Do you have a question about the Bible? Do you want to know more about a particular doctrine? Or how we are to relate to issues of our day? Or why R.C. Sproul Jr. parts his hair that way? You can ask R.C.

As part of our Kingdom Notes e-newsletter, we have a feature called "Ask R.C." where our readers submit their perplexing and challenging questions for R.C. to answer. You can get these answers as they come out by subscribing to our Kingdom Notes e-newsletter. They will arrive here a couple of weeks later.

If you have a question, don't be shy, ask away. Just email us at info[at]highlandsstudy[dot]org with your question. Your question will always be published anonymously.

What happens to babies when they die?

This question may well take the cake when it comes to a potent intersection of relative Biblical silence, and intense personal importance. We don't know where Moses is buried, but most of us are mostly unconcerned. We do care a great deal about our eternal destiny, but then the Bible is pretty clear on that. This issue is not at all academic to me. My dear wife Denise and I have lost six children to miscarriage that we know of. In addition we have one precious blessing who will likely not make a verbal profession on this side of the veil, given her special needs.

What follows will not provide all the answers, but it may at least fence in some safe boundaries. First, though it is certainly true on its face, the most common answer tends to lead us to jump to some unwarranted conclusions. When we say in this circumstance, "The Judge of all the earth will do rightly" we say rightly. If God in His justice should send these sinners to eternal torment, He will have done rightly. Beware an unspoken assumption that the "right" thing is necessarily and always eternal bliss. Children in the womb are not innocent. The Scripture is replete with support for this notion, but history will suffice. Death is the result of sin. If babies die, we know they are not innocent. An innocent person only died once, and He volunteered for the job.

The Scripture is likewise clear that there is only one way for the guilty to be cleared. Their sins must be covered by the blood of Christ. And there is but one way for that to happen. A person must trust in the finished work of Christ alone. If this is true, then our answer is abundantly clear — those babies who trust in the finished work of Christ alone go to heaven when they die. Those babies who do not, go to hell when they die.

But babies can't believe, can they? If they can't believe, and if they sin, and if the only way to escape the wrath of God is to believe, then they must all go to hell. I actually know a man who takes this position — but only one. Most will escape this problem by affirming either that babies are not guilty before God, or that there is another way to get into heaven.

One of the most common arguments, at least among the Reformed, is that the elect infants go to heaven (and some in this group, if not most, argue that all babies who die are among the elect) on the basis of their election. I agree that all the elect go to heaven, and none who are not elect go. But I deny with vigor the doctrine of justification by election alone. It is not election, but faith which appropriates the work of Christ. Anyone who stands before the throne of God, and answers the question, "Why should I let you into heaven" with, "Well, if You'll look in Your book You'll find my name there" does not have his name in the book.

Babies are guilty, and there is only one way in. The good news is that God is able to give the gift of faith to whomever He pleases. God is not constrained by intelligence quotients or any such intellectual measure. If God can give a doofus like me faith, surely He can give it to a little baby. Yes, that faith must have an object. There is content that we must believe. But it is believing that content, not expressing that belief that puts us in union with Christ.

If they can believe, but can't profess that belief, how can we know? Because of the promise of God. He has promised to be a God to us and to our children. That happens only as we are in Christ. That is, for God to be our God, we must be His through the finished work of Christ. It is His holy habit to bless the children of believers with faith. It's not a mathematical promise. Sometimes He gives us Esaus. But we do have reason to hope, far more reason than those outside the kingdom who lose children.

Could God give saving faith to all that He takes from us? Of course He could. Does He? I don't know. He doesn't say that He does, but there is nothing in what He has told us that would make this impossible. He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. If He wants to have mercy on all the little babies, praise be unto His name. If He doesn't, praise be unto His name.

What do you think about head coverings (I Corinthians 11)? What is meant by "because of the angels"?

I'm for them. Here are just a few thoughts on the matter. First, I am happy to concede that men of goodwill differ on this issue. Second, I'm also happy to boldly suggest that virtually every Christian, from the time of Paul's epistle to about half a century ago, agrees with me on this issue. What potent interpretive insight, I wonder, did the church miss all those centuries? Third, one thing I'm certain of is that having our wives cover their heads at corporate worship is certainly not a sin. Failing to do so may be a sin. By resistless Pascalian logic, the choice should be obvious.

Fourth, I'm highly skeptical of the "Her hair is the covering" argument. It strikes me that if that were the case, Paul wouldn't have had to say anything. As messed up as the Corinthian church was, I don't suspect there was a strong husbands-with-bald-headed women contingent there needing to be rebuked. Fifth, please notice the grammar above. This is an issue for husbands, not wives. That is, no man will be able to stand before the throne of God, and when He asks why his wife worshipped uncovered, and say, "Yeah, what about that? Why don't we get her in here?" Wives, that means that if your husband doesn't want you to cover, covering is a sin.

Sixth, I really don't like to make a big deal about this. About one third of the husbands at Saint Peter have their wives cover their heads. The elders are somewhat split on the issue. And no one is taking sides, or keeping score. As I often say when I am asked in person about this issue, and have probably proved in the past few minutes as I've been typing, "I'll probably commit a more grave sin in the time it takes me to answer the question than it is to be wrong on this issue."

So why did I bother to answer it? So I could get to the second part of the question. Here I have what may be the wisest answer I could ever give. What is meant by "because of the angels?" I don't know.

Do Arminians go to heaven when they die?

