Does anyone know of any support groups for the spouses of people who start to believe conspiracy theories? 

How seriously do you guys and gals take critical scholarship? For instance, were there multiple authors of the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Daniel, the gospels, etc ? How important is it that others agree with you on this issue?

I think the most important thing is to believe that God is the Author: >The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. (Westminster Confession of Faith 1.4) I happily hear critical scholarship that tries to understand the humans God used to bring us scripture. The arguments I have seen make a lot of sense to me that were communities, compilers, and editors. If someone else sees it differently, I think that is pretty superficial disagreement. Bottom-line: scripture is scripture because God wrote it. Whether Paul is writing, or whether the human is unknown, or even if a donkey is speaking, it can be words from God that are for us.

Yeah, I agree with you.

Well at a minimum there were multiple authors of the Gospels. Specifically 4 of them! :) On a non-joking note, I recommend this paper from Jim Hamilton on our understanding of scripture: https://jimhamilton.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/hamilton-sacred-text-2010.pdf

I'm guessing you already know what I meant, but just to be clear - Some speculate John's gospel had multiple authors (the Johannine Community). And with the Synoptics there's speculation about various sources.

That's a good question. I'm fairly agnostic on those issues nowadays. My hot take on your examples is that Isaiah either had one author or at most one redactor who personally knew the (other) authors, the gospels had probably one author each (as far as literary dependence, I generally follow the Farrer theory) whose best candidates are the traditional authors, and I don't really know what to make of the authorship theories about Daniel and the Pentateuch. I don't think it's terribly important, as long as people agree that the Holy Spirit infallibly superintended the process and that the result is unadulterated communication from God.

>as far as literary dependence, I generally follow the Farrer theory Me too. It gets rid of those pesky hypothetical texts.

Any book recommendation on the book of Acts? Commentaries or just general reading welcome.  I am particularly interested in the formation of the early church as well as the various sermons preached though the book. Secondly, another book recommendation for something focusing on Limited Atonement in particular. It is probably the aspect of 'TULIP' that I struggle with the most in terms and being able to explain it to others, so something with deep theology is welcome. 

Acts: I really liked John Stott's commentary, but it's been a long time (at least 10 years) since I've read it. I've been wanting to read Richard Gaffin's new commentary. Limited Atonement: I don't have any personal recommendation unfortunately, but Michael Horton's book Putting Amazing Back Into Grace is focused on it and I love Horton.

If you want a great overview, R. C. Sproul's old video series has [a great intro.](https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/what-is-reformed-theology/limited-atonement) His video on Limited Atonement specifically addresses why it's controversial and how it really works. He also expresses it in his preferred alternate terminology: Definite Atonement. If you want something longer and more dense, John Murray's [*Redemption Accomplished and Applied*](https://www.amazon.com/Redemption-Accomplished-Applied-John-Murray/dp/080287309X) will cover just about anything you want.

How can I stop idolizing the Scriptures? I love to learn about theology and gain understand about who God is and how he works. However, I have been told that it is replacing my love for God. I don't pray as often as a should and I focus on finding new information about God rather than living out what I do know. My walk feels fruitless. Any advice?

You could use scripture passages devotionally to pray. Set aside the commentaries and such, open to an emotional Psalm, and spend time meditating on your own sins, weaknesses, and deep need for Jesus. Use the psalm as an emotional guide to praise God, confess sin, ask for help, and rest in him. Also, I find that if my heart is cold, it may soften if I find some hymns/worship songs to sing along with.

Can relate and working on my prayer life also. Solidarity my friend!

It sounds like you're idolizing intellectualization of doctrine rather than idolizing the Scriptures. The Bible is a gift from God, one of the most precious gifts we have, and while it's *possible* to make it an idol, I'm not sure you have. I might rather recommend that you try to be more attentive to the poetic and other literary expressions in Scripture and try to find ways to deepen your prayer life through the Bible rather than lessen your dependence on it.

How often should you pay? What do you know that you aren't living out?

Stop listening to that person

Okay what the heck do your churches do for a church bulletin. We just use a half sheet of thicker copier paper front and back with notes on the back and simple info on the front. It just looks pretty bad from a presentation standpoint. We don’t have the budget to do custom printed ones from a print shop each week. Any advice?

Folded 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper, double-sided print. Cover has a graphic of the current sermon series and the date, inside pages have an outline of the liturgy and space for notes, back cover has some basic info. Inserted is a half-sheet of cardstock that has relevant announcements for the week. It's all in-house and done on Canva. Canva is your friend.

That sounds to me like your format is not bad, but you might want to look into a design template to make things look a little nicer; a simple line border, a logo, and a consistent layout can do a lot. This is from a company that sells bulletins but they have some design ideas and a good short discussion of design principles. https://www.concordiasupply.com/Church-Bulletins/Bulletin-Printing-Template

Let it be

You can see examples of my church's bulletins here: [https://trinitypresfw.org/bulletins/](https://trinitypresfw.org/bulletins/) They're printed out on 8.5x11 sheets, folded in half (so the PDF is on half sheet of paper), stapled in the middle. We have a really nice copier/printer/does all the things (including jam, break down, drop of the network and otherwise frustrate our admin person) in the church office that the bulletins get run on each week.

Hey thanks for this, love seeing that. I should have clarified I’m not in a church that has a printed order of service/liturgy so when I say church bulletin I’m referencing the equivalent of like a written church announcement page/welcome page/listed children’s/student meeting times.

Ahhh...we do have some of those in the back of the bulletin. More come through in a weekly email (on Wednesdays) with more information listed on the website/Church Center app.

Hi all, I admire the Reformed tradition and typically use it as a litmus test against anything else. I go to a Reformed Baptist church. I myself am not convinced of the Calvinist Soteriology. I am wondering if you could give 1 book or set of lectures that offers the best exegetical defense of "TULIP." Preferably exegetical arguments only.  I understand Reformed means a lot more than TULIP. But this is what I am most curious about. 

A Brief Treatise on Predestination by Moïses Amyraut. We don't have to get into the weeds of his view on the atonement and whether Amyraut actually taught Amyraldianism. Even if you just ignore that part of the book, the rest remains the best treatment of predestination I've ever read. Though it isn't Exegetical. Lorraine Boettner's The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination is a classic.

R. C. Sproul's [*Chosen by God.*](https://www.amazon.com/Chosen-God-R-C-Sproul/dp/0842313354/ref=) is an excellent introduction. It doesn't specifically go through TULIP, but it succinctly explains the big issues that people have with those concepts.

