want the meanings that come out of our mouths to point people away from Him, but, rather, to represent Him well. We can see this in the instructions He gives us about the things we say:
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. Ephesians 4:29
Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. Ephesians 5:4
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer. Psalm 19:14
If you’re a Christian who uses foul or vulgar language, have you ever stopped to think about why you do that? What is the motivation of your heart for saying those words? Is it Christlike? Do you think Jesus would use that kind of language? When you say those words do they point people to or away from Christ? What impression does it give people of Christians, the church, and Christ when they hear you cussing? Think about the definitions of those words. When you say those words, what definition pops up in the mind of the person who hears you? Is it something good, pure, honorable, etc.?
But when you come right down to it, swearing is really not a disease to be treated, but a symptom of another disease- a heart infiltrated by worldliness. Luke 6:45 tells us:
The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.
It’s important to remedy the outward behavior of filthy language, but that only comes from having a heart that is filled with the good treasure of Christ.
For those who would like to attempt to argue that the Bible actually supports Christians using profanity, please click here for an excellent resource, and also listen to (or read the transcript of) the podcast episode linked at the beginning of this article, where we dealt with this unbiblical idea at length.
If you have a question about: a Bible passage, an aspect of theology, a current issue in Christianity, or how to biblically handle a family, life, or church situation, comment below (I’ll hold all questions in queue {unpublished} for a future edition of The Mailbag) or send me an e-mail or private message. If your question is chosen for publication, your anonymity will be protected.
Kudos to the Center for Baptist Leadership for essentially breaking this story. If you’re still in the SBC, fighting back against the darkness at the national level, give them a follow. They’re doing the Lord’s work over there at CBL!
Look at this fuller video of them circling and intimidating families and young people.
(I don’t know Brandon, but when I grabbed this, his was the only post I had seen with the video on the bottom. I’m grateful he posted it.)
Hopefully, you’ve seen this story by now. I would say “news story,” but, as you might imagine, the mainstream media (including my own local media) isn’t giving it much, if any, coverage.
I posted my thoughts about this on my Facebook and X accounts. Since my husband helps lead the security team at my church, that’s where my mind initially went. A Facebook follower had a few questions and comments that I thought might be helpful to answer and address in a public forum. Below, slightly edited, is our exchange. My words are in black, hers are in blue.
My original post:If your church does not have a security team, you need to get one in place, like, yesterday. If it’s not this, it’ll be something else. Don’t wait until something happens. Get some guys* trained to protect the flock NOW.
Just wondering what you think a security team could have/would have done with a large group of unarmed individuals all coming in at once. Besides try to stop them from entering the sanctuary, and calling the police. Surely proper security in a church does not involve drawing a weapon on unarmed people?
(My church does have security, but as I read all the comments that this is why churches need it, I can’t see how you could make these people leave without physical harm. Maybe you and others are encouraging security so the assembling would have been noticed outside and police called to remove them from trespassing, but that is not the impression I get from all the “don’t try this in the south” comments on X. As I watched it last night I wondered why the congregation didn’t stand up and start corporately singing “Amazing Grace” or something.)
My husband helps lead our security team at church. Different churches handle security in different ways, but in general, here’s what would happen:
1. The security team follows the local and national news, and stays in touch with law enforcement and government officials when necessary, so they know what kinds of potential threats are out there.
2. They train and drill regularly to respond to various kinds of threats. This includes training in de-escalation as well as the use of force, and immediately contacting law enforcement should a threat situation occur.
3. They patrol the grounds, the buildings, and the security cameras before and during services and other activities to be on the alert for potential threats.
4. During worship service and certain other events, all of the exterior doors are locked (that alone probably would have helped in the Minnesota situation), and, as I said in #3, security team members are patrolling (They’re also stationed by main entrances and exits in case, for example, someone needs to leave the worship service to run out to her car, and then re-enter.). There are also security team members seated in the worship service to implement security measures and instruct and direct the congregation if that becomes necessary.
5. I don’t want to say any more than I should in a public forum in order not to give away any security strategies, so I’ll just put it this way: If a trained, armed security team is in place and doing all of the above, those protesters are very unlikely to penetrate from outside to the sanctuary.
I would also add that the congregation singing Amazing Grace or anything else is not helpful in a situation like this. It adds to the chaos, it further angers the perpetrators, it distracts the congregation from paying attention to any instruction the pastor, security team, or law enforcement might give them, and it prevents them from hearing said instructions. The congregation should sit quietly and calmly unless instructed to do otherwise.
Yes. These are good things. Reading comments elsewhere, the implication is not so proactive, but rather reactive, involving force, which is not what we see with Paul in Acts 19.
