Menu

40 Sermon Illustrations on Rationalization

40 illustrations

Rationalization in Christian preaching refers to the human tendency to justify sinful or wrong actions by creating excuses or shifting blame, thereby avoiding true repentance and accountability (Romans 1:18-25). Illustrations often use everyday scenarios, such as blaming others or circumstances, to reveal how people deceive themselves and distance from God’s truth (Psalm 51:6). This subject warns against self-deception and calls for heartfelt confession and transformation.

Sanctified Selfishness

If you really want to see what people are like, you have to put them in extreme situations. Such a situation occurred during World War II. As the Japanese conquered country after country in Asia, hundreds of foreign missionaries and businessmen were captured, along with their families. Many of them were Americans.

All of these civilians were herded into concentration camps, mostly in China. One of them was a little boy named David Storey. Today he is the pastor of the Burt Ave. Wesleyan Church in Coshocton, Ohio. Another prisoner was Eric Liddell, the Christian athlete the movie "Chariots of Fire" was based on.

In these concentration camps the civilians were not tortured or killed. But they never knew what was going to happen to them. Living space, food and security were all in short supply.

Since many of these civilians were Christians, how did they measure up? Some of the evidence is pretty discouraging.

As more people were crammed into the camp, families were asked to give up the extra rooms in their living quarters. In this way the others would have a place to live. Nobody disagreed with this - as long as their rooms weren't taken away.

One missionary offered this excuse: He said the other missionaries often asked him to preach in the camp's church services. Then he said, "It is for their sakes, and for that of the camp as a whole, that my family needs a little extra space. This way I can have quiet to think out these sermons."

This sounds very religious. But actually, he's just being selfish. The non-Christians were equally selfish, but believers had an advantage - they could wrap their selfishness in God's will.

The missionary's excuse was not an isolated incident. Many of the most devout Christians ended up cheating, lying and groveling to get their daily necessities. If they were new Creatures in Christ, the others weren't impressed.

[Compare the 1997 movie "Paradise Road," about female civilians in a Malaysian POW camp.]

from Old Sermon by David Holwick; Original Source Unknown via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database greedrationalization

How Sex Has Been Foisted On the Public

Job 15:16

Since we don't like to feel divided, we separate ourselves from the source of tension, God.

Phyllis Schlafly wrote a fascinating editorial on how the most destructive theories and philosophies of our time originated in flawed individuals. Margaret Mead, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and Pablo Picasso all created new ways of thinking. But the theories put forth by these enormously influential intellectuals are simply rationalizations of their own sexual desires.

[article gives expanded details on their error]

Christians are also good at rationalizing their sins. God is reduced to a vague concept of love. And their spiritual lives disintegrate.

from Daily Record Newspaper; Coshocton, Ohio · Phyllis Schlafly via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database sexual sincorruption

It's True For You, But Not For Me

Amos 3:10

When Jeff Yourison was in college, another student he knew, named Kevin, joined him one day on a street corner. Jeff was waiting for the light to change. "I've been watching you," he said, "and I think you're very strange. Nobody else -and I mean no one - waits for the light to change before they walk." Jeff explained that he never used to wait either, until three things happened to him. First, he had been struck by a car a few months before while crossing on a "Don't Walk" signal. Second, he was the one who got the ticket and the fine; the police officer didn't buy his argument that "everybody else- and I mean everyone - crosses regardless of the light." Third, he had just run across a verse in the Bible that ordered believers to obey the government that God has allowed to be set up over us (Titus 3:1).

Kevin was stunned. He shook his head slowly, searching for something to say. The light changed, and they walked on toward their classes. Finally Kevin spoke. "I've been taking dishes and silverware from the cafeteria where I work between classes. Are you saying that's wrong? They treat me like dirt in there sometimes, and besides, tuition is high here. If the system rips me off, why can't I rip off the system?"

It was Jeff's turn to search for words. "Kevin, can I make two observations?"

"Sure."

"Well, for one thing, I detected just a little guilt in your last question. Maybe you're not so sure you're right in stealing from the cafeteria. Second, you think in terms of getting back at 'the system' while I think in terms of people. Aren't people - like the rest of us students who pay for your stolen dishes and silverware - the ones who are getting ripped off?"

Kevin halted in his tracks. They looked at each other for a few seconds. His face was growing red. Jeff couldn't tell if he was cut to the heart or about to tear him apart. Finally, as Kevin turned to head for his classroom building, he muttered, "You really are strange."

Jeff left Kevin in utter confusion that day. Kevin didn't let their brief conversation die. It turned out that he felt tremendous guilt underneath his tough exterior - not just for stealing from the cafeteria, but for deep personal sin. He had never really wanted to face it, and had figured that his childhood experience in Catholic schools had no relevance for his adult life.

Jeff challenged Kevin to start meeting Jesus rather than rejecting Christianity on the basis of vague, bad memories. The other Christians on my floor started to pray for us, and Kevin and Jeff began to study the Gospel of John together. Kevin was ready to wrestle hard with biblical Christianity.

What Jeff saw happening to Kevin reveals an ironic truth about coming to faith in Jesus: very few people come into the Kingdom through rational arguments. Certainly, Christianity is a reasonable, defensible faith and God is real and has a claim on our lives. But there's the rub. Once God gets past our arm's- length scrutiny, He gets scary. The smokescreen of relativism is gone, the gospel starts to make sense, and now we're faced with a choice: to embrace Him or to turn and keep running.

Kevin felt like doing both. He wanted to run into the open arms of Jesus and receive grace, but he also knew he would be coming under the Lordship of the One who created him. So he stalled, holding off his decision with endless, picky questions. One evening, Jeff asked Kevin if perhaps he know enough truth to trust Jesus for the unanswered questions. He admitted that he was evading the inevitable. Now he was ready, and he knelt to pray a simple prayer of repentance, asking God to take him into His kingdom, questions and all.

Don't give up on your friends! It will take time and patience, reason and persuasion, prayer, and tears. But take heart: the Holy Spirit is at work, and your fumbling conversations may be the very seeds of the gospel He plants in their hearts.

It Was the Dog's Fault

Auckland, New Zealand, police sergeant William Paul McKenzie told a judge in January that it was not his fault that he drove into a 43-year-old blind therapist in a crosswalk last year, knocking her down and breaking her leg. The victim was accompanied, as usual, by her guide dog, trained never to step into moving traffic, but according to the defense lawyer, since McKenzie looked both ways before accelerating, the problem must have been dog negligence.

[New Zealand Herald, 1-22-02]

_________________

(previous illustration at this number is a duplicate of HolwickId #4665)

Think About It, Speeders!!

Think about it, SPEEDERS!!

Jack took a long look at his speedometer before slowing down: 73 in a 55 zone... Fourth time in as many months. How could a guy get caught so often? When his car had slowed to 10 miles an hour, Jack pulled over, but only partially. Let the cop worry about the potential traffic hazard. Maybe some other car will tweak his backside with a mirror.

The cop was stepping out of his car, the big pad in hand. Bob? Bob from church? Jack sunk farther into his trench coat. This was worse than the coming ticket. A Christian cop catching a guy from his own church. A guy who happened to be a little anxious to get home after a long day at the office. A guy he was about to play golf with tomorrow. Jumping out of the car, he approached a man he saw every Sunday, a man he'd never seen in uniform.

"Hi, Bob. Fancy meeting you like this."

"Hello, Jack." No smile.

"Guess you caught me red-handed in a rush to see my wife and kids."

'Yeah, I guess." Bob seemed uncertain. Good.

"I've seen some long days at the office lately. I'm afraid I bent the rules a bit-just this once." Jack toed at a pebble on the pavement.

"Diane said something about roast beef and potatoes tonight. Know what I mean?"

"I know what you mean. I also know that you have a reputation in our precinct."

Ouch! This was not going in the right direction. Time to change tactics.

"What'd you clock me at?"

"Seventy-one. Would you sit back in your car, please?"

"Now wait a minute here, Bob. I checked as soon as I saw you. I was barely nudging 65." The lie seemed to come easier with every ticket.

"Please, Jack, in the car."

Flustered, Jack hunched himself through the still-open door.

Slamming it shut, he stared at the dashboard. He was in no rush to open the window. The minutes ticked by. Bob scribbled away on the pad. Why hadn't he asked for a driver's license? Whatever the reason, it would be a month of Sundays before Jack ever sat near this cop again. A tap on the door jerked his head to the left.

There was Bob, a folded paper in hand. Jack rolled down the window a mere two inches, just enough room for Bob to pass him the slip.

"Thanks." Jack could not quite keep the sneer out of his voice. Bob returned to his car without a word.

Jack watched his retreat in the mirror. Jack unfolded the sheet of paper. How much was this one going to cost?

Wait a minute. What was this? Some kind of joke? Certainly not a ticket. Jack began to read: "Dear Jack, Once upon a time I had a daughter. She was six when killed by a car. You guessed it - a speeding driver. A fine and three months in jail, and the man was free. Free to hug his daughters. All three of them. I only had one, and I'm going to have to wait until heaven before I can ever hug her again. A thousand times I've tried to forgive that man. A thousand times I thought I had. Maybe I did, but I need to do it again. Even now... Pray for me. And be careful. My son is all I have left." Bob

Jack twisted around in time to see Bob's car pull away and head down the road. Jack watched until it disappeared. A full 15 minutes later, he, too, pulled away and drove slowly home, praying for forgiveness and hugging a surprised wife and kids when he arrived.

Life is precious. Handle with care.

*

The Telephone Pole Hit Me

For the last ten years, insurance companies have published people’s accounts of their auto accidents. People offer explanations like this: “The telephone pole was approaching. I was attempting to swerve out of its way when it struck my front end.” Or this, “As I approached the intersection, a hedge sprang up, obscuring my vision.” Try this: “I was driving along when suddenly a cow went under my car without once signaling its intentions. I’ve since heard that the unfortunate creature was slow witted.”

We deceive ourselves and the truth is not is us. But in his letter, John is not talking so much about the little self-deceptions of vanity or self-preservation. John is talking about sin. He is talking about vital lies at the heart of human life and human households and human relationships. He is talking about vital lies at the heart of our relationship to God.

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database rationalization

Spiritual Traffic Tickets

Luke 11:2

A minister parked his car in a no-parking zone in a large city because he was short of time and couldn’t find a space with a meter.

So he put a note under the windshield wiper that read: “I have circled the block 10 times. If I don’t park here, I’ll miss my appointment. FORGIVE US OUR TRESPASSES.”

When he returned, he found a citation from a police officer along with this note. “I’ve circled this block for 10 years. If I don’t give you a ticket, I’ll lose my job. LEAD US NOT INTO TEMPTATION.”

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Insufficient Standards

Acts 8:18

My Source:

Hurst Street Herald

Volume XX, #32

Center, TX 75935

Author: Kippy Myers

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

INSUFFICIENT STANDARDS

by Kippy Myers

As the bank returns a hot check stamped "insufficient funds," so one day God will turn away our self-serving standards of morality as insufficient. Have you heard or used one of these phrases to justify something lately?

I like (Jeremiah 10:23).

I feel (Galatians 5:16-24).

I want (Acts 8:18-24).

I think (2 Kings 5:1-15).

They do it (1 Samuel 8:4-8).

It seems right (Proverbs 14:12).

I am sincere (2 Samuel 6:6-7).

I am always right (2 Corinthians 13:5).

No one will see me (Proverbs 15:3).

It is for a good cause (Romans 3:8).

I don't see why not (Acts 5:1-11).

The preacher said so (Galatians 1:6-9).

Others do worse things (Matthew 7:5).

God didn't say not to (Leviticus 10:1-2).

God doesn't mind (1 Corinthians 2:10-13).

It isn't against the law (Acts 5:26-29).

It hurts no one but me (1 Corinthians 8:12-13).

Most people think it is okay (Matthew 7:13-14).

My parents and grandparents did it (Galatians 6:5).

It doesn't bother my conscience (Proverbs 30:20).

We have done it this way for years (Joshua 5:2-9).

It's all right if we do it in God's name (Matthew 7:21-23).

God doesn't expect us to be so technical (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

--Kippy Myers, Valdosta, GA

from Source not recorded · Rev. David Lemmons; http://lemmonsaid.net/ via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database rationalization

Do Not Judge, They Say

John 3:16

Only 40 years ago the most commonly quoted verse from the Bible was John 3:16. Most Americans, Christian and non-Christian alike -- whether they believed it to be true or not -- knew that the verse concerned "God's only begotten Son." It wasn't uncommon to see the verse written on signboards in the cheering sections on Monday Night Football.

Perhaps it was inevitable that our "post-Christian world" -- as modern scholars have labeled it -- would replace John 3:16 in an attempt to remove any effort to scrutinize moral laxity or confront it. Admonitions to cease and desist from immoral behavior are commonly met today with references to a permissive, milk toast [milquetoast] Christ who doesn't demand change from those who follow him.