From one perspective, to even ask this question seems almost ghastly. From another perspective, asking this question seems like surrender. On the one hand, no one believes in justification by having all my theological ducks in a row. On the other hand, many of our fathers saw the divide between Arminian theology and Calvinistic theology as a decisive one. We want to honor our brothers if they are our brothers, and we want to honor our fathers, if they are right on this issue. Better still, we want to be true to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

My own earthly father has been known to answer this question this way — Arminians are Christians, barely. What he is getting at, one should not be surprised, is wisdom. First, the problem. Why would we even have to ask? The difficulty is two-fold. First, we are blessed with the atoning work of Christ when we repent for our sins, and trust in His finished work on our behalf. How much of our sin must we repent for? All of it. In the Arminian scheme there remains in man a part of him that is still righteous, that part out of which comes his ability to choose the good as it is offered in the gospel. The Arminian is not, according to his theology, fully repentant. Second, we must trust in the finished work of Christ alone. In the Arminian schema, he trusts a great deal in the finished work of Christ, but trusts some in his own ability to choose the good. If a man believes that God does 99% of the saving, and man 1%, then that man is not truly saved. The Galatian heresy is dealing with just this issue. These were people who believed that Christ's life, death and resurrection, combined with obedience to the ceremonial law, brings one peace with God. Such a belief will not bring you the work of Christ. It will only bring His judgment.

So they don't make it, right? Well, have any of us repented fully for all our sins? Of course we say we repent for all our sins, but have we truly? Do we know all our sins? Is it not because of our sin that we look at some of our sins as virtues, that which should be praised rather than condemned? Ought we not, after seeking to enter more fully into our sin, after living in sackcloth and ashes, should we not then repent for our repentance? Won't we all come woefully short of full repentance on this side of the veil? Did not Jesus die for sins such as these?

In like manner, it is one thing to articulate a doctrine of justification wherein we are utterly dependent on the work of Christ. It is altogether another to actually trust fully in that work. I would suggest that heaven is full of Calvinists who affirmed with great vigor sola fide, but who in the dark recesses of their hearts, subconsciously, believed that God was pleased with them because of their fervor for sola fide, or because of their fidelity in keeping their quiet times, or their passion for honoring the Sabbath. We are all Pelagians at heart, even those of us who are dyed-in-the-wool Calvinists.

The long and the short of it is that no human is fully consistent with respect to his saying and his doing. No human being is even consistent within his saying. The Arminian says at the same time and in the same relationship, "It's all Jesus" and "It's mostly Jesus and partly me." They are inconsistent, self-contradictory. In the end, those who most fully believe it's all Jesus will be with Him forever. Those who more fully believe it's Jesus and them will hear Him say, "Depart from me I never knew you." To put it another way, we are justified by trusting in the finished work of Christ alone, not by articulating a doctrine of justification by faith alone. We too, we Calvinists that is, make it into heaven by a happy inconsistency. That is, we all have error in our thinking. And every error contradicts what is true. Were we to adjust the true things we believed to make them consistent with the false things we believe, we would all end up in damnable heresy.

We have to affirm, at the same time, that Jesus came to save sinners, but not all sinners. He will save those sinners to whom His Spirit gives the gift of faith. That will include those who don't know where the gift came from, as long as they actually have the gift. We ought also to remember that if we are right on this issue, if Calvinism is true and Arminianism false, we are right by the grace of God, not our own wisdom. What do we have that was not first given to us?

Your wife was a public school teacher. My wife and I are both public school teachers. My parents were also public school teachers. We are all believers in Christ. It seems that in your articles and books (Bound for Glory, Eternity in our Hearts, and Every Thought Captive) you have a severe dislike for the "government schools" and the "priests of the government schools." Why are you so strongly against Christian's in the education field? Do you think we need Christian teachers in public schools?

First, to the gracious gentleman who asked this question, my thanks for the kind and tactful way in which the question was asked. This is especially gracious given that my own rhetoric tends to grow rather warm on this issue. I will try to answer honestly and graciously, without giving away the store. Second, it is important to make an important distinction. While in the end I think it important for both Christian students and teachers to leave the government school system, the case for getting the children out is by far the stronger, clearer case. The two are related, but not at all the same.

It is my conviction that education is everywhere and always inherently religious. That is, education is that process by which we pass on to our children our most deeply held convictions. An education that does not begin, end and stay focused on the lordship of Christ over all things is, in the end, not a sound education. I deny that there is a body of information out there that is separate and distinct from the Lordship of Christ. As I have stated before, 2 and 2 makes 4 because it is Jesus' 2 and Jesus' 2 and Jesus' 4.

Christians who wish to teach in the government's schools are left therefore with three choices. First, they can give the children a sound education. Here they are eager to affirm the Lordship of Christ at all times and in all places. There are, however, two problems with this approach. First, any teacher doing this would be violating the law. Every state in the union forbids teachers from teaching this way. Second, any teacher teaching this way will also be violating the law of God. That is, you would be failing to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It is ungracious, unkind and unfair to tax unbelievers for the purpose of paying your salary to evangelize their children. This, of course, is what the entire system does, only it evangelizes children into the worship of the state. The solution isn't to take the system and use it to evangelize for Christ. The Christian thing would be to tear the whole thing down.

The Christian teacher next has this option. He can remain silent about the Lordship of Christ. Here he will honor his superiors in the system. He will be able to keep his job. But he will not be speaking truthfully to the students. He will, long before we get to "health" class, biology class, or any overt attacks against the faith, communicate to the children under him that the Lordship of Christ is something worth negotiating over, something of indifference to an education. The teacher is teaching this, "You can be educated in a place where the name of Jesus is never mentioned." Which is fundamentally false.

The third option is to attempt to carve out a niche between the first two options. This, I presume, is where my brothers and sisters in Christ most often see themselves. They are trying, in a desperately wicked system, to let a little light shine. They are trying to witness through their lives, in the hopes of being a help to the children. Those are noble motives, and should be seen as such. They are, however, in my estimation, doomed to failure. I tell my well intentioned friends who remain in apostate mainline denominations, so that they can "Reform from within" that all they are managing to communicate is that however bad it might be to deny the authority of Scripture, no matter how bad it might be to deny the resurrection, no matter how bad it might be to ordain practicing sodomites (which, truth be told is far less serious than the first two), that none of it is worth separating over. In like manner, whatever you manage to get through, however free you are to dishonor your bosses and their wishes (it makes no difference if your principal is with you on this. Sooner or later up the ladder you have superiors who don't want you witnessing for Christ) you are still communicating to parents and the students, "This little light of mine is enough." You are saying to the children, "You can live a God honoring life by keeping your Bible, unopened, on your desk." You are saying to the children, "You can understand the world without understanding the Lordship of Christ." You are saying to the children, "A little, unspoken, subtle Christianity is enough."