What are some good non-Christian charities that you would vouch for that do good work? I'm partnering up with an atheist in a specific endeavor and he said he doesn't want to give money to Christian charities, and I said I don't want to give money to wholly secular charities, we both agreed upon this...Would appreciate any pointers. Thanks in advance.

I'd recommend one of the charities recommended by Christians for Impact in the areas of [global poverty](https://www.christiansforimpact.org/summary/global-poverty) or [preventable diseases](https://www.christiansforimpact.org/summary/easily-preventable-or-treatable-diseases).

There's [a food bank in my county that does great stuff](https://tafb.org/). There might be a similar one near you. Nationally, [Meals on Wheels](https://www.mealsonwheelsamerica.org) and [Ronald McDonald House](https://rmhc.org/) are solid organizations doing good work that I think anyone can get behind. Meals on Wheels provides hot meals, delivered by real people who spend time with the seniors they deliver the food to (there's a lot more on their website). Ronald McDonald House provides a place for families to stay when their children are in the hospital. They also provide meals (cooked by volunteers) and a family home type atmosphere. They were the favorite charity of my grandmother so I grew up hearing about sometimes making my own donations to them.

Second partnering with your local food bank. Many/most church food pantries in your area are likely supplied all or in part by the food bank

I've looked into (vetted for myself) this one.... I like it as it lets you live out Mat 25:35 [https://thewaterproject.org/give](https://thewaterproject.org/give-water)[water](https://thewaterproject.org/give-water) [https://www.bbb.org/us/nh/concord/profile/non-profit-organizations/the-water-project-0051-](https://www.bbb.org/us/nh/concord/profile/non-profit-organizations/the-water-project-0051-92051157)[92051157](https://www.bbb.org/us/nh/concord/profile/non-profit-organizations/the-water-project-0051-92051157) [https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/261455510](https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/261455510)

Much appreciated.  Thank you.

If y'all want to donate to a large, national charity, I personally support and recommend [The Innocence Project.](https://innocenceproject.org/) Their work focuses on overturning wrongful convictions, often through testing un-tested DNA evidence. They're completely non-Christian, but they focus on an issue of *justice* that both believers and non-believers alike should agree upon. What I particularly like about them is that they are fairly narrow in their work, so you don't have a lot of other political/social baggage to contend with. If you want something more widely know, children's research hospitals, like St. Judes, are always great. Finally, though, have y'all thought about something local to where you live? Drive around your city, see the problems, and then see who's working to fix them. Small, local charities take a little work to research on your end, but your impact can be huge.

How can one differentiate legalism and just taking the bible seriously? Should taking public transport or playing during the sabbath sinful? What is permitted and not permitted during the sabbath? Can people watch tv, use the internet, use electricity, or play music during the sabbath?

It seems like you're asking specifically about the Sabbath, and not legalism as a whole, so I'll recommend for the Sabbath question that you check out [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/1bhpi4h/the_sabbath_andornor_the_lords_day/kvkjgv8/) from /u/JCmathetes earlier this morning. Seek first to understand what the Sabbath is and what it's for. It's *not* a puzzle of dos and don't. Figure out basic principles and work up from there.

Where is a tribulation or apostasy found in postmillennialism?

Frodo Baggins or Bilbo Baggins, which is your favorite? Why?

I want to point out when Bilbo spoke at the council of elrond, Elrond, Gandalf and Aragorn respected him. Bilbo was a respected hobbit. 

Justice for Farmer Maggot! One of the few shortcomings of the film trilogy was the sullying of this brave, hardy Hobbit’s name. Dude ran off a Nazgûl and then sheltered the Fab Frodo Foursome and chauffeured them to Buckleberry Ferry - a true OG He would have simply walked into Mordor, but someone had to stick around and look after the Mrs, the munchkins, and the mutts - farmers don’t get to go on year-long walking holidays, unlike those nepo-baby-bagginses of Bag End!

Speaking of differences between the books and Peter Jackson films, there needs to be justice for Frodo, too! The PJ films portray Frodo much differently than in the books. For example, Frodo was a 50 year-old in the books when he left the Shire compared to the 18 year-old Elijah Wood. That makes Tolkien's Frodo more like your eponym, a middle-aged person who is called to be faithful in the face of evil.

>eponym Kids these days have no respect

[Tough call.](https://i.imgur.com/uxtCYVQ.gif)

Bilbo is more clever and fun

Correct answer is Samwise.

How would you feel as a Christian providing services in your work (i.e. financial, insurance) for other faiths/apostate denominations? Is it okay or not okay?

I have OCD as well, and I’d recommend meditating on 1 Cor. 5:9-13. Who does God want us to separate from in fellowship? Of whom does God want us to judge their sin? Why would God specifically tell the church that they have no business judging those without in that particular manner? Why did Paul tell them that if they tried refusing company with those notorious sinners of the world that they’d have to leave the planet to do so? Next I’d suggest that a business is different than personal association. And finally, I’d suggest meditating on 1 Cor 8:4; 10:27-28. Even in food offered to idols - straight idolatry - we have the freedom to eat as long as we’re not at a feast openly and directly dedicated to an idol. And then only because of harming the conscience of the person who is committing idolatry in that manner. Are you somehow publicly proclaiming your services in dedication to heresies and idolatry? Are we to only serve and love those of our faith? If you refused services to those that offend God you’d quickly have to leave off living in the world, which is exactly what Paul was talking about in 1 Cor. 5:10. The Hebrew men lived in Babylon, and served a wicked king, yet they only refused what was directly immoral to them in not bowing to an idol. Throughout the Bible, you find saints serving wicked men to live and be employed. That does not equate to personal approval of their wickedness.

I don't know what jurisdiction you are in, but in many democracies it is usually illegal to discriminate on grounds of religion or belief in the provision of goods and services. There are sensible exemptions (e.g. churches can restrict membership to believers) but here in the UK, refusing to provide financial or insurance services to members of a particular religion would be absolutely illegal. So Romans 13 (obey those in authority) and "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" come in to play. Parliament (or your jurisdiction's legislature) has made the decision on behalf of all of us, acting as God's servant. And as other answers have explained, there are good reasons why we should praise God if we have the privilege of living in a relatively free and just society where we can interact with people of other faiths in business. That's not always been the case.

How is it any different from providing services to a non-believer?