“Reactive” isn’t good because it means nobody was prepared, alert, and ready beforehand, so you’re right about that. Preparing, training, and having a plan in place before something happens is much better and more effective, and it serves as a deterrent to keep things like this from happening in the first place.
But there is nothing wrong or unbiblical about using appropriate force, when necessary, to protect God’s house and God’s people (or anyone else for that matter), and you can’t correctly use the Ephesian riot in Acts 19:21-40 to argue against the use of force. That was a completely different situation.
Read the context and the text carefully. The Ephesian rioters did not attack a church. They were having their own large “meeting” (24-25, 40-41), whipped themselves up into a frenzy, thronged through the streets from the meeting place to the theater – throwing the entire city into an uproar in the process – and then dragged two of Paul’s companions into the middle of this riot (29).
Paul wanted to go into the middle of this chaos and preach/explain/fix things, but the disciples wouldn’t let him (30). Why? Not because they were trying to prevent him from using force – because that isn’t what he was going to do – but to keep him and Gaius and Aristarchus from getting killed by this mob of at least hundreds, possibly thousands. Three men against a whole city. Of course they weren’t thinking of using force – they were just trying to escape with their lives. This is completely different from what happened in the church in Minnesota.
The Ephesian riot also happened in a different country with a different government and different laws. In America, it is illegal to attack, disrupt, or damage a church, and it is legal to defend yourself and others, which, in the case of an attack on a church, also means it’s legal to protect the church property (i.e. prevent these criminals from entering the building).
Additionally, Acts is historical narrative. It is DEscriptive (a description of what happened) not PREscriptive (a command or doctrine to follow).
(I’ve discussed more about descriptive vs. prescriptive passages in this article.)
I would point out a couple of other descriptive passages that are much more applicable to protecting churches and congregations:
1 Chronicles 9:17-27, 26:12-32 talk about the gatekeepers, doorkeepers, and guards of the temple. The “security team” of the temple, if you will. They’re even mentioned again in Acts 4:1, 5:24. God commanded that His house be protected and appointed people to do it.
Luke 22:35-38: Jesus is preparing the disciples to go out and start the New Testament church, and He tells them to take swords with them – even to sell their garments and buy one if they don’t have one. What were those swords for if not defending themselves if attacked?
The entire Old Testament is filled with accounts of Israel killing the enemies of God’s people – sometimes even “innocent” women and children – and this use of force was often initiated by Israel (in other words, they attacked the enemy; it wasn’t always self-defense).
God is OK with Christians defending ourselves and others with force if necessary.
*A couple of other followers mentioned or suggested women serving on the security team alongside men. If you have women church members who have professional experience or contacts with law enforcement, the military, relevant areas of government, etc., it’s fine for them to act as liaisons between the church and these entities, offer needed input appropriately behind the scenes, etc., but when it comes to actively engaging in protecting God’s house and God’s people, biblically, that’s a job for men, not women.
Furthermore – and this is anecdotal, but it’s worth thinking about – nearly all of the commenters on my posts who were objecting to the use of force, security teams, and offering bad “touchy feely” advice (such as singing Amazing Grace during a threat situation), were women. Generally speaking, God has gifted women in the areas of compassion, mercy, and nurturing, and those attributes are wonderful when exercised in the appropriate situations that call for those things. Protecting people against dangerous thugs is not one of those situations. Protecting people from dangerous thugs calls for men, whom God has graciously gifted in dispassionately killing people and breaking things when a threat, and the need, arises. All things considered, everyone is safer with men protecting them than with women protecting them.
This is an excerpt from the full video from CBL, above.
If you have a question about: a Bible passage, an aspect of theology, a current issue in Christianity, or how to biblically handle a family, life, or church situation, comment below (I’ll hold all questions in queue {unpublished} for a future edition of The Mailbag) or send me an e-mail or private message. If your question is chosen for publication, your anonymity will be protected.
Or maybe I answered your question already? Check out my article The Mailbag: Top 10 FAQs to see if your question has been answered and to get some helpful resources.
Should Bible believing private schools allow non-Christian families to enroll?
It’s a great question, and I think the answer could rightly be yes or no depending on the school, its purpose, and those leading it.
Many, many moons ago in the 1980’s, I attended and graduated from a Christian school. (It was a pre-K through 12 school. I attended 9th-11th grade there, and graduated at the end of my 11th grade year.) My mother was also a science and math teacher there, so I was privy to some of the administrative goings on.
I taught kindergarten for a couple of years at a private Christian school.
Three of my children attended private Christian schools at various times during their middle and high school years. I served on the board of one of them since it was a ministry of our church.