Any attempt to claim the moral high ground in arguments about abortion, homosexuality, adultery and assorted other activities until recently regarded as "sin" are opposed with a different verse these days. Jesus' warning in Matthew 7:1, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged," rolls off the golden tongues of lobbyists for numerous agendas as easily as the old standard from the Gospel of John rolls off the tongues of those in the church.

Ironically, the deployment of the words "do not judge" by those caught in behavior once deemed unacceptable has proven a great countermeasure against Christianity. Christians all too often say, "Well, you're right. Jesus did say that. He did say 'don't judge.' I'm sorry. You're okay. I'm okay. Let's hug and call it a day."

Still worse, Christians who have fallen into immoral behavior have used the verse as a bulwark against the discipline of the body of Christ.

Christians have allowed those who do not accept the authority of Christ or the Bible to convince us that they are as qualified to interpret the words of Scripture as the church. It ought not to be so. The interpretation of the Bible belongs to the church, to the priesthood of all believers, to those who are willing to recognize that they are not God and authorities unto themselves.

Did Jesus mean that we should not declare certain behaviors unacceptable? Did he mean that human beings have no right to set boundaries for society? Did he mean that those within the church have no right to confront a brother or sister in Christ about an egregious sin? If any of these questions are answered in the affirmative, both apostles and governments must apologize. Worse than that, Christians today must preach an impotent gospel which doesn't confront its hearers with the inescapable reality of human sin Paul wrote about in Romans 3:23.

Jesus' admonition to his followers was not a prohibition of all judgments. Nor was his statement meant to be an excuse for bad behavior. Instead, it was intended to convey that his disciples should avoid unfair and unusually harsh judgments. On a personal level, he was encouraging intense self-examination. They should not be more critical of others than of themselves.

Calling attention to the violation of one of God's commandments in the church or of a generally accepted moral standard in society is another story. Sometimes Christians need to say, "This is wrong." Sometimes greater damage is done to society and the church when those who follow Christ choose, in contradiction to the character of Christ, to remain silent.

Where would the world be if Christians throughout history had remained settled in their cozy recliners, indifferent to the world around them? Would William Wilberforce have argued for the abolition of slavery in England? Would Dietrich Bonhoeffer have been imprisoned and hanged for his opposition to Adolph Hitler's control of the church? Would Martin Luther King Jr. and other ministers have labored for civil rights?

Such men might have chosen another saying as their motto: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." Jesus said that, too, in John 15:13, shortly before his crucifixion. It was never all about him. It was about his love for us. That brings us back to, "For God so loved the world..."

______________

Gregory Tomlin is news director at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.

*

Do You Use Your Trials As An Excuse For Sinning?

1 Corinthians 10:13

Writer and speaker Joni Eareckson Tada was paralyzed from the neck down in a diving accident. In her book Secret Strength, Joni wrote about facing temptation.

I was in my late twenties, single, and with every prospect of remaining so. Sometimes lust or a bit of fantasizing would seem so inviting-and so easy to justify. After all, hadn't I already given up more than most Christians just by being disabled? Didn't my wheelchair entitle me to a little slack now and then?

Joni asks her readers:

When God allows you to suffer, do you have the tendency to use your very trials as an excuse for sinning? Or do you feel that since you've given God a little extra lately by taking such abuse, He owes you a "day off'?

Joni Eareckson Tada teaches us that there is no excuse-not suffering, not great sacrifice, not even paralysis-for indulging impurity in our hearts.

Heart, Purity, Rationalization, Suffering

1 Cor. 10:13

Contemporary Illustrations For Preachers, Teachers, & Writers

Editor Craig Brian Larson, Baker Books, p. 264.

How Satan Sets You Up

Luke 3:7

When you've done youth ministry as long as I have, you have seen a lot of volleyball. Some of the dramatic moments in a volleyball game come when one player slams that ball over the net and right into the ground before any opponent can touch it. He or she just spikes it in. But often, there's an important move that precedes spiking it in - that's when another teammate lofts that ball up and into perfect position for someone else to spike it in. That's how to score points - first, you set it up, then you spike it in.

Well, I'm Ron Hutchcraft and I want to have A WORD WITH YOU today about "How Satan Sets You Up."

Satan scores his points in much the same way a volleyball team does. First the setup, which then makes it easy to spike it in. And he may be setting you up right now for a defeat you'd never dream you could fall for. But if you allow him to continue to set you up, it's only a matter of time before he spikes it in - and you lose.

There's an example of one of Satan's favorite setups in our word for today from the Word of God in Luke 3, beginning with verse 7. As crowds gathered to hear John the Baptist, the Bible says, "John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, 'You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.'" John is calling people to turn from their sinful ways to commit themselves to a major life change.

But there was a group of people who thought they were above that, people who didn't think they needed to repent or to change. John addressed them directly: "And do not begin to say, 'We have Abraham as our father. For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham ... every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire."

Some of the people who heard John's call to repentance said to themselves, "We're God's chosen people ... we're in a privileged position. The same rules don't apply to us. We don't have to repent!" John said that attitude put a person in a position to be one of the trees God would cut down.

Entitlement - that's the attitude that Satan uses as his setup shot to spike a life-shattering sin into your life. You feel "entitled" to some relief ... to some pleasure ... to some affection ... to some sin ... to get even ... to be bitter. I have a friend right now who's abandoned his marriage and his ministry, believing that he's "entitled" to some love from someone else. He says, "Why are so many other people entitled to get a divorce and I'm not?" He's bought the entitlement lie - and Satan is using that to leave behind a trail of scarred and bleeding lives.

Be careful - the setup shot of feeling "entitled" is subtle. It's expressed in feelings like these - "I deserve it after all I've done" or "after all I've been through" ... "I need it - I'm entitled to look after my needs for a while" ... or "Others are - why can't I?" If you're entertaining feelings like those, listen to the alarms going off today. You're being set up for something you never thought you'd do - or become. Satan uses the entitlement lie to give people an excuse for adultery, involvement with pornography, getting a divorce, sexual involvement, for harboring bitterness. All things God hates. All things Jesus died to rescue you from. Remember, "He bore our sins in His own body on the tree so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness." (1 Peter 2:24)

Nothing entitles you to defile the temple of the Holy Spirit ... to defy the laws of God ... to break the heart of Jesus. Don't buy the entitlement lie - it's Satan's setup shot to spike something devastating into your life.

________________

Copyright © Ron Hutchcraft Ministries, Inc., PO Box 400, Harrison, AR 72602. Used by permission. Written by Ron Hutchcraft. "Practical Answers to Real Life Issues"

*

from A Word With You by Ron Hutchcraft #3735 · Ron Hutchcraft via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database temptationrepentance

No Spin On Sin

It's definitely the age of doctors who are specialists. Including one of the latest new specialties - the spin doctor. The spin doctor is actually to be found in the world of politics. As soon as some news breaks that might be damaging or embarrassing to a political leader or candidate, someone on their staff talks to the press about it - and they find a way to put a positive or undamaging "spin" on those revelations ... to put their man or woman in the best possible light. The more powerful you become, the more "spin doctors" you need. And depending on how good the "doctor" is, a lot of people may end up believing the "spin" rather than the truth!

Well, I'm Ron Hutchcraft and I want to have A WORD WITH YOU today about "No Spin On Sin."

These days, "image" is often what matters more than the real condition. Except to God. When it comes to sin, there is no "spin" you can put on it that will work with God.

In the Old Testament, King Saul had been commanded by God to go perform spiritual surgery on the Amalekite nation that had openly defied God and morally poisoned many around them. God had promised they'd be destroyed, and He sent Saul and his army to fulfill that promise. They were to destroy everything, and keep nothing from their conquest. Saul didn't do everything God told him to do, but just like us, he tried to put a convincing spin on his sin.

According to our word for today from the Word of God from I Samuel 15 beginning at verse 13, as God's man Samuel approached, "Saul said ... 'I have carried out the Lord's instructions. But Samuel said, 'What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? And what is this lowing of cattle I hear?"

Saul and his men had brought back some of the goodies that they were supposed to have destroyed. But does Saul confess he's disobeyed the Lord? Oh no! He comes out with a very positive testimony! "I've done what the Lord said." Great spin - not true. Oh, he had partially obeyed the Lord, but he tries to cover up his disobedience with impressive spiritual words. Some of us have learned just the right things to say in Christian settings ... how to even give a pretty impressive testimony, but God knows that spin is covering up a dark disobedience in our life.

When Samuel confronts the evidence of Saul's sin, Saul answers, "The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle ... but we totally destroyed the rest." Spiritual words ... and now let's try to turn God's attention to what others are doing wrong. Let's talk about them, and maybe I can get off the hook. Let's pass the buck. "They did it." ... "God, it's her fault ... it's his fault ... it's because of them." But God doesn't buy that anymore than He does the beautiful spiritual speeches.

Saul made one last try at being his own spin doctor. "'But I did obey the Lord,' Saul said. 1 went on the mission the Lord assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites ... the soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the Lord your God.'" How about this one: "I did this so we could do something really spiritual - have a big sacrifice to the Lord." See, we seem to think that if we get busy doing some real Christian things, God may give us a pass on the sin.

But God allows no spin on sin. Samuel answers, "To obey is better than sacrifice ... Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He has rejected you as king." God's message is clear. No amount of godly words ... no pointing at the sins of others ... no amount of spiritual activity can cover or make up for that sin that you have not repented of.

If this message is meant for you, I know God's Holy Spirit is letting you know what sin that is. Living in an age where image is what matters and a good spin can rescue you from the ugly truth, you may have hoped that might work for you with God. It didn't work for God's chosen king of His people ... and it will not work for you.

It's time to bring that sin to the foot of Jesus' cross where He died for it ... and dump it all out at Jesus' feet. A spin on your sin never fools God ... it just deceives you into thinking that you're getting away with what God will surely deal with.

________________

Copyright © Ron Hutchcraft Ministries, Inc., PO Box 400, Harrison, AR 72602. Used by permission. Written by Ron Hutchcraft. "Practical Answers to Real Life Issues"

*

from A Word With You by Ron Hutchcraft #3745 · Ron Hutchcraft via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database sin

Philosophy of Housecleaning

PHILOSOPHY OF HOUSECLEANING:

1. I don't do windows because... I love birds and don't want one to run into a clean window and get hurt. (I am compassionate.)

2. I don't wax floors because... I am terrified a guest will slip, hurt themselves, I'll feel terrible and they may sue me. (I am careful and poor.)

3. I don't mind the dust bunnies because... they are very good company. I have named some of them, and they agree with everything I say. (I am imaginative.)

4. I don't disturb cobwebs because... I want every creature to have a home of their own and my family loves spiders. (I am kind.)

5. I don't Spring Clean because... I love all the seasons and don't want the others to get jealous. (I am fair-minded.)

6. I don't plant a garden because... I don't want to get in God's way, He is an excellent designer. (I am courteous.)

7. I don't put things away because... my family will never be able to find them again. (I am considerate.)

8. I don't do gourmet meals when I entertain because... I don't want my guests to stress out over what to make when they invite me over to dinner.

9. I don't iron because... I choose to believe them when they say “permanent press”. (I am trusting.)

10. I don't stress much on anything because... “A-Type Personalities” die young and I want to stick around and become a wrinkled up crusty old woman!!!

*

[Original illustration at this number was blank]

Is Plagiarism Okay?

Amos 8:5

In Piper, Kansas, 28 students found guilty of plagiarism by their teacher, Christine Pelton, were given reduced academic penalties when the town's school board overruled Pelton (and overruled the school's principal and the county's superintendent of schools.) In accordance with the school's stated policy, the students originally received no credit on their Internet-purloined biology projects; the school board decided the students should receive partial credit.

"This is a very dramatic symbol straight from the heartland of our country that reflects the massive problem we have with integrity," Richard Land said, noting the school board made its decision behind closed doors after the students' parents complained of the stiff penalties meted out to their children.

"The teacher did her job; the principal backed her up and did his job; the superintendent of schools did his job. The parents didn't do their job," Land said, asking, "What kind of lesson did these parents teach their children? They taught them it is okay to cheat. They taught them it is all right to bend the rules. If they get caught, they'll get off because everyone is doing it."

Land said the incident stems from a nationwide problem that can only be remedied by parents reinforcing bedrock values that underscore the fact that when you do an honest day's work you receive an honest day's wage.

"Using someone else's work is thievery. Misleading someone is the same thing as lying," he said, pointing to the behavior of corporate leaders of failed energy conglomerate Enron and resume-troubled college football coach George O'Leary as symptomatic of this larger crisis of integrity.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Pelton discovered her students had cheated on a biology project after noting some students' papers contained identical wording. She used tools on the website, www.turnitin.com, to confirm her suspicions.

A 1998 poll by Who's Who Among American High School Students revealed that 80 percent of the students featured in that publication admitted to cheating in school. The organization, which recognizes high-achieving high school students, said the percentage was the highest in the organization's 29 years of polling (www.eci-whoswho.com/highschool/annualsurveys/29.shtml).