I know that isn't your intention. I know you're trying to do right by these children and their parents. But you can't, not just because the schools must be secular, but because they are financed by taxes of people of other faiths. The more you succeed the more you cheat the parents. The more you fail, the more you cheat the students. Trying to walk in the middle you cheat both.

This is why I don't believe Christians should teach in the government schools. I understand that my position is an unusual one. I understand that fine men and women, godly men and women disagree with my position. I pray we can disagree while still remaining friends.

One last point. Please also understand that my most angry rhetoric is directed at the system itself, not well meaning Christians who are in the system. That is, at the end of the day, because all education is inherently religious, the state schools will inculcate the religion of the state, Caesar worship. That is why the system is an abomination. Don't ever let anyone tell you the schools are failing. They are doing exactly what they are designed to do.

I have always been a bit puzzled by the "conflict" between Paul's "justification by faith alone" and the "justification by works" mentioned in the book of James. Do you think these guys actually disagreed about what it took to be saved? Can you shed some light on this subject?

You're not alone in your puzzlement. It is precisely this apparent tension that reportedly prompted Martin Luther, early in his ministry to say of the book of James that it was a "right strawy epistle." The first question is easy enough. By no means did these men disagree with each other. While we affirm that God used real men to write the Scriptures, in the end the Bible is God's Word. God is one, and so is His Word. Scripture does not and cannot contradict Scripture. Jesus, remember, tells us that a house divided cannot stand. James and Paul do not contradict, but speak in harmony, though they speak to different questions.

Paul affirms that it is faith in the finished work of Christ that brings to us that finished work. As we trust in His full provision, that provision becomes ours. Our sins are forgiven, because of His death for us and we are counted as righteous on the basis of His obedience, His life for us. Paul is diligent to disabuse his audience of any notion that we can earn this blessing, that we can please God ourselves. He in turn emphasizes that even the faith we must have is not something that comes from us, but is first a gift of the Holy Spirit.

James is answering a different question. Paul affirms that faith brings us the work of Christ which brings us peace with the Father. James asks and answers, "What kind of faith does this?" Hell itself is filled with people who believe that Jesus died for the sins of His people. The devil himself believes this. Faith is more than believing something is true. A living faith is a trusting faith. A trusting faith shows itself to be a trusting faith, James affirms, by bearing fruit. Those who do trust in Christ alone will in fact grow in grace. They will become more obedient to the law of God. This obedience, or "works" do not make God deem us to be just, but they do justify the notion that we have faith. They are not what save us, but the evidence that we have the faith that saves us.

Justify, please understand, can be used in at least two different ways. It can be that which makes something just, or it can mean that which shows something is just. One meaning does not contradict the other, but rather answers a different question.

These issues continue to come up in our own day. Some who claim to be Christians will argue that God will in fact judge us based on our own works. Others argue that mere assent to the truthfulness of the gospel message will bring peace with God. It is faith, and faith alone that appropriates the work of Christ. It is a faith, however, that does more than simply agree. It trusts, it rests.

Should Christians watch R-rated movies?

Not long ago a friend tiptoed into a careful political assessment. Afraid it might sound something like, "Well, at least Hitler made the trains run on time," he suggested, "Napoleon wasn't all that bad." I suggested that quite apart from the aggressive military conquests (which one ought, if one believes in just war, to reject) there is the Napoleonic code. Common law, our older tradition, like biblical law, is based on the right application of wisdom. Napoleon tried a different tack — he wanted to codify everything. He wanted law to be a machine, or algebra. But law is a relationship, a dance.

While we are sometimes surprised at the level of detail God is willing to delve into in the Bible, the broader reality is that He gives us broader realities. If, for instance, we define "murder" too narrowly, to only include premeditated homicide, we will miss out on unjust anger at our brother. As you recall, Jesus told us to not define our terms so narrowly. The Westminster divines, in turn, remind us that we not only must believe all that the Bible says, but all that flows from what the Bible says by necessary consequence. If your neighbor is assaulted by your loose pig, you cannot escape your guilt by pointing out the Bible only talks about bulls on the loose.

The trouble, of course, is determining what is a necessary consequence and what is not. I was told in an interview once that I had been accused of legalism because of my conviction that it is a sin to send your children to government schools. The reporter wanted my response. I said, "Well, if I'm wrong, then I am a legalist, adding to God's law. If my accuser is wrong, however, he is an antinomian, diminishing God's law. It would be better to address the question than to call names."

The Bible does not say that it is a sin to watch R-rated movies. The Bible does, however, say that to lust in our hearts is to commit adultery. It says to flee temptation. It says to think on these things, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable (Philippians 4:8). Will watching an R-rated movie lead you toward temptation, or will it encourage you think on whatever is lovely?

Our calling is to answer that question honestly, on our own. That is, we don't start with the premise, "I like to watch R-rated movies. How can I construct the question so that I can keep on doing so?" And, we don't spend our energies trying to get our brothers and sisters in Christ to answer this question exactly as we do. If you think not, then don't. If you honestly think so, go ahead. In neither case, however, should you look down your nose at your brothers who think otherwise. Those who won't watch such movies are not necessarily too uptight. Those who do watch such movies are not necessarily too loose. Those who do one or the other, and disdain their brothers who do otherwise have a bigger problem to deal with than movies.