What my experience as a Christian school student, teacher, parent, and board member has taught me is that there are typically two main types of students whose parents enroll them in a Christian school:
Christian parents who want to protect their children from the ungodliness and violence of the public school system and give them a Christ-centered education
Non-Christian parents with a child whose behavior problems are so bad that either a) the child has been expelled from other schools and the Christian school is the only one that will take him, or b) the child is on the road to expulsion, and the parents see a Christian school as a way to straighten him out.
All of the schools I mentioned above sought to provide a quality, Christ-centered education and environment to students, and all were a mixture of those two main types of students.
So long as the “type 2” students outwardly conformed to the rules and the environment, things went well. But that rarely happened for long, and serious and disruptive discipline problems often arose. (Imagine what your church would be like if, say, unrepentant criminals were forced by their probation officers to attend and participate, and it will give you some idea of the conflict-laden environment.)
I would be interested to see what it would look like for a Christian school to “specialize” in only “type 1” or “type 2” students. Personally, I think that would work better, but there are people with far more expertise and professional experience in the field of Christian education than I who could give better insight and wisdom than I can.
I love fitness and recently have been thinking about getting more involved in volleyball, but I’m concerned about whether it’s okay for women to be involved in sports – and then concerned about its appropriateness whether a woman is playing against other women or other men (or a mixed group of people).
Well, we are really traveling back down memory lane in The Mailbag today, because, while I was a student at the aforementioned Christian school, I was also on the volleyball team! I am not athletically inclined, and it’s the only sport I ever enjoyed or was marginally any good at. But anyway…
I can’t think of anything in Scripture that would prohibit or even discourage women from being involved in recreational-level sports, especially if the purpose for doing so is exercise and fitness. While we’re not to focus on strengthening our bodies to the exclusion of strengthening ourselves spiritually, God’s Word is clear that our bodies are a gift from God and that we’re to steward them well because they house the Holy Spirit and are the means by which we’re able to physically serve Him and others.
To that end, many churches offer sports or exercise classes. When I was growing up, my local Baptist association of churches had a softball league among all the churches with children’s, youth, men’s, and women’s teams. It can be a lot of fun to fellowship together while getting some exercise!
But I don’t think co-ed sports are wise. We’ve seen enough of the pitfalls of men inserting themselves into women’s sports in news story after news story. Women get injured because men are stronger, bigger, and more powerful (or men have to hold themselves back and be extremely careful not to injure women). Healthy competition comes to a standstill because men usually win. Many women’s sports uniforms are immodest. There are just too many issues that arise, especially for Christians, when sports aren’t sex-segregated.
If you’re married, discuss it with your husband. If you’re not (or you need further input), bounce it off 😀 a godly older woman in your church or set (but not bump or spike!) up an appointment with your pastor for counsel.
The following question deals with sexual intercourse in marriage. It was asked in an appropriate, non-detailed way, and I’ve answered it in the same way, but if you think there may be any potential for temptation of your imagination, please skip this question and answer.
I would like to ask you what specific intimate acts in the marriage bed are sinful and if either spouse has the authority to demand it and withhold intimacy all together if the demand isn’t met regardless of how long said act has been practiced in their relationship.
If one spouse grows in Christ and becomes uncomfortable with this certain act commonly practiced and over time convicted that it is sin for them to continue to engage in and the other spouse feels unfairly treated (cheated) due to this conviction and desire to stop doing it and this specific issue is seriously threatening the marriage. The person feeling cheated has stopped attending worship and stopped engaging in family worship, and is not willing to seek elder/church or any counsel although claims to be in Christ and convinced they are right.
Please address respecting the conscience of the other person if a specific act is not clearly forbidden in scripture but can be indirectly defended by scripture by stressing the natural function of the woman vs unnatural.
I apologize for being a little vague. I know it is a topic the church shys away from and I believe many couples struggle in the area of intimacy and are afraid to go to their church about it due to embarrassment of one or both spouses.
How would you counsel both spouses in this situation? Specifically the spouse who is no longer comfortable with the act and is seeking help. Or who (other than the local church) would you direct them to for help.
Should the conscience be violated for the sake of saving the marriage and “being submissive to each other”?
Wow. There’s a lot going on here, and I’m afraid I can’t be of much specific help without more specific details (which I do not want; please don’t send them), but I’ll do my best.
I would like to ask you what specific intimate acts in the marriage bed are sinful…
I’m sorry, but there’s no way I can – or will – answer that. Even if it were appropriate for this venue (it’s not), my knowledge of what I can only imagine to be hundreds of possible acts of intimacy is – praise God for His mercy and protection – extremely limited.