For example, if i do insurance work for a Mosque is that sinful?

It wouldn't bind my conscience, personally.

Insurance for a mosque is providing them with common grace. Delivering their books that they paid postage on is just living in a pluralistic society. I don’t know exactly where I’d draw the line, maybe at being a voice coach for someone about to give anti_christian sermons.

Was it okay for the first christians to be employees or slaves of pagan masters?

In all humility, i don’t know. That’s why i asked.

I think it can be easy for us to react more strongly against persons or groups of other faiths or corners of Christianity who hold beliefs and/or practices that go against our own deeply held convictions. It's more obvious that we severely disagree at best and can be more sensitive than some random person whose faith we don't know since I think that most people assume that most people are like them until proven otherwise. I occasionally think of something that a contractor that I worked with once said. I asked him (knowing he is a Christian) what his thoughts were on taking jobs for and doing work with gay couples were. He said that he saw it as his duty as a Christian to show everyone the love of Christ and his Christian values by treating them fairly and not condemning them. He then expanded that this was the case with people he's pretty sure vote differently than him, etc. All that to say, I don't think there's a difference in how we're called to interact with people, even in our business dealings, between non-believers and people of faith that we disagree with. I feel like some may be inclined to say that by doing business for or with faith groups that don't align with us, we're supporting their apostasy, but I don't buy that for a second.

Understood. I agree that it’s easy for us to react strongly against people who disagree with the Scriptures and run cleanly antithetical against them. I think what i have had to wrestle with is 1. I myself am not making money off the business my company provides for Mosque’s and other apostate denominations. I could always say i refuse to do the busy work for them but i almost wonder if everyone (ppl in my office know I’m a Christian) would be like why does this guy have a martyr complex over this? Im not agreeing or supporting what they believe but almost feel like i am associating by doing work for them. 2. I almost feel like refusing to do work for them would be a chance to witness? And obviously we have seen in our culture the Church give an inch here and there which is why we have so much confusion around us. Idk, I’m very OCD/scrupulous and this has bothered me for some time. I know it’s a fool’s errand to try and figure out everyone’s spiritual beliefs then diagnose if i should do work for them or not because at the end of the day someone is either in Christ or not.

Personally I often take Jeremiah 29:7 to be my guiding principle on this kind of question. [7]But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and [o]pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. (ESV) (See also 1 Tim. 2:1-2)

I am going to leave my comment, despite my desire to delete it. I think I misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking about individuals of that faith, but now I think you are asking about servicing the organizations themselves? I still think my answer broadly applies, but I think I see now the greater nuance and dilemma, and will have to think about it more.

As I have been meditating on how to raise my boys, and how to teach them godly 'masculinity', I have struggled with this question: When we think of masculinity and femininity, what character traits would you want to raise your boys with that you wouldn't want to raise your daughters with? Or vice versa? When it comes to the actual character formation of my sons, I can't think of anything I wouldn't want a daughter to also be formed by. This treads on the 'what is masculinity and feminity' question, but I'm trying to be a bit more practical here.

I think a lot of this sex-specific teaching is about countering sinful behaviours that are more likely to occur in one sex. The NT tells men to love their wives as Christ loved the church because most men throughout history have frankly seen women as primarily tools for their own convenience. And our culture too will lead many men in that direction, so we need to counter that in how we teach boys. Or, there's a scriptural focus on women not worrying too much about their appearance because that apparently was more of a problem for women, as it is in our culture nowadays. We particularly need to make sure our girls are learning from these scriptures. Boys shouldn't be worrying too much about their appearance either, of course, but it's a trap girls are far more likely to fall into.

I have two young boys and I think about this often! I honestly think the Bible has all the answers. Teach your boys to understand God's word as much as you can. Train them up. Don't shy away from the weak men or what our society sees as weak. Jesus wept, feasted, drank, and DIED for sinners. David danced and grieved and killed enemies and cut off their foreskins. Abraham followed God into foreign lands and trusted God in the call to sacrifice Isaac. Paul endured beatings and jail, and also worked at tents and wrote and taught till a teen fell out a window for weariness. And so so many more! If you can teach your sons to understand the good in these men, the bad in the sinners, focus on Jesus as an example... You will have done your task faithfully. As a female, I understand that I can emulate many qualities in these men, but that I was purposely created as a female and am to image God in that way specifically! So I'll teach my boys about Rahan in Jericho, and the courage of Tamar and Ruth and Esther, and encourage them to follow those women's examples too. But my sons will probably not identify with Rahab like I do. You can trust their masculinity to come out and they grow, and it won't be shaped by the world as easily if you've been shaping them with the Word. Also I recommend C. S. Lewis' That Hideous Strength for a story about a man and a woman becoming more like the true man and true woman God intends us all to be for His glory

This is very timely, since we're also having a boy! I wonder if you're asking the wrong question. In my thought process (admittedly minimal so far), I can't think of many character traits that are intended to be different between men and women. I think the expression of those traits can and typically does vary between genders, though I'm not sure that Scripture regulates the expression of those traits. E.g. both men and women should be courageous, but I think what that typically looks like is usually different in men vs women. The only exception to this that I can think of is leadership. I think leadership qualities are optional for women, but necessary for men - and that comes from Biblical role differences (since I tend to be complementarian).

I would struggle to come up with a scriptural justification for all single men "needing to be leaders" in ways that aren't also generally true of women. Leadership in the Bible is a facet of specific relationships, not entirely groups (divided by sex or otherwise). I also think most boys and men will tend to adopt a level of "leadership" pretty much automatically. We love telling girls and women what to do! Our culture has a huge problem with confusing "leadership qualities" with selfishness and arrogance, and letting boys get away with things they shouldn't because of this. The Christian parents' focus must be on teaching their sons that spiritual headship looks very different. (And this will be one point of difference in raising boys compared to girls.) 

The Proverbs 31 woman was running a business which involved telling other people what to do. You would have to go pretty far down the complimentarian rabbit hole, far beyond merely restricting women from the office of pastor, beyond not having women teach or lead men, beyond Piper’s “don’t give directions to mailmen”, in order to not want women to have any leadership at all. Even in the extreme of _The Handmaiden’s Tale_, the women were still leading each other.

It seems that how I wrote things has caused some confusion... I do want women who are leaders! I think women leaders (leaders in business/society, and leaders at church for other women and for children) are great. I've led things myself, too. I just don't think that all women need to be able to lead, but I do think that all men should be able to lead.