A majority of the students (53 percent) said cheating was "no big deal." Interestingly, 46 percent of these students also said "declining social and moral values" were the biggest problems facing their generation.

"In all likelihood, when these kids look at the examples now being set by traditional role models -- the president, business leaders, Hollywood stars, even the clergy -- they have an easier time excusing their own behavior," said Joe Krouse, associate publisher of Who's Who Among American High School Students, on the group's website.

====================================

New York Times online

School Cheating Scandal Tests a Town's Values

By JODI WILGOREN

PIPER, Kan., Feb. 13, 2002 - The Piper school board normally meets in a cozy conference room at district headquarters, but on Tuesday, folding chairs filled the purple-and-white elementary school gym to accommodate the overflow crowd.

More than 100 parents, students and teachers skipped the basketball game at the high school next door to talk about the plagiarism scandal that has riven this tight-knit community 20 miles west of downtown Kansas City, Kan., and become talk-show fodder as far away as Guam as a symbol of the decline in American values.

It began in December with a teacher's finding that 28 of 118 Piper High sophomores had stolen sections of their botany project off the Internet. The students received zeroes and faced failing the semester. But after parents complained to the school board, the teacher, Christine Pelton, was ordered to raise the grades, prompting her resignation. Now, the community is angrily pointing fingers as they debate right and wrong, crimes and consequences, citizenship and democracy.

At Tuesday's meeting, Kay Miesner, who graduated from Piper High School in 1962 - 28 years after her father, 23 years before her son - told the board members who overruled Mrs. Pelton, "I know each and every one of you, I think you're all good people." But, she said, "I think you made a mistake."

Someone yelled, "Yup," and the audience erupted. But Chris McCord, the board president, clamped the emotion, saying, "We'll have none of that."

Such tension is unusual here in Piper, a blue-collar bedroom community, in part because of young families drawn by the small school district.

Several teachers said that nearly half the high school's 31-member faculty plus its brand new principal planned to resign at year's end over the case, while parents fretted that the school's dwindling reputation might result in a decline in property values and disappearance of scholarship opportunities.

Mrs. Pelton, meanwhile, has become a kind of folk hero, with dozens of calls a day offering support - and jobs.

"It's not just biology, you're teaching them a lot more than that," Mrs. Pelton, 27, who had planned to resign this spring anyhow to start a home- based day care center, said between television appearances the other day. "You're teaching them to be honest people, to have integrity, to listen, to be good citizens.

"We got rules, and they got to follow the rules," she added. "I'm not expecting more than what would be expected of them either at home or down the road."

Students, plagiarizers and non-plagiarizers alike, have already begun to feel the backlash.

A sign posted in a nearby high school read, "If you want your grade changed, go to Piper." The proctor at a college entrance exam last weekend warned a girl wearing a Piper sweatshirt not to cheat. A company in Florida faxed the school asking for a list of students - so it would know whom never to hire. At Tuesday's board meeting, as five television news crews rolled tape, a woman worried that the community has been "stamped with a large purple P on their foreheads for plagiarism."

The sophomore leaf project, an elaborate exercise in which students spend months collecting leaves and researching their origins, dates back a decade.

Mrs. Pelton, who came to Piper High in the fall of 2000 after a five-year program at the University of Kansas, sent an outline of the assignment home on the first day of school, along with her classroom rules (No. 7: "Cheating and plagiarism will result in failure of the assignment and parent notification. It is expected that all work turned in by the student is completely their own."), which students and parents had to sign.

Mrs. Pelton said she began to worry in October, when students' oral presentations, filled with big, unfamiliar words, sounded strangely similar. As she flipped through their projects a month later, she found the writing far more sophisticated than previous assignments. A plagiarism-detection Web site, turnitin.com, showed one in four were laced with lifted material.

The principal, Michael Adams, who declined to be interviewed, backed Mrs. Pelton's decision to give students zeroes, as did the superintendent. But after parents protested at the Dec. 11 school board meeting, the superintendent, Dr. Michael O. Rooney, sent a memorandum home saying he had "reluctantly" directed Mrs. Pelton to deduct just 600 of 1,500 points from the plagiarizers' projects, and to cut its value in the overall grade from 50 percent to 30 percent.

Mrs. Pelton said a student told her, "We won."

Though teachers here say they begin discussing source citation in the fourth grade, some parents, of students with zeroes and those with A pluses, insist the students did not realize what they were doing was wrong (some say they thought the admonition was against copying from previous students' papers, not taking simple descriptions from research material). Failing a whole semester, they say, is too harsh.

"If your boss said to you, 'You were late one day this month so we're not going to pay you for the whole month,' is that fair?" asked Mary Myer, whose son, Mitchell, was not accused of cheating.

"Plagiarism is not a cut-and-dried issue," she added. "Somebody who gets in their car and hurts someone, we punish them differently than someone who goes out and shoots someone. Intent matters."

It is just the latest plagiarism revelation afflicting American high schools and colleges, aggravated by an Internet age in which research papers - as well as programs to detect cheating - can be downloaded by the dollar. A Rutgers University professor's survey of 4,471 high school students last year found that more than half had stolen sentences and paragraphs from Web sites, 15 percent handed in papers completely copied from the Internet, and 74 percent had cheated on a test.

On talk shows and the Internet, Piper's problems have been linked to recent admissions by the popular historian Stephen Ambrose that he failed to properly attribute passages; the resignation of George O'Leary, Notre Dame's football coach, after revelations that he falsified his résumé; even alleged lying by executives at Enron.

Piper, a farming community founded in 1888 and annexed by the city of Kansas City, Kan., in 1992, is defined by the four-school district of 1,300 students. Its headquarters doubles as the post office in an enclave without town hall or tavern; even empty-nesters wear Piper purple to Pirates athletic events.

Many parents have expressed sympathy for the 75 percent of students who did not cheat, some of whom received lower semester grades in biology when the project they had slaved over suddenly counted less than they had anticipated. Some parents have even sent homemade cookies and nut bread to school in quiet solidarity with teachers.

"You can stand up for your kids when it's right, but when it's wrong, you can't bail your child out," said Diane Smith, who has a son in the freshman class and a daughter in middle school. "I don't think the board should have that much power; they really outstepped their boundaries."

Teachers, ever-protective of the sanctity of their grade books, say the board has robbed their independence and professionalism. Instead of a lesson about the importance of honesty and originality, they say, students learned that complaining to higher powers mitigates punishment.

"If I make a decision, I don't know if it's going to be backed up," said Angel Carney, a business teacher who submitted her resignation this week. "I had a disagreement with a parent the other day; right away she wanted to go over my head."

Even if no one ended up failing, students say they are paying the price. "Whatever you do will always come back to you," Amy Kolich, an 18-year-old senior, said when asked what she had learned from the situation. "In a way, to them, it didn't, but it came back to our school."

Piper High's handbook does not mention plagiarism specifically, but says the penalty for cheating, even a first offense, is no credit on the assignment. Administrators are now setting up a committee to handle conflicts over grades and collecting plagiarism policies from other schools.

Matthew Mosier, 16, spent hours on his botany project, gathering leaves from neighbors' farms, looking them up on the Web. His grandmother, a quilter, covered his three-ring binder in leaf fabric and embroidered his name on the cover. He bought fancy leaf paper at the Hobby Lobby to print out his reports.

Matt ended up with a D, the extra-credit for his artistic flourishes washed out by the sentences Mrs. Pelton said he copied.

"Am I saying my son's perfect? No and [heck] no," said Kim Mosier, Matthew's mom, who was not among those who complained to the board but was pleased by the result. "We sat down with him and said, 'Did you plagiarize?' He said, 'No, Mom, I didn't.' I have to support him until they can prove him different.

"We hire that board, those teachers, that school, that principal - they work for us," she added. "Everybody has that opportunity that they should be questioned on a decision that they make.

*

The Dark Closet

Numbers 32:23

She was such a sweet little old lady - the housemother who inspected our dorm rooms every week at college. I just didn't want her to get hurt, you know? I was afraid she would, though, if she opened my closet door. Look, you're busy in college with all kinds of important things, you know. Who's got time to clean your room? Some days, it was almost impossible to tell I had furniture in there. Everything was covered with what looked like the fallout from a bomb blast, but not on inspection day. No, I managed to get all the junk stuffed into my closet. Sometimes it took three guys to close the door, but eventually what I needed to hide was safely inside that closet. Safe, that is, unless you opened the door. She was such a sweet little old lady.

I'm Ron Hutchcraft and I want to have A Word With You today about “The Dark Closet.”

A lot of us still have a closet today where we try to hide the stuff we don't want discovered. Maybe there's some dark stuff you've managed to keep in that closet for a long time. Like my college room, on the surface you look clean. But just inside the closet is stuff you don't want anyone to see. And so far, no one has - except for the One who matters the most.

Nine words - that's all it is. But these nine words in Numbers 32:23, our word for today from the Word of God, literally blow the door off your closet. Here they are: “Be sure that your sin will find you out.” No loopholes, no exceptions - including you. God knows everything you've done, everything you've thought, everything you've said. So you're caught! And without exception, someday your sin will be out of the closet.

You can rationalize it away - we're good at that. “It's just a little ... I can't help it ... I deserve this ... I need this ... this is love ... I'll get out soon.” Lies you may believe but God doesn't buy. You can compare yourself with others and feel pretty good about yourself - until you remember that God doesn't grade on the curve and His standard is perfection. You can excuse what you're doing, call it by a nice name, blame someone else, live in denial about it, try to compensate for it by doing lots of good things. But it's still sin, it's still something that helped cause the death of your Savior, it still stinks to God, and it's building up judgment for you all the time.

Recently, a major church was rocked by the public confession of one of its longtime leaders; a man described as the most trusted person in the church. But behind that closet door was twenty years of blatant sexual sin, a sin he had even confronted in others as a church leader. It had been successfully concealed from everyone but God. And now comes the picking up of the pieces in so many lives.

King David did everything to keep his adultery hidden in the closet, until God's man Nathan tore the door off with these words: “You are the man.” Finally, David faced the ugly truth and he said, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Right now, God, through His Holy Spirit, may be saying to you, “You are the man. You are the woman.” He's giving you this chance to finally be free of the inner torture, to stop the mounting consequences, to experience at Jesus' cross the incomparable relief and release of finally getting clean.

You've hidden it, but the sin and the price and the guilt continue to grow behind that door. It's going to be tough to open that closet and deal with what's in there. But it's going to be a whole lot tougher not to. It's haunted you. It's shamed you. It's shackled you long enough. Jesus is right there with you to help you open that door, and to once and for all get rid of the awful secret behind it.

__________

Copyright © Ron Hutchcraft Ministries, Inc., PO Box 400, Harrison, AR 72602. Used by permission. Written by Ron Hutchcraft. "Practical Answers to Real Life Issues"

*

[Original illustration here was a duplicate in HolwickID 25837-26027]

from A Word With You by Ron Hutchcraft #4552 · Ron Hutchcraft via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Pleading With the Police

Job 5:17

So you thought police officers didn't have a sense of humor.... The following were taken off of police car videos around the country.

“Relax, the handcuffs are tight because they're new. They'll stretch out after you wear them awhile.”

“If you run, you'll only go to jail tired.”

“So you don't know how fast you were going. I guess that means I can write anything I want on the ticket, huh?”

“Yes, Sir, you can talk to the shift supervisor, but I don't think it will help. Oh -- did I mention that I am the shift supervisor?”

“Warning! You want a warning? O.K., I'm warning you not to do that again or I'll give you another ticket.”

“The answer to this last question will determine whether you are drunk or not. Was Mickey Mouse a cat or a dog?”

“Yeah, we have a quota. Two more tickets and my wife gets a toaster oven.”

“Just how big were those two beers?”

“No sir, we don't have quotas anymore. We used to have quotas but now we're allowed to write as many tickets as we want.”

“I'm glad to hear that Sheriff Tom Ariss is a good personal friend of yours. At least you know someone who can post your bail.”

“You didn't think we give pretty women tickets? ... You're right, we don't... sign here.”

________

Source: Monday Fodder

*

Come To Athens and Live

John 7:25

We ended yesterday by suggesting that the issue which the Greeks might have wanted to talk over with Jesus was that of taking His message to Athens - the centre of philosophy and learning. Were they intent on saying to Him: “Put Your marvellous message of the kingdom of God into the medium of Greek thought, and in no time it will spread throughout the world. Don't stay in Jerusalem and die; come to Athens and live”? We have no way, of course, of knowing for sure that this was the situation, and I am simply suggesting that this is what may have been in their minds. The idea is not as far-fetched as you might imagine when placed against the verse that is before us today: `”Does he intend to go to the Dispersion ' and teach the Greeks?” (v.35, RSV). Had other nations beyond Israel's boundaries showed interest in His revolutionary approach to life? Tradition says that the king of Edessa once sent a message to Jesus inviting Him to come to his country and present His message concerning the kingdom of God. Whether or not this was so, one thing is certain - the coming of the Greeks precipitated a crisis in Jesus' soul: “Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? ' Father, glorify your name!” (John 12:27-28). He would not rationalise or compromise; He would face the issue to which He had always been committed. It was not to be a philosopher's chair in Athens, but a grisly cross in Jerusalem. He would fall into the ground and die, and bear a harvest richer than anything the world could offer.