You and your husband should not be participating in any acts which:
the Bible specifically prohibits (lust {for other people; sexual desire for your spouse is biblical and not properly termed “lust”}, pornography, bestiality, rape, homosexuality, prostitution, adultery, or anything that would fall under the category of sexual immorality), or fantasizing about or pretending to do any of these things
are illegal
involve other sins or things the Bible prohibits (e.g. drunkenness)
intentionally harm, humiliate, or injure yourself or your spouse (the entire posture of Scripture is that we’re to steward our own bodies for God’s glory and we’re to love, care for, and protect others, laying aside our own desires)
…if either spouse has the authority to demand it and withhold intimacy all together if the demand isn’t met…
Spouses should not be “demanding” anything – sexual or not – from one another. Marriage, and the Christian life itself, are about dying to self, loving others, and laying your life down for them. That’s what Jesus did for us.
It is also unbiblical to deny your spouse sex (except temporarily, for the purpose of prayer, and then, only by agreement). God is crystal clear about that in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5:
The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
If one spouse grows in Christ and becomes uncomfortable with this certain act…and…convicted that it is sin for them to continue to engage in and the other spouse feels unfairly treated (cheated) due to this conviction…
It’s understandable that the spouse who does not feel convicted about this particular act you’ve been doing for years would feel cheated when it’s suddenly taken away. S/he might even feel a bit judged, too.
I would encourage the spouse with the conviction about the act to do two things:
First, your convictions must be informed by rightly handled Scripture. By way of example: some people have a strong conviction that alcohol is sinful. But that is not a biblical conviction, because Scripture does not teach that alcohol is sinful. It teaches that drunkenness is sinful. I would urge you to search the Scriptures and consider the bullet point list I gave above, and make sure your conviction is based on rightly handled Scripture.
Second, think creatively (yet still biblically), and see if there’s some sort of compromise you can reach with your non-convicted spouse. Perhaps there’s a part of the act you’re not convicted is wrong that you could still do, or you could adjust the act in some sort of way you both agree on that you would not be convicted about.
Do whatever you can, biblically, and in good conscience, to deny your spouse as little as possible.
The person feeling cheated has stopped attending worship and stopped engaging in family worship, and is not willing to seek elder/church or any counsel although claims to be in Christ and convinced they are right.
I’m sorry, but this is not the fruit of someone who has been genuinely regenerated. Punishing your spouse, or lashing out against God, by sinning (disobeying God’s commands to gather with the church and properly lead or participate in worship in the family setting) because you’ve been denied a sex act is the fruit of a lost person, not a saved person. At a minimum, this spouse should be under church discipline for his/her failure to gather, and if it gets to step 3 (bringing it before the church), the reason for failing to gather is going to come out to the pastor and elders whether s/he likes it or not.
Please address respecting the conscience of the other person if a specific act is not clearly forbidden in Scripture…
Scripture is clear that we are not to sin against our own consciences. It is, therefore, sinful to force, pressure, or manipulate someone else – let alone your spouse! – to sin against his/her conscience.
but can be indirectly defended by scripture by stressing the natural function of the woman vs. unnatural.
I’m sorry, I don’t know what this means the way you’ve worded it, and I don’t think it would be wise for me to try to figure it out.
All I can advise you – touching back to the issue of making sure your conscience is informed by rightly handled Scripture – is that this phraseology comes from Romans 1:26-27, which is specifically about homosexuality. If you’re applying the phrase, “the natural function of woman” to anything other than homosexuality, like, “I’m post-menopausal. The natural function of sex for women is to have babies. Therefore, I don’t want to have sex any more because sex for post-menopausal women is not the natural function,” you would be using that passage out of context, your conscience would not be biblically informed, and you’d be violating 1 Corinthians 7:3-5. (I know it’s not the greatest example, but, hopefully, you get what I’m saying.)
I believe many couples struggle in the area of intimacy and are afraid to go to their church about it due to embarrassment of one or both spouses.
Yeah. Everybody’s got to get over that. My husband used to be a pastor. I’ve had dozens of pastors as friends over the years. Trust me, in most cases, whatever you need to disclose to your pastor about your sex life, he’s heard it before and your situation probably isn’t the weirdest or most embarrassing situation he’s heard before. Get over your embarrassment – that’s just Satan’s little tool to keep you in bondage.
How would you counsel both spouses in this situation? Specifically the spouse who is no longer comfortable with the act and is seeking help. Or who (other than the local church) would you direct them to for help.
