The post Is It Wrong to Save Money for Retirement or to Accumulate Wealth? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.

Most people don’t sexualize their awareness of the beauty of children or of other people of the same sex. But for reasons that aren’t entirely understood, the sexual longings of some people are drawn towards persons of the same sex or towards children. This desire is clearly not a natural expression of the mating instinct, as it can’t result in reproduction, and medical and psychological evidence shows that people who struggle with such desires do so for a constellation of physical, environmental, and cultural reasons.¹ For such people, these desires feel natural, even though they are clearly unnatural in terms of instinctive purpose and reproductive design. However, the fact that the desires feel natural is usually no comfort to people who experience them, but is the source of deep feelings of confusion, shame, and guilt. (See the Questions, Do People Choose to Have Same-Gender Sexual Attractions? and What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuals Who Were Born That Way?)

This tendency to sexualize feelings towards children or people of the same sex is an aspect of fallen human nature in a world tainted by sin. Yet by itself, unnatural sexual temptation isn’t a sin we will be held accountable for, nor can it harm us and others if we don’t yield to it. As in the case of people with heterosexual desires, only willful surrender to temptation is sinful.²

Although no one will be held accountable for unnatural desires alone, they must be taken with the utmost seriousness. There is a sense in which yielding to the temptation to do something that is inherently unnatural will have even more serious emotional, spiritual, and physical consequences than succumbing to heterosexual temptation. Since yielding to any kind of temptation increases both temptation and the compulsive power of wrongful desire, one who yields to paraphilic or homosexual temptation will inflame his/her unnatural desires still further. The sexual desires of such people may become so badly distorted that it might become impossible for them to ever experience the kind of wholesome heterosexual marriage for which sexual feelings were designed, and the psychological damage inflicted on the objects of unnatural desire—whether children or vulnerable adults—will be profound. (See the ATQ article, >What Should Our Approach be Toward Homosexuals?)

1. David Greenberg, for example, sides with the dynamic view in that he rejects the idea that homosexuality is a fixed, pre-social given common to different societies and different periods of time. Against the “static” theorists, he notes that sexual practices and the conceptual categories through which people understand them—including practices involving persons of the same sex—vary greatly from society to society. Hence, the contemporary Western concept of homosexuality as a fixed, biologically based sexual orientation that is “normal” for a select group of people is in fact the product of a constellation of ideas present in our society and not the transcultural reality proponents assume it is. Like other proponents of the dynamic view, Greenberg argues that homosexual behavior is learned. But he quickly adds that this learning always occurs within a specific social context. In his view, cultural conditioning is able to override whatever seemingly innate factors might otherwise be operative in a person’s life. He writes, “Where social definitions of appropriate and inappropriate behavior are clear and consistent, with positive sanctions for conformity and negative ones for nonconformity, virtually everyone will conform irrespective of genetic inheritance and, to a considerable extent, irrespective of personal psychodynamics” (Welcoming But Not Affirming, pp. 29-30). Back To Article
2. In its widest sense, “sin” refers to every aspect of human life that fails to reflect the design of God. Viewed from this perspective, fallenness means that we are sinful in the totality of our existence. At the same time, we generally use the word more narrowly; thus, we speak about “sins,” that is, specific actions, even transgressions.The word sin immediately conjures up another idea that likewise carries two related yet distinct meanings: “judgment.” On the one hand, insofar as God will one day transform every dimension of creaturely fallenness, human fallenness comes under divine judgment. On the other hand, the biblical writers consistently reserve the idea of a divine judgment leading to condemnation for sinful acts (e.g., Rom. 2:3; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:12).Putting the two together leads to the conclusion that as the great physician, God will heal our fallen sinfulness in the new creation, and as our judge, God will condemn our sinful actions. Hence, our fallen disposition is sinful in that it is foundational to our sinning. But it is our sinful acts—which bring God’s condemnation upon us—that are what mark us as guilty before God (Stanley Grenz, Welcoming But Not Affirming, p. 120). Back To Article

The post Are Homosexual or Pedophilic Desires Sinful? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.