PRAYER:

Lord Jesus, help me to catch something of Your spirit as I face the challenges that lie ahead of me in the coming days. I want to make my life count for the utmost - show me how we can work things out together. Amen.

FURTHER STUDY:

Matt.16:24-28; 27:32; John 19:17

1. What does the cross signify?

2. What does it mean to “take up your cross”?

from Source not recorded · Selwyn Hughes via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database rationalization

Hide My Crime

Job 14:17

Postal worker Douglas C. Yee, 50, was indicted in 1996 in San Mateo, California, for pulling off bulk-mail scams that grossed him $800,000. Found in Yee's garbage were notes he had written to God expressing gratitude for His continued help in evading police. Read one:

“Lord, I am having a difficult time myself seeing you as a God

who hides crime, yet your Word says that it's your privilege

(or glory) to do just that.”

________

San Jose Mercury News, February 9, 1996

*

from News Of The Weird via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database rationalization

I Get Robbed, But I Can't Rob Nobody

Bradley S. Shugars, 21, was arrested and charged with robbing a Phillips 66 gas station in Avon, Indiana, with his cousin, Karl D. Carnes. Police found Shugars in the getaway car, awaiting Carnes at another gas station, and quickly got a confession from Shugars, who started to cry.

According to the arresting officer, Shugars self-pityingly lamented, “Everybody can rob you, but you can't rob nobody.”

from Internet: News Of The Weird · Chuck Shepherd via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

The Infinite Human Capacity To Deceive Ourselves and Then Rationalize It

John 3:20

Two days before Christmas 2020, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries confirmed that its founder had engaged in sexual misconduct over the course of many years and promised further information when the investigation into the matter was complete. Late Thursday afternoon, RZIM released the full report as they had received it, along with an extended, contrite statement of apology.

Ravi was a significant personal influence and a great friend of the Colson Center. When Ravi died in May of last year, we honored him. At the time, both Ravi and RZIM leadership claimed that allegations of an inappropriate relationship had been dismissed and disproven after a thorough investigation. We trusted the information provided to us. We were wrong. I both believed and shared excuses that explained Ravi’s behavior. By doing that, I was wrong and misled others. To be clear, no one at the Colson Center had any sense just how much would be revealed in this final report. But I wish I had not been so quick to trust what I wanted to be true.

There is no sugar-coating, excusing, or explaining away Ravi’s behavior. It was sinful. It was wicked. And, as this report made crystal clear, it was duplicitous. Reading through it, I couldn’t shake the words I heard time and time again from Chuck Colson: “There is no limit to the human capacity for self-rationalization.”

That’s why Proverbs uses the word “folly” to describe sin. As a mentor of mine used to say, sin makes us dumb. Buried in sin, we become fools, actually convincing ourselves that, for the first time in human history, we will be the ones to get away with it.

As sin takes us deeper than we ever imagined possible, others are dragged along into our self-deception. Sin always leaves other victims, human beings made in the image of God and for whom Christ died. The number of women Ravi abused, and the degree to which he deceived them, is breath-taking. RZIM has committed to make restitution and care for these women. I hope and pray they will. And there are other victims to remember: family members, friends, and the many disillusioned others around the world.

Recently, a BreakPoint listener emailed us asking how we should respond to cases like this, when a Christian leader or teacher is caught in sexual misconduct. Is it possible to separate the good that they’ve done and the truth they’ve taught, the person and their sin? What about in cases such as this, when the perpetrator is gone and has no further opportunity to acknowledge his sins, repent, and seek forgiveness?

We need not deny that Ravi’s teaching helped many Christians make sense of the Faith, deal with their doubts, and engage other people with the Gospel, in order to acknowledge the depth of his depraved behavior. As my colleague Shane Morris pointed out a few weeks ago, no one is “made of finer clay” than anyone else. As St. Paul wrote, “There is none righteous, no not one.”

It’s also important to remember, to borrow a phrase popularized by Christian educator Arthur Holmes, “all truth is God’s truth.” In other words, if Ravi Zacharias ever said anything true in his life, and of course he did, he was not its source but only its medium. Any truth – all truth – comes ultimately from God, outside of time or place or context. Even if delivered by the most sinful voices, truth is as eternal and unchanging as God Himself.

A postmodern worldview, in contrast, relativizes truth to cultural settings or individuals. In other words, truth is not absolute. But, if truth is dependent on the shifting sands of attitudes, beliefs, perceptions of a culture or an individual, anything we build on it must collapse when any of those things do.

Of course, knowing that doesn’t make what’s happened any less painful, disorienting, or consequential, especially for all those women involved. Having talent, even amazing talent, to communicate does not give one a divine right or inherent privilege (and it is an incredible privilege) to have or to keep a public platform. Scripture is clear: teachers are stewards of the truth, and therefore held to a higher standard.

This is not the same thing as cancel culture, which is so popular in our time. Cancel culture cancels people because of their different beliefs. This is about behavior; this is about reprehensible behavior that deeply harmed other people.

Finally, let this be a reminder to not trust ourselves, but only God and His Spirit. Pray for your pastor, church leaders, spouse, and whomever else God has put in your life. We need His protection from the real and ever-present temptations, as well as from our own capacity to deceive ourselves and then rationalize our behavior.

Resources

“Update from RZIM Board: Allegations Against Ravi Zacharias,” RZIM, December 23, 2020.

“Report of Independent Investigation into Sexual Misconduct of Ravi Zacharias,” by Miller & Martin PLLC, February 9, 2021.

________

Copyright (c) 2021 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · John Stonestreet via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database follysexual sinexcuses

The Return of Watergate: True and False Heroism

Mark Felt, a consummate FBI professional, whom I dealt with often and trusted completely, turns out to have engaged in cloak-and-dagger escapades worthy of a Fredrick Forsythe novel in order to bring down what he believed was a corrupt presidency [Felt was revealed as the "Deep Throat" of the Watergate scandal]. Was he a hero? That's the question the secular media have been asking me all week.

Now, I understand why Felt wanted to stop Watergate. In my memoirs published this month, titled The Good Life, I recall those moments in the White House when now I realize I should have acted to stop the spreading scandal. One night, when, in my presence, Nixon ordered Halderman to get a team in place to do break-ins, I should have stood up and said, “No, Mr. President, you can't do that.” But I rationalized that there was a war going on, friends of mine were POWs, and the Cold War was hanging in the balance. Maybe the president was right; we had to take extreme steps to protect the country. And getting Richard Nixon re-elected was, as I saw it then, the most important thing I could do for my country.

What I now realize today, of course, is that we humans all have an infinite capacity for self-justification. Jeremiah was right: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: Who can know it?”

So knowing what was right, I did what was wrong, and justified myself in the process. I employed wrong means for what I perceived to be good ends, and I was sentenced to prison, ironically for giving an FBI report to a reporter, another point at which I can identify with Mark Felt.

I'm willing to give Felt the benefit of the doubt that he acted to end corruption, not because Nixon had passed him over for FBI director. That's why many today say he's a hero.

But before we jump to that conclusion, let's look at what he really did. FBI files are maintained on perhaps half of all Americans. Grand-jury records and FBI interviews are sacrosanct. Felt sneaked around in the dark of night, looking for flower pots on a balcony to give sensitive FBI information to reporters — something that was illegal.

He could have used good means to pursue his noble objective: He could have met with the president, or if we had refused to see him, he could have held a press conference to announce what the bad guys in the Nixon White House were doing. He would have been well within his rights.

Today, I'm not concerned about how Mark Felt, or those of us involved in Watergate, or the press is judged by history. All of us have to be responsible for what we did ourselves. What I am concerned about is how, in the eyes of many people, Mark Felt's end justified his means.

I've watched some of the classroom discussions on TV, and, almost to a person, students say he did the right thing because his end was good. This is terribly wrong.

I know we live in an era of moral relativism — everybody chooses what is “right” for them. But this is a path to chaos and a lawless, ungovernable nation.

Let Mark Felt live his remaining years in peace, but please, don't make him a role model for our kids. The lasting legacy of this sad era in American life ought to be a sober reminder that the ends do not justify the means. Integrity means doing the right thing in every area of your life, and it's the real mark of a true hero.

________

Copyright (c) 2005 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database politicsjusticehero

Sartre's Hypocrisy

Mark 10:8

The French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre loved the company of women. He spent much of his time trying to seduce one. With one woman, Simone de Beauvoir, he had a special relationship. She wrote in one of her books:

One single aim fired us, the urge to embrace all experience, and

to bear witness concerning it. At times this meant that we had

to follow diverse paths – though without concealing even the

least of our discoveries from one another. When we were together

we bent our wills so firmly to the requirements of this common

task that even at the moment of parting we still thought as one.

That which bound us freed us; and in this freedom we found

ourselves bound as closely as possible.

Sartre proposed a pact with Beauvoir: they could have affairs, but they were required to tell each other everything. They not only had affairs, but often had them with the same people (though Beauvoir did not admit to her bisexuality while she was alive).

The relationship lasted 51 years. It was only after both of them had died that the truth of the relationship was revealed by biographers. The revelation was not the promiscuity; it was the hypocrisy. The most appalling discovery, for many readers, was what “telling each other everything” really meant. Their letters were filled with catty and disparaging remarks about the people Beauvoir and Sartre were either sleeping with or trying to sleep with, even though, when they were with those people, they radiated interest and affection. It was clear that, privately, Sartre and Beauvoir held most of the people in their lives in varying degrees of contempt. They enjoyed, especially, recounting to each other the lies they were telling.

In 1946, at the peak of his celebrity as the philosopher of freedom and authenticity, Sartre moved in with his mother. He used most of his income to support friends and current and former mistresses. He described the women he was attracted to as “drowning women,” women whose lives were damaged or insecure – which, of course, was why they offered the devotion he demanded.

Simone de Beauvoir was at the center of this system. What explains her? One theory is plainly wrong. That is the theory that her relationship with Sartre was a post-patriarchal partnership of equals, combining genuine mutuality with genuine autonomy, and rejecting the superstitious equation of sexual fidelity with commitment – in less pretentious terms, an open marriage. But it is clear now that they did not simply have a long-term relationship supplemented by independent affairs with other people. The affairs with other people formed the very basis of their relationship.

We are reduced to the final, depressing theory that the pact was just the traditional sexist arrangement – in which the man sleeps around and the woman nobly “accepts” the situation - on philosophical stilts. Sartre was the classic womanizer, and Beauvoir was the classic enabler. Though her affairs, for the most part, were love affairs, it is plain from almost every page she wrote that she would have given them all up if she could have had Sartre for herself alone.

*

from The New Yorker Magazine · Louis Menand; edited by Rev. David Holwick via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database adulteryrationalization

Shoplifters See Themselves As Victims

John 10:10

The common denominator among shoplifting addicts is a sense of victimization, of having been unfairly taken from in their lives. Shoplifting from a store is their attempt to regain lost power, to get even for a lifetimes of unjust deprivation.

Researcher Terry Shulman has found a handful of commonly held beliefs among the thousands of compulsive shoplifters he has met or counseled over the years: “Life is unfair.” “The world is an unsafe place.” “I’m entitled to something extra for my suffering.” “Nice people finish last.”

from The Week magazine · Benoit Denizet Lewis via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database rationalizationexcuses

Land of the Free?

John 10:10

Police in Fort Pierce, Florida, were called to a truck stop for a reported shoplifting. When an officer confronted Eric T. Ambrose, 31, he “could clearly see the pocket on the right side of the defendant’s pants were bulging and M&Ms packages could be seen,” he said in his report.

Officers starting emptying Ambrose’s pockets and found three packs of peanut M&Ms, two black T-shirts, a 20-ounce can of beer, Circus Peanuts candy, chewing tobacco, Wonka Nerds candy, Planters cashews, Reese’s Pieces, Sour Patch candy, two Snickers candy bars, and two packages of beef jerky.

On his way to jail, Ambrose “was screaming out the window that he had served in the military over in Iraq so he could steal all the M&M’s he wanted,” the officer reported.

________

Fort Pierce Tribune

from This Is True · Randy Cassingham via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database rationalization

How Could I Have?

Job 31:9

Eliot Spitzer, the disgraced former governor of New York, was asked by a reporter why he was so reckless with a young prostitute. Spitzer replied, “The human mind ... permits people to do things that they rationally know are wrong, outrageous ... We succumb to temptations that we know are wrong and foolish when we do it and then in hindsight we say, ‘How could I have?’”

