Jesus Said, "Share"!

Not every Christian parent uses this phrase, but just about every Christian parent I know forces their children to share in this same spirit. This will not teach Christian charity.

Scenario #1. "Johnny, you have 20 legos and Toby doesn't have any. You need to share with him. If you don't, I won't let you play with any legos (or some other punishment)."

Scenario #2. (Without letting Toby hear, if possible) "Johnny, you have 20 legos and Toby doesn't have any. It would be wonderful if you could find it in your heart to share yours with Toby. He might be very grateful, and he'll enjoy playing with you much more if you are able to do that." There are, of course, many other benefits to giving to others, so the parent has many options from which to choose.

In which situation is Johnny more likely to learn Christian charity? I'm sure you have guessed from the context that this is Scenario #2.

In which situation has the parent maintained control? Scenario #1. Unfortunately, control over your children, while helpful in the moment on most occasions, does little to train their character. In fact, it leads to resentfulness, among other less-than-savory character traits.

I. The Effects of Scenario #1...

...on Johnny

If Johnny has ownership of the legos, taking them from him to give to Toby is not just. It is STEALING. Yep, I just accused parents in Scenario #1 of stealing from their own children. You just taught your child that stealing is OK, as long as it evens out the quantitative ownership. Wow. Is that the message you want to send to your children?

Secondly, Scenario #1 will likely lead Johnny to a state of self-preservation. The parent obviously has no respect for his property, so Johnny is now going to focus his energy on making sure he has a way of maintaining ownership of his toys. Instead of learning Christian charity, Johnny has now learned the importance of protecting the interests of Self*.

Thirdly, Johnny now resents Toby. Toby represents an entity whose existence leads to fewer toys.

Finally (for now), if the parent habitually takes the decision-making responsibility away from Johnny, he will have difficulty in life once he is in a position where he must actually make his own decisions. He hasn't been able to practice!

...on Toby

Toby has just learned that the mere fact that he has less entitles him to other people's property.

Secondly, Toby will learn not to be content with what he already has, however little that may be.

Thirdly, Toby will not see Johnny as a caring person who, out of the goodness of his heart, has shared his things. Instead, because Johnny has more, he must give some up or be punished. Johnny therefore represents an entity from whom stuff can be extracted as long as the proper authority is present.

II. The Effects of Scenario #2...

...on Johnny

God has taught us to take care of those in need, so the right decision for Johnny is to share his toys with Toby. It is very possible that in Scenario #2, Johnny will fail to make the right decision. There are innumerable benefits to making the right decision, and many negative consequences to making the wrong decision, and it is the parents' job is to help Johnny to become aware of them. This should be done in a matter-of-fact manner, simply laying out the possibilities.

By giving Johnny the power to make his own decision, you have left the door open for him to learn what it means to be charitable. This will take different amounts of time for different children, but when given time, with proper (read: not coercive or manipulative) guidance, the child will have the best chance to learn Christian virtue.

...on Toby

Toby will learn all the opposite lessons from what he learned in Scenario #1. He is much more likely to learn to be content with what he has.

Conclusion

Some of the time, when parents force their children to share, it is because they are afraid of what other parents will think of them if they don't. However, showing children the way instead of forcing them will develop the good character you so greatly desire them to learn. They will also trust you more and look to the interests of others instead of just their own.

*The interests of self I am referring to here are short-term. Long-term interest (earthly and heavenly) is always best served by obeying God's commands.

The Deterioration of Childhood Safety

80 years ago, parents felt comfortable letting their children play outside, even if they were not in the immediate vicinity. There wasn't grave danger lurking around every corner, and if, somehow, the kids got lost, neighbors, or friendly neighborhood peace officers would simply help the lost children find their way home to grateful, relieved parents.

40 years ago, parents began feeling unsafe allowing their kids play outside unsupervised. There was always a danger of kidnappers, bullies, or any sort of stranger just waiting to enact terror on children. "My, how society has changed," parents and onlookers would sadly remark.

These days, the danger is twofold. Things are not really any safer than they were 40 years ago, so parents have to be more vigilant than they were 80 years ago. But there now is another danger, almost as terrifying as the kidnapper, and far more ubiquitous...neighborhood tattletales, and their friends, Law Enforcement.

Should you somehow lose sight of your children for 5 minutes, there is a real chance that when someone notices them alone, they will immediately call Law Enforcement. Here are the consequences...

1. Your children may or may not be returned to you. 

2. You may be arrested for being a negligent guardian.

3. If arrested, you will have to post bail, usually in the thousands of dollars, which you may or may not get back at a later date.

4. Your state's version of Child Protective Services will most likely be an intrusion in your life and privacy for weeks or months to come.

5. This will include an inspection to make sure your children have a 'safe' environment on a daily basis.

6. This will also include an interrogation into the acceptability of your parenting in the eyes of the State.

Yet, after all this, our children are taught ad nauseam by parents, teachers, athletes, politicians, even pastors and Sunday School teachers, about our "Hero Policemen and Women", and their great service to society in keeping us safe. This madness must stop.

Victimless Crime and Punishment

The problem with victimless crimes is that no restitution can be made. If you steal something, repay it five-fold. If you damage something, repay two-fold. In fact, God's Word contains His own rules for how to repay damages. Gary DeMar's article outlines this very well.

This is a far superior system to the prison system for endless reasons, not the least of which is actual rehabilitation of the perpetrator. One of the most important differences, though, is the way in which self-inflicted injuries are handled.