I would advise the couple to immediately set up an appointment with their pastor for counsel. If one of the spouses refuses to go, the other should go without him/her. Briefly explain the issue to your pastor. He may then decide to counsel the two of you himself (probably along with his wife), or he may have a godly older woman in the church counsel the wife and he or a godly older man in the church may counsel the husband, or he may suggest a certified biblical counselor. (Please read the info at the link if you’re not familiar. This is not the same as “Christian counseling,” which I would not recommend.)
Should the conscience be violated for the sake of saving the marriage and “being submissive to each other”?
No, if you conscience is informed by rightly handled Scripture, you should not violate it.
Scripture does not teach that husbands and wives are to be “submissive to each other”. It teaches that wives are to submit to their husbands. Husbands are not instructed to submit to their wives. Read Ephesians 5 in its entirety. When you do, it’s easy to see that verses 1-21 are addressed to the church. “Being subject to one another in the fear of Christ,” (verse 21) is the final instruction in the section to the church. Verses 22-33 are specifically about marriage, and verse 22 kicks that section off by saying, “Wives, be subject to your own husbands…”.
I’m so sorry this is an issue in your marriage, and I wish I could be of more help. This is just one more reason why God’s plan for Christians is the pastor and the local church. We certainly need them in situations like this.
If you have a question about: a Bible passage, an aspect of theology, a current issue in Christianity, or how to biblically handle a family, life, or church situation, comment below (I’ll hold all questions in queue {unpublished} for a future edition of The Mailbag) or send me an e-mail or private message. If your question is chosen for publication, your anonymity will be protected.
Merry Christmas! Welcome to another “potpourri” edition of The Mailbag, where I give short(er) answers to several questions rather than a long answer to one question.
Or maybe I answered your question already? Check out my article The Mailbag: Top 10 FAQs to see if your question has been answered and to get some helpful resources.
What do you think about having decorated Christmas trees in the sanctuary / on the platform at church?
It’s a great question, because we want every aspect of our worship services – even the decor – to honor God and be conducive to worship.
Assuming they’re tastefully decorated in an understated way, I don’t personally have any problem with a Christmas tree at the front of the sanctuary for decoration. I’ve seen some lovely ones that were decorated with all white ornaments of biblical symbols (crosses, doves, stars, etc.). I don’t really see any theological difference between a Christmas tree, a holly garland, candles, poinsettias, flowers on the altar every week, ficus trees, potted plants, backdrops, banners, or any other tasteful, reverent, non-distracting piece of decor. They’re just inert objects that somebody thought would spruce things up a bit (yeah, I went there) and make the space pretty. There’s nothing wrong with that. I mean, have you read God’s instructions for the design of the tabernacle and the temple? Lots of flowers and tapestries and gold and all kinds of other pretty stuff. God invented beauty. He is OK with His house being beautiful as long as that beauty honors and points to Him.
God invented beauty. He is OK with His house being beautiful as long as that beauty honors and points to Him.
But there’s something else we need to take into consideration…
All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.
1 Corinthians 10:23-24
We have good brothers and sisters in Christ in our churches whose consciences, for various reasons, just can’t handle Christmas trees. And having Christmas trees in the sanctuary would distract them from worship. So you know what we do to love and honor them? We lay aside our “right” to have Christmas trees on the platform and either don’t decorate or find another way to decorate. Many churches have found lots of different ways to tastefully decorate for Christmas that don’t involve Christmas trees.
Does Jeremiah 10:3-4 (and other passages) prohibit Christmas trees?
The short answer is no. It should be obvious to anyone who reads Jeremiah 10:3-4 in context that the passage is talking about the crafting of wooden idols, not Christmas trees. And other passages – such as Deuteronomy 12:2, which refer to idol worship taking place under “every green tree” – don’t prohibit Christmas trees either, despite the fact that “every green tree” sounds like “evergreen tree”. These passages, read in context, are all referring to a location where idol worship takes place.
I have a statue of Joseph and Mary holding baby Jesus. It’s in a corner year round in my living room. As a former Catholic, I’m questioning myself if I should even have it at all?
Let’s first focus on the fact that you don’t have to buy, keep, or display any decoration for any reason. If it makes you uncomfortable, you can get rid of it. If you no longer have room for it, you can get rid of it. If it clashes with your couch, or takes too long to dust, or the dog has chewed Joseph’s toes off, you can get rid of it. This is your house. You get to decide how to decorate it (within biblical parameters, of course: e.g. no pornographic images, no profanity, no Buddha statues, etc.)
I’d suggest praying about it and even discussing it with your pastor, if you like, and certainly with your husband if you’re married. You may want to prayerfully consider…
When you arrive at the biblical answers to those questions, you’ll know whether or not to keep it or let it go.
(If you’re concerned that the statue might be a violation of the second Commandment, you might want to check out my article Nativity Scenes and the Second Commandment.)