One more caveat. My counsel here is for those who are in a position to make these decisions. If your church forbids you to watch these movies, don't. If your parents instruct you not to, obey them. One thing we know for sure — God doesn't require us to watch R-rated movies.

Okay, last caveat. Don't let the makers of media that you're wrestling over determine for you the nature of their product. That is, remember the people who make the movies are the ones who rate them. I would far rather have my children watch Braveheart, which is rated R, than Ferngully, which was rated G. The former had brief nudity, a great deal of violence, and godly men seeking to live honorable lives. The latter had cute, little, cartoon animals, no violence, and a subtle, evil, earth-worshipping agenda. The devil, after all, is more cunning than any of the beasts of the field.

If you have a child that rebels when does it and does it not affect your 1 Tim 3 qualifications for church leadership?

There are complex questions that can trap you, and then there are those that are just plain tangled. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" assumes an awful lot. The trouble here isn't a hidden assumption, but the breadth of the question. For instance, are the qualifications for the office of elder listed in I Timothy 3 designed to present the ideal, or the bare minimum? If we go with the latter, what do we do with "he must be well thought of by outsiders" (verse7)? Even Jesus doesn't qualify. If we go with the former, however, how close to the ideal must a man be? How quarrelsome is quarrelsome? That we have these kinds of challenges, of course, doesn't mean we can just jettison the text. Paul is telling us something here, and something of great importance.

Your question focuses on this difficult part of the passage — He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? (verses 4 and 5). If we take the "bare minimum" approach, again no one could ever qualify. As I am writing, two floors above me, my two and half year old son is telling the world he is ready to be finished with his nap. He is doing this by crying in a most disobedient manner. Does this in itself mean I should step down as an elder of Saint Peter church? I think not. On the other hand, if we take the "ideal" approach, then we are left asking just how much rebellion in our children is acceptable?

Then there is this other complication. At what point in the child's life is this measurement to be taken? Suppose my youngest son gets over his crying, lives in humble obedience in my home, and twenty-five years from now determines to become a Mormon. Am I then out? If we look at his toddler sized rebellion as an understandable reality in any home, and his grown up rebellion as out of my control, does this mean I need only keep the children in line while they are old enough for serious rebellion, but young enough to live in my home? And does the submissiveness required mean that my children must have a credible profession of faith, or does it merely mean that their unbelief cannot manifest itself in more dramatic sins? Can he be a clean cut Mormon, but not a petty thief? A petty thief, but not a Mormon?

When our understanding gets this tangled, my counsel is generally to take a step back, to draw some broad lines, and then seek to live in terms of wisdom inside those lines. A man with a family full of sullen, joyless children is not probably qualified to be an elder. If, however, a man raised ten godly children, and had one Esau, I would tend to think the man is qualified. If the question is somewhere in between, it might call for some kind of investigation of the circumstances. Suppose, for instance, the one Esau was adopted as a teenager. Suppose that teenager lived a difficult life with no godly models, and no biblical discipline. A man who sought to rescue such a child I would argue is the very picture of what an elder ought to be like, not a failure as a father. If, on the other hand, a man had ten children who kept in line for their entire childhood, but each one bolted the church the moment they escaped their father's house, that would be a bad sign.

As always, the danger with not having hard and fast lines is that we can shape our own desires to make them look like "wisdom." We need to be on guard against a sliding scale that is determined by whether we want to be an elder, or a congregation wants a man to be an elder. We need to recognize that elders are sinners, and we need to recognize that Paul was well aware of that when he made this list in his first letter to Timothy. Of course, the evangelical church needs first to take this whole passage seriously in a general way before it gets bogged down in the details. One thing we know the text doesn't say is, "Choose for your elders men with deep pockets and great success in business." The model, the standard is family not business. If we get that right, we'll be well on our way to reformation.

I am a CCW permit holder in my state. I believe it is my duty to do all I can to physically protect my family. I carry a concealed handgun wherever I go, including worship services. No one knows this but those very close to me, I am discrete and careful. What does one say to those that believe this is wrong, to those that believe it is wrong to resist evil? Thank you.

True revival does happen, and we don't want to miss it for our cynicism. That said, whenever a new fad hits the evangelical church, it is a rather safe bet that all things being equal, it's not a good thing. Every few years we latch on to some new thing that we somehow believe will usher in the millennium. There was The Passion of the Christ. Before that we had a laughing revival, Promise Keepers and the Left Behind series. Somewhere along the way we thought wearing shirts, hats and bracelets with an enigmatic acronym would do the trick. We all wore our WWJD gear, and still Jesus has not come back.

One of the ironies of that particular movement is that it, I suppose like the temperance movement, began within liberal, mainline churches. It was actually a move away from the Bible. Christians ask, "What does the Word say I must do?" Liberals ask, "What would the Jesus of my imagination ask me to do?" They start out with an image of Jesus cooked up in their own minds, and discover, oddity of oddities, that what Jesus would do is what we wanted to do all along. Jesus, however, does what His Father wills, not what our imaginations want.

I can't tell you how often I've found myself engaged in debate with well meaning Christian pacifists. One of the most common arguments I heard was this sophisticated — I just can't imagine Jesus gunning down an enemy. I would sometimes ask, "Can you imagine Jesus saying to His disciples, 'But now let the one who has a moneybag take it and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who had no sword sell his cloak and buy one'" (Luke 22:36). That's right — Jesus wanted to be sure His disciples went out properly outfitted, and was more concerned that they be armed than that they be warm.

There is nothing wrong or shameful about being prepared to obey the law of God. Self-defense has a long and honored biblical pedigree. It may indeed be wise to be discreet about this, given the number of Christians who are confused about this. But you have nothing to feel defensive about. You might encourage your brother to help you understand how the text above matches with their view that it is always wrong to resist evil. You might draw their attention to the places in the Old Testament where God directed men to defend their homes. You might point out to your friend that the church has from the beginning affirmed a man's right to defend those whom he loves from criminals, and ask for any evidence that the church erred from the beginning. If that fails, you might graciously try this as well — if it is evil to be armed, why are your friends resisting you? That is, shouldn't they, according to their own principles, simply leave you alone?

