Saturday, September 05, 2009


WWJD? Sometimes it seems so clear cut. Someone is in need of help. WWJD? Help, of course. Here is a poor person in need of a friend. WWJD? Well, be a friend, of course. And so on.

But being a friend to the poor, the needy, the downtrodden is (relatively speaking) easy for a single person to do. But what about when you have kids? What if there's a family at your kids' school who really need some light in their lives?

WWJD? Well, we know.

But What Would Jesus Do If He Had Kids?

In the specific situation I'm thinking about, befriending the family in question might have serious consequences for my kids. The very least of which would be head lice. The very worst of which - assuming even some of the rumours about the father are true - don't even bear thinking about.


I really don't know. Should we love the oppressed at the expense of our own family?


Chris Hamer-Hodges said...

Perhaps Mark 7:27 gives the closest insight. I don't believe it gives an opt out, but it does give a clear priority. We still have to do what we know is right, but the welfare of our children is paramount - just as it is for our Heavenly Father.

So perhaps in this case it should be WWGTFD?

Ryan M said...

Wow, great post Ricky! After your relationship with God comes your family, and (if you're getting at what I think you are re the dad of the other kids) there's no chance on earth you should even consider putting your kids at risk, not that I think you would.

I think thoughtful prayer, discernment and a lot of wisdom are the order of the day. I'll be praying for you guys, not least that you don't get lice!!

God bless man!

Ricky Carvel said...

Thanks for the comments guys.

This issue has been playing a lot in my mind recently as some friends of ours (a family with five kids aged between 1 and 10) have recently gone out to a fairly dangerous part of the world as missionaries.

I wouldn't do that. I would put the safety of my kids first and keep them in a safe country. Yet my friends have clearly felt the call of God to take their kids into a dangerous situation.

WWGTFD? Send a family with young kids close to a war zone in a Muslim country...


Chris Hamer-Hodges said...

The safest place to be is in the will of God.

If God does not give you a clear word it is because he trusts you as a father to make good decisions for the welfare of your family.

...but if he does give you a clear word (as he apparently did to your friends) then you have to trust him as Father that he has made the best decision for you and your family.

If he has sent them then he will also watch over them. That's why, to do something like that, it's not enough to decide to go, you have to be sent.

Ricky Carvel said...

"The safest place to be is in the will of God."

Really? Jesus promises his disciples that the world will hate them and persecute them. When the early church was persecuted, they didn't pray for protection, they prayed for boldness and strength to endure.

Jesus was in the will of God and was shunned, persecuted, mistreated, beaten, whipped, mocked and killed on a cross.

None of that counts as 'safe' in my book.

Yes, I agree that our eternal safety (i.e. salvation) is assured, but I can't see the promises for earthly safety. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Chris Hamer-Hodges said...

Ricky, You're right that God doesn't promise us protection from trials. And, as you point out, any expectation that we will avoid all such persecution or trouble is wrong.

However, he does promise that he will protect us through trials. Which is why the Psalmist could say "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death..." and how 1 Peter 1 can talk about being "shielded by the power of God... while you suffer grief in all kinds of trials." Those two statements may seem contradictory, but they are not.

So, safety may have been the wrong word to use. But any expectation that we can fare better on our own outside of God's will for our lives is equally wrong.