I haven’t seen any of your articles that specifically mention what kind or types of ornaments we should decorate our Christmas trees with. While it’s certainly a personal preference for everyone, I just wanted to get your input about them. Through the years I’ve seen many trees with favorite sports team ornaments to baby or pet pictures, cartoon characters, White House ornaments, angels, snowmen, snowflakes, and many more. While these may not have intended to be anything other than a person’s preference, shouldn’t everything we do even regarding this, be done to honor and point to Christ in celebrating His birth and life? Are decorations that have nothing to do with Jesus, or who He is, wrong?
I think you answered your own question very well. It’s a matter of personal preference. If you’d like for all of your Christmas decorations to point to Christ, that would be a lovely way to honor Him and celebrate His incarnation.
Other sorts of decorations (again – as I mentioned in my answer to the previous question – within biblical parameters, of course: e.g. no pornographic images, no profanity, no Buddha statues, etc.) are also fine.
A few little nuggets to think about:
When you decorate for Thanksgiving, does everything you put out have a Bible verse on it, or in some way explicitly point to Christ? Or do you maybe decorate with pumpkins, turkeys, stalks of wheat, a cornucopia, etc.?
We are supposed to be living testimonies to Christ 24/7. Does every item of clothing or jewelry you wear have a Bible verse on it or in some way explicitly point to Christ?
I don’t ask these questions to discourage you from using only Christ-centered decorations at Christmas – as I said, that’s totally fine – but rather to help you think through why this concern would be restricted to Christmas and not apply to other situations or times of the year. We don’t want to be accidentally hypocritical, but rather, biblically consistent with our beliefs and practices.
You’re absolutely right that everything we do should “be done to honor and point to Christ”. But as Christians, that’s not primarily about the exterior trappings of our lives like decorations, jewelry, or clothing. We honor and point to Christ by living in the world He created and being obedient to Him in our thoughts, words, and actions. And it’s OK with Him for us to do that while wearing hoop earrings and the promotional t-shirt we got from the grand opening of a local chicken joint, or putting an LSU Tigers ornament on our Christmas tree. To be “in the world, not of the world,” as the old saying goes.
Honoring Christ is not primarily about the exterior trappings of our lives like decorations, jewelry, or clothing. We honor Christ by living in the world He created and being obedient to Him in our thoughts, words, and actions.
I thought you might enjoy this little video I made. It was for a Christmastime women’s meeting at my church (so I’ve clipped out the first few seconds for privacy reasons). We all brought something to demonstrate how we “keep Christ in Christmas” in our homes. Maybe it will give you an expanded perspective on decorations.
This image was shared on Facebook (not by the person credited for the image) as a response to my article The Mailbag: What should we tell our kids (and grandkids) about Santa Claus?. I would encourage you to read my article for the context of my response. (Since she simply posted the image without any explanation, I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt that she was sharing this as an example of what not to teach your children about Santa Claus, but unfortunately, that turned out not to be the case.)
Thanks for sharing. This is a great example of what not to do. I don’t know if these parents are Christians or not, but they have taken a really unbiblical approach. There’s no such thing as some sort of spirit of Santa Claus, so they’re still lying to their child.
And to say that Santa “lives in our hearts” is actually worse than telling their child Santa is a real, discrete person. It’s not only going to confuse Ryan more when his parents start talking to him about inviting Jesus into his heart (“What? You said Santa lives in my heart. Isn’t it going to be crowded in there?”), it’s just as blasphemous for Santa to take Jesus’ place in the heart as it is to ascribe omniscience to Santa (as I explained in the article).
And the parting thought that believing in Santa, whom you can’t see, will help you to believe in God, Whom you can’t see is unbelievably blasphemous and unbiblical. It elevates Santa above God and trivializes all God has done to reveal Himself to man, especially the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.
I’m sure the parents were trying to be loving to their child and cushion the blow that Santa isn’t real, but they did it at the cost of the glory of God, the truth of Scripture, and the opportunity to lay a biblical foundation for their child’s future salvation. That’s an expensive Santa Claus.
I’m sure the parents were trying to cushion the blow that Santa isn’t real, but they did it at the cost of the glory of God and the truth of Scripture. That’s an expensive Santa Claus.
This is why you don’t lie to your children about Santa Claus. It’s unbiblical for all the reasons I gave in the article, and when you come up with solutions like this to finally tell your child the “truth” without hurting his feelings, that’s unbiblical too.
Christmas Music
What do you think about the Christmas song, The Little Drummer Boy? I’ve always loved that song but I recently read an article stating that we shouldn’t sing it because it’s not biblically true.