Firstly, I cannot steal from myself. Secondly, I cannot make restitution if I kill myself. So, how do we approach things like doing drugs? What restitution can be made if, on my own property, I smoke marijuana, snort crack, shoot-up heroine, etc.? The answer, obviously, is none at all. I have in no way damaged anyone's property, hence the title, "Victimless Crimes".

"But," some might say, "what if you go and hurt someone or damage property because you are impaired by these drugs?" God's Word deals with that just as clearly. MAKE RESTITUTION. I think I'm sensing a pattern here. No jail. The only public resources used (read: taxes) would be those used to determine how much restitution must be made and enforcement of the restitution.

Amazingly, or not so amazingly, God's Word does a wonderful job of clearing up the whole War on Drugs issue. IT IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME. If government has a role, it is to protect private property rights. That's it.

"But," some might say, "when people get hooked on drugs, they ruin families and other relationships!" You're right. That does happen. Are you seriously suggesting that it is the government's job to fix that for you? Furthermore, do you really think the government will do a better job of that than friends, family, and perhaps the Church? Yikes!

Furthermore, were drugs perfectly legal, the whole addiction scene would be entirely different, but that is an article for another day. In fact, it's been written many times already by Mark Thornton.

If you are able to view crimes from the perspective of the necessary restitution, you may able to understand the drug problem in a new light. And you might be able to use the phrase, Victimless Crimes, without a hint of sarcasm.

Parenting Public Service Announcement

Don't EVER roll your eyes at your children if there is even a .00001% chance anyone other than your spouse will see you. This can be literal or figurative - I'm afraid the latter is easier to justify, harder to control, and even more insidious than the former. I occasionally feel the urge to do one or the other, as it lets other people know that I know my child is not behaving properly, but it is a TERRIBLE thing to do to your child.

On one hand, it is a form of gossip (Prov 6:19b; James 3), and you are completely throwing your child under the bus. Unless the observer of said act has an amazingly strong filter, and can ignore this immaturity on the parent's part, the public perception of the child can only deteriorate. That is AWFUL, and can have lasting effect, and most definitely will have mounting effect as the parental behavior continues over time.

On the other hand, IT IS OUR JOB AS PARENTS TO HELP OUR CHILDREN TO BEHAVE PROPERLY. Once a child has done something, this issue CANNOT be fixed in the moment. Don't even try. It is possible, even likely, we have failed up to that point, but there is hope! OWN IT. Jot it down, either with a writing utensil, or in your head (if you will remember later), and talk to your spouse about how to help your child learn the best way to respond to that type of situation next time.

You, your spouse, your child, and those who interact with you, your spouse, and your child, will all be MUCH better off, both in the moment, and in the long run!

Dear Christian, Why Are You Turning to the State to Define Marriage?

The current debate over how our government defines marriage is wrong from almost every angle. Christians are wrong. Homosexuals are wrong. (I'm sure there are exceptions, but as of yet I have not found one.) If both sides of this issue could understand what the actual issues are, there could be peace in our time.

The United States has been officially defining marriage for a relatively short period of time, mainly since the Civil War. Marriage licenses have been used by the State to tell people who is and who is not allowed to marry. Originally, it was to keep whites and blacks from marrying, but also homosexuals, and even people whom the State decided would not produce good enough children. This movement (including all 3 of the above categories) of course, is called Eugenics. It is pure evil, and was made infamous especially by the Nazis, who desired to create the ultimate race. This alone should give everyone pause.

BUT WHO CARES WHICH MARRIAGES ARE LICENSED BY THE STATE?

1. A marriage license grants you certain tax exemptions.

The real issue here is taxes, not homosexuality, or any other kind of union that is rejected by the State. Because the State is pilfering, everyone wants to try to keep as much of their wealth as possible out of the hands of the State (except for those who are voluntarily donating to the State because they don't believe they are taxed enough...anyone else hear crickets?). Taxes are legalized theft. The Supreme Court of the United States even agreed on this point concerning Federal Taxes, until they later changed their minds.

2. People discriminate against homosexuals until the State forces them not to.

The private property paradigm mandates that a property owner has authority to administer the use of that property in any way, so long as it does not infringe on someone else. Refusing to allow someone onto my property is NOT infringing on his private property rights. Forcing me to allow someone onto my property IS MOST DEFINITELY infringing on my private property rights. This is not a pro- or anti-homosexual issue at all. It simply requires an understanding of private property. For example: If a store owner refuses to let me into his store because I am a Christian, he should legally be allowed to do so. Furthermore, he should not legally have to provide a reason to anyone.

3. What is taught to our children in public schools?

Public schools encapsulate the idea of legalized theft as well as any other institution. "You over there must give me your money to pay for that child over there, or I will take your house from you." That is the problem. If no money were stolen to pay for anyone's education, there would no longer be these enormous fights over "what they're teaching kids these days". Everyone would simply choose for themselves what is best for their family.

4. Who should be allowed to have/adopt/raise children?

This is definitely the most difficult question, but it is still a question of State power. The State should not be the one who has adoption agencies - just as a reminder, it needs to steal from people in order to maintain them. Each individual private agency would have jurisdiction over who can and cannot adopt children over whom they currently have guardianship. There are other issues here about why there are so many foster children, which could entail a million other articles, so I digress.

CONCLUSION

The State should have nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. The definition of marriage and marriage licensing is an issue to those who are excluded because of other underlying State abuses. These are the things which we should discuss. Christians would do much better at loving people who do not follow the dictates of the Bible if they fought State abuse instead of trying to use government to get people to follow God's laws.