On Godwin's Law

Godwin's Law states that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. Remaining true to this law, in a comment string I was involved in at 4Simpsons recently I brought up the name of Hitler to which I received the reply: "as a general rule once someone brings up the name of Hitler you've won the argument".

While this was a clever way to avoid the point I was making (it didn't work) it did give me reason to do a little research on and contemplation of this matter. I discovered this "Law". Upon examining my thinking and asking the question as to why we bring up the name of Hitler often enough to warrant a "law" I came to a couple of conclusions:

1. The prevailing worldview of the West is one of relativism. The very nature of relativism renders words like "good" and "evil" meaningless. Communication, as a result, are now devoid of a means of articulating these concepts without some widely known universally accepted objective means such as an example. Hitler fills that bill for "evil".
2. Concepts like Godwin's Law either intentionally or unintentionally poison the well. Anytime I find myself increasingly reluctant to do, or especially to say, something, like mentioning Hitler's name in discussions, I am immediately suspicious of this tactic. It is amazing how effective these things are on us.

There is some truth however to the point the blogger made about the use of Hitler's name signifying that you have conceded the argument. The only problem is that he used the wrong name. The correct name that makes this assertion true is George Bush.

The World V Marriage, a comment

Stan at Winging It did a post on Marriage today that is well worth reading. Following is A well written comment left on his post The World V Marriage that is just as important by Stacey from Scotland.

I live in Scotland. Scotland is a bastion of liberality, total-control politics, and the "nanny state." In fact, the nanny state, while telling us we cannot help our neighbours due to the possibility of a lawsuit, is also the forerunner for government support of all things aberrant (e.g., your tax money paying for the unwed teenage mother to have her baby, get paid for it, and be given a house, to boot). Marriage is completely mocked over here. I live in a village of 1800 people. Most of the adults are "co-habitating." The favourite word here is "partner." Everyone has a partner, but no one has a spouse. People are seriously opposed to marriage here because chances are, they will lose their state benefits. Anyway, in a village this small, everyone is related to everyone else, usually because of sleeping around. They all share mothers and fathers. The school system is a nightmare, trying to keep up with who is related to whom. So, if your commenters think marriage is not under attack -- think again. Europe is usually a bit ahead of America when it comes to all things liberal and bad. The UK, and Scotland in particular, has completely marginalized the Christian faith; churches are empty or up for sale; marriage is a relic of the past; and it is no big deal if a kid has no clue who his father is. Commonplace. And very scary.

My husband and I are Christians. We are mocked all the time. The people in this village are angry at us constantly, and all we are doing is living a quiet life, doing our best to keep marriage sacred. The sad thing is, if we slept around and hung out at the pub "religiously" every weekend, we would be completely welcomed and no one would say a word against us.

Your blog is right on about the ills of society, and my husband and I are living in a society that has long since thrown in the towel. Whatever view of the UK it is that Americans hold, I can tell you, it is antiquated and inaccurate. The UK is a mess. And UK culture is swimming in sin.

One final example: a radio ad for a product called IRN BRU. It is a high calorie, high sugar canned drink. The ad features a young man singing and whistling about his wonderful girlfriend, until she drinks his IRN BRU. Then, he tells us gleefully that she is a "numpty," (American equivalent: moron), but he's okay because now he's "shagging my girlfriend's mother." We complained to the appropriate authority here about this ad, and the response: it is totally in line with British culture and they see no reason to pursue our complaint.

Americans: if you want to see what could become of the country, look to the UK. It's a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah.

Who is it who wants to undermine marriage? Practically everybody these days.

John Piper On The Prosperity Gospel

On Static Thinking

"Static Thinking" is a phrase I coined for myself to sum up an explanation for my own personal financial woes. I have come to realize however that this phrase can be applied to more areas than just finance. Today I'll apply it to helping the poor, but first a few things in description.

• Static Thinking is thinking within a snapshot in time; it is static. It doesn't consider history, cause, ramifications of past choices or consequence. It is the kind of thinking that will cause a person to burn down his barn to get rid of the rats not considering the fact that tomorrow he or the rats either one will have a barn.
• Static thinking sees what is and assumes that it's fixed in time. Not only were rich people never poor or poor people never rich, but poor people will never become rich or rich people poor. Never ever in a million years will that change. They are fixed.