It depends on what the article means by “not biblically true”. If they mean it conflicts with, denies, or twists Scripture in some way, I don’t see that in the lyrics. If they simply mean there’s no mention in Scripture of a little drummer boy visiting Jesus as a baby, that’s correct.
However, it’s reasonable to assume friends, family, and possibly even curious strangers (spurred on by the shepherds’ amazing story) visited Jesus and His parents in the days after His birth. In fact, for such a corporate and family oriented society, it would have been unthinkable that only the shepherds, and later, the wise men, ever visited them.
Could one of those visitors have been an impoverished little boy who wanted to play a song for Jesus on his drum? And Mary consented? And Jesus smiled? I don’t see why not. None of that conflicts with Scripture, and it’s all within the realm of possibility (except for the ox and lamb keeping time – I’ve never known a barnyard animal with good rhythm).
Did the article you read mean that “we” (as in the congregation, choir, soloist) shouldn’t sing that song in the worship service because it isn’t drawn from Scripture? I would fully agree with that. All of the elements of our worship services should be drawn from, and centered on the Word.
But as far as personal or family use goes, if the song makes you uncomfortable in some way, you don’t have to sing it or listen to it. (It’s certainly not one of my favorites.) I guess the decision you would have to make is whether you’re only comfortable with songs that come straight from Scripture or whether you can be comfortable with a song about something that could have happened, but isn’t in Scripture. And either way is totally fine. It just depends on your heart and your conscience.
Is there anything biblically wrong with singing Christmas hymns during worship? Our church refuses and only reserves them for our Christmas service. Just odd to me. But they decorate with a big ole Christmas tree and wreaths in the sanctuary.
No, there’s nothing biblically wrong with singing Christmas hymns in the regular worship service. I’ve never heard of a church that reserves them only for the Christmas service (especially a church that sees nothing wrong with decorating for Christmas) but there’s nothing unbiblical about that either. I would encourage you to kindly, gently, and lovingly ask your pastor about it.
Christmas-Related Activities
I’m a member of a doctrinally sound church. That’s why it was a little confusing when all of a sudden, from the pulpit, they announced that we were going to have a float in our upcoming Santa Claus Parade.
When one brave soul asked why we would participate, the answer was: we need to look at the “greater good” – it’s getting the gospel out – which we are doing with tracts and Christmas candy.
While I was happy to be a part of printing off the material in hopes of getting it into the hands of as many people in our city, I won’t be participating in handing it out in the parade.
Am I wrong to feel this way? I know I should be asking our Pastors about this – but frankly, after that one person asked, she was told that we were going through with it…that they valued her “opinion” on the matter – but that they (as well as the Deacons that discussed the matter), see nothing wrong with participating in such an event. Why couldn’t we have a “booth” that was away from the parade route, and hand out literature there, instead of “being in the thick of things…”
(You didn’t say exactly how your church is going to distribute the tracts and candy, but in our local Christmas parade, the float riders throw their candy and other goodies to the watching crowd, so that’s the assumption I’m working under with my response.)
It’s always a good thing to carefully think things through whenever we bump elbows with the world. We want to impact the world with the gospel, but we want to be careful not to become worldly. “In the world, not of the world” as the saying goes.
But from everything you said in your email, I’m going to have to go with your pastors on this one. (In fact, I’ve been recommending for years that churches participate in Christmas parades as an evangelistic outreach.) It sounds to me like they’re taking hold of a golden opportunity to share the gospel and let people in the area know about your doctrinally sound church. Isn’t that what we’re supposed to do as Christians? “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”?
If you’re going to share the gospel with sinners, you have to go where sinners are.
If you’re going to share the gospel with sinners, you have to go where sinners are. And if you’re invited by the sinners, so much the better. The parade organizers have invited your church to participate, or, at least they haven’t told your church it can’t participate. Why would your church not joyfully accept that invitation? Your area may be progressive, but it’s not so progressive that they’ve banned churches from participating in the Christmas parade (wouldn’t that be hypocritical?) yet.Jesus said, “We must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day. The hour is coming when no man can work.”. We’ve got to take advantage of these gospel opportunities while we still have them.
