100 Sermon Illustrations on Personal Responsibility

I gave you life; but cannot live it for you. I can teach you things; but I cannot make you learn. I can give you directions; but I cannot always be there to lead you. I can take you to church; but I cannot make you believe. I can teach you right from wrong; but I cannot always decide for you. I can teach you to be a friend; but I cannot make you one. I can advise you about friends; but I cannot choose them for you. I can teach you about sex; but I cannot keep you pure. I can tell you the facts of life; but I cannot build your reputation. I can tell you about "strong drink" but I cannot say no for you. I can warn you about drugs; but I cannot prevent you from using them. I can tell you about lofty goals; but I cannot achieve them for you. I can warn you about sin; but I cannot make your morals. I can love you as a child; but I cannot place you in God's family. I can pray for you; but I cannot make you walk with God. I can teach you about Jesus; but I cannot make Him your Savior. I can teach you to obey; but I cannot make Jesus your Lord. I can tell you how to live; but I cannot give you eternal life. So Is the Devil The early Methodist evangelist, George Whitefield, was one of America's most effective preachers, who won thousands to Christ. He was vigorously opposed by Charles Chauncy, pastor of Boston's famous First Church. Rev. Chauncy objected to the idea of instantaneous conversions and to the emotional excitement caused by Whitefield's ministry. In 1744, on Whitefield's second visit to Boston, the two met. Rev. Chauncy said, "So you have returned, have you?" "Yes," replied the evangelist, "in the service of the Lord." "I am sorry to hear it," Rev. Chauncy said bluntly. "So is the devil," retorted Whitefield. The devil hates any preacher who fearlessly and effectively sounds the gospel trumpet.

"He that made the soul hath most right to dwell in it, it is a most curious house, of God's own framing, and there ought he to dwell. But he will not enter by force and violence, but by consent; he expecteth love to give up the keys, (Rev. iii. 20)—'Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him.' Why should Christ stand at the door and knock, and ask leave to enter into his own house? He hath right enough to enter, only he waiteth till we open to him." Here our author admirably expresses the Lord's respect to the nature and constitution which he has impressed upon man. Inanimate matter obeys the divine law by force, but a human being can only obey God with his will, since unwilling obedience would be no obedience at all. There can be no such thing as unwilling love, unwilling trust, or unwilling holiness. Voluntariness enters into the essence of a moral act. Having, therefore, so fashioned man, the Lord doth not forget this fact, but ever treats man as a free agent. The divine compulsions of his grace are only such as are congruous with a willing and willing creature. Man is sweetly led to repentance and faith, and by mighty arguments drawn to trust and love the Lord Jesus. We do not surrender our hearts to Jesus otherwise than with our own full and free consent. We are right glad to become his disciples, and to be taught the way of service. He does not break in like a burglar, but he enters the castle of the soul like a conqueror to whom the governor in all lowliness hands the keys. My heart, it is hard for a theologian to explain how grace overcomes the will, and yet never violates it, and yet thou dost understand it perfectly by experience. Christ's love wooed thee and won thee, and led thee captive, and yet never was a will more free than thine when thou wast altogether bound to thy Beloved.

Mention is made of two travellers that walked together to the same city, whereof the one was wise, the other foolish. And when they came where two ways met, the one broad and fair, the other strait and foul, the fool would needs go the broader way: but the wise man told him, though the narrow way seemed foul, yet it was safe, and would bring them to a good lodging; and the other, seeming fair, was very dangerous, and brought them to a desperate inn. Yet because the fool would not yield to any reason, but believed what he saw with his eyes, rather than what he heard with his ears, the wise man, for company's sake, was contented to go the worse way; and being both robbed by thieves, detained in their company, and at last apprehended with the robbers, and carried before the magistrate, these two began to accuse one another, and each to excuse himself. The wise man said, he told his fellow the dangers of that broad way; and therefore he only was to be blamed because he would not yield unto his counsel: but the fool had so much wit to reply, that he was a very silly creature, and knew neither the way, nor the dangers of the way; and therefore he was to be excused, and the wise man to be condemned because he would follow such a fool's counsel. Whereupon the judge, having heard them both, condemned them both,—the fool because he refused to follow the counsel of the wise, and the wise man because he would not forsake the fool's company. Spencer.

A listless youth approached some fishermen, expressing a wish for a basket of fish. An old fisherman advised him to cast a line for himself. He did so, and soon found his wish gratified.

Charles Simeon was summoned to the bedside of a dying brother, who reproved him thus, "I am dying and you never warned me of the state in which I was, and of the great danger I was in or neglecting the salvation of my soul."—"Nay my brother," said Simeon; "but I took every reasonable opportunity of bringing the subject of religion before you, and frequently alluded to it in my letters."—"Yes," said the dying man "but you never came to me, closed the door and took me by the collar of my coat, and told me I was unconverted, and that, if I died in that state, I should be lost; and now I am dying, and, but for God's grace, I might have been forever undone." Simeon never forgot he scene.

A young man convicted of murder was visited in his cell by his mother; when he said to her, "If it had not been for you, I should never have been here!" She replied, "I'm sure I never told you to do any harm." He rejoined, "I'm sure you never told me to do any good."