I would encourage you, of course, to be careful with your weaker brother. They are not the enemy. You need not feel the need to change your brother's mind on this issue. Just be sure to come to his aid, should he need it.

What about "gender neutral" translations of the Bible?

It is a holdover of our modernist past that we tend to see the work of translation as a science more than an art. We think we punch a word in from language A, and out pops the exact same word, except in language B. Note only do different languages not relate in that way, even one language, looked at from two different time periods, will have the same issues. The postmoderns are right also to note that language has a tendency to be used for power, rather than for clarity. On the other hand, words do in fact carry meaning. In the end, language is Trinitarian, a blending together of harmony and complexity.

Consider he. He, fifty years ago, was clearly understood to have two distinct but related meanings. One meaning was this — a male antecedent. That is, when we use the word he, we are referring to a male something that has already been referenced. The second meaning was this — an antecedent of unknown gender. "He just drove through that red light" could either mean, "That man just ran through that red light" or "That person, I don't know if it was a man or a woman, just ran through that red light." Over the past few decades women of both sexes have gotten their knickers in a twist over this common convention, a convention that long precedes the English language, and will, despite the efforts of some, outlast it. They seem to believe that the second use of the term is somehow a boon to male-kind, that if provides us with an unfair advantage. The first fruit of this silliness was the banishment of the use of he in the second sense in certain, mostly academic circles. Eventually it lead us to the TNIV and other politically correct paraphrases of the Bible.

To be fair, one could argue that older translations which use he in the second sense can be misleading to readers in our day who use he only in the first sense. This position would suggest that because the meaning of he has changed, accuracy of translation, rather than ideological considerations, require the change. This does not, however, get to the heart of the issue, and begs the question of where the English language really is in our day.

First, the use of the singular masculine pronoun for antecedents of unknown gender is not at all unique to the English language. It is found, in fact, in both Greek and Hebrew. (Remember that when we are translating we have to understand both our own language and the language from which we are translating.) To put it more bluntly, God the Holy Spirit uses pronouns this way. We would be wiser to seek to be consistent with God than to be consistent with Gloria Steinem.

Second, every "gender neutral" English translation to date has gone well beyond seeking to avoid the use of he, when we do not know the antecedent's gender. We have seen real distortions of the plain meaning of the text, driven by egalitarian sensibilities, rather than a passion for translating accuracy. We should not be surprised. The Committee on Bible Translation, the scholars who brought you the TNIV, have as one of their standards this notion, "The patriarchalism (like other social patterns) of the ancient cultures in which the Biblical books were composed is pervasively reflected in forms of expression that appear, in the modern context, to deny the common human dignity of all hearers and readers. For these forms, alternative modes of expression can and may be used, though care must be taken not to distort the intent of the original text." At the root of this debate is different understandings not only of language and translation, but of Scripture, and inspiration. I strongly discourage folks from using the TNIV. I likewise discourage folks from using the NIV. While it predates these kinds of gender changes, it is put together by the same set of scholars. It is also, in my judgment, too close to a paraphrase.

Issues like this require wisdom. On the one hand, my friends on the other side of the aisle generally don't see the trajectory of where they are headed. On the other hand, my friends on my side of the aisle tend to think those on the other side have already entered into the fullness of the folly they are flirting with. The former need to wake up and repent. The latter need to boldly confront the error, but accurately, and with neither pride nor hysterics. This is, in the end, scary stuff, grounded in more scary stuff, neo-evangelical feminism. At bottom, I fear it is all driven by a fear of the world. Wisdom, however, calls us to fear God. I thank God for men like Wayne Grudem, John Piper, Tim Bayly, and my own father who have here, as in so many other important battles, fought the good fight.

Is it wrong to read fantasy stories?

This particular question serves as rather common fodder for debates among homeschooling families. Some families believe that reading fiction is in itself a sin, a violation of the ninth commandment in principle. Others argue that it isn't fantasy per se that is the sin, but that stories wherein magic is used, particularly if it is used for good, are off limits. Still others would argue that reading fantasy is at least sinful indirectly, that such reading is a failure to wisely steward our time. Others, of course, have no quarrel at all with reading fantasy.

As we considered with the question of R-rated movies, we need to be cautious here. We want to affirm at the same time that there is a right and wrong answer here, and that we are called to act graciously toward those with whom we disagree. While it may be wrong to read fantasy, those families who believe otherwise are not demons that must be destroyed. While it may be perfectly okay to read fantasy, those families who believe otherwise are not Pharisees that must be loudly denounced.

My own family regularly reads the works of C.S. Lewis. I've read through each volume of the Narnia stories at least ten times in my lifetime. My most recent homeschool class covered several works by Lewis, including his Space Trilogy, which would fall under the rubric of science fiction, and involves some level of magic, as well as The Great Divorce, which is clearly fantasy. In like manner, our children enjoy reading Tolkien as well. On the other hand, no one in my family has read any of the Harry Potter stories, nor are we likely to. Now to break down how we came to this place.

The first objection is, in my estimation, far too sweeping. If fiction is a violation of the ninth commandment, then our Lord is Himself a sinner and in need of a Savior. A certain man did not in fact go out to sow seed. A woman did not throw a party after finding her lost coin. These parables of Jesus are fiction. They were delivered as fiction. No one was lied to or misled. (Telling your children that there is a man who lives in the North Pole and who brings presents to children, now that is lying.)

The last objection likewise falls of its own weight. If Jesus used stories, then certainly stories can bear much fruit. (There we are again — metaphor is fiction writ small, and even the most persimmonious fiction foe uses metaphor all day long.) We are indeed to redeem the time, and it is surely possible to read works that are a waste of time. Just yesterday I was asked by one of my children why we don't celebrate Halloween. I did not give here an essay on the demonic roots of Halloween. Instead I told her the truth — we're too busy celebrating something important, the Reformation. We are making better use of the time. Reading fiction, even if it is fantasy, does not necessarily mean we are wasting our time. It depends on the fiction itself.

That leaves the second objection. (There could, of course, be more. I don't claim to know every reason a person might have for objecting.) This one is the one that gives me the greatest pause. Because we live in a modernist world, we are tempted to see the supernatural realm as a make believe world that is perfectly safe. Fiction that takes us in that realm can encourage that kind of understanding. Because we are worldly, we miss how seriously the Bible takes these matters.

When I was in junior high school, a friend and I played with a Quija board. You can acquire such a board at your local toy store. The board purports to allow departed spirits to speak to the living by spelling out words and answers to our questions. I told my parents about the great fun I had had, and was stunned with the solemnity with which my father chastened me. He reminded me that divination, speaking with the dead, was a capitol offense in Israel. He told me that if we lived back then in that land, I would be dead. God hasn't changed. I, by God's grace, repented for what I had done.

That said, in my view Lewis, Tolkien and others do not encourage us to use magic. They instead take us to another world where God does indeed reign, but has chosen to rule in such a way that magic has its place. And that place is, frankly, a rather insignificant one. The stories contain uses of magic, but they are not built around those uses. In my view, as we warn our children of these dangers, these good books fall within the pale of what is acceptable. This doesn't mean, of course, that we look down our noses at our brothers and sisters who take a stricter view. It doesn't mean either that we feel a need to convert others to our own perspective. It is, however, an opportunity to tend our own gardens, and to live at peace with the brethren. As with the R-rated movie question, the far more important issue is that we submit to those who are in authority over us. If your parents say no, the answer is no. If your elders have determined that this is not permissible, submit to them joyfully. And, if you yourself believe it to be wrong, and the decision to read or not to read is your own, by all means do not read. Whatever is not of faith is sin, even when it is not sin in itself.

3 for 1:
1) At what point does environmentalism become a god … or a golden calf for the church? How does environmentalism differ from the dominion mandate?
2) Is social justice biblical? Are we called to rob from the rich and give to the poor in the name of God? Was God a socialist?
3) Is racial diversity in the church really about church unity or is it pharisaical self-flagellation? Worse still … is it contributing to the sin of hatred within the church by showing bigotry as a sin specific to the "white male"?

One of the most compelling evidences that we have become statists is this — we do not know how to distinguish between the state, and the rest of the world. Go visit your local library, for instance, and ask for any information they have on censorship. They have special brochures there all put together highlighting the many assaults against the first amendment going on in our land. Trouble is, not a one of them fits the criteria. Censorship is when the state makes it illegal to publish something. A parent who asks a school board not to have the students read certain books, or the library carry certain books isn't asking that the book be made illegal. But we treat it that way.

In like manner, we have a difficult time distinguishing between stewardship on the one hand, and government regulation on the other. Of course landowners are called to be good stewards of that which God has put under their care. Such a man should not destroy his land. Similarly, no man should destroy another man's land. Objecting to your factory that is belching particulates all over my land isn't an environmental issue, but a property rights issue. A person ought, as well, to be a good steward of his own body. Some people are not good stewards of either their property or their health. They ought to be both. But is that failure an invitation for government interference? Should we require permits, complete with prior individual health impact studies, before a man can eat a twinky, in the same way we require environmental impact studies before a man can build on his own land? In short, one clear line between stewardship and environmentalism is when we break out the government's sword. I suppose it could happen as well, though I have never seen it, that a person could, in essence worship their own property, without wanting to control other people's property. That too would be a problem, were it ever to happen. In general, however, you can recognize someone has gone on the wrong side when they seek to use the power of the state to make you do with what is yours what they want you to do.

In like manner, is social justice the treating of all men fairly before the law, or is it redistributing wealth? The former is required by God, the latter is abhorrent to Him. God gave the state the power of the sword to punish evil-doers, not the power of the abacus to determine how much wealth everyone ought to have, and then to divide it all equally. Is God a socialist? No, God established property rights, and established government to protect those rights, not run roughshod over them. Two books I would commend to your reading here. First, Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators, by David Chilton, is an outstanding work that was written to refute the Christian socialist book Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, by Ronald Sider. Second, my book, Biblical Economics is another I'm kind of partial to.

Racial diversity is code language for racism. That is, the Bible says that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. Our calling isn't to judge people for being white, nor for being black. Our calling, to borrow a phrase, is to judge men by the content of their character. We should be color blind, and the left is at least as color conscious as the most barbaric racists. If the left isn't angry at you for not treating minorities as special, and if the "conservative" moonbats are not angry at you for not preferring your own racial "kin" to others, you're doing it wrong. At Saint Peter Presbyterian Church we are likely the most racially diverse church within 500 miles, all right here in the rural south. We got that way, however, not by going out of our way to appeal to this demographic or that. We got that way by welcoming into our families precious blessings from all over the world via adoption. We don't see Africans. We see Baileys and Cottrills and Sprouls. We don't see Asians. We see Kisers and Brockmyres and Wellons. We don't see racial strangers, but gracial family. In half a century we may well see a whole community that is coffee colored. For more on this I'd commend our back issue of Every Thought Captive magazine titled "Neither Jew nor Greek."

How much weight should our opposition to abortion carry in our voting decisions?

God calls us to think His thoughts after Him. That means all of His thoughts. That is, we ought to have a sound and biblical view on everything the Bible touches on. Where it touches on political issues, we are called, again to have sound an biblical views. We need to think biblically about what is just war and what is not. We need to think faithfully about taxation, and the size and scope of government. We need to think through what obligation, if any the state has to protect property, to protect our lives.

That said, there are precious few things that frustrate me more about the evangelical right than its utter foolishness with respect to proportion politically. We bundle together this issue and that, everything from tax rates to school vouchers to flag burning to abortion, and call it "family values." There is a right and a wrong answer on all these issues. But abortion is not like any of the others. It stands out all on its own. In a hundred years, the Christian church will not hang its head in shame that it did so little to pass a Constitutional Amendment against the burning of the flag. In a hundred years, no elderly Christian will be looked at with suspicion by the younger generation because they didn't do more to lower the tax rate. In a hundred years, if God should be so gracious, we will be looked upon as that godless generation of the church that watched tens of millions of babies go to their deaths. Indeed, we'll be remembered as those "Christians" who elected men to office who believed that the state ought to protect the rights of some mothers to murder their babies.

It is unfair to draw too tight a comparison between abortion in America and the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. There are significant differences. First, the Holocaust was carried out, by and large, in secret. The rank and file Germans had no idea what was going on. We, on the other hand, every last one of us, woke up today knowing that four thousand babies would die today. We, on the other hand, have four thousand mothers, every day, who knowingly do this. We, on the other hand, have four thousand fathers, boyfriends and husbands who every day encourage this. The Holocaust lasted roughly ten years, and the Nazi's killed roughly six million people. We, on the other hand, have been at this for 35 years, and have killed more than fifty million babies. It is an unfair comparison, unfair to the Nazis. We are far worse monsters.

How much weight should our opposition carry? I have purposed in my heart that I would never vote for a man for any office that is not committed to using every power at his disposal to protect and defend every unborn child. Never. Ever. If every Christian would simply make that simple pledge, then we would win this battle. As it stands, at best we vote for candidates who might nominate or support j udicial candidates who might vote for this small impediment or that to abortion on demand. At worst, we vote for the guy with the "R" by his name. We need to get rid of our strategies, and get on our knees in repentance. We need to stop negotiating with candidates over the bodies of dead babies.

Are there any "gray areas" from God's point of view? Is everything a matter of right and wrong from God's point of view? How would you determine issues that would be "gray?"

No, there are no gray areas from God's point of view. Neither should there by gray areas from our point of view. There are, however, issues that are not moral issues. Suppose, for instance, that the dictionary suggests that both "grey" and "gray" are fitting spellings for that color that is somewhere between black and white. If I choose "grey" over "gray" I have not fallen into gray, or grey matter. If I asked you pick a number from one to ten, I can't imagine what sin I would charge you with should you choose 7, or 2, or in fact any number from one to ten. This does not mean these are what we call grey matters. They are instead what we call adiaphora, matters not touching on morals.

This is important to understand especially when we find ourselves trying to make important decisions. We are so eager to know "God's will" that we sometimes seek that will where He has not spoken. When a person is trying to decide, "Should I take this job or that? Should I buy this house or that?" my counsel is usually, "Try to discern if either choice is sinful. If neither is, do the spiritual thing, and do what you want."

That said, we often fall off the other side of the horse by forgetting to apply broader moral principles. That is, we may think, "If the Bible does not say, 'Thou shalt not buy the house on 13 Mockingbird Lane' then it must not be a sin," when in fact it could be a sin. Perhaps the house is more than you can afford, and buying it would be poor stewardship. Perhaps it sits right next to a cigar store, and you have in the past allowed tobacco to rule over you, and wisdom suggests you flee temptation. This kind of moral calculus can certainly be subtle. It can lead us into some deep waters. God, of course, always knows what is right. We don't always know, but we should. Now, suppose I think it is foolish to buy the house, but you think it wise. Suppose we break out our moral calculus, and are not able to agree. But suppose we agree that it is a close call, that it looks from our limited perspective to be "grey." Such ought to mean that we not get in a horrible tussle over the issue. It does not mean, however, that there is no right answer.

Here's a real life example — headcoverings. I believe that the Bible teaches that husbands should have their wives cover their heads when we gather together for corporate worship. I believe it for exegetical reasons, and for historical reasons. I think those who don't so believe are wrong in the issue, wrong in their exegesis, and wrong in their understanding of history. I also think that many of the men who hold this different view are far more godly than I am. I am willing to concede that some things in the Bible are more clear than others, and that the case against headcoverings isn't completely out in left field. There's still a right and wrong, and God knows it clearly. But God has made it clear that we ought not to be jumping down each others throats on matters that are less clear. How do we know which issues are less clear? There's the rub. In most disagreements, the real disagreement is here. One helpful hint for my own practice is to look again to church history. If the church has felt that issue X is clear and important, I want to submit to that. If the church has recognized the issue to be less clear, I want to treat it that way.

Belong, then believe, or, Believe, then belong? Will going to church eventually lead to conversion, or must one be born again and then desire to belong to the Boby of Christ in a church?

Believe, then belong. However, it is certainly possible that one might attend, then believe, and then belong. That is to say, church membership is for those who have a credible profession of faith (and some would add as well that the children of those who have a credible profession of faith should likewise be members of the church.) It is not a civic association, a country club, or any such thing. It is a local body of professing believers in the finished work of Christ.

Attendance is another thing altogether. While we believe that corporate Lord's Day worship is designed to be the assembling together of the saints, and not an evangelistic event per se, at the same time the gospel is made known, or should be, when the saints gather. The Puritans wisely believed not that "going to church [will] eventually lead to conversion," but that God the Holy Spirit is far more likely to give new life to a man sitting under gospel preaching than a man sitting on a bar stool Sunday morning. It is always a wise thing to sit under the faithful preaching of the Word of God. Faith, after all, comes by hearing.

If God has indeed given a man new life, his immediate obligation is to be baptized (if he has not already been baptized) and to come under the authority of a local body of believers. He ought not to wait for there to be the desire, but ought to be instructed that such is his calling. When we join a local church our faith is nurtured and fed, both in Word and sacrament. We are protected by the grace of church discipline. And we are given an opportunity to serve the body as the Spirit equips us for ministry.