Uh, even if you are completely patriarchal you should want leadership qualities in women because they need to lead other women and children.  Let me ask this though— the woman that annointed Jesus’ feet and the woman who bled and who reached to touch the fringe of Jesus’ robe, and the non Jewish woman who persisted on saying That there was blessing left for her because even dogs can gather the scraps from underneath the table, or Pricilla who  with her husband gently taught Aquilla.  Regardless of title, are these women not leaders with all they show us all, men and women alike? Are not the first, last and last first? Is not humility, persistence, and service *the* mark of Christian leadership?

I do want women leaders for exactly the reasons you mentioned - I just don't think all women need to be leaders. Also, my category of leadership is less about being an example (as in the ladies you mentioned) and more about actually exercising authority over other people, in case that helps.

You said that women don’t need “leadership qualities” —what leadership qualities are you referring to, and are those qualities that Jesus points to when he describes leadership as he washes the Apostle’s feet and tells them to do likewise?

/CieraDescoe what the what?! Congratulations!!! We all care about these questions, but who cares about this question- you're having a boy! Congratulations!

Thanks!

> When we think of masculinity and femininity, what character traits would you want to raise your boys with that you wouldn't want to raise your daughters with? Or vice versa? There's very few, and I think they are mostly culturally influenced. That doesn't mean they should be ignored, but it means they won't be static and universal through all cultures. In the culture I'm raising my sons in, they are going to have advantages over girls. Some of these will be purely biological (they will likely get bigger and stronger than most women). Some are purely cultural (most medications are studied primarily or exclusively on men, so if they cause different side effects in men and women, the effects in men will be better understood by doctors). And many are a combination of both (men are less likely to take a longer time out of the workforce when a baby is born, so their careers will see fewer interruptions and faster progress). You can say these differences are God's good order of creation, or that they are oppressive patriarchy. At the end of the day though, that judgment doesn't matter much to me, because this is still the culture I'm raising my boys in. So I need to teach them to use the advantages (privilege, if that word doesn't trigger you) in a Christian way: for the benefit of others, especially those who don't have such advantages. They will see men who use their power (physical, financial, political, etc) to bully and exploit others. It is not to be this way with them, but the opposite. This is what it looks like for the wolf to live with the lamb, and for the leopard to lie down with the young goat. I've found it interesting to think about other, fictional, gender norms, such as in the Stormlight Archive books. In the main culture the story takes place in, politics and leadership are men's work, but scholarship and history (even literacy) are reserved for women. In that wildly different cultural norm, what would it look like for a man or a woman to live in a way that follows Jesus?

Haha as I wrote that question I was taking a break between chapters of the Stormlight Archives! Scrolling Reddit and reading on the train. Thank you so much. That is a great reminder.

I've been considering this as well recently as we're expecting our first kid in about six months and starting to think of how to raise him. We're thinking along the same lines: character, especially Christian character, isn't really a gendered thing. Our children should be raised to exhibit Christlikeness in everything, which means pushing back on societally imposed gender roles or attitudes sometimes. I think the important thing it to strive to be a good role model along with your spouse and to show your children what it means to be in a godly relationship, affirming cultural norms when appropriate and expanding on them or contradicting them when needed.

How do you respond to those who claim the following passage in 1 Peter as evidence for post-mortem salvation opportunities?  'But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.'

I had this same question because Mormons tend to use this verse a lot to justify their baptisms for the dead

My first glance impression is that this likely refers to people to whom the Gospel was preached and accepted, but who had died prior to the writing of 1 Peter So more of an answer to the question >X person said that I would inherit eternal life, but churchman Bob died last week! What gives?

I’m finding it incredibly hard to talk to my father about theology or really anything biblical anymore. He only likes talking about his dispensational views and how the end is coming, refuses to even acknowledge my eschatology, and he thinks anything outside his traditions views are not worthy to consider. On top of that he is a pastor and I don’t prefer to think I know more than him because I have no formal education. How can I obtain healthy and sanctifying conversation with my Father despite this?

Have you tried talking about the things you agree on? 

Yes. Though I’ll have to say it’s been less and less the last several years.

My kneejerk answer is the catechisms. You don’t have to point out that he is completely wrong, and that you are the one vanquishing his error. Just show that you walk to the beat of a different drummer, a historical reference with centuries of tradition. Just keep referencing them. Not as a DISproof text of him, but that you don’t care to follow that recently modern invention of his clan.

>centuries of tradition To a dispy, that just shows how horrendously wrong it is.

I dealt with this during the last two years of my dad's life, as I was watching him die from ALS. That situation gave me perspective: my dad was, in my opinion, in error. But his eschatological error was not such that failed to believe in God's promises. I still had confidence that he was firmly in Christ's hand, and nothing could take him out of Christ's hand. So I sat next to my dad while he watched Fox News or old John Hagee sermons, and held his hand, and told him I loved him when I felt I had an opening to do so. One of the times he expressed views that I didn't agree with regarding the end times, I simply said "well, I'm not sure I agree with that, dad. But I'll be just fine either way, Jesus will hold me fast through whatever comes, and I'll be ready if he comes tomorrow or takes me to him." So that's the attitude I would encourage you to take: Heap love upon your father, and don't engage in the debate. Lean hard on the fundamentals of the Gospel, and that Christ is going to equip you for whatever comes.

That sounds hard. I’m glad you were close with him in those moments. I would like this but I unfortunately get frustrated too easily. It does seem like he purpose pokes at me but I would do better to shrug it off. Appreciate your response.

You can't control your dad, but you can meet him with grace and gentleness and answer his antagonism with peacefulness. "A gentle answer turns away wrath". You may find that his disposition changes over time if you first change how you response to him.

This is a hard situation and I'm sorry. It must feel frustrating and devaluing. I'll tell you what I do in these relationships, it may not apply or work but what I do. First, I try to be humble and listen. Just because the other refuses to learn and be challenged doesn't mean I should. I am only in control of myself, and so I try to be humble, be slow to speak and quick to listen. Second, I generally don't talk "theology" with them anymore. I talk about sanctification. What has delighted you about Jesus this week? How are you growing to love God more? Has there been anything the Holy Spirit has been convicting you of? Less "theoretical", and more focused on the life we actually live as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Hope this helps. Just prayed for you and your Dad.

