Why was it, when men were about to be confronted with their enemies and they were afraid for their lives, they'd put their livestock in front of them, then their children and their wives/concubines, and then themselves?  This seems like a very cowardly act to me, and I've pondered it quite a while now.

Could it have been that they were showing the enemy just how much they had, or was it that they were simply afraid, and they were willing to sacrifice what was in front of them instead of being brave and defending their family and their livestock?

I also think it was horrible when different men would have other men they were scared of knocking at their door and demanding they send out certain men/visitors, and the man inside would say, “I've got this virgin daughter, or I've got my wife or concubine in here; let me send them out, but leave these men alone.” WOW. What in the world were they thinking?

Sincerely, Women And Children First

Dear Women And Children First,

The women and children went first as a sign of subservience and a reminder of the fact that these men had families to care for – that is why Jacob did it.The story you indicated occurs in Genesis chapter 32 and 33.Jacob’s brother, Esau, had been bitterly angry with him ever since Jacob got Esau’s birthright and blessing from their father, Isaac (Gen 27:36).Esau had attempted to kill Jacob when they were younger (Gen 27:42).It had been decades since the two brothers last saw each other, but Jacob still feared his brother’s wrath (Gen 32:11).Jacob sent livestock ahead as gifts to his brother (Gen 32:13-18).He then sent his wives and children, Esau’s nieces and nephews (Gen 33:1-2).Jacob went last in order to show his humility and lowliness.It was an act of peace, not a defensive war-time tactic.

In the case of men offering their daughters and concubines up for rape… that just shows the degradation of their character.In both cases where that happened (Sodom – Gen 19:8 and Gibeah – Judg 19:24), the societies were so utterly immoral that they were destroyed not long after.Sodom was destroyed directly by God (Gen 19:24), and Gibeah was destroyed by Israel (Judg 20:43).Both of those societies were condemned by man and God for their degenerate evil ways.The Bible records the history of these societies, but that doesn’t mean it condones them.

     I have a close friend that is married to a preacher.  She was recently fired from her job, and then soon after, her husband lost his preaching job.  She was collecting unemployment benefits while her husband was looking for a new preaching job, but she wasn't really looking for a new job herself.  Now they have moved to a new state where her husband found a preaching job at a smaller congregation.  She is still collecting unemployment.  She recently told me that she has no desire to look for a job as long as she is getting "paid" not to work.  I have questioned her about this, but she really doesn't feel bad about it at all.  I think it is completely wrong, and I am sure the new church family they are a part of would not agree with such an attitude, but I bet they don't have a clue.  What should I do?

Sincerely,
Frustrated Friend

Dear Frustrated Friend,

You’ve done all that you can and ought to do.  Good brethren are squarely divided on collecting unemployment benefits.  One side says something like, “If someone can’t find work, that is one thing, but if you are purposely not even trying to find work, then you are sinning because of the teachings found in 2 Thess 3:10 and 1 Tim 5:8.”  That argument sounds really great until you hear the opposing point of view (Pr 18:17).

Those on the other side, like your friend, often say something like, “They call it unemployment benefits for a reason.  My employer and I paid for me to have these benefits.  The fact that the government steps in to extend or increase those benefits doesn’t change the fact that they were part of my employment benefits… no different than health insurance if I got sick or L & I if I got hurt on the job.”

The principle is that both sides have a compelling argument, and in such cases, the best thing to do is to make your point and then leave each individual to work out the issue for themselves (Php 2:12).  Come to your own conclusion on the matter until you have confidence (Rom 14:5), but don’t despise those who feel differently, and hopefully, they will do the same (Rom 14:10-13).

     Is a person that just got saved supposed to treat friends that she has been around for 10 to 15 years badly?  I mean, is she supposed to stop conversing with unsaved people that she’s been friends with for a long time?

Sincerely,
Out In The Cold

Dear Out In The Cold,

A new Christian might have to put some distance between themselves and certain friends – a lot of it depends on the choices those friends are making.  It is sometimes hard for those outside of Christ to realize it, but becoming a Christian is a completely new life with new priorities and new direction.  Jesus compared it to being born again (Jhn 3:3).  When someone becomes a Christian, they make a commitment to God to repent of their sinful ways (Acts 3:19) and let their life be guided by Christ (Gal 2:20).  Any sort of drastic change in priorities of that magnitude will affect every corner of a person’s life, including their friendships.

1 Cor 15:33 says that bad company can corrupt us.  If someone becomes a Christian and still hangs out at the bar with their cussing drinking buddies, they aren’t likely to live that new life that Christ commanded.  It isn’t enough to say they will change; a new Christian needs to put themselves in an environment that will help them grow.  Sometimes, that means severing unhealthy friendships.

Having said that, becoming a Christian doesn’t mean all relationships have to end or that it is okay to be mean or unkind to people.  But if two people’s lives are going different places, it is natural for them to become distant.

I love my church, but there are things that have been brought to my attention that deal with young men sagging their pants. I feel the issue is important; we do need to be respectful to the women in the church and, most importantly, to God. These young men and I on occasion sag our pants; does that make me any more or less saved than the rest of the congregation? I understand there are guidelines, and I can’t go and do whatever I want, but whether I wear jeans to church or a suit, isn’t Jesus going to love me the same? It seems to me we can get too caught up on the outward appearances and miss God. Is all this judging good for the church as a whole? I think God will accept my baggy jeans and all, what about you, preacher?

Sincerely, How Low Can You Go

Dear How Low Can You Go,

The issue isn’t about dress code - but modesty. It is one thing to dress more casually or formally than others; it is another to show your underwear in public. Men sagging their pants are just as bad as women wearing low cut and revealing clothing. God tells us to dress modestly (1 Tim 2:9). It is shameful for a christian to not be fully clothed (Rev 3:18). It is important that we dress in a way that is honorable in the sight of all men (Rom 12:17). The way we dress is part of our reputation, and therefore we must be careful what message it sends. My kudos to you for caring. Hike up the pants.