A certain man who would never go to church, when he heard the bell, would say to his wife, "Go thou to church, and pray for thee and me." One night, he dreamed that both he and his wife were dead, and they knocked together at heaven's gate for entrance. St. Peter (by the legend) is the porter, and suffered the wife to enter in, but kept the husband out, answering him, "She is gone in both for herself and thee. As thy wife went to church for thee, so she must go to heaven for thee."

A German spoke as follows at a temperance-meeting: "I shall tell you how it was. I put my hand on my head: there was von big pain. Then I put mine hand on my pody; and there was another. There was very much pains in all my pody. Then I put mine hand in my pocket; and there was nothing. Now there is no more pain in my head. The pains in my pody are all gone away. I put mine hands in my pocket, and there ish twenty dollars. So I shall shtay mit de temperance."

It would not be easy to calculate the good that might be done, were true religion more prevalent among our medical men, who have constant access to bedsides, which the pious minister, however anxious and willing, is sometimes not permitted to approach.

Dr. — was visiting a gentleman who appeared very much agitated on being informed by him of the nature of his complaint, which Dr. — observing, he said to him, "Sir, you seem very much distressed about your body; do you feel the same anxiety about your soul?" The gentleman was extremely irritated at the question, and the more so as he was a clergyman; but he subsequently thought of it, and told Dr. — that he dated the origin of his anxious concern for salvation to that remark.

A Christian minister, in Yorkshire, had long felt convinced of his sinfulness, in neglecting to converse on spiritual topics with a beloved child. She was brought to the verge of the grave, and was, in his apprehension, an unconverted child. His feelings were painfully distressing; for he felt forcibly the importance of his duty in apprising her of her danger; but till nearly her dying hour he continued to experience the backwardness he had long felt. Repeatedly did he enter her room to address her, and unwilling to add the weight of mental anxiety to her bodily affliction, he as often retired without accomplishing his object. His conscience pained him, for he feared that his misjudging fondness might contribute to her eternal ruin. At length, after repeated petitions for Divine assistance, he once more approached her bed, and pressing her hand, said, in broken words, "Has an eternal state, my dearest daughter, ever engaged your attention?" This was all he could utter. To his astonishment and joy, she immediately replied, "Yes, father; under a sermon that you preached from Romans iii. upon man's lost condition, I was convinced that I was in a state of condemnation. Since that time I have been unable to procure any consolation,

# 112. COURA

Boys and girls in ancient Greece believed that there were three fates, in the form of three women seated above the clouds, who spun the thread of everyone's life, and cut it off with shears when death came. We no longer believe in such things, but we still speak of fate. Boys and girls sometimes say that they are fated to fail in examinations, and so think they cannot help failing. But that is no more true than the belief about the three women which the Grecian boys and girls held. As a matter of fact, nothing outside of us makes evil things happen to us. We make our own fates. Or shall I say, we are our own fates? Someone has said, "Our fates lie asleep along the roadside until we waken them." That is very true, as I think I can show you by a story. Not long ago I was riding on a train up through Vermont. A boy came into the car selling papers, books, candy, fruit, and other things. There was a boy opposite me in the smoking-car who wanted to appear very smart and manly. He was smoking a cigar and looking very much traveled. The trainboy offered him a book which had a bad title and worse pictures in it. But in front of this young chap sat two bright-faced, innocent-looking boys who did not pretend to be anything but what they were. The trainboy offered them salted peanuts. In front of those boys sat a fine, clean-looking, well-bred man. The trainboy offered him a good, wholesome book. Now, three fates were in that car in the form of that trainboy, and each person invited his own kind of fate by what he was in himself. That is true all through life. Be true, and you attract truth. Be evil, and you attract evil. Your fate is what you are.

This fine verse is from Canon Farrar:

“I am only one, But I am one. I can not do everything, But I can do something, What I can do I ought to do And what I ought to do By the grace of God I will do.” (Text.)

Some twenty years ago a United States naval officer conceived the idea that if vessels eastbound took one ocean path and vessels westbound another, collisions would be avoided. Steamship lines eagerly fell in with the suggestion, and the result is that ingoing and outgoing liners may follow well-defined lanes of traffic. Separate paths are laid out for vessels of high power. Slow vessels, freighters and the like, have their special steaming zones. Since that time no collision on the high seas between two liners has occurred.

If every man would be equally careful to keep in his own territory moral collisions and many of life’s catastrophes would be avoided.

Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, has an ordinance requiring the photographs of known habitual drunkards to be placed in all the saloons in the city, with a notice forbidding saloon-keepers to sell liquor to them, on penalty of losing their licenses.

This new sort of rogues’ gallery is growing rapidly, but one addition to it was made voluntarily. It is the photograph of a poor fellow who begged to have it placed with the others, as his only chance of freedom from the tyranny of strong drink.

Set off against this pathetic story, how inhuman seem all the arguments for the licensing of saloons! The pitiable victims of the saloon-keeper would gladly escape his snare, but usually they can not. The insidious liquid has robbed them of their willpower. It has planted in their blood a horrible desire which nothing but more alcohol can satisfy.