One of the great successes of the serpent in our own day is that he has persuaded too many of us that joining a local church is unnecessary and superfluous. Many claim to be members of "the invisible church." Others argue that church membership vows are not in the Bible. That is true enough. The Scriptures do, however, call us to submit to those in authority over us, even those who will give an answer for our souls (Hebrews 13). If you are willing to publicly acknowledge your obedience to that particular command, you have joined a church.

On the other hand, obviously church membership will save no one. One of the dangers of the view that one can belong first and then believe is the temptation to believe that belonging is what matters. Too many of us have said of this loved one or that, "Well, he's not a Christian, but at least he attends a church." If such a man does not believe, his membership in the body will only bring greater judgment, especially if he profanes the Lord's Table by eating there without saving faith.

I just read your response to the "Ask R.C." question regarding Christians carrying a weapon. I was wondering if you would be able to give me your thoughts on Christ's words in Matthew 5:38-48 regarding resisting the one who is evil and turning the other cheek. Who is Christ talking to there? And if He is talking to me … does this mean that I am not allowed to defend myself? I'm aware of the Old Testament verses about defending our homes and I am aware of the verse where Christ tells His disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword. My question is: Who is Christ talking to in Matthew 5 and what does that mean they are not to do?

What an astute question. I'm happy to take a try at this, but please understand that it is just that, a try. In my view Jesus is in fact talking to us, and He is talking about us. That is, we are given in the Sermon on the Mount instructions for living in light of the coming of the Kingdom of God. This certainly has profound impact on how we deal with the world outside the church, but even more so with those inside the church.

It may be easy to miss this ironically, in light of how well we've been taught this. That is, because we have rightly been taught to see the church as a body, as a family, we are not used to seeing parts of that body as enemies. Truth be told, our own experience demonstrates that reality. We have tussles in the church all the time. Our calling, in light of that reality, is to suffer long, to rather be wronged than to take our brother to law, to turn the other cheek. When we are wronged inside the church, we are to exercise patience, and demonstrate compassion even on the brother who has wronged us.

This may, of course, spill over into our relations with those outside the kingdom. Here is an example. The state claims ownership of more than half of all that I produce. While the state surely has the right to tax me to provide those services that it is called to provide in Romans 13, to provide for defense of persons and property against aggressors foreign and domestic, it does not have a right to tax me for whatever it wishes. Note that Samuel warns Israel that the king like all the other nations that they are asking for would tax them at the rapacious rate of ten percent. What would I give to be taxed at only ten percent of my income. That said, my calling is to live as much as is possible in peace and quietness with all men. I know that my prosperity is in God's good hands, not the states, and so while I may speak prophetically against it, I do not resist this evil. I quietly and peacefully render unto Caesar far more than he is due. My suffering in this regard is a trusting in the Lord.

On the other hand, this same Lord has called me to protect and defend my family. The evil-doer who breaks into my house at night isn't a brother who is slandering me. Neither is it the state coming to tax me more. This is a man intent on harming my family unlawfully. He will meet resistance from me as God's law requires.

Remember that within the space of two verses, in Proverbs 26, we are told first to not answer a fool according to his folly, then told to answer a fool according to his folly. Wisdom determines when to do what. In like manner Daniel, Shadrach, Meshack and Abednigo all fought hard to repel the armies of Nebuchadnezzer when the invasion came. And then, they faithfully served the king. Hope that helps.

I was recently involved in a conversation with a Roman Catholic friend discussing the issue of gay Christians. She expressed her opinion that it was not for us to say whether they are Christians or not. My opinion has always been you cannot be a practicing homosexual and a Christian at the same time. Unfortunately, if this honestly is true Christian doctrine, I am lacking relevant scripture to help reinforce me. Also, what scripture might someone like my friend use to support her views?

In this conversation you have a collision between a modern American truism and a normal, natural law kind of conclusion. The American truism is false, and the natural law conclusion is not only true, but does come with crystal clear biblical support. You thought what you thought because you wisely see this peculiar perversion for what it is, an abomination before the eyes of God. It is not an alternate lifestyle. It is not a genetic determination. It is high-handed rebellion against the living God. You know it, those who practice the perversion know it, and your friend knows it.

Your friend's sin, by comparison, is mild. That is to say, like all sins it is rebellion against God, and worthy of His eternal wrath. But her problem is that she has been swept up in the wisdom of this world, that disguises itself as the biblical virtue of humility. The trouble is, we are to be humble enough to submit to the plain teaching of God's Word. There we read, quite plainly, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revelers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6: 9-10, emphasis mine). We do not need to read anyone's heart. We do not need to peer into the secret things of God. We do not need to convene a church court and make some sort of formal judicial decision. The Scripture is clear that those who practice these things are not Christians.

Of course we are not justified by being heterosexual. God does not choose us because we're good enough to not be greedy, or drunkards. That is, it isn't these sins that keep us out of the kingdom. Rather, these sins serve as compelling evidence that we have not been given new life by the Spirit of God, that we are not indwelt by that Holy Spirit. Certainly the redeemed may for a time fall into this sin or that, but they do not practice these things. They do accept them, endorse them, seek to hold on to them, all while seeking to submit to God's Word.

Paul's plain teaching here runs smack into not only our modern cultural assumptions, but our sub-cultural assumptions. It flies in the face of worldly wisdom, and in the face of that wisdom in the church that sees the world as a source of wisdom. Our calling is to submit to the plain teaching of the Word of God, despite the fact that such will earn us sundry sobriquets from the broad-minded of the world. They will accuse us of hate crimes. They will banish us to the cultural backwaters. All of which is cause to give thanks, for such is persecution for His name's sake (Matthew 5:11). I would agree with your friend, that we are not the ones making the decisions about who goes to heaven and who does not. We must, however, submit to the decisions He has not only made, but revealed to us in His Word.