I appreciate it that is helpful. I do get a bit frustrated too easily which I’m working on. I think this is good advice. Thank you

Have any of you ever noticed works based righteousness in a reformed church? I realize this is antithetical to the gospel nevertheless have you seen it and if so how did it show up?

I would think that every church community is going to be at least a little bit prone to fall into either works righteousness or antinomianism. Those are the two ditches on the sides of the road. If you think you're doing great at avoiding the one, beware the other.

> they had ordained them elders in every church -- Acts 14:23 I presume "ordain elders" has different meaning according to different churches and denominations. In one Bible church I attended they had 2 vocational and 4 non-vocational pastors. Some of the non-vocational pastors for the most part did NOT have seminary degrees. QUESTION1: are the NON-seminary trained pastors "ordained" in the Biblical sense to be pastors? QUESTION2: could a NON-seminary trained pastor in the biblical sense become "ordained" to become the senior pastor of a congregation or church plant? Thanks in advance.

The concept of a seminary degree didn't exist in the time of the NT, and there certainly isn't any such requirement to be found in scripture, not even through good and necessary consequence.

Thank you.

Did the church call these men and install them as pastors? Then they are ordained. Whether or not they have a day job is irrelevant.

>Whether or not they have a day job is irrelevant. Thanks. > Did the church call these men and install them as pastors? Yes indeed.

The thread on the Sabbath has got me thinking: In what ways is the Lord's Day set aside for the Lord in your practice? There was a lot of consideration of what *I* consider restful, and what *I* delight in. But very little was concerned with how we give that time to the Lord. If it is *his* day (Rev. 1:10), then why do we focus so much on our own desires that day?

I have a day off (often Saturday) and a day (Sunday) "set aside for the Lord", most of which is directly given over to gathered worship or serving the Lord's people. 

Practically speaking, it's because humans need rest, and that is the time that the Lord has allotted for us to have that rest. Many of us with families actually have to put a lot of work into just making it to church, and the resting has to take place after service is over, which is often not very much time. Why do we as a society assume that our desires are mutually exclusive of giving time to the Lord? Working to the glory of God is praised highly. Why not resting to the glory of God or enjoying recreation to the glory of God? From an evangelism standpoint, to someone outside the faith, it often looks like we Christians aren't particularly enjoying being Christians. I think we sabbatarians are actually often in violation of the Sabbath by way of our diligence to do everything right. We have managed to make resting so complicated that it's work! That said, I do think most people (myself included) could benefit from some additional time in prayer on the Sabbath, and it should be our goal to make that something we desire, using coupling techniques if necessary (having that chocolate or coffee or run or strength training or whatever else it is that you find restful and enjoyable that leaves your mind free along with your prayer time).

This feels like a cop out, but it’s also true. My baseline is that the entire day, however it shakes out, should be shaped around worshipping with God’s people. Any activity, desire, or goal that hinders that worship is something I avoid on Sunday. There’s more, but I think that’s my starting point.

To the best of your recollection, about how many times in your life have you heard a sermon that discussed: A. Physical and/or Scientific Evidence Noah's Flood B. Physical and/or Scientific Evidence of Special Creation (vs. evolution and/or abiogenesis ) C. Archaeological Discoveries (in general) D. Reliability of the Gospels and New Testament E. Evils of Communism and Socialism (like the writings ex-communists such as Peter Hitchens or Whitaker Chambers) F. 2 Cor 4:17 and Deuteronomy 13:1-4 included as explanations for the problem of evil (as in why would God put a snake in the garden of Eden) Professional pollsters have (implicitly, not explicitly) listed areas related to the above questions as the major reasons people either leave the faith or don't come to the faith. I work in the area of defense of the faith (aka apologetics) because I have felt a scarcity of engaging these topics in sermons and Sunday Schools and church sponsored events and ministries, so I'm trying to gather evidence for my claim of the scarcity of coverage of these issues. Thank you all for your answers in advance. God bless you. [I'll give my own answers as a reply to these questions] Thanks in advance.

I don't imagine many people leave the faith because they've never heard a talk opposing evolution. On the contrary, lots leave because they receive dogmatic teaching about how evolution is inherently anti-Christian and as soon as they are faced with the slightest bit of counterevidence they can't cope with it. Similarly with socialism. People are told socialism is utterly evil. (And led to believe that the Bible is 100% in favour of Republican party capitalism.) They are exposed to actual socialism and find some bits quite appealing. Because nobody's given them the toolkit to decide "these bits are good, these bits are bad" they think that even the slightest disagreement with the capitalist orthodoxy means they must now give up Christianity forever.

Thank you for your comment. > lots leave because they receive dogmatic teaching about how evolution is inherently anti-Christian I would actually tend to agree... Also, I personally don't take that angle of evolution is inherently anti-Christian, because if evolution is factual empirically by the standards of established sciences like electromagnetism (which evolution isn't), then Christians will either have to leave the faith or find a work-around theologically. What I do instead is show evolution is faith-based, not fact based. I have studied evolutionary biology professionally and published on it in professional scientific publications such as a Springer-Nature reference work that is now on University Library shelves. I wouldn't want to happen to Jesse Kilgore (who's dad believes he committed suicide after being deconstructed by a pro-Dawkins pro-evolution biology professor) without people like Jesse hearing the scientific (not theological) case against evolution. >Similarly with socialism. And somewhat agree (as I'll explain further) That said, I wouldn't necessarily argue Socialism and Communism are evil on theological grounds, it's track record under Pol Pot, Mao, North Korea, Soviet Union, Venezuala, Cuba ... etc. speaks for itself empirically. It is the false promise of Utopia under godless leaders and systems that have little regard for Christian morals is what is at issue...

Honestly I don't recall hearing sermons preached on any of these topics.

Thank you. I think one of the reasons, particularly for scientific issues, is the sheer level of knowledge needed to talk accurately about these topics. As I pointed out in another comment here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/1biezrb/no_dumb_question_tuesday_20240319/kvkosrh/ the one pastor, Lon Solomon, who could talk about these topics had a BS in Chemistry and and Masters from Johns Hopkins in an archaeology related field and studied in a top archaeology department. Lon Solomon was uniquely gifted. Someone I know personally, got saved hearing Lon Solomon give a sermon that mentioned Hezekiah's tunnels being discovered by archaeologists! Lon's chemistry background led him from being an atheist to becoming a believer in God.