Sorry. Government programs can't undo most of the ill effects of family breakdown.

President Clinton repeatedly says that, as a society, we need to "invest" in the future and especially in our children. This is understandably popular. As a people, Americans rightly feel ashamed that a nation so rich still has so many poor children. And most parents constantly worry about their children's futures. The president's rhetoric reaches these anxieties, which may be one reason that his latest personal scandal hasn't yet dented his approval ratings. He seems to care about things that matter. The trouble is that the rhetoric, though appealing, isn't believable.

It is not that government can do no good for children. It has enhanced their material well-being. Poor children almost certainly better today in terms of housing, health care, diets and schooling than ever before. This may seem hard to believe, given the high official poverty rate for children: 21 percent in 1996. But this familiar statistic is misleading, because it counts only people's cash income and ignores food stamps, Medicaid and other non-cash government support. These reduce poverty by a third, to 14 percent.

The President's Council of Economic Advisers recently reviewed studies of children's well-being and found steady gains. Less than 2 percent of children go hungry in a year because their families can't afford food. Children from families below the poverty line are visiting doctors more often; for those in "fair or poor health," the average number of visits rose from 11 a year in the late 1980s to 14 in the Housing has improved. In 1978, about 9 percent of children lived in crowded housing (more than one person per room); by the 1990s, this was 6 percent.

But these material gains have not prevented social breakdown: neighborhoods with too much crime, an explosion of single-parent families, the glorification of instant gratification. Government hasn't generally done what Clinton thinks it ought to do. It has not been able to "invest," in the sense that what's spent today will make poor recipients more productive, self-reliant and responsible people tomorrow. The latest evidence of this comes from the Comprehensive Child Development Program (CCDP).

Created by Congress in 1988, the CCDP was modeled after a Chicago program called the Beethoven project. The idea was to provide intensive social services to poor mothers for the first five years of their children's lives. They would get everything from parenting classes to job training to drug counseling. This would make them more competent parents; their children would benefit. The federal program was intended as a demonstration to see whether this approach could work nationally. By taking programs shown to work on a small scale so it was said and making them widely available, the plan responded to complaints by children's advocates that government had never seriously attacked child poverty.

Under the CCDP, young mothers received home visits every two weeks from "case managers," who taught parenting skills, advised on personal problems and identified useful government services. About 4,400 families were enrolled in the study. Half received the extra counseling; half (the "control" group) didn't. All were below the government's poverty line; 58 percent had not finished high school; 35 percent had had their first child before 18. Annual spending was high: $15,768 per family. This amount (equal to or greater than their cash income) covered only the extra counseling. It excluded other government payments – for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid – that families also received.

And the result? Here's what Abt Associates, a research firm, concluded: "CCDP did not produce any important positive effects on participating families." Many mothers did make progress. Some went to school. Some got jobs. Probably many became better parents. But the same progress - or lack of it - occurred among the control group that didn't get extra counseling.

The similarities are stunning. After five years, 40 percent of the mothers in the program had jobs; so did 41 percent of the mothers in the control group. Their weekly wages ($245 and $239) were almost identical. Similarly, 68 percent of families in both groups received food stamps. The results for children were also the same. At the age of 5, the children in the program scored 81.1 on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; children not in the program scored 81.0. Children in both groups visited doctors at the same rate; there were no differences in behavioral problems.

To use Clinton's language: the return on this investment for society was zero. It was a waste of money. This does not mean that the experiment was a mistake. Demonstration projects aim to show what works and what doesn't. The theory behind the program seemed humane and workable. The experiment cost $326 million over nine years. It is now being discontinued. Perhaps we have saved ourselves billions. But the broad results also suggest two obvious lessons about the rhetoric of "investing."

The first is that WHAT PEOPLE DO FOR THEMSELVES MATTERS MORE THAN WHAT GOVERNMENT TRIES TO DO FOR THEM. Government should provide social services and income support for the desperately poor. But these are more expressions of collective decency than "investments." And there is a dilemma. A society that is too free with its decency will promote dependency. It will induce those who could do for themselves to let someone else do for them.

The second lesson is THAT THE "INVESTMENTS" THAT TRULY COUNT FOR CHILDREN COME FROM PARENTS: love and security, discipline and instruction, a sense of worth. Being rich is no guarantee that parents will provide these; being poor is no indicator that they won't. But large federal programs, whatever their benefits, can't undo parental failure. Nor can they offset the ill effects of family breakdown. To think otherwise sanctions the behaviors that put children at risk.

If society can "invest" its way out of social problems, then individuals are relieved of responsibility. Marriage loses its social value. Young men can father and abandon children. Mothers and fathers can easily leave troubled marriages. Americans once embraced a moral code that had strong taboos against these behaviors. Though often violated, the taboos imposed useful restraints. PERHAPS WE NEED OLD MORALITY MORE THAN NEW INVESTMENT.

MOST OVERRATED ADAGE: "If anything can go wrong, it will" was well known in the fifties and sixties, when it passed for just another bit of clever bulletin-board wisdom. All that changed in 1977, when an enterprising fellow named Arthur Bloch came out with a small book of sayings that he grouped under the rubric MURPHY'S LAW. Bloch's blockbuster touched off a commercial frenzy (sequels, calendars, T-shirts) over little more than a misunderstood idea that everyone would have been better off without.