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Luke 6:42

Finding examples of moral hypocrisy is just too easy, what with Eliot Spitzer (former New York governor, moralizing proponent of laws against sex tourism and prostitution; named in “escort service” sting in March) coming along just when memories of Mark Foley (ex-congressman; crusader against child exploitation; caught in 2006 sending sexually explicit messages to congressional pages) and Sen. Larry (family values; “wide stance”) Craig were, mercifully, fading. But while the ubiquity of hypocrisy can sour you on human nature, there’s a bright side: scientists have lots of examples to study as they look for ways to make hypocrisy a little less common than breathing.

Scientists have long bickered over whether hypocrisy is driven by emotion or by reason — that is, by our gut instinct to cast a halo over ourselves, or by efforts to rationalize and justify our own transgressions. In other moral judgments, brain imaging shows, regions involved in feeling, not thinking, rule. In “the train dilemma,” for instance, people are asked whether they would throw a switch to send an out-of-control train off a track where it would kill 10 people and onto one where it would kill one. Most of us say we would. But would we heave a large man onto the track to derail the train and save the 10? Most of us say no: although the save-10-lose-one calculus is identical, the emotional component — heaving someone to his death rather than throwing an impersonal switch — is repugnant, and the brain’s emotion regions scream “Don’t!”

The role of emotion in moral judgments has upended the Enlightenment notion that our ethical sense is based on high-minded philosophy and cognition. That brings us to hypocrisy, which is almost ridiculously easy to bring out in people. In a new study that will not exactly restore your faith in human nature, psychologists David DeSteno and Piercarlo Valdesolo of Northeastern University instructed 94 people to assign themselves and a stranger one of two tasks: an easy one, looking for hidden images in a photo, or a hard one, solving math and logic problems. The participants could make the assignments themselves, or have a computer do it randomly. Then everyone was asked, how fairly did you act?, from “extremely unfairly” (1) to “extremely fairly” (7). Next they watched someone else make the assignments, and judged that person’s ethics. Selflessness was a virtual no-show: 87 out of 94 people opted for the easy task and gave the next guy the onerous one. Hypocrisy, however, showed up with bells on: every single person who made the selfish choice judged his own behavior more leniently — on average, 4.5 vs. 3.1 — than that of someone else who grabbed the easy task for himself, the scientists will report in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

The gap might not have been on a par with delivering homophobic sermons while having a gay affair, but it suggests how that kind of hypocrisy is possible. For one thing, people’s emotions might have gotten the better of them, just as emotions drive the runaway-train dilemma. When we judge our own transgressions less harshly than we judge the same transgressions in others, DeSteno said, it may be because “we have this automatic, gut-level instinct to preserve our self-image. In our heart, maybe we’re just not as sensitive to our own transgressions.” Adds Dan Batson of the University of Kansas, a pioneer in hypocrisy studies, “people have learned that it pays to seem moral, since it lets you avoid censure and guilt. But even better is appearing moral without having to pay the cost of actually being moral” — such as assigning yourself the tough job.

To test the role of cognition in hypocrisy, DeSteno had volunteers again assign themselves an easy task and a stranger an onerous one. But before judging the fairness of their actions, they had to memorize seven numbers. This ploy keeps the brain’s thinking regions too tied up to think much about anything else, and it worked: hypocrisy vanished. People judged their own (selfish) behavior as harshly as they did others’, strong evidence that moral hypocrisy requires a high-order cognitive process. When the thinking part of the brain is otherwise engaged, we’re left with gut-level reactions, and we intuitively and equally condemn bad behavior by ourselves as well as others.

If our gut knows when we have erred and judges our transgressions harshly, moral hypocrisy might not be as inevitable as if it were the child of emotions and instincts, which are tougher to change than thinking. “Since it’s a cognitive process, we have volitional control over it,” argues DeSteno. That matters because of another nasty aspect of hypocrisy: we apply the same moral relativism when judging the actions of people like ourselves. When “people like us” torture, it’s justified; when people unlike us do, it’s an atrocity. When we make that judgment, the brain’s cognitive regions are the hypocrites; emotional regions make honest judgments and see the heinous behavior for what it is. As with other forms of judgment, the way to change hearts and minds is to focus on the former: appeal to our better angels in the brain’s emotion areas, and tell circuits that are going through cognitive contortions to excuse in ourselves what we condemn in others to just shut up.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #6922]

from Newsweek Magazine · Sharon Begley via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database rationalization

No-Fault Infanticide

Statement by Tanya Denby, convicted in Newport News, Virginia, in August of beating her three-year-old daughter to death by excessive punishment: "I can't see my baby anymore, but she's in a much better place. I'm glad God took her."

And another by Patricia Wells, indicted in April 1998 in Camden, New Jersey, for aggravated manslaughter after six kids (including one of hers) died as the van she was driving (at 70 mph in a 25 mph zone with no license and a .151 blood-alcohol level) crashed: "It was the children's time to go, and God wanted those children."

A Biblical Response To 'I Was Born This Way'

John 9:2

Recently, I was talking with my young son about his behavior with a babysitter. He had done some things clearly against “babysitter protocol,” and rather than own his error, he said: “Dad, I’m not perfect.”

He was using his innate imperfection as some form of justification for his poor behavior. The next day, I met with a young man dealing with difficult issues in his life and making questionable decisions. His primary defense to his behavior was his belief that he was only acting in concert with how he had been born. He, too, was using his innate imperfection as a form of justification for his poor behavior. Another friend claimed that his “personality” somehow invalidated God’s commands to us to love each other, forgive each other and live in community with each other. His response to challenge was: “That is just not how God made me.” Somehow, we seem to think that God’s Word only applies to us when it is easy, or when it feels natural. In our self-absorbed culture, we rationalize our behavior by blaming our biology.

As a Christian, I believe that through original sin, we all enter the world with a sin nature and a propensity to do things that God calls sin. Sinning comes naturally. Few are taught to lie or to manipulate or to be selfish. Most people, and not just Christians, see “natural” parts of themselves that have the potential to be destructive in society or in relationships and they act to curb those tendencies. We see few people claiming the identity of “liar” even though many people are tempted on a daily basis to lie about something. We see few people claiming the identity of “adulterer” even though many people deal with lust, at some level, on a daily basis. We see few people claiming the identity of “gossiper” even though many people are tempted to gossip on a daily basis. Certainly no one would seek to justify stealing or murder based on some innate desire to steal or to murder.

Those of us who are Christians see biblical guidelines as being about more that just the betterment of society or personal relationships. As Christ followers, we see God’s Word as written for us and for a purpose that goes beyond the surface of our lives. But many times God’s Word calls us to something that seems unnatural. I know that I have struggled with many things for most of my life. I don’t know which of those things were part of me at my birth, and which were acquired by me as a result of the sinful world in which I grew up. But, in reality, I’m not sure it matters.

Years ago I left my wife to pursue homosexuality. I made this decision for several reasons, but one major reason was that I had come to believe that I had always been gay and I would always be gay. The feelings seemed to go way back, and nothing in my childhood seemed identifiable as the “cause” of the intense feelings with which I had struggled for so long. Without an intervening cause, I decided that I must have been born gay and, thus, I had a loophole in God’s instruction for behavior and sexuality (sexual identity and sexual expression).

Even though I eventually returned home to my wife repentant and committed to allowing God to work in my life and sexuality, I continued to struggle with fears that some day there might actually be proof of a gay gene (a fear which has, as of today, not been realized). As I sought God’s Word, though, I realized that even if my same-sex attraction was somehow genetic, God’s Word still applied to me. And God’s Word did not give an “out” for genetic predispositions. I wasn’t told not to steal unless I just couldn’t help myself, or not to lie unless it felt really natural, or not to lust unless I had always felt the urge to lust. I was told simply to follow Christ no matter how I felt and no matter the depth of my struggles.

I also discovered that the call to follow Christ carried with it amazing promises. As a Christian, I was told that I was a new creation. I was promised abundant life. I was promised peace and joy and fulfillment. I was told that I would gain much more than I gave up. I saw in Paul that his lifelong struggles were allowed by God so that Paul would experience the sufficiency of God’s grace and the strength that comes in weakness.

I saw in the man born blind (John 9) that the man’s blindness was allowed so that God’s power might be displayed in him. I realized that to legitimize sinful feelings and behavior was to deny the reason Christ came in the first place. He came not to give me comfort in how I was, but to transform me and make me new. I may have been born one way, but He came to give me new life and new purpose and a new identity. Today, I am reborn completely new. My struggles may remain, but I am no longer a slave to them and am no longer controlled by them. More than anything, I am no longer defined by them.

I was born with lots of things, good and bad. And I was raised in a world full of other sinners and broken people. While sin came naturally to me, so did creativity and humor and friendship and many other things. Christ redeemed all of me, the good and the bad. He did not take away my positive traits or my negative traits, but he made them new. Today, I can see that my whole life is for one purpose -- to bring Him glory. No matter how I was born, I was reborn for so much more. To settle with what we were is to miss out on the magnitude of what God empowers us to become. Claim your new identity, and prepare to receive much more than you give up.

________

Mike Goeke is an associate pastor of at Stonegate Fellowship Church in Midland, Texas.

Aborting In the Name of Jesus

Luke 10:29

It is one of the most disturbing articles I’ve ever read. The current issue of Esquire magazine profiles the “abortion ministry” of Willie Parker, a doctor who flies in and out of my home state of Mississippi to perform abortions at the state’s only abortion clinic. The word “ministry” isn’t incidental. Dr. Parker says he aborts unborn children because Jesus wants him to.

Parker, the article says, preached in Baptist churches as a young man, before going into medicine. He had, he says, a “come to Jesus” moment where he became convinced that he ought to do abortions. “The protesters say they’re opposed to abortion because they’re Christian,” he says. “It’s hard for them to accept that I do abortions because I’m a Christian.”

The profile portrays Dr. Parker as he prepares women for the abortions he is selling them. He tells them to ignore everything but their own consciences, and then, of course, he informs their consciences that abortion is morally acceptable. “If you are comfortable with your decision, ignore everything from everybody else.”

Apparently, he knows how to ignore everything else, including the conscience. The article quotes him talking a woman through an abortion by telling her that her unborn child is “very small.”

In the most chilling passage of the article, Parker has just aborted triplets, and is sorting through the aftermath. He then points out the body parts of a nine-week unborn child he has just aborted. “There’s the skull, what is going to be the fetal skull,” he says. “And there are the eye sockets.” Parker points out, “That’s an eye.”

The article states: “Floating near the top of the dish are two tiny arms with two tiny hands.”

Parker says that he is not disturbed by these body parts because he is “not deluded about what this whole process is.” It doesn’t disturb him, he says, it just tells him the woman’s uterus is empty, and she’s no longer pregnant. He doesn’t consider the “fetus” a person because the child is totally dependent on the mother, and “that dependence puts it in the domain of her choice.”

Parker says his “come to Jesus” moment, persuading him of the “call” to abortion, happened when he heard a sermon by Martin Luther King Jr. on Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan. By performing abortion, Parker sees himself as the Samaritan, caring for the beaten neighbor on the side of the road.

That would be true, of course, if the Samaritan in Jesus’ story had euthanized the neighbor, to put him out of his misery. Of course, he didn’t. Instead, the Samaritan took the neighbor on as his own kin, nursing him back to health and caring for him, a picture that looks a lot like what many of the pro-life churches and organizations Parker dismisses are, in fact, doing for women in crisis and their babies.

Ironically enough, the one left for dead on the side of the Jericho Road was also totally dependent. Without the embrace of love and the kindness of a passer-by, he was left for dead. He was hardly viable on his own. The priest and the Levite passed on, Dr. King preached rightly, probably because they were afraid. Fear paralyzed them from seeing the humanity of another. The road to Jericho was filled with “choice,” as person after person averted his eyes from the hurting human being in front of them. The one on the roadside was dependent, totally dependent, on one who saw life as better than death.

Dr. Parker could be that Good Samaritan. Instead, he looks into the sonogram screen and says, “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29).

Let’s pray and work for an end to the injustice of abortion. Let’s pray and work for better solutions for women in crisis. But let’s pray for doctors like this as well.

We can pray for a “come to Jesus” moment that puts him on the right side of the Jericho Road.

Stop Following Your Heart

Jeremiah 17:9

It’s advice we’ve all heard before.

You have to make a tough decision and go to friends for advice, and inevitably someone tells you something like “trust yourself,” “go with your gut” or, the one that pains me the most, “just follow your heart.”

The phrases vary, but the advice is the same. In moments of confusion, we encourage one another to just do whatever we really want to do.

The origin of the phrase “follow your heart” is unclear, but there is an overwhelming cultural sense that this is the thing we are to do when faced with difficult decisions. It is seemingly harmless and encouraging, but what is actually being communicated when this advice is given?

In moments of confusion, we encourage one another to just do whatever we really want to do.