Because homosexuality has become an identity issue for many people, powerful political and cultural pressures are being brought to bear on Christian denominations to view homosexuality as a natural, normal, and legitimate form of sexual expression.

There are many reasons to have empathy for those who are in the grip of sexual attraction to people of the same sex. Such people are likely to have experienced an unusual amount of developmental trauma including some combination of the following factors:

• Peer pressure created by the propaganda of sexualization in media and school ¹
• A distant, hostile, abusive and/or alcoholic father
• Parents who failed in some significant ways to encourage same-sex identification (i.e., failed to encourage boys to identify with father and other male role models, and girls to identify with mother and other female role models)
• An overprotective, needy, or demanding mother
• Rejection and mocking by peers in childhood because of poor hand-eye coordination, incompetence in sports, and reluctance to engage in rough-housing and team sports
• Sexual abuse or rape
• Separation from parent during key developmental years
• Loss of parent by death or divorce
• Extreme shyness and social phobia²

Yet while we should have empathy and compassion for anyone who has developed a homosexual orientation, the Bible makes it clear that homosexual behavior is a form of sexual sin (See the ATQ article,  What Is the Sin of Homosexuality?), and that we cannot allow our empathy for people tempted to sexual sin to displace our awareness of its dangers both to them and to others. The Bible places sexual sins in a unique category because they are sins against the body.

“Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ Himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, ‘The two will become one flesh.’ But he who unites himself to the Lord is one with Him in spirit. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body” (1 Corinthians 6:15-20).

Because they are sins against the body, sexual sins utilize the body’s powerful instinctive drives to create degrading forms of addictive behavior that wreak havoc both for the sinner and everyone within his/her sphere of influence.

The Bible exalts human sexuality within marriage. It uses the image of husband and wife to portray the intimacy that exists between Christ and the church (2 Corinthians 11:2; a href=”https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5:21-33″>Ephesians 5:21-33; Revelation 19:7), which is why Paul describes sexual sin with special concern. By means of sexual sin, the human will becomes the instrument by which the body’s reproductive instincts are misdirected to destructive ends, and, in turn, the body’s wholesome physical drives become complicit in enslaving the human will. The personal and social repercussions of sexual sin are extreme.

Like other sexual sins, homosexual behavior isn’t innate or unavoidable. (See the ATQ article, What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuals Who Were Born That Way?) It is essential that Christians hold each other accountable within their community to protect young people whose traumatic backgrounds and existing same-sex attractions might make them vulnerable to being drawn into this addictive and destructive kind of sin.

1. After his departure from a homosexual lifestyle, the one-time founder of Young Gay America Magazine acknowledged the powerful social pressures that are coming to bear on Western young people to view homosexual behavior in a positive light:
   
   

   YGA [Young Gay America] Magazine sold out of its first issue in several North American cities. There was extreme support, by all sides, for YGA Magazine; schools, parent groups, libraries, governmental associations, everyone seemed to want it. It tapped right into the zeitgeist of “accepting and promoting” homosexuality, and I was considered a leader. I was asked to speak on the prestigious JFK Jr. Forum at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government in 2005.
   

   It was after viewing my words on a videotape of that “performance” that I began to seriously doubt what I was doing with my life and influence.
   

   Knowing no one who I could approach with my questions and my doubts, I turned to God; I’d developed a growing relationship with God, thanks to a debilitating bout with intestinal cramps caused by the upset stomach-inducing behaviors I’d been engaged in.
   

   Soon, I began to understand things I’d never known could possibly be real, such as the fact that I was leading a movement of sin and corruption—which is not to sound as though my discovery was based on dogma, because decidedly it was not.
   

   I came to the conclusions on my own.
   

   It became clear to me, as I really thought about it—and really prayed about it—that homosexuality prevents us from finding our true self within. We cannot see the truth when we’re blinded by homosexuality.
   

   We believe, under the influence of homosexuality, that lust is not just acceptable, but a virtue. But there is no homosexual “desire” that is apart from lust.
   

   In denial of this fact, I’d fought to erase such truth at all costs, and participated in the various popular ways of taking responsibility out of human hands for challenging the temptations of lust and other behaviors. I was sure—thanks to culture and world leaders—that I was doing the right thing.
   

   Driven to look for truth, because nothing felt right, I looked within. Jesus Christ repeatedly advises us not to trust anybody other than Him. I did what He said, knowing that the Kingdom of God does reside in the heart and mind of every man.
   

   What I discovered—what I learned—about homosexuality was amazing. How I’d first “discovered” homosexual desires back in high school was by noticing that I looked at other guys. How I healed, when it became decidedly clear that I should—or risk hurting more people—is that I paid attention to myself.
   

   Every time I was tempted to lust, I noticed it, caught it, dealt with it. I called it what it was, and then just let it disappear on its own. A huge and vital difference exists between superficial admiration—of yourself, or others—and integral admiration. In loving ourselves fully, we no longer need anything from the “outside” world of lustful desire, recognition from others, or physical satisfaction. Our drives become intrinsic to our very essence, unbridled by neurotic distractions. (From the article, “How a ‘Gay Rights’ Leader Became Straight,” by Michael Glatze). Back To Article

2. The significance of trauma in the development of same-sex desires is documented in the paper, Homosexuality and Hope, published by the Catholic Medical Association. Back To Article

The post What Should Be Our Approach Toward Homosexuals? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.

The post What Is the Sin of Homosexuality? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.

The Reality Test

Even in comedy, unrealistic plots and stereotyped characters often indicate a warped moral perspective. Programs that don’t depict the painful consequences of wrong actions distort reality. Just as we shouldn’t spend our lives aimlessly associating with evil people and fools (1 Corinthians 15:33), we shouldn’t invest valuable time watching immoral and frivolous programming.

Every family member should learn to be a critical viewer, ready to switch off “junk” productions that are done in poor taste. We all should be willing to explain our viewing choices to other family members.

The Value Test

Relaxation is a legitimate need, but some kinds of relaxation are better than others. It is for good reason that TV has been called the “plug-in drug.” Even recreational time shouldn’t be squandered.

Can we justify the time we spend watching particular television programs (or movies) as compared to other more active forms of recreation—like reading, visiting with friends, playing a game with the kids, taking a walk, or tending a garden? Does the time we spend watching TV make us more productive and balanced people, or is it draining our vitality and undermining our creativity?

The Morality Test

We live in a fallen world. Consequently, all good art acknowledges the reality of evil. Art that ignores evil has no depth. The greatest writers and playwrights of the ages—people like Aeschylus, Shakespeare, Goethe, Eliot, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Melville—have always grappled with evil. But they portrayed evil without glamorizing or sensationalizing it.

Sometimes actors need to play roles portraying immorality. But a good program distinguishes between acting and exhibitionism. As more and more “soft” pornography is promoted by the commercial networks to boost ratings, we should keep in mind the simple insight that fornication “acted out” by professional actors and recorded on film for public entertainment is still fornication. Human sexual intimacy is too precious to be prostituted by the media under the guise of “realism” or “artistic freedom.” Similarly, both the testimony of common sense and academia affirm that media violence, even when simulated, has the effect of desensitizing viewers, lowering their inhibitions, and creating an appetite to see more.¹

Today’s media, like the Roman circus, often exploits evil rather than exposing it, gaining viewers by inflaming their passions.

If we regularly test our TV viewing by these three standards, we’ll probably find that it will be greatly reduced—or even eliminated altogether.²

Your family’s use of the media says a lot to your family and friends about its values, priorities, goals, and dreams.

1. “The links between pop culture and behavior are tentative and indirect at best. Still, academics who study such things widely agree that exposure to media violence correlates with aggression,callousness, and appetite for violence—even among adults, to say nothing of kids, who have a harder time distinguishing real from vicarious. (And on some TV shows—say, Cops—there is no difference.) These studies were primarily completed before the spread of cable, Nintendo, and the Internet into many a 14-year-old’s bedroom. As social critic Sissela Bok writes in her book Mayhem: Violence As Public Entertainment: ‘These sources bring into homes depictions of graphic violence . . . never available to children and young people in the past'” (Quotation from “Of Arms and the Boy,” Time magazine, by John Cloud). Back To Article
2. Michael Medved, the well-known movie critic, and his wife Diane (a child psychologist) have taken this approach with their children. Instead of permitting the corrosive effect of network television in their home, the family votes to select 3 hours of movie video viewing a week. They are co-authors of the book, Saving Childhood, Protecting Our Children From The National Assault On Innocence (Harper Collins/Zondervan). Back To Article

The post How Can Our Family Set Standards for TV Viewing? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.

¹, advancing technology has made artificial contraception ² so convenient that opposition has diminished. While Roman Catholic teaching remains in opposition to it, ³ Protestant leadership has tended to approve artificial contraception with little public expression of reservation. In spite of Catholic teaching, many Christian couples today—both Catholics and Protestants—tend to view birth control as a modern necessity. But at the same time, there is an enduring minority of sensitive Christian couples who remain uneasy about artificial contraception and prefer such natural forms of family planning as the “rhythm method.”

Whether or not we consider artificial contraception a necessity reflects our view of the purpose of human sexuality. What do we consider to be the purpose of sexual intercourse? Certainly, its most obvious and natural purpose is to initiate conception and affirm our commitment to children and family and the future of the race (Genesis 1:28).

But there are couples who are unable to conceive or who are past their child-bearing years. If it is impossible for them to have children, should they abstain from sex? The Bible doesn’t even hint that this is the case. Nothing in Scripture implies that it is sinful for married persons to have sexual intercourse without the possibility of bearing children. Sex within marriage is pure and honorable, even when conception cannot occur. This is because marriage is an expression of the deepest intimacy possible between two people, ⁴ an intimacy so deep that Paul uses it as a symbol for the love of Christ for His church.

Why, then, would there be any question about the use of artificial contraception within marriage? Isn’t all sexual intercourse between a husband and wife made honorable and pure by the nature of their matrimonial commitment? Isn’t the position of the Roman Catholic Church regarding artificial contraception and the reluctance of many sensitive couples to use it based upon an unbiblical asceticism and an unhealthy if not morbid view of the body and sexual function?

There doubtlessly has been an element of unhealthy asceticism in the view that many Christian people have towards sex. The Christian church has also fallen into the error of asceticism. But Catholic opposition towards artificial contraception is based upon something much more profound than asceticism. It is based upon a sense of the sacredness of sexuality and the mystery of human love. It is also based upon an awareness that sexuality can easily be misused, profaned, and twisted into something ugly and destructive.

When we perceive human sexuality with a proper sense of wonder and respect, we don’t view its physical and emotional pleasures as ends in themselves. Rather, we see them as byproducts, refined and enhanced by the extent to which we submit our own sexual activities to God’s moral law.

The greatest thrill of sex is its breathtaking intimacy, but our ability to experience intimacy can only occur within certain boundaries. First, we don’t experience real intimacy with one we don’t cherish and honor. Our ability to cherish and honor is directly related to the degree of our commitment to our beloved. Second, the degree of our commitment to our beloved is related to the extent that we are both committed to God and to His will for our lives.

1. The article “The Astounding Lessons from 50 years of the Birth Control Pill” post at a popular natural health website offers a good summary of the dangers of birth control medication.  Back To Article
2. Artificial contraception relies upon medication, a device, or surgery to reduce or eliminate the possibility of conception. Back To Article
3. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Birth control is the willful perversion of the natural gifts of God for the engendering of children, whereby conception is prevented; by interrupted or arrested coition, by contraceptive instrument, or by surgery that prohibits the function of otherwise healthy organs, or by medical or chemical means. The effects of such actions are to limit the number of offspring, to prevent births, and often to escape the responsibilities of parenthood. It is essentially wrong because: to employ the sexual function for self-gratification in a manner to prohibit the natural purpose of that function is to pervert the function; to defeat the primary purpose of the marriage relation without serious reason is to oppose the divine will. The committee of the bishops of the United States stated the position of the Church in a statement of Jan. 30, 1922: ‘The Church condemns all positive devices and methods of birth control as necessarily immoral because they are perversions of nature and violations of the moral law. Moreover, they lead inevitably to weakening of character, degradation of conjugal relations, decline of population, and degeneracy of national life. As a remedy for social and economic ills, birth control is not only mistaken and futile, but tends to divert attention from genuine methods of social betterment.'” (Roman Catholic teaching doesn’t prohibit family planning based upon use of the rhythm method and other means of avoiding pregnancy in a natural way.) Back To Article
4. Scripture clearly prohibits sex apart from marriage. Where marriage isn’t possible, the Scriptures require each of us to “possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor” (1 Thessalonians 4:4). Further, numerous passages clearly state that one of the purposes of marriage is emotional satisfaction and fulfillment of sexual passion (Proverbs 5:18-19; 1 Corinthians 7:2-9; 1 Timothy 4:3). Back To Article

The post Should Christian Couples Use Birth Control? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.

Our Lord gave serious warnings against causing little ones to stumble. How might we cause them to stumble? One way is by being hypocritical and setting up rigid formal standards that we ourselves violate. The Pharisees who hated Jesus were guilty of this (Luke 11:42).

Another way we might cause them to stumble is to be so fearful of being hypocritical (or being perceived as hypocritical) that we fail to appeal to their own consciences by compassionately warning them about sin.

Jesus didn’t shrink from affirming moral guidelines (Matthew 5:28; Matthew 21:11-13; John 4:15-19; John 8:11), but affirmed them like a loving parent, not a self-righteous hypocrite. He didn’t shun sinners or treat them contemptuously. Neither did He mince words regarding their spiritual need.

Anyone with knowledge of the wide variety of human sexual behaviors knows the extent to which sexual desire is shaped by behavior. The fact that some people are aroused by children, inanimate objects, or the infliction of pain, humiliation, or suffering demonstrates how seriously sexual desire can be distorted by gradual conditioning. These forms of sexual behavior are still viewed as abnormal and destructive by most people, and a general cultural consensus remains that it would be wrong to encourage them.¹ Non-religious psychiatric standards still acknowledge that such behaviors are learned.

But other types of harmful sexual behavior—including cohabitation, “hooking-up,” and active homosexuality—have gained wide cultural acceptance.

Life is short, and the way we invest our femininity and masculinity will have tremendous consequences. Common sense and human experience show that promiscuity, uncommitted sex, and gender confusion lead to tragedy. Conscience reinforces what the Bible teaches—that only sexuality dedicated to the nurture of spouse and family can contribute to wholesome lives with healthy personal boundaries.

As they seek to uphold and maintain the divinely revealed moral standards of Scripture, Christians often fail to keep the attitudes and example of Jesus in mind. Great harm has been done when Christians confront moral confusion in cruel, self-righteous ways. In the postmodern world, it will be impossible—even within the community of the church—to successfully grapple with issues like cohabitation and homosexuality without a degree of humility and self-awareness that the Christian community has seldom attained.

Most mature Christians in our sexualized modern world realize how far they personally have fallen short of sexual purity. As they experience sexual and emotional healing through God’s grace, they need to apply the lessons they have learned to help people who are still struggling. Although it is right that they be humbled and seasoned by their own failures, they shouldn’t lose sight of those who are still struggling and are far from sexual and emotional healing. Don Williams explains why, using as an example the potential effects of “normalizing” homosexual behavior within the church:

“For the church at this point to surrender to gay advocacy and gay theology and thus to give up her biblical faith would bring not only disaster upon herself, it would bring more havoc to the world as well. If the church simply blesses homosexuality, the hope for change in Christ will be destroyed. Millions of potential converts will have the only lasting hope for wholeness cut off from them. Untold numbers of children and adolescents who are struggling with their sexual identity will conclude that ‘gay is good,’ deny their heterosexual potential and God’s heterosexual purpose for them, and slip into the brokenness of the gay world. Untold numbers of adults will follow suit.” (Don Williams, The Bond That Breaks: Will Homosexuality Split the Church? (Los Angeles: BIM, 1978), 73)

The ultimate motive for upholding biblical moral standards must be love and concern for those missing the mark. Any light we shine into a dark world (Matthew 5:13-16) needs to be as suffused with love as it is with truth.

1. Contemporary research upholds the timeless wisdom of biblical teaching about the infectious nature of sin and the need to maintain clear moral guidelines. Stanley J. Grenz notes:
   

   “Social constructivists point out that we construct who we are—including our sexual identity—in large part through interaction with others. This parallels the epistemological idea of the social construction of reality, which speaks about the power of language to create the world we inhabit. The constructivist insight cautions us against adopting too quickly the language of ‘sexual orientation,’ understood as a fixed, lifelong, unchanging given of a person’s life.” (Welcoming But Not Affirming, p. xi) Back To Article

The post Why Must Christians Continue to Affirm Biblical Sexual Values Despite Culture’s Views? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.

Did you know that some Christians do believe that God saves everyone … eventually?

Saving everyone would entail forgiving everyone. But not everyone is truly sorry for their sins. Some people show no remorse for their sins or even acknowledge that they have sinned against others and God. How can God forgive the unrepentant? Some people talk as though forgiveness doesn’t require repentance, like when we speak of forgiving unrepentant abusive parents or violent terrorists. But it seems best to me to keep those concepts—forgiveness and repentance—connected while acknowledging that something else is going on in the cases just mentioned.

My husband (a philosophy professor) and I have often discussed this question. He offers this example. Suppose a parent offers to forgive a child for a particular misdeed, yet the child keeps sinning against the parent with no remorse. The relationship between the parent and the child is still fractured even though the parent extended forgiveness to the child. The parent desires an intimate, joy-filled relationship exemplifying reconciliation. God is like that parent.

God is good, beautiful, and full of compassion (Psalm 136:1). Forgiveness through Jesus Christ is for all (John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9), but not all of us have it. Some of us continue to arrogantly resist God because we think we know better than God. Like Satan, we desire to be God (see Isaiah 14:12–15; Matthew 4).

But some say that in the end, even if people experience hell, they’ll have a chance to escape hell. Furthermore, they claim God’s love is irresistible and unconditional, so the unrepentant in this life cannot help but be wooed and so repent even after death. As for me, I’m inclined to think that some will stubbornly resist God in this life and in the next.

This question leads to many other theological questions about the nature of hell, the problem of evil, and the salvation of people such as babies, the intellectually disabled, and others who cannot understand the propositions of the gospel. There is quite a bit I don’t know about this topic. But I do know God is loving, compassionate, and just. And I truly trust him to judge rightly.

The post Why doesn’t God just forgive everyone? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.

Domestic abuse can take many forms and they all should be taken seriously. Here are some examples of abuse that are not necessarily physical:

Verbal abuse involves belittling, demeaning, or threatening speech that is meant to manipulate or coerce one’s partner or spouse. Verbal abuse often carries the threat of physical violence, but not always.

Sexual abuse includes coerced sex through threats or intimidation or through physical force, forcing unwanted sexual acts, forcing sex in front of others, and forcing sex with others. But it can also be accomplished by withholding sex and intimacy as a means of control.

Psychological abuse can involve isolation from others (including family and friends), excessive jealousy, control of activities, verbal aggression, intimidation through destruction of property, harassment or stalking, threats of violence, constant belittling and humiliation, threats of physical violence or harm, creating a situation of total economic dependency, and financial enslavement.

The post Can domestic abuse be non-physical? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.

Take the time to talk with your teenager about abuse — what it is and how to deal with it. Let them know that they are far too valuable to accept abuse. It is never acceptable for anyone to manhandle or verbally abuse them. Then take the time to help them identify abusive behaviors and patterns to be avoided.

Abusers often try to isolate and control their partners. This is one of the first warning signs that your son or daughter may be in an abusive relationship. If you suspect abuse, lovingly encourage your child to surround themselves with friends and family members — this is a time to press into relationships, not recoil from them. Encourage them to get active in church, volunteer with organizations, and expand their interests.

Don’t accept the excuses your son or daughter makes for their partner’s abusive behavior. There is no excuse for abuse of any kind. Yelling, pushing, possessiveness, insults, and intimidation are signs of control. Remind your child that they have the power to end this relationship now. Everyone deserves to be respected because everyone is precious in the eyes of God.[1]

(Adapted from Live Right Now)

[1] Psalm 139:17–18

The post How can I help my teenager deal with abusive dating relationships? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.