Connecting The Dots of Static Thinking and Helping The Poor

Sue is poor. She is an unaborted single mother with 3 unaborted children from 2 different unaborted dads neither of whom live with her in her government-provided apartment. Her plight however is not a static one. You see, the idea of a good family home in her world was outdated. June Cleaver and Ossie Harriet as role models had become relics of a bygone era, worthy only of disdain and ridicule. They were replaced by the sensuality of MTV, do what you will, and the materialistic world of feminism. 

Sue was educated in a government school where the concept of God was banned and replaced by the meaninglessness of evolution. The intellectuals thought this best for her. Her neighborhood is crime-ridden. The government - confounded by its self-imposed restraints brought on by its Marxist mindset, and by the resulting sub-society living according to the standards taught to it by the educational institutions - gave up on trying to control anything but the most violent of criminals in her neighborhood.

Sue is unemployed. Businesses that may have employed her, or her husband had she thought it necessary to have one, having themselves given up on trying to do business in an area where the criminal is the protected one, moved to safer havens, even to other countries where they could escape runaway risk of lawsuits and bureaucratic red tape. 

Sue's neighborhood is drug-ridden. More government indoctrination passing itself off as "education" as it turns out, was helpless in helping those who live there escape a meaningless and hopeless existence It requires more. Unfortunately, drugs are the easiest, and perhaps the only accessible escape. So they abound.

Sue's neighborhood is marked by blight. Having been trained that "others" will take care of her, she feels no responsibility for making her neighborhood look nice and desirable. Her peers deface buildings in the same way they deface their own bodies with graffiti and piercings. Besides, to fight the blight would be a hopeless endeavor. She would wake each day to find that the graffiti and trash had reappeared. The liberal intellectuals and "theologians", and the weak-minded people who listen to them, look at Sue's plight and see only what their materialistic worldviews allow them to see: a lack of material. Or to put a finer point on it, more cash. So demands that more material be taken from someone else to assuage her situation, and their guilt, are made in the name of "compassion". THIS... is static thinking. Related Post

Peace and Love, Not To Mention Transparency and Tolerance

From the Things-You'll-Never-See-On-CNN/MSNBC-repeated-ad-nauseum files, here is a clip of one congressman's aahhhhh... gracious response to the simple question: "Do you support the Obama agenda?". Hmmmm, a simple yes would have probably sufficed, yes?

Hat Tip Carol's Blog.

The 501(c)3, Should Be Reconsidered

Is it time to rethink the 501(c)3 tax exemption for churches?  I think so.  What started as an exemption to encourage charitable giving has since morphed into a gag order on pulpits.  The government can now operate without fear of the enormous force for good resident in the Church. As a result, God has been expelled from our nation at a cost of enormous suffering to its people.

A Brief History

During WWI, taxes were increased to new highs. (15% for incomes over $546,500) This raised concerns that the wealthy would no longer give to those organizations that depended on philanthropy. Exemptions were then created in response to those concerns. With these exemptions, the fact that the tax code could be wielded as a punishment/reward program was not lost on politicians and lobbyist and so a monster was born that would never stop growing. By the 1950's it had morphed into a monster containing about 100 sections. Today it contains about 700 sections. In the bowels of this monster were marionette's string for pulpits waiting for a savvy politician to happen along and put them to use. That politician's name would be Lyndon B Johnson.

In 1954 the section of code that interested the then Senator Johnson was numbered 501, and it dealt with exemptions on charitable giving.  Of particular interest to him was sub-paragraph (c)3 which exempted giving to houses of worship. The reason for this interest? Johnson saw the raw federal power enjoyed by the IRS, and since he was facing an uncertain campaign to hold a previously ill-gotten seat, he needed that power to squash what was at the time a powerful force in its own right, the Body of Christ. And that he did. Yanking on the strings he effectively pulled many a preacher's mouth shut, at least as it pertained to shining a light on government evils.

For several generations now the government, through the IRS, has been supplementing the tithes of the faithful by means of a tax refund check. But thanks to Johnson, those refunds now come with strings attached; strings that are now accepted as good and right, Biblical even. 