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
And as Jesus reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
1 Corinthians 5:9-10, Matthew 9:10-13
Why couldn’t we have a “booth” that was away from the parade route, and hand out literature there, instead of “being in the thick of things…”
Because the parade is where the people are! If you’re there to share the gospel, why wouldn’t you want to be “in the thick of things”? “Yes, we’d like to come to your parade and share the gospel, but please put us in an out of the way area where fewer people will be.”? Hon, I am not trying to be harsh with you, believe me, but I say this to you in sisterly love: Most of the people who will be at that parade are on their way to an eternity in Hell. Have you really thought about that? Does that not grieve you? Don’t you want to rescue as many of them as possible with the gospel? An out of the way spot? Jesus said:
You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 5:14-16
Your pastors are trying to set your church on a hill and shine the gospel forth from it. Don’t ask them to put it under a basket. From everything you’ve said, they’re good, trustworthy doctrinally sound pastors. You don’t have to personally hand out materials at the parade (you wouldn’t have to even if you were 100% on board with all of this), but trust them and submit to their leadership.
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Hebrews 13:17
If you have a question about: a Bible passage, an aspect of theology, a current issue in Christianity, or how to biblically handle a family, life, or church situation, comment below (I’ll hold all questions in queue {unpublished} for a future edition of The Mailbag) or send me an e-mail or private message. If your question is chosen for publication, your anonymity will be protected.
We have raised our five year old to know that Santa Claus isn’t real. Now that he’s getting old enough to have conversations with his little friends, how do we explain to him what to say to them when they talk about believing in Santa? I don’t want him to crush their dreams but I also don’t want to teach him to perpetuate the lie for his friends.
This is a great question, and one my husband and I also had to address with our own children, since we raised them to know that Santa Claus isn’t real.
Before I tackle your question, I’d like to address Christian parents who tell their children Santa Claus is real, that he is the one who brings their presents, etc.:
I’m sure you have the best of intentions and only want to make Christmas fun for your children, but when you tell them these things about Santa Claus, you are lying.
Santa Claus isn’t real. If you tell your children he is, or that he is the one who brings their presents, or that he knows whether they’ve been naughty or nice, you’re lying. The Bible says that lying is a sin, period. There’s no exception for jolly old elves who pass out toys (or for tooth fairies or Easter bunnies, either, for that matter). And not only is lying a sin, it is extraordinarily hypocritical to lie to your children about Santa Claus and then turn around later and punish them when they lie about something. Lying to your children about Santa Claus teaches them that it’s OK to lie (i.e. sin) when you want to or when it would be to your advantage. Excerpted from: The Mailbag: What should we tell our kids (and grandkids) about Santa Claus?
And this reader has raised another ripple effect of your sin of lying. You’ve now put your brothers and sisters in Christ in the difficult position of figuring out how not to blow your cover when their child (who knows the truth) interacts with yours. Do they teach their child to take part in your lie, or do they risk their child telling the truth, disappointing your child and possibly angering you? And think about the pressure on a five year old child to try to keep something like that a secret, knowing someone will be disappointed if he doesn’t. You’ve created a no-win situation for people you are supposed to self-sacrificially love, encourage, and edify.
We did our best to thread the needle by teaching our children to stay out of it. Every year, we reminded our kids – before family gatherings, play dates, etc. – that some kids believe Santa is real. If a friend inquired, “What did you ask Santa for this year?”, our kids could reply, “I asked my parents for a bike.” If any of their friends asked them if Santa was real, we told our kids to tell their friends to ask their parents.
You might want to give something like that a try, or maybe you can come up with a different solution that’s helpful to the situation. Don’t fret about it, though. Most kids learn the truth about Santa between ages 5 to 10, and most of them learn it from their friends. If you have a friend who freaks out at you because your five year old told the truth about something, it could be time to reevaluate that friendship, or at least the level of intimacy of that friendship. (And if it’s a family member, well…this, too, shall pass.)
If you have a friend who freaks out at you because your five year old told the truth about something, it could be time to reevaluate that friendship
However you teach your child to handle the situation, be sure you’re not conveying the idea that we cover up the sin (the lie that Santa is real) of others. We tried to go at it from the angle of our kids telling the other kids, “That’s a topic that should stay between you and your parents.” It’s pretty much the same way we later handled the situation of what to do if your friends ask you where babies come from (“You need to ask your parents about that.”)
Also keep in mind that, even though it may feel like you’re the Grinch if your child spills the beans about Santa, you’re not, despite the fact that others may treat you that way. If you’re humbly doing what is right in God’s eyes and the other person is doing what is wrong, you’re not the problem in that situation.
Even though it may feel like you’re the Grinch if your child spills the beans about Santa, you’re not. If you’re humbly doing what is right in God’s eyes and the other person is doing what is wrong, you’re not the problem.
If you have a question about: a Bible passage, an aspect of theology, a current issue in Christianity, or how to biblically handle a family, life, or church situation, comment below (I’ll hold all questions in queue {unpublished} for a future edition of The Mailbag) or send me an e-mail or private message. If your question is chosen for publication, your anonymity will be protected.