At the heart of every cliché there lies an assumption. Phrases move to become clichés when we use a phrase to the point of exhaustion. It doesn’t mean anything anymore.

We like to hear advice that sounds familiar because we think we can achieve it, but the reality is we don’t really know what these things even mean, or the action steps we are to take after hearing the advice. The vague nature of clichés helps us get out from under difficult truth that we actually need to obey, not just hear.

When someone tells us to “follow our heart,” it’s really not advice, but a vague encouragement to do whatever it is we wanted to do in the first place.

“Follow your heart” had very little weight for me until I recently re-read the prophet Jeremiah who, quite boldly, says, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9) Earlier he says, “Cursed is the man who trusts in man!”

These are big, bold statements that say some very plain things about these hearts of ours that we are being told to follow. The Bible has a very different opinion on our hearts. They are not our trusty guides, but a dishonest witnesses as to what life is actually all about.

The assumption behind most advice given is that we generally know what we are doing, that we have all of the resources within ourselves to understand what we must do in order to have a good life. But the problem is we don’t; that’s why we’re asking for advice in the first place.

So, after all of this asking and advice giving, we realize that our cultural encouragement to follow our heart really just puts us back to the place we started: lost.

Amidst our confusion, God might be (if He’s lucky) just one of many consultants we ask when seeking answers for how to live. The problem is, most of God’s wisdom only works when applied completely and not just in part.

“Guard your heart above all else,” says Solomon, “for it determines the course of your life” (Proverbs 4:23). God’s idea for your life is not that you would follow your heart, but that you would guard it.

Beware of letting your heart go, of following it wherever it might lead. All of us live from the place of the heart; it is where our understanding of the world sits.

We all do what we want. But what if what we wanted to do began to change?

The Bible tells a different story: We are not to be trusted, not even with ourselves. Joining the life of Jesus is not about being affirmed of every decision you make, but to be corrected in all of your ways, including your motives. New questions are asked, fresh and loving authority is in play — this is what it means to repent. God is our guide, our shepherd we follow at all cost, and we surrender this heart we want to follow to Him.

In our following of Jesus and out of our love for Him, that seat of understanding called, “the heart,” actually begins to change. Fresh desires come when we begin to love our Master, Jesus (Psalm 37:4). The truth about us that doesn’t change is this: We all do what we want. But what if what we wanted to do began to change? What if we began to want to do the same things God wanted us to do?

The only way to be convinced of the better ways of God is to begin to follow Him, to take His wisdom, His yoke of teaching. Let’s start with aggressively holding our hearts back when they want to be our guide. Jesus is our master, not our hearts.

When you are swooned by that boy, desperate for that career or captivated by that new Apple product, try and remember the device that is directing you from place to place might actually be broken. Be discerning: is this your heart or the Spirit of God?

Surrendering our life over to God begins with our hearts. We will never fully change until we say “no” to our heart’s leading and yes to that of our new, gentler master, Jesus Christ.

God Gives Only Two Choices

John 15:17

Choices are wired into our society today. When we buy a cup of coffee, we have endless choices of how we want it fixed. If we do research on a topic, hundreds of articles are at our disposal. If we read one and it does not suit us, we simply move to the next.

Choices are one of the benefits of living in a free society.

However, as believers we must be careful not to apply the expectation of personal choices to our relationship with God.

When God gives us commands in Scripture, we only have two choices. Are we going to follow God’s instructions and live in blessing or are we going to disobey and live in frustration? That’s it. It might seem simple, but the Lord’s plan for us can be simple if we have a willing heart to obey.

Let’s apply this to a command God has given us in Scripture. John 15:17 says, “These things I have commanded you, that you love one another.” We might read those words in John’s Gospel and say in our hearts, “Yes, I want to obey.” But as we face the relationships God has placed in our lives, we sometimes come back to God saying something like this, “I know You said love, but they have hurt me.” Or, “They don’t want to be loved by me.” Or, “They just really annoy me.” We want another option. We want the leverage of negotiation.

However, woven into God’s clear commands in Scripture is the immutability of God Himself. God does not change; therefore His instructions to His children do not change. To expect another option is to expect the character of God to change, and that is not going to happen.

Another example is Ephesians 4:29, a command given by God through the apostle Paul: “Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers.” I can think of numerous other options that sound easier to tackle than simple obedience to this command. But my God, who loves me and loves those around me, commands me to make sure that the words that come out of my mouth are edifying and impart grace to those who hear them. That is a huge task, but one worthy of pursuing.

To be obedient, we must lay down our desire to have another option. We must have the simple faith where we take God’s Word seriously and simply obey what God says.

As we work in our own hearts to obey the commands of Scripture without seeking other options, we will find that it is more difficult than anything we can do in our own strength. Yet I believe that is the exact point. All of the options we bring to the Lord -- all of the excuses we present for simple disobedience -- can be accomplished in our strength.

God, however, does not want us living in our own strength. He wants us relying on Him and His strength. When we choose simply to obey God’s commands in our lives, we are moving forward in trust and accepting that we cannot do it in our own strength. That is the moment when we see our obedience sanctifying us to be more like Christ (Romans 8:29).

So the next time the Lord presents you with an opportunity to obey His clear commands, refrain from seeking other options and choose to act in wholehearted obedience. A magnificent blessing from the Lord awaits you.

________

Melanie Lenow and her husband Evan, an ethics professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, are parents to four children. This column is adapted from the seminary’s BiblicalWoman.org website.

Sartre's Hypocrisy

Mark 10:8

The French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre loved the company of women. He spent much of his time trying to seduce one. With one woman, Simone de Beauvoir, he had a special relationship. She wrote in one of her books:

One single aim fired us, the urge to embrace all experience, and

to bear witness concerning it. At times this meant that we had

to follow diverse paths – though without concealing even the

least of our discoveries from one another. When we were together

we bent our wills so firmly to the requirements of this common

task that even at the moment of parting we still thought as one.

That which bound us freed us; and in this freedom we found

ourselves bound as closely as possible.

Sartre proposed a pact with Beauvoir: they could have affairs, but they were required to tell each other everything. They not only had affairs, but often had them with the same people (though Beauvoir did not admit to her bisexuality while she was alive).

The relationship lasted 51 years. It was only after both of them had died that the truth of the relationship was revealed by biographers. The revelation was not the promiscuity; it was the hypocrisy. The most appalling discovery, for many readers, was what “telling each other everything” really meant. Their letters were filled with catty and disparaging remarks about the people Beauvoir and Sartre were either sleeping with or trying to sleep with, even though, when they were with those people, they radiated interest and affection. It was clear that, privately, Sartre and Beauvoir held most of the people in their lives in varying degrees of contempt. They enjoyed, especially, recounting to each other the lies they were telling.

In 1946, at the peak of his celebrity as the philosopher of freedom and authenticity, Sartre moved in with his mother. He used most of his income to support friends and current and former mistresses. He described the women he was attracted to as “drowning women,” women whose lives were damaged or insecure – which, of course, was why they offered the devotion he demanded.

Simone de Beauvoir was at the center of this system. What explains her? One theory is plainly wrong. That is the theory that her relationship with Sartre was a post-patriarchal partnership of equals, combining genuine mutuality with genuine autonomy, and rejecting the superstitious equation of sexual fidelity with commitment – in less pretentious terms, an open marriage. But it is clear now that they did not simply have a long-term relationship supplemented by independent affairs with other people. The affairs with other people formed the very basis of their relationship.

We are reduced to the final, depressing theory that the pact was just the traditional sexist arrangement – in which the man sleeps around and the woman nobly “accepts” the situation - on philosophical stilts. Sartre was the classic womanizer, and Beauvoir was the classic enabler. Though her affairs, for the most part, were love affairs, it is plain from almost every page she wrote that she would have given them all up if she could have had Sartre for herself alone.

*

from The New Yorker Magazine · Louis Menand; edited by Rev. David Holwick via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database adulteryrationalization

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Luke 6:42

Finding examples of moral hypocrisy is just too easy, what with Eliot Spitzer (former New York governor, moralizing proponent of laws against sex tourism and prostitution; named in “escort service” sting in March) coming along just when memories of Mark Foley (ex-congressman; crusader against child exploitation; caught in 2006 sending sexually explicit messages to congressional pages) and Sen. Larry (family values; “wide stance”) Craig were, mercifully, fading. But while the ubiquity of hypocrisy can sour you on human nature, there’s a bright side: scientists have lots of examples to study as they look for ways to make hypocrisy a little less common than breathing.

Scientists have long bickered over whether hypocrisy is driven by emotion or by reason — that is, by our gut instinct to cast a halo over ourselves, or by efforts to rationalize and justify our own transgressions. In other moral judgments, brain imaging shows, regions involved in feeling, not thinking, rule. In “the train dilemma,” for instance, people are asked whether they would throw a switch to send an out-of-control train off a track where it would kill 10 people and onto one where it would kill one. Most of us say we would. But would we heave a large man onto the track to derail the train and save the 10? Most of us say no: although the save-10-lose-one calculus is identical, the emotional component — heaving someone to his death rather than throwing an impersonal switch — is repugnant, and the brain’s emotion regions scream “Don’t!”

The role of emotion in moral judgments has upended the Enlightenment notion that our ethical sense is based on high-minded philosophy and cognition. That brings us to hypocrisy, which is almost ridiculously easy to bring out in people. In a new study that will not exactly restore your faith in human nature, psychologists David DeSteno and Piercarlo Valdesolo of Northeastern University instructed 94 people to assign themselves and a stranger one of two tasks: an easy one, looking for hidden images in a photo, or a hard one, solving math and logic problems. The participants could make the assignments themselves, or have a computer do it randomly. Then everyone was asked, how fairly did you act?, from “extremely unfairly” (1) to “extremely fairly” (7). Next they watched someone else make the assignments, and judged that person’s ethics. Selflessness was a virtual no-show: 87 out of 94 people opted for the easy task and gave the next guy the onerous one. Hypocrisy, however, showed up with bells on: every single person who made the selfish choice judged his own behavior more leniently — on average, 4.5 vs. 3.1 — than that of someone else who grabbed the easy task for himself, the scientists will report in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

The gap might not have been on a par with delivering homophobic sermons while having a gay affair, but it suggests how that kind of hypocrisy is possible. For one thing, people’s emotions might have gotten the better of them, just as emotions drive the runaway-train dilemma. When we judge our own transgressions less harshly than we judge the same transgressions in others, DeSteno said, it may be because “we have this automatic, gut-level instinct to preserve our self-image. In our heart, maybe we’re just not as sensitive to our own transgressions.” Adds Dan Batson of the University of Kansas, a pioneer in hypocrisy studies, “people have learned that it pays to seem moral, since it lets you avoid censure and guilt. But even better is appearing moral without having to pay the cost of actually being moral” — such as assigning yourself the tough job.

To test the role of cognition in hypocrisy, DeSteno had volunteers again assign themselves an easy task and a stranger an onerous one. But before judging the fairness of their actions, they had to memorize seven numbers. This ploy keeps the brain’s thinking regions too tied up to think much about anything else, and it worked: hypocrisy vanished. People judged their own (selfish) behavior as harshly as they did others’, strong evidence that moral hypocrisy requires a high-order cognitive process. When the thinking part of the brain is otherwise engaged, we’re left with gut-level reactions, and we intuitively and equally condemn bad behavior by ourselves as well as others.

If our gut knows when we have erred and judges our transgressions harshly, moral hypocrisy might not be as inevitable as if it were the child of emotions and instincts, which are tougher to change than thinking. “Since it’s a cognitive process, we have volitional control over it,” argues DeSteno. That matters because of another nasty aspect of hypocrisy: we apply the same moral relativism when judging the actions of people like ourselves. When “people like us” torture, it’s justified; when people unlike us do, it’s an atrocity. When we make that judgment, the brain’s cognitive regions are the hypocrites; emotional regions make honest judgments and see the heinous behavior for what it is. As with other forms of judgment, the way to change hearts and minds is to focus on the former: appeal to our better angels in the brain’s emotion areas, and tell circuits that are going through cognitive contortions to excuse in ourselves what we condemn in others to just shut up.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #6922]

from Newsweek Magazine · Sharon Begley via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database rationalization

Aborting In the Name of Jesus

Luke 10:29

It is one of the most disturbing articles I’ve ever read. The current issue of Esquire magazine profiles the “abortion ministry” of Willie Parker, a doctor who flies in and out of my home state of Mississippi to perform abortions at the state’s only abortion clinic. The word “ministry” isn’t incidental. Dr. Parker says he aborts unborn children because Jesus wants him to.

Parker, the article says, preached in Baptist churches as a young man, before going into medicine. He had, he says, a “come to Jesus” moment where he became convinced that he ought to do abortions. “The protesters say they’re opposed to abortion because they’re Christian,” he says. “It’s hard for them to accept that I do abortions because I’m a Christian.”