The impact of several generations living with this code as their compass brought about changes in mindsets. There are many who now consider it a sin for a church to venture into the arena of politics. There are, as always, exceptions to this modern "sin". We know, for example, it's okay to talk about politics from the pulpit when discussing government intervention between sin and its consequences by promising promiscuous women a check for fatherless children.  And it's fine to talk about the government being magnanamous by confiscating from one neighbor and giving to another. 

A de facto alliance has emerged between the state and the Church as a result. In this arrangement, government gains power by doling out cash and the pastor and congregate get to claim credit for righteous giving simply by casting a vote and being "for" the right "issues".  But in the economy of love these arrangements have proven to be bankrupt. As it turns out, throwing other people's money at symptoms brought about by the Church's retreat from the public square is not an act of love at all, it is idolatry.

Why Did The Church Agree To This Restriction?

Keep in mind that all governments legislate morality.  Also, modern governments have taken on the responsibility of arbitrating what is right and wrong, and then instituting their arbitrations through the public schools. These realities should raise a question in the Christian's mind.  Why would the American Church willingly agree to withdraw itself from the arena where the morality that will be taught to the next generation is determined? That is a question for the ages.

One sad answer may simply be "mammon".  If this is the case, the Church has proven itself incapable of serving only one master. It perhaps could be said in defense of pastors that they may have rightly assumed that if their congregations suddenly lost those government refund checks, giving would wane. This may have been a precarious position for the man of God given the debt many Churches were struggling beneath. Or, other pastors may have rightly concluded that the congregation was no longer willing or able to withstand the loss of a portion of their tax refunds in exchange for removing the government mandated restrictions on what is said from the pulpit.

But a sadder answer yet may be that pastors didn't want to delve into the ugly world of politics.  This "law" simply gave them the cover they needed. Considering that the government had already become a benevolent benefactor in the minds of many congregates, politics had perhaps become a potential division bomb. "Good" may have no longer been a matter of Christ-likeness but rather seen as free government handouts to the poor.

Sadder even yet is the fact that many churches then--and more now--having dumped the concept of a spiritual realm accessible through Biblical truth, aligned themselves with spiritual forces of evil that are in opposition to God's Truth. Under the guise of so-called Social Justice, a justice based on pure materialism, these churches have become increasingly natural and materialistic. For them there was no discernible difference between "the church" and the government party with which they have become aligned. What the party said went regardless of whether or not it aligned with Biblical teaching. The Bible is simply twisted to suit utopian fantasies. How ironic it is that this same party also now finds itself aligned with organizations that are hostile to Christianity.

The Ramifications

As a consequence of the Church's withdrawal from the public square, a great light has gone out in the halls of government leaving it to operate at every level without fear that that light will be shined onto its activity again. Many Christians are now at best woefully ignorant of a Biblical understanding of government in regards to its function and purpose, or worse, they have bought entirely into the social-justice lies that see Government as a God-like entity capable of ending the curse. In this darkened state many Christians also see the murder of millions of children in the womb as an acceptable price to pay in exchange for material ends that they desire. In this new world, the hunger and thirst of the spiritual man are, by decree, denied through the auspices of "separation of church and state". Simply put, government cannot give aid (tax-breaks) to philanthropic activity if that activity does not align with the morality it arbitrarily decrees.

Many generations have passed since the 501(c)3 was passed into law and it is as if God gave us the ultimate desires of our heart.  We, even in the midst of an economic down-turn, are a wealthy nation oblivious to the fact that we are also spiritually poor, blind, and naked. Many local churches are now either completely apostate, or they're hospitals dedicated to applying salve to the lives that have been wrecked by a culture that has institutionalized sin. Or worse, they have simply become centers of feel-good-therapeutic-theistic entertainment that have passed the buck of the hard work of caring for the poor to impersonal, uncaring, and well-paid bureaucrats. And at the center of all this is what has become the giant pink idol that no one wants to talk about standing in the of the middle of the Sunday morning sanctuary, the Democrat Party.

Conclusion

There were attempts a few years ago to change the law so as to give pastors more freedoms in the pulpit while allowing the congregants to keep their subsidies. But God would not have this. The attempt was thwarted. A bill entitled " Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act" was voted down. As one could reasonably expect, the votes were mostly along party lines, the true alliances of the Democratic party in plain sight for all who cared to look. But why should have Democrats voted to cut loose its control of pulpits? They are perfectly capable of selective enforcement of this code. Those who support democrats do so without fear.