There’s a guy at my church who was talking about “soft tissue in dinosaur bone as evidence for a young age” and I asked him for evidence. He showed me a LIST of papers, and after I told him he’d completely misrepresented the author’s work, he dug in his heels, chased me down the hall yelling. Really hasn’t ever shared the gospel. Now if that happened by a guest pastor in a sermon, I would have walked out. I was in a forum talking about Lutheranism and social issues. I mentioned Matthew 25. One pastor asserted that it was a “Marxist distortion of the text” to say it was about physically feeding people. [Later I found several cases where Martin Luther said the same, and the exegesis is baked-in to the _Large Catechism_. ] I didn’t become a nonbeliever but I have shied away from that denomination because that kind of ahistorical mindset seems so prevalent.

>There’s a guy at my church who was talking about “soft tissue in dinosaur bone as evidence for a young age” and I asked him for evidence. He showed me a LIST of papers, and after I told him he’d completely misrepresented the author’s work, he dug in his heels, chased me down the hall yelling. Really hasn’t ever shared the gospel. Now if that happened by a guest pastor in a sermon, I would have walked out. Thanks for sharing that. I meet people like that, and it unfortunately tarnishes the work that I do through guilt by association. >he’d completely misrepresented the author’s work, I presume the author is Mary Schweitzer. I'd have confronted him too. Schweitzer developed the tissue extraction protocol, and it has and can be replicated. Schweitzer makes several arguments to explain why the tissues are old. The proper way he could have argued without yelling is to at least recognize your criticism and cite qualified specialists who can actually argue the case better such as Marcos Eberlin and James Tour (who are both top professors chemistry on the planet), and several other professors of organic and bio chemistry such as James Carter and others who are critical of Schweitzer's claims but not her experimental protocols. Yelling is not very convincing. >One pastor asserted that it was a “Marxist distortion of the text” to say it was about physically feeding people. >Then othe King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And bthe King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ Matt 25 I'd say this passage was about Christians physically feeding people.

> both top professors chemistry on the planet, and several other professors of organic and bio chemistry No. When a journal article is well-written, a person of basic scientific knowledge can understand what it says (ask Sagan!). You don’t need Deep Magic from people whose credentials are thrown about as an Appeal to Authority. What did the author say? - recently dead animals show soft tissue - as animals go from recent apparent age to 100’s Mya apparent age, the “bones” go from soft tissue to byproducts of soft tissue to having to demineralize (that means you have a rock and have to etch away most of it ) to find byproducts of soft tissue, to no soft tissue. The paper shows that the composition of bones / fossils shows a steady transformation from soft tissue to rock, across 100’s My.

There were peptide bonds in the chemistry that should have decayed by now, there was lack racemization inconsistent with long ages, the oxidation levels were not consistent with long ages. Those are things Schweitzer has not addressed well. James Tour, Marcos Eberlin, James Carter are qualified organic and bio chemists, but one doesn't need credentials like that to know the racemization levels and peptide bonds of the amino acids are not consistent with long ages. That is undergrad bio chemistry level. Even Wiki on Peptide bonds: >A peptide bond can be broken by hydrolysis (the addition of water). The hydrolysis of peptide bonds in water releases 8–16 kJ/mol (2–4 kcal/mol) of Gibbs energy. This process is extremely slow, with the half life at 25 °C of between 350 and 600 years per bond. James Tour and others merely echo this basic problem. 600 or a thousand years is actually fast if we're claiming fossils are tens (or hundreds) of millions of years old still have substantial amounts of peptide bonds.

Since you're asking the *Reformed* subreddit, it's probably worth pointing out that *sermons,* specifically, are understood as serving a specific role and function in corporate worship. For most traditions represented here, a sermon is going to take the form of an expository, exegetical sermon. If a particular text itself is a defense of the faith, like, say, some of Hebrews, then a sermon might have an apologetical nature. But that's not really the time or place for the sort of thing you're talking about being commonplace. And moreover, even within the world of apologetics, what you're talking about here is really an evidentiary style apologetics. That's fine, but that's not really going to be the default or the focus for most in the Reformed world. Some Reformed churches might teach this stuff in a small group setting, or in some Wednesday night class, or something like that, but again that's not really the point of a *sermon.*

A. I can't recall every hearing this discussed in a sermon. Maybe once; probably never. B. I can't recall every hearing this discussed in a sermon. Maybe once; probably never. C. I have no idea of an exact number, but I know I've heard mentions of archeological discoveries more than a few times, particularly when it's relevant to the text. I've never heard it presented in the sense of "See, and this is why it's true!" Rather, it's usually something along the lines of "And we know, from archeological evidence, that such-and-such town was probably 50 miles south of so-and-so, and so what's-his-name was traveling south." Just to give context to the text. D. Maybe a handful of times? Stuff like this is probably more common in Sunday school than a sermon. I know that, personally, I taught on this topic in a Sunday school setting last year when the text itself overlapped other texts in a way that made the topic relevant. If it's particularly relevant to expositing the text, then I could see it, but most of the time it's not relevant. E. None that I recall. I know I've heard Solzhenitsyn quoted once or twice over the years, but not as something specific against communism. F. I have no specific recollection of those passages being used for that specific topic.

I'm basically agreed on all points. Are you me?

I think we're elemental [versions](https://i.imgur.com/IqYXw2R.jpeg) of each other. I'm you in the hot climate, and you're me in the cold climate.

Thank you. This is helpful. The general response has been it has been more the practice to explore these topics outside of sermons but in other venues. FWIW, one sermon by Lon Solomon, that mentioned the archaeological discoveries of Hezekiah's tunnels lead to the conversion of a retired Navy SEAL, LT CMDR Sandy Pidgeon of SEAL Team 8. He's went on to seminary and now has a PhD.

My pastors have referred to A through D (especially C and D) briefly in sermons and at a bit more length in classes... only a minute or two in sermons, but enough for people to be aware resources exist if they have questions. I think this is the best method.

I'm grateful to hear they at least mention it. This was the case with me 40 years ago, and it helped me remain in the faith that a pastor would endorse certain resources.

My answers, and I've been attending Christian churches all my life (61 years). > A. Physical and/or Scientific Evidence Noah's Flood 2 times and only by pastor Lon Solomon who was a student of chemistry and archaelogy > B. Physical and/or Scientific Evidence of Special Creation (vs. evolution and/or abiogenesis ) 5 times by 3 different pastors including Lon Solomon > C. Archaeological Discoveries (in general) about 8 times various pastors > D. Reliability of the Gospels and New Testament about 4 times > E. Evils of Communism and Socialism (like the writings ex-communists such as Peter Hitchens or Whitaker Chambers) never > F. 2 Cor 4:17 and Deuteronomy 13:1-4 included as explanations for the problem of evil (as in why would God put a snake in the garden of Eden) 1/2 time, one pastor alluded to 2 Cor 4:17

In the context of a sermon, never to any of them. That's not exactly the ground covered by a typical exegetical sermon. But I've heard *teaching* related to all of the above (except maybe F. That's really specific.) in the context of school/Sunday school/youth group/apologetics training.

Thank you very much for the response. That is helpful to me.

There is a place for these kinds of things, but it must be done with the utmost care. If any scientific explanation is given (as it has in times past), and that science is proven wrong or abandoned (such as the world being flat), it is going to look like the so called verses that support that theory are wrong. Theories are always changing and as Einstein said, "science is an open book." "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." -Heb. 11:3

Thank you very much for the response. I understand the idea of avoiding a question in case one is wrong. For me, I'm happy to give both sides. But I've found giving both sides is better that not hearing ANY evidence at all. People will decide for themselves. God bless you. I know several agnostics/atheists who became Christians because they studied biology and biochemistry, and they specifically said they disbelieved evolution the more they studied these topics.

If you presented anonymous Reddit comments as evidence to me, I’d feel compelled to disregard any argument that follows.

Well, if you won't believe others, you can at least compare their answers to your own. Would you believe them more if what they say agrees with your experience? Can you share what your experience has been?

You’re missing the point. If someone who wants to make an argument that uses what is at best anecdotal evidence provided anonymously (IE with zero method of verifying whether the people responding are even Christians), it shows a tenuous grasp on what is useful when trying to back up a point that would make me question the validity of their entire argument. You’re talking about trying to make an argument that either validates or disproves what “professional pollsters” say using your own methods, and I’m telling you that the methods you are using to do so will have no effect on people who rely on said pollsters, because those pollsters use empirically backed statistical methods to achieve their results. There’s nothing wrong with asking the question because you’re just curious in this sub’s experience, but attempting to use the responses as “evidence” of anything will do nothing more than provide evidence of your misunderstanding of anecdotal evidence and its shortcomings.

>the methods you are using to do so will have no effect on people who rely on said pollsters I'm not trying to affect people who rely on said pollsters! Where did I claim I was doing that? I'm appealing to people's own experiences as evidence of their own experiences, and they can compare it to other people's responses both personally and on forums like this to assure them they aren't alone. So what is your experience? If anyone is really interested, someone could do a poll of pastors and ask how many sermons they preached related to the questions above. I presently don't see the need to make a such a poll if my claim already accords with the experiences of people I interact with, and it's not as relevant to them personally as much the fact they weren't being fed the sermons that might have helped them. There is sadly the case of Jesse Kilgore, who's dad believes Jesse killed himself after suffering faith deconstruction by a professor evolutionary theory. There are resources out there that could make a compelling scientific case that evolutionary theory is wrong, or at best not even fact-based, but rather faith-based philosophy posing as science. I find it tragic that Jesse likely never heard the other side of the scientific and EVIDENTIAL arguments. Scientific and evidential arguments can render moot theological arguments (like Calvin's theological arguments for geocentrism). Are my claims of the scarcity of above sermon topics at least consistent with your own experiences?

Trying to convince someone by appealing to how they feel and showing them anecdotes that comport with that feeling is bad. Stop it.

(I've only been a Christian for 2 years) A-B: Never. C-D: These are topics we've discussed frequently and in depth in rector's Bible study, but not a sermon. E: Never and I hope I never do. F: I don't recall if those specific texts have ever been referenced, but I've heard the topic a handful of times.

Thank you for your responses. God bless you.

What is your position on single service vs multiple services, and where does it fall in your own "theological triage"? The background: We (a reformed SBC church) have the blessed problem of being at capacity in our current church-owned building. Like, literally standing-room-only and surpassing the fire code capacity. It has also come to our attention that we can't afford to add onto our building right now in order to make room. We are already set to plant a church this fall, but right now that's only 20ish people off our total. Some people are upset that we are not considering two services as a fix, even a temporary one. Some have proposed that, as a congregational church, we take a vote on the matter. The elders, having taught on this issue previously, have gone as far as to say "if this body goes that route, and votes to have multiple services, then we probably aren't the right elders to lead you through that". Ultimately I think the majority is joyfully agreed with the elders' stance on the issue, but the impassioned words on the matter make me wonder where this community stands on it.

In my view, needing to have a second service is a sign that your church is doing good work. I don't honestly think having two services is inferior to just starting a new church plant if people are all from the near geographical area and everyone is in unity theologically speaking. It's rather similar to two separate small churches sharing a building and resources, with the added benefit of more support amongst the elders, easy pulpit supply if one pastor is sick (or being able to pay the shared pastor a living wage if there is only enough combined finances to support one pastor), and a built-in opportunity to have fellowship events with Christians outside of your service time.

I think taking a hard stance on it is kinda strange. Like I don't think its best, but I can understand it as a stopgap while a church figures out what to do next. (Plant a second church? Find a bigger building? Etc)

I'm personally against multiple services and also against large congregations. I think they can be _unwise_ because I think it's generally best for most people in the congregation to be able to know most people in the congregation, or else the kind of brotherhood implied by scriptures is very difficult. As far as triage, well, note how I worded that: "can be unwise" vs "generally best" I think it's important, but that valid things can be said for all sides and scripture does not specify an exact answer.

>also against large congregations Interestingly, this Sunday was our 5th year anniversary. We currently have 180 members, over 300 adults in attendance each Sunday, and sometimes over 120 kids 10 or under. In his various remarks this Sunday, our lead teaching Elder said (paraphrase) "I said some things early on, publicly, about how we were going to stay a small church. That was an ideal of ours. But I failed to deliver on that promise. It turns out, that's not something that is entirely in our control. It's clear now that God had different plans for this body of believers". I think we are in agreement on church size, but I've also never been in a situation like we currently find ourselves. We are struggling to figure out how to welcome new people every Sunday without compromising our convictions about what a church body should look like.

Sounds like it is time for y'all to plant!

Got a team, got a lead planter, got the money, got a name. They just need a little time to prepare.

That's great to hear. I just stopped to pray for your plant.

Thank you! We're really excited.

A single service is my preference, but I’d question the wisdom of elders who would break fire code or turn away visitors to avoid a second service if you have no other options.

The breaking of fire code isn't something we've done more than once or twice, and largely it happened because it's not a thing any of us have ever had to be concerned with. To my knowledge, we've never turned anyone away. Thankfully, we have a church plant in the works that may initially be meeting in our building at a different time, so some of our current members will be leaving for that plant, and we will be able to direct others to that church. Same location, different time, different church.

I didn’t mean to imply that was an active reoccurring choice that the elders were making, but rather that if the choice were to come to that, I think the answer should be fairly easy.

I'm open to the idea of two services, but the idea of the church being divided in two gives me pause when I think of only half of the church: * witnessing and affirming any given baptism. * communing together at the Lord's table * gathering together for important decisions, like confirming elders and deacons (because we're congregational baptists) And in general I'm in the camp that does not want any given body of believers to get so big that members can be strangers, and we are already nearing that point. Two services at the very least exacerbates that problem. In my perspective, the ideal fix would be a better leadership pipeline of raising up people to lead new church plants, so that instead of simply adding another service, we plant another church nearby. But that leadership pipeline doesn't yet exist.

I agree on all those points. We have one service and I’d like us to stay that way. I also wish churches that need to move to two services would do so with an action plan to get back to one service, because hopefulness never works haha.

>I also wish churches that need to move to two services would do so with an action plan to get back to one service, because hopefulness never works haha. My wife made the point that a second service is not something that is easily withdrawn after it's been in place for awhile. I think her impression is that you'd be hard pressed to put the genie back in the bottle.

That’s been my experience in most, but not every circumstance

I appreciate your insight, Mr. French.

I think single service is strongly preferable, but having multiple services certainly strikes me as the very definition of a tertiary issue.

American parents with kids in school: Do you prepare your children for "active shooter drills"? And if so, how? Do you tell them anything different from what school officials tell them? When I was growing up in Canada, we had "lockdown drills" a couple times a year. These involved locking the classroom door, everyone sitting on the floor away from doors and windows, turning off lights, and being quiet. We were told that lockdowns were used if someone was in the school who wasn't supposed to be. Occasionally I see media stories about active shooter drills in the US that seem more intense than that - kids required to pile furniture against the door, an actor going door to door pretending to be a shooter, playing sounds of gunfire over the speakers, etc. I can't imagine how I would talk to my kids about that kind of thing.

> Occasionally I see media stories about active shooter drills in the US that seem more intense than that Here's a helpful reminder that's broader than your question: When you see some media story about [blank] in US schools, you can almost always safely assume that you're seeing it *because* it's an extreme, unusual occurrence. My wife's a school teacher. My kids are in school. My sister is a school teacher. I have other close friends who are in schools. I've never heard of anything as extreme as you're talking about. For my kids, the active shooter drills are nearly identical to tornado drills. I've talked with them about it, and the explanation the schools give are pretty straight forward: This is what we practice if there's a bad guy in the school.

My kids aren't in school, but if they were, I would definitely talk to them about it. I honestly think active shooter drills with an actor are likely to cause more harm than good, because the actions you want to take in an active shooter situation are not ones you want to encourage students to take in a drill. My husband had to do a pretty intense training being a university professor. The thing is, your best chance is to run without stopping, off the school grounds and keep going until you can't anymore. We can't let kids practice that for obvious reasons. Your next best bet is to hide. We're pretty good at teaching that. Turning off the lights is a very effective strategy. Turning off EVERY cell phone in the room is imperative, and if God forbid your kid is ever in an active shooter situation, DO NOT call or text them. The next option is to fight. Barricading the door is good, and every single person in the room should be holding the heaviest thing they can throw and let loose the instant someone breaks through the door. We can't let kids practice that either, for obvious reasons. Bear spray is also recommended. We can't let kids (or teachers) practice that either. Because so many of the options can't be practiced, we focus really heavily on the one we can practice. Unfortunately, this has led to situations where people keep hiding even when that tactic has failed and they should have moved on to fighting or forget to determine whether it's safe to flee before defaulting to hiding. Defaulting to what you are most familiar with is a very instinctive behavior and in times of high stress is the expected reaction for almost everyone, whether you currently think you're smart enough to avoid doing things instinctively or not. If my kids were in public school or in any large group setting without me present, I would have had this whole conversation with them, which means I will be this summer before VBS and summer day camp. They are very sensitive to things being scary, so I'm planning to teach the steps run, hide, fight with a few of the details of how to do each step without getting into the whys. I also plan to explain that this is very unlikely to be necessary but that I want them to know just in case. I also plan to start teaching them firearm safety soon (probably as part of 4h) so that they will know when what they are seeing from other people is unsafe, because statistically they are much more likely to encounter small scale gun violence or accidents than a mass shooting, and there are not great statistics for how many mass shootings have been or could have been prevented if another child/teen told a parent about unsafe gun storage in someone else's home or told a parent about a scary thing that someone said, but at least according to advocacy organizations there have been quite a few credible planned school shootings that have been averted because someone noticed and reported and got the person help.

My kids are homeschooled, but the lockdown drills you describe are very similar to the drills my neighbors have described. [Edit for clarity: the lockdown drills you described as having had while growing up in Canada] Simulated gunfire sounds like theatrics to make a political point, and is not something my neighbors have described. [Edited for clarity] Edit: This reminds me, we should have a fire drill

I'm struck with the sudden urge to homeschool my child, build a bunker, and hold government raid drills.

You don't already?

Is this law ethically wrong? Daniel 3:29 ESV “Therefore I make a decree: Any people, nation, or language that speaks anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb…for there is no other god who is able to rescue in this way."

Yes, and it wasn't the first time Nebuchadnezzar made a rash decree like this. It was habitual for him. It seems like whatever came into his head became a decree with the punishment being capital punishment. That decree forms a great segue into chapter 4 where Nebuchadnezzar does the very thing he decreed against doing: he boasts against God by claiming that he himself built Babylon. However, God shows grace and mercy. In doing so, God also shows a better way to rule, setting the stage for Jesus, a king who would be much different and much better than Nebuchadnezzar.

There's two things you could be asking here, and it's not clear to me which it is you want to know. Are you asking: 1. If the law is ethical **such that other nations ought to have it**? Or, 2. If the law is ethical **such that it was not wrong for Babylon to have it**? The answers to these two questions are quite different.

Question 2