The profile portrays Dr. Parker as he prepares women for the abortions he is selling them. He tells them to ignore everything but their own consciences, and then, of course, he informs their consciences that abortion is morally acceptable. “If you are comfortable with your decision, ignore everything from everybody else.”

Apparently, he knows how to ignore everything else, including the conscience. The article quotes him talking a woman through an abortion by telling her that her unborn child is “very small.”

In the most chilling passage of the article, Parker has just aborted triplets, and is sorting through the aftermath. He then points out the body parts of a nine-week unborn child he has just aborted. “There’s the skull, what is going to be the fetal skull,” he says. “And there are the eye sockets.” Parker points out, “That’s an eye.”

The article states: “Floating near the top of the dish are two tiny arms with two tiny hands.”

Parker says that he is not disturbed by these body parts because he is “not deluded about what this whole process is.” It doesn’t disturb him, he says, it just tells him the woman’s uterus is empty, and she’s no longer pregnant. He doesn’t consider the “fetus” a person because the child is totally dependent on the mother, and “that dependence puts it in the domain of her choice.”

Parker says his “come to Jesus” moment, persuading him of the “call” to abortion, happened when he heard a sermon by Martin Luther King Jr. on Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan. By performing abortion, Parker sees himself as the Samaritan, caring for the beaten neighbor on the side of the road.

That would be true, of course, if the Samaritan in Jesus’ story had euthanized the neighbor, to put him out of his misery. Of course, he didn’t. Instead, the Samaritan took the neighbor on as his own kin, nursing him back to health and caring for him, a picture that looks a lot like what many of the pro-life churches and organizations Parker dismisses are, in fact, doing for women in crisis and their babies.

Ironically enough, the one left for dead on the side of the Jericho Road was also totally dependent. Without the embrace of love and the kindness of a passer-by, he was left for dead. He was hardly viable on his own. The priest and the Levite passed on, Dr. King preached rightly, probably because they were afraid. Fear paralyzed them from seeing the humanity of another. The road to Jericho was filled with “choice,” as person after person averted his eyes from the hurting human being in front of them. The one on the roadside was dependent, totally dependent, on one who saw life as better than death.

Dr. Parker could be that Good Samaritan. Instead, he looks into the sonogram screen and says, “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29).

Let’s pray and work for an end to the injustice of abortion. Let’s pray and work for better solutions for women in crisis. But let’s pray for doctors like this as well.

We can pray for a “come to Jesus” moment that puts him on the right side of the Jericho Road.

Is Plagiarism Okay?

Amos 8:5

In Piper, Kansas, 28 students found guilty of plagiarism by their teacher, Christine Pelton, were given reduced academic penalties when the town's school board overruled Pelton (and overruled the school's principal and the county's superintendent of schools.) In accordance with the school's stated policy, the students originally received no credit on their Internet-purloined biology projects; the school board decided the students should receive partial credit.

"This is a very dramatic symbol straight from the heartland of our country that reflects the massive problem we have with integrity," Richard Land said, noting the school board made its decision behind closed doors after the students' parents complained of the stiff penalties meted out to their children.

"The teacher did her job; the principal backed her up and did his job; the superintendent of schools did his job. The parents didn't do their job," Land said, asking, "What kind of lesson did these parents teach their children? They taught them it is okay to cheat. They taught them it is all right to bend the rules. If they get caught, they'll get off because everyone is doing it."

Land said the incident stems from a nationwide problem that can only be remedied by parents reinforcing bedrock values that underscore the fact that when you do an honest day's work you receive an honest day's wage.

"Using someone else's work is thievery. Misleading someone is the same thing as lying," he said, pointing to the behavior of corporate leaders of failed energy conglomerate Enron and resume-troubled college football coach George O'Leary as symptomatic of this larger crisis of integrity.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Pelton discovered her students had cheated on a biology project after noting some students' papers contained identical wording. She used tools on the website, www.turnitin.com, to confirm her suspicions.

A 1998 poll by Who's Who Among American High School Students revealed that 80 percent of the students featured in that publication admitted to cheating in school. The organization, which recognizes high-achieving high school students, said the percentage was the highest in the organization's 29 years of polling (www.eci-whoswho.com/highschool/annualsurveys/29.shtml).

A majority of the students (53 percent) said cheating was "no big deal." Interestingly, 46 percent of these students also said "declining social and moral values" were the biggest problems facing their generation.

"In all likelihood, when these kids look at the examples now being set by traditional role models -- the president, business leaders, Hollywood stars, even the clergy -- they have an easier time excusing their own behavior," said Joe Krouse, associate publisher of Who's Who Among American High School Students, on the group's website.

====================================

New York Times online

School Cheating Scandal Tests a Town's Values

By JODI WILGOREN

PIPER, Kan., Feb. 13, 2002 - The Piper school board normally meets in a cozy conference room at district headquarters, but on Tuesday, folding chairs filled the purple-and-white elementary school gym to accommodate the overflow crowd.

More than 100 parents, students and teachers skipped the basketball game at the high school next door to talk about the plagiarism scandal that has riven this tight-knit community 20 miles west of downtown Kansas City, Kan., and become talk-show fodder as far away as Guam as a symbol of the decline in American values.

It began in December with a teacher's finding that 28 of 118 Piper High sophomores had stolen sections of their botany project off the Internet. The students received zeroes and faced failing the semester. But after parents complained to the school board, the teacher, Christine Pelton, was ordered to raise the grades, prompting her resignation. Now, the community is angrily pointing fingers as they debate right and wrong, crimes and consequences, citizenship and democracy.

At Tuesday's meeting, Kay Miesner, who graduated from Piper High School in 1962 - 28 years after her father, 23 years before her son - told the board members who overruled Mrs. Pelton, "I know each and every one of you, I think you're all good people." But, she said, "I think you made a mistake."

Someone yelled, "Yup," and the audience erupted. But Chris McCord, the board president, clamped the emotion, saying, "We'll have none of that."

Such tension is unusual here in Piper, a blue-collar bedroom community, in part because of young families drawn by the small school district.

Several teachers said that nearly half the high school's 31-member faculty plus its brand new principal planned to resign at year's end over the case, while parents fretted that the school's dwindling reputation might result in a decline in property values and disappearance of scholarship opportunities.

Mrs. Pelton, meanwhile, has become a kind of folk hero, with dozens of calls a day offering support - and jobs.

"It's not just biology, you're teaching them a lot more than that," Mrs. Pelton, 27, who had planned to resign this spring anyhow to start a home- based day care center, said between television appearances the other day. "You're teaching them to be honest people, to have integrity, to listen, to be good citizens.

"We got rules, and they got to follow the rules," she added. "I'm not expecting more than what would be expected of them either at home or down the road."

Students, plagiarizers and non-plagiarizers alike, have already begun to feel the backlash.

A sign posted in a nearby high school read, "If you want your grade changed, go to Piper." The proctor at a college entrance exam last weekend warned a girl wearing a Piper sweatshirt not to cheat. A company in Florida faxed the school asking for a list of students - so it would know whom never to hire. At Tuesday's board meeting, as five television news crews rolled tape, a woman worried that the community has been "stamped with a large purple P on their foreheads for plagiarism."

The sophomore leaf project, an elaborate exercise in which students spend months collecting leaves and researching their origins, dates back a decade.

Mrs. Pelton, who came to Piper High in the fall of 2000 after a five-year program at the University of Kansas, sent an outline of the assignment home on the first day of school, along with her classroom rules (No. 7: "Cheating and plagiarism will result in failure of the assignment and parent notification. It is expected that all work turned in by the student is completely their own."), which students and parents had to sign.

Mrs. Pelton said she began to worry in October, when students' oral presentations, filled with big, unfamiliar words, sounded strangely similar. As she flipped through their projects a month later, she found the writing far more sophisticated than previous assignments. A plagiarism-detection Web site, turnitin.com, showed one in four were laced with lifted material.

The principal, Michael Adams, who declined to be interviewed, backed Mrs. Pelton's decision to give students zeroes, as did the superintendent. But after parents protested at the Dec. 11 school board meeting, the superintendent, Dr. Michael O. Rooney, sent a memorandum home saying he had "reluctantly" directed Mrs. Pelton to deduct just 600 of 1,500 points from the plagiarizers' projects, and to cut its value in the overall grade from 50 percent to 30 percent.

Mrs. Pelton said a student told her, "We won."

Though teachers here say they begin discussing source citation in the fourth grade, some parents, of students with zeroes and those with A pluses, insist the students did not realize what they were doing was wrong (some say they thought the admonition was against copying from previous students' papers, not taking simple descriptions from research material). Failing a whole semester, they say, is too harsh.

"If your boss said to you, 'You were late one day this month so we're not going to pay you for the whole month,' is that fair?" asked Mary Myer, whose son, Mitchell, was not accused of cheating.

"Plagiarism is not a cut-and-dried issue," she added. "Somebody who gets in their car and hurts someone, we punish them differently than someone who goes out and shoots someone. Intent matters."

It is just the latest plagiarism revelation afflicting American high schools and colleges, aggravated by an Internet age in which research papers - as well as programs to detect cheating - can be downloaded by the dollar. A Rutgers University professor's survey of 4,471 high school students last year found that more than half had stolen sentences and paragraphs from Web sites, 15 percent handed in papers completely copied from the Internet, and 74 percent had cheated on a test.

On talk shows and the Internet, Piper's problems have been linked to recent admissions by the popular historian Stephen Ambrose that he failed to properly attribute passages; the resignation of George O'Leary, Notre Dame's football coach, after revelations that he falsified his résumé; even alleged lying by executives at Enron.

Piper, a farming community founded in 1888 and annexed by the city of Kansas City, Kan., in 1992, is defined by the four-school district of 1,300 students. Its headquarters doubles as the post office in an enclave without town hall or tavern; even empty-nesters wear Piper purple to Pirates athletic events.

Many parents have expressed sympathy for the 75 percent of students who did not cheat, some of whom received lower semester grades in biology when the project they had slaved over suddenly counted less than they had anticipated. Some parents have even sent homemade cookies and nut bread to school in quiet solidarity with teachers.

"You can stand up for your kids when it's right, but when it's wrong, you can't bail your child out," said Diane Smith, who has a son in the freshman class and a daughter in middle school. "I don't think the board should have that much power; they really outstepped their boundaries."

Teachers, ever-protective of the sanctity of their grade books, say the board has robbed their independence and professionalism. Instead of a lesson about the importance of honesty and originality, they say, students learned that complaining to higher powers mitigates punishment.

"If I make a decision, I don't know if it's going to be backed up," said Angel Carney, a business teacher who submitted her resignation this week. "I had a disagreement with a parent the other day; right away she wanted to go over my head."

Even if no one ended up failing, students say they are paying the price. "Whatever you do will always come back to you," Amy Kolich, an 18-year-old senior, said when asked what she had learned from the situation. "In a way, to them, it didn't, but it came back to our school."

Piper High's handbook does not mention plagiarism specifically, but says the penalty for cheating, even a first offense, is no credit on the assignment. Administrators are now setting up a committee to handle conflicts over grades and collecting plagiarism policies from other schools.

Matthew Mosier, 16, spent hours on his botany project, gathering leaves from neighbors' farms, looking them up on the Web. His grandmother, a quilter, covered his three-ring binder in leaf fabric and embroidered his name on the cover. He bought fancy leaf paper at the Hobby Lobby to print out his reports.

Matt ended up with a D, the extra-credit for his artistic flourishes washed out by the sentences Mrs. Pelton said he copied.

"Am I saying my son's perfect? No and [heck] no," said Kim Mosier, Matthew's mom, who was not among those who complained to the board but was pleased by the result. "We sat down with him and said, 'Did you plagiarize?' He said, 'No, Mom, I didn't.' I have to support him until they can prove him different.

"We hire that board, those teachers, that school, that principal - they work for us," she added. "Everybody has that opportunity that they should be questioned on a decision that they make.

*

Come To Athens and Live

John 7:25

We ended yesterday by suggesting that the issue which the Greeks might have wanted to talk over with Jesus was that of taking His message to Athens - the centre of philosophy and learning. Were they intent on saying to Him: “Put Your marvellous message of the kingdom of God into the medium of Greek thought, and in no time it will spread throughout the world. Don't stay in Jerusalem and die; come to Athens and live”? We have no way, of course, of knowing for sure that this was the situation, and I am simply suggesting that this is what may have been in their minds. The idea is not as far-fetched as you might imagine when placed against the verse that is before us today: `”Does he intend to go to the Dispersion ' and teach the Greeks?” (v.35, RSV). Had other nations beyond Israel's boundaries showed interest in His revolutionary approach to life? Tradition says that the king of Edessa once sent a message to Jesus inviting Him to come to his country and present His message concerning the kingdom of God. Whether or not this was so, one thing is certain - the coming of the Greeks precipitated a crisis in Jesus' soul: “Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? ' Father, glorify your name!” (John 12:27-28). He would not rationalise or compromise; He would face the issue to which He had always been committed. It was not to be a philosopher's chair in Athens, but a grisly cross in Jerusalem. He would fall into the ground and die, and bear a harvest richer than anything the world could offer.