It should also be remembered that nations which do not enjoy freedom of religion still have churches, they're just state-sanctioned. They are simply controlled, eerily, through similar restrictions on speech that we see being exacted on churches in America now through the tax code.

America has only ever had one hope, the Church of Jesus Christ. Unless that Church comes to its senses, America will continue its descent into darkness and suffering. Furthermore, all our attempts to alleviate that suffering by mammon will only put us in a deeper spiral which will lead to increasingly radical "fixes".  Our nation awaits salt for its preservation, and light for its vision. Whether that salt will arise from under the foot of man, or that light will shine, remains to be seen.  But this we know, God will prevail and His Son's Bride will emerge spotless.

Jan Brewer

Brewer is meeting with the president today. And if there is one thing all "conservative" politicians have in common it is disappointment amongst their constituency. In my opinion, Jan Brewer is not necessarily going to be any different. I don't think that she wanted to sign SB1070 but had no choice given the overwhelming support for the bill in Arizona. She was silent, as far as I know, during the debates on the bill, and it was hoped by Arizona leftist that she would veto it. No one knew what she would do, I don't think she did either.

Just so you know, Brewer was not elected but became governor when Janet Napolitano left that post to become Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security. That said, Brewer DID want to become the elected governor of AZ and in the end did sign the bill. I still don't know if she truly supports the bill. I think however that she is relishing her surge in popularity, a popularity that will probably propel her into the governor's mansion come November. But how this will all play out with her as an elected governor is still yet to be seen. I've heard conservative pundits praise her aplenty, but as for me, I'm withholding my praise too loudly for the time being. I prefer instead to be optimistically cautious, and I would suggest to those inclined to lay too much praise on her to do the same. As someone once said, if you don't want to be disillusioned, don't be illusioned.

Profits By Any Other Name

Whether it's big pharmaceutical, big oil, big insurance, or a small plumbing company, the idea that there are billions of dollars in profits being made in this big government political age is unacceptable. This hearkens back to the Marxist roots of socialism where profit was seen as the unfair taking from the laborer the fruit of his labor that was rightfully his.

For all the caterwauling about this "problem" of profits from the most compassionate amongst us-(whisper)and fabulously well to do too-there seems to be a huge blind spot by those singing the loudest.

Keeping with St. Marx's idea of profit-the difference between the value that the worker has created and the wage that the worker receives from his employer-there is an entity, the same entity in fact that Marx saw as the savior for the oppressed proletariat, that seems to be getting away with a little profit action in their own right. That entity would be the state. And as Shakespeare once alluded, you can change the name of your irk, but that doesn't change the fact that your a hypocrite.

So how is this so? Well consider Marx's definition-that I got here by the way. The next time you look at your pay stub look at the difference in the wealth that you have created by the sweat of your brow, minus of coarse what your employer has taken for himself. That would be your gross. Then look at the amount that you received from your employer. Or the next time you purchase an item that "costs" ten dollars, pay attention to how much of the tender representing your labor you must hand over at the cash register. Upon a little reflection you will begin to realize that your employer is not the only one feeding at the trough of your labor.

Now go home and turn on the TV and watch your president, the most flagrant example of such, living like a king, vacationing, flying to and fro making important speeches, and batting spheres around. His ability to do this comes from non other than the taking of the sweat of your, and millions of other's, brow. While some prefer to call this taxing, according to Marx, it is profits.

The Hypocrite's Hypocrite

A lady reading a magazine with a picture of the conservative Dr. Laura Schlessinger on its cover was asked about the story. "It says Dr. Laura doesn't practice what she preaches" was the reply. This raises a question, does this lady or the author of the article live up to any kind of standard? The truth is that both might just as guilty of the same sort of hypocrisy for no one really lives their lives without some sort of standard.

The problem arises because Dr. Laura, a self proclaimed Jew, holds up a Judeo Christian standard of morality. But if the foundations of the charges of hypocrisy are analyzed, Christians may actually be the least culpable, and their accusers the most. How can this be?

First, consider that without a standard from which to measure, the word hypocrite is meaningless. Christians not only point to an objective set of moral standards that apply to everyone, they also point out that all fall short of those same standards. So let's consider the Christian standards. But let's not stop there but also examine the standards held by those who are quick to accuse Christians of hypocrisy. The charge cuts both ways.

The starting point of Christianity is the admission of the fallenness and depravity of all mankind, including self. It points to a God who cannot be both just and merciful. God's wrath puts all of mankind in a position of condemnation before Him. But his mercy provides an escape. As an aside, it is in recognizing this that we begin to understand the ire of those who are vehemently opposed to Christianity and relish in debasing it. Who, after all, likes being confronted with the truth that they are condemned?

But this is also why the good news is good news. So, that said, not only does the Christian agree with God that he has fallen short of God's standards, but he also acknowledges his failures before man. That said, anyone who accuses Christians of hypocrisy are actually a little late to the party.

Secondly, what of the standards held by those quick with the Christians-are-hypocrites accusations, and how do they fair in holding to their standards? They have their standards too you know. This is proved by the fact that accusations are being made. If one has no standard then there is nothing for another person to fall short of, and no reason to accuse.

The fact is that no one has no standard. In the same way that it is judgemental to judge someone as being judgemental, it is also hypocritical to judge someone as being hypocritical if the person making the judgement has fallen short of his own standards. And no one has not fallen short of his own standards, no matter what those standards might be. So, in one sense, all people except Christians are hypocrites. Of course I don't buy that. There are clearly glaring Christian hypocrites.

It seems to be a common thing in these acrimonious times for accusations of "does not practice what he preaches". Although such charges may be true, it is also true that the one making them is making them from a position of self-righteousness. In the end it is just as important to realize that everyone has standards to fall short of as it is that all fall short of standards. The teachings of Christianity embrace this reality. The fact that the accusers do not raises the question of who is the more authentic hypocrite?

Poisoning My Children's Well

"Poisoning the Well" is a fallacy wherein one presents the arguments of their ideological opponent's first as well as a response to those arguments.  By doing this they are able frame their opponent's argument in worst possible terms and respond to it in the best possible terms. It might look something like this.  Teacher says: "Your parents are going to tell you that God created this entire world you now live in.  But we now know that such views are antiquated and are nothing more than remnants of an old unscientific way of thinking. Science has now shown that our existence is due to evolution."

My first exposure to this tactic occurred during a prolonged encounter with Jehovah's Witnesses. These poor souls were taught beforehand exactly how Christians would respond to their message.  So when Christians actually responded as predicted, it made their leaders look intelligent, insightful and even prophetic and thus affirmed the cultist's trust in their leader.

Anti-Christ cultural apologists do the same sorts of things by presenting a cultural issue along with a caricatured version of the anticipated Christian response. They then follow that up with a more "reasonable" sounding explanation.  This, in effect, poisons many children's Well against their own parent's teaching. When the parent attempts to teach in contradiction to the prevailing norms being pushed in the schoolhouse, they will be teaching what their children were told they would teach, and the counter to that teaching will have already been implanted in the child's mind. The parents are then seen by the child through the lens of a silly caricature.  

On the other hand, if I am the first to make the world's case to my children, then I can also be the first to give a response to why the world's views and arguments are flawed.

I have come to appreciate this tactic and have employed it in teaching my own children in ways that help insulate them against the lies they're certain to hear.  My goal is one of firsts.  I make it my business to be the first to present the messages of our culture as well as the first to help them evaluate those messages in light of scripture, logic, and objective truth, and also the first to provide a response to those messages. In this way I am the one setting the table for my children's future worldview discussions with others.

Francis Schaeffer understood this problem in the early sixties and had this to say in the book, "Escape From Reason", published in 1968:

"The reason we often cannot speak to our children, let alone other people's, is because we have never taken time to understand how different their thought-forms are from ours. Through reading and education and the whole modern cultural bombardment of mass media, even today's middle-class children are becoming thoroughly twentieth-century in outlook. In crucial areas many Christian parents, ministers and teachers are as out of touch with many of the children of the church, and the majority of those outside, as though they were speaking a foreign language."

C.S. Lewis also, in "The Abolition Of Man", spoke of the school boy who had had the seed of indoctrination planted in his mind early in his life:

"It is not a theory they put into [the school boy's] mind, but an assumption, which ten years hence, its origin forgotten and its presence unconscious, will condition him to take one side in a controversy which he has never recognized as a controversy at all."

Parenting as a Christian in a culture hostile to Christianity requires that one be, among other things, proactive and intentional. If the Christian parent is not the first to introduce the views that oppose the faith that the parent is attempting to instill, he will likely discover later that the very act of articulating those same views will lend credence to those who oppose his views.  The parent will indeed be fulfilling "prophecy".  This makes the "prophet" look really smart and the parent look predictable... even stupid, kind of like the caricature.

When my children are confronted with such opposition, my hope is three-fold. First, that the issue will already have been settled in their minds. Second, that their father's credibility will be enhanced in hearing exactly what he he warned them they would hear. And third, that they will be critical thinkers.

It is naive to think that our children's well will not be poisoned if we do not take action to prevent it. Fallacious arguments against the Christian's worldview, and what we teach our children, are very much an integral part of our culture, which not only includes institutions of education, but also entertainment. Unless the prent is proactive in preventing it, those arguments will take hold. The parents will simply find one day that their children have rejected their worldview and faith.

To avoid the poisoning of the hearts and minds of your children consider a few thoughts:

1. The younger our children are, the more open they are to an adult's teaching. As C.S. Lewis alluded, we must plant the seeds into our children's hearts early, then be vigilant in guarding against the birds who desire to steal them. Do not teach things that are not true, like Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny. You destroy your own credibility by doing so. Your child will one day reject them both, and may well throw Jesus into the mix of things that you taught that were not true.
2. Understand the tools and methods that will be used against your teaching, poisoning the well is but one. To learn how these tools are used, we ought to engage the world; think critically about its messages; and learn to refute the arguments if they are untrue. This will require work and critical thinking on our part. As someone once said, parenting is not for cowards.
3. There is a temptation to wait until our children are older when they will better be able to understand more complex issues. Wisdom is in order here but do not wait too long.  Many of the concepts are fundamental, like a thing can't be both true and untrue at the same time, or be both black and white.  Develop the means early in simplistic forms while they are still open. God did not design them to always be under your protection and roof. They become their own persons much earlier than this culture and society would have you believe. The world knows this as is shown by the pro-homosexual messages and agenda being carried to elementary schools.
4. Avoid ad hominem attacks (that is attacks on the character of the opposition as opposed to the merit of their viewpoint) against those who hold differing views. While this is effective when used by anti-Christian forces (because those attacks will constantly be reinforced by culture and society) it is antithetical to a Biblical worldview. Moreover, if you are successful in teaching your children to think critically, it will only be a matter of time before they put what you have taught under that same microscope. Don't discredit your own teaching in the future minds of your children by teaching contradictions and falsehoods.  Study, study, study.
5. Insulate rather than isolate. Learn to find the hidden messages in entertainment and then teach your children to seek and find the good and bad messages hidden there. Remember one mistake does not determine your child's future, nor does one success. With this in mind, teach your children to interpret movies and literature, to think critically about propaganda/news stories themselves and to keep their guards up.  You should then challenge them by openly playing devil's advocate.
6. Bring in real life events and issues as they get older. I have found You Tube a great resource for this. A point can be made and examples can be shown and re-shown.
7. Have fun. Eventually picking out fallacious arguments and assertions can be like egg hunts, and the people who are making them begin to look ever more ridiculous in light of critical thought.
8. The truth never hurts the truth. Keep in mind that anti-Christian forces are not the sole proprietors of fallacious arguments. Fallacy and truth are mutually exclusive no matter who engages in them. Truth should reign supreme.
9. Teach and live scripture. This does not mean teach and live perfection. A common well poisoning tactic is to make a strawman attack on Christians as not living what they preach. The Christian knows that this is impossible because he preaches that everyone sins and falls short of the glory of God. So then, when we as parents fall short, we repent and apologize as necessary, including to our children, and according to how we teach. Point out that any time a standard exists, people who hold to that standard will fall short. Inquire as to what standard the person making this accusation of hypocrisy may be falling short of.
10. Above all, pray without ceasing that our Father in Heaven will guide the steps of our children into His service and into His glory. Pray that He will capture their hearts at an early age. Pray that they would always seek His face, and His will for their lives and that he would make it plain to them what that will and plan is. Pray for wisdom-as a parent-that the wiles and schemes of the Evil One would be plain. Pray for their salvation and for their eternal destiny.
11. Last but not least, teach the fear of God.