Even Murphy himself - Capt. Edward A. Murphy, Jr., an Air Force development engineer - claimed we got it all wrong. His field experience led him to conclude, ruefully but logically, that "if there are two or more ways to do something, and one of those ways can result in catastrophe, then someone will do it." That is, if it is physically possible to break your foot with an air bag or drown in two inches of water, some idiot will find a way to do it.

Unfortunately, the American public seized upon Bloch's adage as the ultimate "get-out-of-fail-free" card. No more responsibility, no more guilt. The fallout has been nothing less than catastrophic. Aside from inspiring other guilt-free mantras such as "Don't worry, be happy" and "[Stuff] happens," what began as merely a funny saying turned the work ethic on its ear and made accountability a dead letter. You mean you left the children in the car with the windows rolled up? Yeah, I hate it when that happens.

The late comedian Flip Wilson used to get laughs when, by way of explaining his misdeeds, he would say "the Devil made me do it!"

Well, unfortunately, our culture no longer believes in the Devil, so it has to look elsewhere to find explanations for the things men do. Increasingly, evolution has emerged as the explanation of choice -- but it's an explanation that leaves a lot to be desired.

Psychologists, biologists and anthropologists have all taken to explaining human behavior in purely Darwinian terms. In the past few years, scientists have argued that behavior such as jealousy, altruism, and even infanticide, have their origins in our ancestors' struggle to survive and pass on their genes.

The newest addition to the list is rape. In their book, A Natural History of Rape, to be published this week, Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, argue that rape is "natural." That is, it occurs in nature and can be explained in biological terms.

The authors reject the view, best represented by Susan Brownmiller's 1975 book, Against Our Will, that rape is "an act of aggression, designed to intimidate women."

Instead, they contend that rape has its origins in what could be called the "Darwinist imperative," to reproduce and pass on one's genes.

According to the authors, rape is what they call "an adaptive reproductive strategy." In other words, males resort to rape when all other efforts to attract a mate fail. They cite examples of rape among animals and point to the fact that most rape victims are of child-bearing age. They conclude that rape must be motivated, however unconsciously, by the desire to impregnate.

Not surprisingly, feminists are in an uproar. Thornhill has been the object of protests wherever he speaks. And in the latest issue of Time magazine, feminist writer Barbara Ehrenreich takes the pair to task.

It's mildly amusing, I must say, to watch the feminists in their uproar. Whether they realize it or not, they're in a logical bind. Most are avowed evolutionists, and yet here evolution is being used to justify the exploitation of women. They are impaled on the sword of their own worldview.

The truth is that the whole evolutionist idea that we are manipulated by our genes is nonsense. Evolution can't explain most human behavior, especially those traits that Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature," like altruism and mercy.

No, if you really want to understand what makes us tick, the only sensible answer resides in a Christian worldview. As I wrote in my recent book, "How Now Shall We Live," this worldview centers on three key ideas: creation, fall, and redemption.

Since we are made in the image of God, we are capable of acts like kindness and mercy, which reflect the nature of God. Since we are also fallen, we are also capable of great brutality, such as rape.

Books like A Natural History of Rape purport to explain reality with reference to the biblical worldview. But, they end up demonstrating that only the biblical worldview offers an explanation of reality that makes sense - and that's a message our neighbors need to hear.

Because, in the end, "evolution made me do it," not only isn't as funny as Wilson's line, it's also not true.

___________________

Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Q: I grew up hearing about the "age of accountability." What is the biblical basis for that principle?

- Randy Bishop, Lombard, Illinois

A: This term refers to the time when individuals become mature enough to be morally responsible for their acts and consciously responsive to God's grace. The term is not found in the Bible, but (like worshiping on Sunday) it is inferred from various Scriptures that seem to speak to the early spiritual consciousness of children and their accountability before God.

Deuteronomy 1:37-40 speaks of God's judgment on the children of Israel who were excluded from the Promised Land because of their rebellion. In this context the Lord says: "And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad - they will enter the land" (NIV). This does not mean that these children were innocent; they were included in the provision God made for the Day of Atonement. But their level of accountability was directly related to their moral awareness. We gain further insight into how God deals with children through the example of the young boy Samuel. When the Lord first speaks to him, he mistakes the voice of God for that of Eli for, we are told, "Samuel did not yet know the Lord" (1 Sam. 3:7). With Jeremiah, God's call came even before he was born, but his response was after he had grown to become an understanding child (Jer. 1:4-7). In the New Testament, we are told that Jesus himself "grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men" (Luke 2:52).

Some Christians have based their teaching about the age of accountability on Jesus' encounter with the teachers of the Law when he was 12 years old. Doubtless, this was an important moment in Jesus' development, perhaps his bar mitzvah when, as a Jewish young man, he would be recognized as fully responsible to participate in the worship of the community. But there is no reason to assume that 12 is the proper age of accountability for all young people any more than we should think that 30 is the requisite age for baptism.

Given the paucity of biblical references on the matter, Christians have differed on the fitting age for full initiation into the life of the church. For those who practice infant baptism, this is a question of when confirmation and first Communion should be received. Thomas Aquinas thought that this experience should be postponed until "the age of discretion," which the Council of Trent located between the ages of 7 and 12. Puritans required children baptized in infancy to "own the covenant" at an "accountable age" and generally forbade admitting children to Communion before the age of 14. The Book of Common Prayer requires baptized infants to be instructed in the Christian faith as soon as they "shall be able to learn."

For those who hold that baptism should be reserved for believers only, the "age of accountability" is important for determining when one is capable of truly repenting and embracing Christ in wholehearted discipleship. Historically, most churches that practice believers' baptism have emphasized the adult character of this decision, making baptism a postpuberty rite. In some baptistic circles, however, the age for baptism has steadily declined so that many churches are practicing a kind of "toddler baptism" with little theological or biblical warrant.

The "age of accountability" raises several important spiritual and pastoral concerns: First, we should not impose an arbitrary "age of accountability." God works sovereignly in the lives of all persons made in his image. Parents and pastors should be sensitive and prayerful in dealing with each child individually, encouraging every evident "step toward Jesus," while never manipulating for premature decisions.

Second, children, no less than adults, are sinners in need of a Savior. The orthodox doctrine of original sin cannot be squared with the modern myth of infant innocence. While it is right to call children to faith and repentance in Christ, we should respect the mystery of how the Holy Spirit draws each child of God to the Father. Infants who die before the age of accountability are in the hands of a holy and loving God. The Bible nowhere teaches infant damnation, and we can believe that God's election of grace extends to those "who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word" (Westminster Confession, 10.3).

Third, we need to develop a proper theology of children. Regardless of the debate over infant baptism, the Bible teaches that the children of believing parents do stand in a special providential relationship to the people and promises of God (1 Cor. 7:14). John Tombes, a seventeenth-century Baptist, spoke of the privileged status of such children who are "born in the bosom of the church, of godly parents, who by prayers, instruction, and example, will undoubtedly educate them in the true faith of Christ."

____________

Timothy George is dean of Beeson Divinity School, Samford University, and senior adviser at Christianity Today.

Copyright © 1999 Christianity Today.

March 1, 1999 Vol. 43, No. 3, Page 62

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #3094]

*

Sometimes you have to wonder just who is funding scientific studies these days. There has to be some explanation for all the research on bizarre subjects.

Like the study that came out recently in the journal PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, which purports to show that taller women are more career-oriented and less motherly than short women. I kid you not. Britain's Sunday TIMES summed up the study this way: “The taller a woman is, the less maternal her personality.... Taller women aim for fewer children, and put off having their first for longer, the research found. But they set more store by a career than shorter women, and are more competitive.”

This is not because tall women have trouble finding dates, the researchers assure us. It's because tall women have more testosterone than shorter women. Well, they didn't actually test to see if that were the case, but they think it's true. Go figure.

I think it was around this point that I really started to wonder about the researchers.

Meanwhile another team of scientists has discovered a possible biological reason for infidelity among women. According to the journal HORMONES AND BEHAVIOR -- there is such a journal -- women feel more or less attracted to their romantic partners according to the time of the month. It seems that women prefer different kinds of men at different points during their cycle, which means, says one researcher, that “commitment to long-term partners falters ... [or] strengthens” at these particular times.

What does all this mean? Wendell Cantrell, one of the stellar graduates of our Centurions program, provides this useful summary:

“For single men -- stay away from tall women if you prefer a large brood and a stay-at-home mom.

“Fathers -- you can determine the masculinity of your son-in-law by determining when ... [your daughter likes] certain men.

“Husbands -- beware of your wife's activities during the second week of her cycle.”

All of this would be hysterically funny if it were not so disturbing. You see, the trouble with studies like these is that they provide just one more opportunity for people to shift the blame for anything they do. This time, it lets them blame their biology.

Remember the so-called “gay gene” study? It was eventually debunked, but that did not matter. The study had already been so widely publicized in the press that many people still believe that homosexuality is entirely a matter of genetics.

It's possible that studies like these new ones could provide the same justification for adultery. Anytime a scientific study gives us a convenient excuse for doing what we want, we tend to latch onto it, whether the study is problematic or not -- or absurd like these.

I am not saying that biology has nothing at all to do with our behavior. Of course it has an effect, and that effect deserves to be carefully studied like any other scientific subject. I am simply saying that biology is not the only factor, and that we need to remember that the process of civilizing our societies and building character involves controlling impulses, whether they are biologically induced or otherwise. No society can be healthy in which individuals do not take responsibility for their own misbehavior.

________

Copyright (c) 2006 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was added to HolwickID #11681]

Recently, I saw a cartoon that demonstrated how people don't like to take responsibility. It was a Peanuts cartoon, and it showed Peppermint Patty talking to Charlie Brown. She said, “Guess what, Chuck. The first day of school, and I got sent to the principal's office. It was your fault, Chuck.”

He said, “My fault? How could it be my fault? Why do you say everything is my fault?”

She said, “You're my friend, aren't you, Chuck? You should have been a better influence on me.”

Somehow, we think that someone else is responsible.

Jennifer Dawn Langston, 27, of Cabot, Pennsylvania, admits she had been drinking and was talking on the phone while driving when she crashed and killed a man and left his wife in a permanent coma. As a condition of her probation, she is required to keep photos of the couple in her wallet at all times.

But Langston balked at the picture Glenn Clark's family provided her: it shows him lying dead in his coffin. Tough, says Butler County Judge George Hancher; she must carry the photo “as provided” by the family. “That's where she put him,” said Clark's mother. “It's what I don't want her to forget.” Mark Bergstrom, executive director of the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, says, “Certain cases just seem to cry out” for such “shaming,” but such a sentence is rare in the state.

__________

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #25719]

The sign "The Buck Stops Here" that was on President Truman's desk in his White House office was made in the Federal Reformatory at El Reno, Oklahoma. Fred M. Canfil, then United States Marshal for the Western District of Missouri and a friend of Mr. Truman, saw a similar sign while visiting the Reformatory and asked the Warden if a sign like it could be made for President Truman. The sign was made and mailed to President on October 2, 1945. Approximately 2-1/2" x 13" in size and mounted on walnut base, the painted glass sign has the words "I'm From Missouri" on the reverse side. It appeared at different times on his desk until late in his administration.

The saying "the buck stops here" derives from the slang expression "pass the buck" which means passing the responsibility on to someone else. The latter expression is said to have originated with the game of poker, in which a marker or counter, frequently in frontier days a knife with a buckhorn handle, was used to indicate the person whose turn it was to deal. If the player did not wish to deal he could pass the responsibility by passing the "buck," as the counter came to be called, to the next player.(1)

On more than one occasion President Truman referred to the desk sign in public statements. For example, in an address at the National War College on December 19, 1952, Mr. Truman said, "You know, it's easy for the Monday morning quarterback to say what the coach should have done, after the game is over. But when the decision is up before you -- and on my desk I have a motto which says 'The Buck Stops Here' -- the decision has to be made." In his farewell address to the American people given in January 1953, President Truman referred to this concept very specifically in asserting that, "The President -- whoever he is -- has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job.

The sign has been displayed at the Library since 1957.

________

(1) Mitford M. Mathews, ed., A Dictionary of Americanisms on Historical Principles (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1951), I, pages 198-199.

"I am only one; but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something. I will not refuse to do the something I can do."

-- Edward Everett Hale

"Don't be afraid to give your best to what seemingly are small jobs. Every time you conquer one it makes you that much stronger. If you do the little jobs well, the big ones tend to take care of themselves."

-- Dale Carnegie

"If a man is called to be a streetsweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause and say, here lived a great streetsweeper who did his

job well."

-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Desire is the key to motivation, but it's the determination and commitment to an unrelenting pursuit of your goal - a commitment to excellence - that will enable you to attain the success you seek."

-- Mario Andretti

"The ultimate victory in competition is derived from the inner satisfaction of knowing that you have done your best and that you have gotten the most out of what you had to give."

-- Howard Cosell

"Work as if you were to live a hundred years. Pray as if you were to die tomorrow."

-- Benjamin Franklin, QOTM 3/6/02

"People never improve unless they look to some standard or example higher and better than themselves."

-- Bryon Edwards (1809-1894), editor and theologian, B&P 6/13/02

"There is a time in every man's education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better, for worse, as his portion; that though the wide universe is full of good, no kernel of nourishing corn can come to him but through his toil bestowed on that plot of ground which is given to him to till."

-- Ralph Waldo Emerson, QOTM 6/14/02

Although the saying “God helps those who help themselves” sounds pious and spiritual, it is not in the Bible. Its earliest appearance (around 620-564 B.C.) seems to be from one of Aesop’s fables — Hercules and the Waggoner.

A Waggoner was once driving a heavy load along a very muddy way. At last he came to a part of the road where the wheels sank half-way into the mire, and the more the horses pulled, the deeper sank the wheels. So the Waggoner threw down his whip, and knelt down and prayed to Hercules the Strong. “O Hercules, help me in this my hour of distress,” quoth he. But Hercules appeared to him, and said:

“Tut, man, don’t sprawl there. Get up and put your shoulder to the wheel.”

The gods help them that help themselves.

The saying later appeared in several Greek plays written by Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides. Algernon Sidney (1623-1683), an English political theorist, first worded the proverb in the way we now use it. About a century later, it found its way into Benjamin Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanac.

The sentiment is very popular among deists and other Christian and Christian-like sects who believe in a remote, hands-off God. It might even be said to be the core of the gospel as preached by Arminianism. Initiative and hard work are common themes among people who believe that we must come to God of our own volition to be saved and continue to perform good works to maintain salvation.

However, this is not the gospel of the Bible. Scripture is clear that in our original, sinful state we cannot seek God on our own (Romans 3:10-18). God chose us before we accepted Him (Romans 8:29-30), and once saved, we are secure in that salvation forever (John 10:27-29). There is no part of salvation that we can initiate or work toward. When it comes to salvation, we cannot help ourselves.

For the saved, however, the proverb has a little more merit. Second Thessalonians 3:10 admonished that the church should not give aid to those who can work but refuse to. In John 21:6, Jesus promised the disciples a great harvest of fish — once they threw the net into the water.

A better version of the proverb would be “God blesses those who obey.” The original proverb infers that God will help those engaged in good, beneficial things — and certainly getting a cart pulled out of the mud applies. But God does not promise His followers an easy life. In fact, He promises hardship (John 16:33; Acts 14:22). The blessing Jesus promises in return is the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17). The Holy Spirit will not take away every struggle, but He will lead us to truth (John 16:13), seal us as God’s (Ephesians 1:13-14), gift us with the ability to help others in the church (1 Corinthians 12:7), and give us wisdom when faced with persecution (Mark 13:11).

“God helps those who help themselves” seems true for the simple reason that things tend to get done more if we get down and do them. Our obedience to God produces fruit. The more modern version of this proverb in American Christian culture is “It’s easier to steer a moving car,” meaning, God can lead us more easily if we just start working for Him and stop talking about it. To an extent this is also true. Another is “Join in where God is already working,” or, don’t start something new when there is work to be done with other, established ministries. But if that were always true, this ministry would never have been created. So while all these sayings have some merit, none are gospel truth. Our salvation and God’s love are not dependent on our works. However, God has prepared good works for us (Ephesians 2:10) and does bless our obedience to Him.

My friend Trisha's eyes filled with tears. Over the summer, she had discovered that her 15-year-old son, Skip, was experimenting with alcohol and cigarettes. She had tried talking to him, grounding him, and forbidding him to go out with a certain group of friends, but those restrictions weren't making much of an impact on him.

"What's the most important thing to Skip?" I asked. "Football," she answered without hesitation. Then I had a brainstorm. "Doesn't Skip have to sign a contract with the football coach that says he will not drink or smoke or use drugs while he's on the football team? And don't you, as parents, have to sign it, too?" Trisha nodded. "What about telling him that if he drinks or smokes, you'll inform his coach?" Trisha was silent. "I'm not quite sure I could turn him in," she said. "He'd be kicked off the team. I know I should, but I don't know if I could."

Allowing our children to experience the consequences of their actions is one of the hardest decisions parents make. But while every parent has an arsenal of discipline techniques to draw from, experts agree that allowing logical, age-appropriate consequences can solve most disciplinary problems.

"For everything we do in life, there are consequences," writes child psychiatrist Dale M. Jacobs, in "Zip Your Lips" (Element). "If we don't pay the electric bill, our lights will be turned off. If we do a job poorly, or don't show up, we may be fired. Parents need to allow children to experience the consequences of their choices in order to learn responsibility."

For Skip, being kicked off the team may teach him more than his mom's words or actions. Not only will Skip learn that his decision to smoke and drink has negative results, he will see that his parents are fully committed to dealing with him seriously. The next time he's tempted to go against their wishes, he'll know that doing so will result in more negative consequences.

It's important to point out that consequences are not the same as punishment. By grounding and restricting Skip, Trisha was trying to punish him. But punishment deals with past misdeeds, not future behavior. Biblically, the word punishment is not even tied to parenting. Discipline is the word the Bible attaches to good parenting; its definition is to correct behavior and instruct for the future.

The concept of logical consequences also mirrors how God parents us. In essence, it is a respect for an individual's free will, rather than an attempt to control another person. Best-selling author Philip Yancey calls this aspect of God "the miracle of restraint." In "The Jesus I Never Knew" (Zondervan) he writes, "I never sense Jesus twisting a person's arm. Rather, he stated the consequences of a choice, then threw the decision back to the other party." After the Fall, God's discipline of Adam and Eve is based on the consequences of their actions.

Jay Kesler, author of "Emotionally Healthy Teenagers" (Word), applies this aspect of God to parenting when he writes, "In all areas of God's creation, He allows His creatures to mature and function on their own. To participate with God in His creation we must, therefore, prepare our children for independence, for that is consistent with His plan. In a sense, we are carrying out His will and His intentions when we do so."

Using consequences with children is an effective way to shape their behavior. But it takes some thought to make consequences work.

GET SMART ABOUT CHILD DEVELOPMENT

For consequences to mean something to your children, you need to know what your child can and can't understand. Education consultant Kim Salch says, "If you're feeling frustrated about an unwanted behavior, be sure that your expectations are age-appropriate." You can read about child development, observe other kids, ask seasoned parents for advice, or find a mentor to figure out what your child is ready for. Look for patterns in your child's behavior. What triggers the problem? Hunger? Fatigue? Solve the problem and you may change the behavior.

Looking back, I regret that I sometimes handled situations as behavioral rather than developmental. When my then-4-year-old suddenly hated going to sleep, I reacted to these nighttime upsets with my own upset rather than realizing it was part of a stage. She grew out of that stage, but I still feel sorry that I didn't think of another approach, such as a longer bedtime story or extra snuggling. I expected too much, too soon.

MAKE SURE THE TIME IS RIGHT

While it might seem like young children should be protected from the results of their mistakes, experts say that you can use consequences sooner than you might expect. Salch says, "Learning about an environment begins when a baby becomes mobile. Mom teaches a crawling baby what 'hot' means by touching the dishwasher after the dry cycle, when it's warm but not so hot that it could burn a little finger. By the time he's walking, he won't touch a hot stovetop. It's a process that evolves as a child grows: as behaviors become evident, so do consequences."

With toddlers and preschoolers, experienced teacher Carol Grieb uses everyday situations to show children the results of their behavior. "When a child grabs something from another child and a scuffle results, I will say, 'Look! See what happens when you don't ask for the toy?'"

The sooner you practice allowing your child to experience logical consequences, the better for all. When my friend Gail's 3-year-old daughter insisted on wearing pajamas to church, Gail decided to let her wear them. "I've read about the need for 3-year-olds to assert their independence, so I thought, why not? If it's that important to her, I can swallow my pride for one Sunday." After one week, Gail's daughter decided it wasn't that much fun to wear pajamas to church after all. Choices are powerful.

SET CLEAR EXPECTATIONS

For children to learn from consequences, parents need to make sure children know exactly what behaviors are acceptable and what the results will be for misbehavior. Provide simple, straightforward expectations so that even a young child can understand. Always keep in mind that what's clear to you may not be clear to your kids. Don't leave any questions in their minds as to how you'll react.

My friend Nancy thinks about consequences for her child's behavior ahead of time so she's prepared with the appropriate response when she needs it. She avoids head-on conflicts with her kids by giving them a lot of choices. She might say, "Patrick, I need you to pick up your toys before dinner. You can do it now or after you finish your game. If they're not picked up by dinner, then they'll be put away for a few days. It's up to you." Nancy also makes deals with her kids. Her children get what they want after they fulfill their responsibilities. "Yes, you can watch TV when your homework is done." "You can use the phone when your room is cleaned up." Obligations come first.

MAKE LOGICAL CONNECTIONS

The whole idea behind logical consequences is that the consequence is a clear, natural result of the behavior. In most cases, you won't have to work too hard to figure out the logical consequence of your child's behavior.

One 10-year-old I know began to surprise her mom, Kerry, with a newly acquired fondness for "back talk." Kerry noticed a pattern of sass each time Alison played with a certain friend. In a calm, respectful way, Kerry explained that sarcasm and rudeness were unacceptable in their home. She said that Alison would not be allowed to invite this playmate over until she could learn to control her own mouth. Kerry didn't ban or blame this friend. She gave Alison the responsibility to watch her attitude or experience the consequences.

DON'T BE A RESCUER

Naturally, parents want to protect their children from unhappiness. But when we start excusing them from their homework, driving to drop things off at school, or paying their speeding tickets, we aren't doing them any favors, especially as they prepare to head out into the real world, where they'll have to pay a higher price for their mistakes.

One mom I know finally realized she was going to have to let her kids face the consequences of their forgetfulness, be it a hungry tummy or detention for a missed assignment. When she stopped rescuing them and refused to deliver their lunches and assignments, they became more organized and responsible. I give my kids one "grace delivery" of a forgotten lunch or homework per quarter. I want them to realize that occasional mistakes are okay, and helping each other is part of being in a family, but that they are old enough to take care of these things.

BE WILLING TO GET TOUGH

We've always told our kids that if we can trust them in small things, then we'll be able to trust them in big things. A few months ago, I caught my teenage son in a lie. A big lie. There was no doubt that he was guilty; I had concrete evidence. After discussing the issue with my husband, we decided to withhold our son's driver's license for six months, even though he was prepared to take the test and eager for his license. We explained that his lie was a violation of our trust, and as a result, we couldn't trust him with our car, at least not yet.

This was a painful experience for all of us, but holding back his driving freedom was the right consequence, and the impact on him has been powerful. In fact, I've seen a great deal of maturing in him because of this consequence. He knows we mean what we say, and he knows our expectations of trust. So promises Proverbs 29:17: "Discipline your son, and he will give you peace; he will bring delight to your soul." Independence and responsibility go hand in hand. You can't give one without the other.

USE POSITIVE CONSEQUENCES, TOO

Consequences don't have to be negative. Research has shown that people learn faster when they are rewarded for their behavior than when the outcome is unpleasant. When my friend Lisa felt exasperated with her 5-year-old daughter's whining, she used positive consequences. She told Sara that if she could get through three mornings in a row without whining, she would get her favorite dinner. It worked! Figure out what privileges motivate your kids and use them to reinforce good choices.

Kids never stop making mistakes - old ones, new ones, messy ones, dangerous ones, funny ones, and hurtful ones. They have to learn that it's natural to make mistakes, but there are consequences to be paid. There's no pat formula for raising healthy and balanced kids, but if they grow up with an awareness of consequences for their behavior, with freedom to make choices and learn from them, they'll have a solid foundation to stand on.

__________________________

Suzanne Woods Fisher is a member of the CPT Advisory Board and the mother of four. She lives in California.

Copyright © 2002 by the author or Christianity Today International/Christian Parenting Today magazine. Christian Parenting Today, January/February 2002, Vol. 14, No. 3, Page 26

*