PRAYER:

Lord Jesus, help me to catch something of Your spirit as I face the challenges that lie ahead of me in the coming days. I want to make my life count for the utmost - show me how we can work things out together. Amen.

FURTHER STUDY:

Matt.16:24-28; 27:32; John 19:17

1. What does the cross signify?

2. What does it mean to “take up your cross”?

from Source not recorded · Selwyn Hughes via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database rationalization

God Gives Only Two Choices

John 15:17

Choices are wired into our society today. When we buy a cup of coffee, we have endless choices of how we want it fixed. If we do research on a topic, hundreds of articles are at our disposal. If we read one and it does not suit us, we simply move to the next.

Choices are one of the benefits of living in a free society.

However, as believers we must be careful not to apply the expectation of personal choices to our relationship with God.

When God gives us commands in Scripture, we only have two choices. Are we going to follow God’s instructions and live in blessing or are we going to disobey and live in frustration? That’s it. It might seem simple, but the Lord’s plan for us can be simple if we have a willing heart to obey.

Let’s apply this to a command God has given us in Scripture. John 15:17 says, “These things I have commanded you, that you love one another.” We might read those words in John’s Gospel and say in our hearts, “Yes, I want to obey.” But as we face the relationships God has placed in our lives, we sometimes come back to God saying something like this, “I know You said love, but they have hurt me.” Or, “They don’t want to be loved by me.” Or, “They just really annoy me.” We want another option. We want the leverage of negotiation.

However, woven into God’s clear commands in Scripture is the immutability of God Himself. God does not change; therefore His instructions to His children do not change. To expect another option is to expect the character of God to change, and that is not going to happen.

Another example is Ephesians 4:29, a command given by God through the apostle Paul: “Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers.” I can think of numerous other options that sound easier to tackle than simple obedience to this command. But my God, who loves me and loves those around me, commands me to make sure that the words that come out of my mouth are edifying and impart grace to those who hear them. That is a huge task, but one worthy of pursuing.

To be obedient, we must lay down our desire to have another option. We must have the simple faith where we take God’s Word seriously and simply obey what God says.

As we work in our own hearts to obey the commands of Scripture without seeking other options, we will find that it is more difficult than anything we can do in our own strength. Yet I believe that is the exact point. All of the options we bring to the Lord -- all of the excuses we present for simple disobedience -- can be accomplished in our strength.

God, however, does not want us living in our own strength. He wants us relying on Him and His strength. When we choose simply to obey God’s commands in our lives, we are moving forward in trust and accepting that we cannot do it in our own strength. That is the moment when we see our obedience sanctifying us to be more like Christ (Romans 8:29).

So the next time the Lord presents you with an opportunity to obey His clear commands, refrain from seeking other options and choose to act in wholehearted obedience. A magnificent blessing from the Lord awaits you.

________

Melanie Lenow and her husband Evan, an ethics professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, are parents to four children. This column is adapted from the seminary’s BiblicalWoman.org website.

True Lies: Rielle Hunter Tells Her Story

Job 6:25

I can’t say I spend my time watching Oprah, but I recently came across a New York Times article about her show that made me do a double take. It seems that recently, the Queen of Therapy interviewed Rielle Hunter, mistress of John Edwards and mother of his youngest child. Times writer Alessandra Stanley reported the interview in a column titled “One Woman’s ‘Truth’: Rielle Hunter Talks to Oprah.”

The word “truth” is in quotation marks, and for good reason.

I have spoken and written many times about the issue of truth and reality. Well, this story may illustrate most of the things I’ve ever said.

For one thing, Rielle Hunter stated that she did not regret the affair with John Edwards, but rather, painted the scandal as a necessary stage in Mr. Edwards’ “process of self-actualization.” And then she said, “I followed my heart, and I believe it was the right thing to do, which is weird...because I didn’t make a commitment to Elizabeth. I wasn’t the one lying to her.”

My heavens! Where do I begin? First of all, “following your heart” may lead you to do the right thing. But more often it will lead you to do the wrong thing. And it depends, of course, on the moral condition of your heart — or, if you prefer, your conscience. Remember, the word “conscience” comes from two Latin words, con scienta, meaning “with knowledge.” The healthy conscience is informed by objective moral laws and truth.

Second, Ms. Hunter talks about being supportive of Mr. Edwards’ desire to live “a life of truth.” Rielle admits that lying like a rug is a “really unique way of getting there.” No kidding. Leaving out everything else that’s wrong with that idea, calling something “true” doesn’t make it true. Your opinion and my opinion have no effect on truth. Truth is truth because it is objectively so. It is unchanging; it is not something we can make up.

But what I find particularly striking — appalling really — is the gentle treatment that Ms. Hunter received from Oprah Winfrey. Wouldn’t you think Oprah might say, “But didn’t your conscience bother you? Don’t you care about the consequences? How can you say hurting someone else is self-actualization?” Instead, the Times reports, “Ms. Winfrey...wasn’t confrontational or even very probing.”

Not that the Times’ own tone is very probing either. But at least Ms. Stanley did call Ms. Hunter’s story a “solipsistic and New Age-ish account, in which Ms. Hunter’s ‘truth,’ as she put it, trumped all other concerns, including all the lying.”

Well, the whole incident has me aghast. Why was this tawdry interview on network television? Is sensationalism the only thing the media thinks will sell to the public? Does anyone care about genuine standards of morality and truth and decency? What about the influence this kind of drivel has on the millions of adoring Oprah groupies?

Well, in one way, maybe it’s a good thing the interview aired. It showed the world what has become of the so-called “self-esteem” generation. It stripped bare the old clichés of moral relativism, like “follow your heart” and “truth is what you believe it to be,” and showed just how ugly and hollow they really are.

There it is for all to see. When we base our idea of truth on what makes us feel good, we end up lying not just to others, but to ourselves.

________

Copyright (c) 2010 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Stop Following Your Heart

Jeremiah 17:9

It’s advice we’ve all heard before.

You have to make a tough decision and go to friends for advice, and inevitably someone tells you something like “trust yourself,” “go with your gut” or, the one that pains me the most, “just follow your heart.”

The phrases vary, but the advice is the same. In moments of confusion, we encourage one another to just do whatever we really want to do.

The origin of the phrase “follow your heart” is unclear, but there is an overwhelming cultural sense that this is the thing we are to do when faced with difficult decisions. It is seemingly harmless and encouraging, but what is actually being communicated when this advice is given?

In moments of confusion, we encourage one another to just do whatever we really want to do.

At the heart of every cliché there lies an assumption. Phrases move to become clichés when we use a phrase to the point of exhaustion. It doesn’t mean anything anymore.

We like to hear advice that sounds familiar because we think we can achieve it, but the reality is we don’t really know what these things even mean, or the action steps we are to take after hearing the advice. The vague nature of clichés helps us get out from under difficult truth that we actually need to obey, not just hear.

When someone tells us to “follow our heart,” it’s really not advice, but a vague encouragement to do whatever it is we wanted to do in the first place.

“Follow your heart” had very little weight for me until I recently re-read the prophet Jeremiah who, quite boldly, says, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9) Earlier he says, “Cursed is the man who trusts in man!”

These are big, bold statements that say some very plain things about these hearts of ours that we are being told to follow. The Bible has a very different opinion on our hearts. They are not our trusty guides, but a dishonest witnesses as to what life is actually all about.

The assumption behind most advice given is that we generally know what we are doing, that we have all of the resources within ourselves to understand what we must do in order to have a good life. But the problem is we don’t; that’s why we’re asking for advice in the first place.

So, after all of this asking and advice giving, we realize that our cultural encouragement to follow our heart really just puts us back to the place we started: lost.

Amidst our confusion, God might be (if He’s lucky) just one of many consultants we ask when seeking answers for how to live. The problem is, most of God’s wisdom only works when applied completely and not just in part.

“Guard your heart above all else,” says Solomon, “for it determines the course of your life” (Proverbs 4:23). God’s idea for your life is not that you would follow your heart, but that you would guard it.

Beware of letting your heart go, of following it wherever it might lead. All of us live from the place of the heart; it is where our understanding of the world sits.

We all do what we want. But what if what we wanted to do began to change?

The Bible tells a different story: We are not to be trusted, not even with ourselves. Joining the life of Jesus is not about being affirmed of every decision you make, but to be corrected in all of your ways, including your motives. New questions are asked, fresh and loving authority is in play — this is what it means to repent. God is our guide, our shepherd we follow at all cost, and we surrender this heart we want to follow to Him.

In our following of Jesus and out of our love for Him, that seat of understanding called, “the heart,” actually begins to change. Fresh desires come when we begin to love our Master, Jesus (Psalm 37:4). The truth about us that doesn’t change is this: We all do what we want. But what if what we wanted to do began to change? What if we began to want to do the same things God wanted us to do?

The only way to be convinced of the better ways of God is to begin to follow Him, to take His wisdom, His yoke of teaching. Let’s start with aggressively holding our hearts back when they want to be our guide. Jesus is our master, not our hearts.

When you are swooned by that boy, desperate for that career or captivated by that new Apple product, try and remember the device that is directing you from place to place might actually be broken. Be discerning: is this your heart or the Spirit of God?

Surrendering our life over to God begins with our hearts. We will never fully change until we say “no” to our heart’s leading and yes to that of our new, gentler master, Jesus Christ.

Stop Following Your Heart

Jeremiah 17:9

It’s advice we’ve all heard before.

You have to make a tough decision and go to friends for advice, and inevitably someone tells you something like “trust yourself,” “go with your gut” or, the one that pains me the most, “just follow your heart.”

The phrases vary, but the advice is the same. In moments of confusion, we encourage one another to just do whatever we really want to do.

The origin of the phrase “follow your heart” is unclear, but there is an overwhelming cultural sense that this is the thing we are to do when faced with difficult decisions. It is seemingly harmless and encouraging, but what is actually being communicated when this advice is given?

In moments of confusion, we encourage one another to just do whatever we really want to do.

At the heart of every cliché there lies an assumption. Phrases move to become clichés when we use a phrase to the point of exhaustion. It doesn’t mean anything anymore.

We like to hear advice that sounds familiar because we think we can achieve it, but the reality is we don’t really know what these things even mean, or the action steps we are to take after hearing the advice. The vague nature of clichés helps us get out from under difficult truth that we actually need to obey, not just hear.

When someone tells us to “follow our heart,” it’s really not advice, but a vague encouragement to do whatever it is we wanted to do in the first place.

“Follow your heart” had very little weight for me until I recently re-read the prophet Jeremiah who, quite boldly, says, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9) Earlier he says, “Cursed is the man who trusts in man!”

These are big, bold statements that say some very plain things about these hearts of ours that we are being told to follow. The Bible has a very different opinion on our hearts. They are not our trusty guides, but a dishonest witnesses as to what life is actually all about.

The assumption behind most advice given is that we generally know what we are doing, that we have all of the resources within ourselves to understand what we must do in order to have a good life. But the problem is we don’t; that’s why we’re asking for advice in the first place.

So, after all of this asking and advice giving, we realize that our cultural encouragement to follow our heart really just puts us back to the place we started: lost.

Amidst our confusion, God might be (if He’s lucky) just one of many consultants we ask when seeking answers for how to live. The problem is, most of God’s wisdom only works when applied completely and not just in part.

“Guard your heart above all else,” says Solomon, “for it determines the course of your life” (Proverbs 4:23). God’s idea for your life is not that you would follow your heart, but that you would guard it.

Beware of letting your heart go, of following it wherever it might lead. All of us live from the place of the heart; it is where our understanding of the world sits.

We all do what we want. But what if what we wanted to do began to change?

The Bible tells a different story: We are not to be trusted, not even with ourselves. Joining the life of Jesus is not about being affirmed of every decision you make, but to be corrected in all of your ways, including your motives. New questions are asked, fresh and loving authority is in play — this is what it means to repent. God is our guide, our shepherd we follow at all cost, and we surrender this heart we want to follow to Him.

In our following of Jesus and out of our love for Him, that seat of understanding called, “the heart,” actually begins to change. Fresh desires come when we begin to love our Master, Jesus (Psalm 37:4). The truth about us that doesn’t change is this: We all do what we want. But what if what we wanted to do began to change? What if we began to want to do the same things God wanted us to do?

The only way to be convinced of the better ways of God is to begin to follow Him, to take His wisdom, His yoke of teaching. Let’s start with aggressively holding our hearts back when they want to be our guide. Jesus is our master, not our hearts.

When you are swooned by that boy, desperate for that career or captivated by that new Apple product, try and remember the device that is directing you from place to place might actually be broken. Be discerning: is this your heart or the Spirit of God?

Surrendering our life over to God begins with our hearts. We will never fully change until we say “no” to our heart’s leading and yes to that of our new, gentler master, Jesus Christ.

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate