A couple Sundays ago, I announced to my congregation that we would be moving from where we currently meet---a New York City public school---to our new meeting space. We aren't moving because we've outgrown the space where we meet, but because the city has ruled that churches can no longer meet in public schools. We will need to be out February 19.

Many of you have been praying for the many New York churches who heard back in December that they will need to find a new place to congregate. This has been a difficult challenge for many churches, since space is an expensive and limited commodity in this bustling city that needs the gospel of Jesus Christ.

So What Are Churches Doing Now?

Our church is one of more than 60 affected by this decision, which has provoked discussion about cultural definitions of worship and church-state relations. Churches, civic leaders, and legislators have pushed back at the local and state level. There have been demonstrations on the steps of City Hall, peaceful displays of disobedience, and "pray-in's." Pastors and city councilmen have been arrested for protesting, and Mayor Bloomberg's annual prayer breakfast was an awkward one, to say the least. Tim Keller has written in opposition to city's decision.

Hopeful legislation has been proposed in the New York State Senate intended to overturn the city's ruling. It's likely the New York State Assembly will soon follow suit by considering a similar bill. However, none of these decisions will be made before February 19. In fact, it's likely that nothing will be decided even in the next several months. Moreover, there is much pressure from outlets such as The New York Times for Governor Cuomo to veto such legislation, even if it passes.

Despite these challenges, many churches in the city that own space have flexed their hospitality muscles. Many churches that met Sunday mornings in public schools are now making plans to meet Sunday evenings so they can share these buildings.

Congregations such as First Baptist Church, which meets in the Upper West of Manhattan, are adapting not just for charity but also for the sake of the gospel. Pastor Matthew Hoskinson has planned to forfeit their Sunday school hour at 9:30 a.m. to allow for a congregation to meet during that time, even as he has arranged for another congregation to meet Saturday nights, and still another Sunday evenings.

Our own congregation has benefited from First Baptist's hospitality and pastor Hoskinson's leadership. Starting February 19, we plan to meet on Sunday evenings at First Baptist Church. This effort to welcome churches takes more time and manpower than what you might first assume.

Other churches in our position are benefiting from the hospitality of congregations who have the blessing of their own meeting space in a city built for commerce, not churches.

Strategic Opportunity

As churches race for space and labor for their constitutional rights, we have at least two strategic opportunities to adjust our expectations for what a worship gathering looks like.

First, there is a unusual unity that comes from sharing space among evangelical churches. Many evangelical pastors meet for prayer and planning service projects. These are hugely strategic and a blessing. But there is something different that happens when you have to figure out how two (or three) churches are going share space. We have been blessed by First Baptist as they help us cope during this season of shared space. They don't just want us to manage---they want to help other churches flourish.

Second, many churches now planning for evening services have already found this is a more strategic time for many New Yorkers to meet. Few skeptics in this city wake up Sunday morning eager to check out a church service. And on the Upper West Side, where our congregation meets, many family sporting events have been planned for Sunday morning. So we've grown excited about planning for these new opportunities for outreach on Sunday evenings.

We trust that the Lord is sovereign in all these things. This is certainly a challenging time for many churches in New York. But we have every reason to rejoice, as we hear of new, faithful, gospel-proclaiming church planters coming all the time and evangelical churches that continue to grow and multiply around the city.

Much has been made lately of the video circulated the Web that purportedly shows U.S. Marines urinating on dead men, presumably Taliban fighters killed by the Marines. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called the act "utterly deplorable." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she was dismayed, and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos said the Marines in that video behaved in a manner that is "wholly inconsistent with the high standards of conduct and warrior ethos that we have demonstrated throughout our history" and vowed to investigate and punish the guilty.

Almost as quickly, some came to the Marines' defense, the gist being that (a) there was no similar outrage when the Taliban committed atrocities, (b) "war is hell," or (c) the Taliban deserved it. Indeed, one female radio host boasted that she'd have "dropped trou" and joined the Marines. Rep. Allen West of Florida, who served in combat in Iraq, acknowledged that the Marines deserved punishment but added that "unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell."

I served seven years as a Marine and recently returned after several months in Afghanistan serving as a Department of Defense civilian with special operations forces. I was also shot at by the Taliban, although the incoming volleys of 107mm rockets were more likely addressed "to whom it may concern" than me personally. But for Rep. West's purposes, I think that counts enough for me to express my opinion that he and the other defenders of this action are mistaken.

Strategic Corporal

First, there are practical considerations. One blogger snarked that this act would simply make the Taliban hate us more. But that misses the point. In the 1990s the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Chuck Krulak, coined the phrase "the strategic corporal." By that he meant that, in the age of CNN, a Marine non-commissioned officer who would normally be assigned to lead the smallest of tactical units, a four-man fire team, could have an impact on the national strategic level through acts that would be shown on TV screens around the world. How much more is this true now in the age of Al Jazeera and YouTube?

In Afghanistan there exists a large population who do not want a return to Taliban theocracy but who are also suspicious of outsiders. Some areas are so remote and untouched by the modern news cycle that they think Americans are Russians---yet they are not so out-of-touch that they would miss this video. The Taliban are already using the incident as propaganda that reinforces the message that Americans want only to despoil their culture and attack Islam. This action by the Marines does tremendous damage to American efforts to get the population to oppose the return of the Taliban.

Love Our Enemies

Aside from the tactical/operational/strategic considerations here, there is a moral dimension to be considered. We must not rationalize or excuse this act of desecration. Scripture tells us to love our enemies, as they are beings created in the sacred image of God. To desecrate is to de-consecrate, to make unsacred. In a way, to desecrate the dead is to attack God in effigy.

To be sure, war is hell, but it is precisely for that reason that we must safeguard against making it more hellish. Yes, al Qaeda murdered 3,000 people on 9/11, and the Taliban and other Islamists are not shy about butchering their enemies. But should we expect anything different? It's like complaining that scorpions sting; it's what they do.

We should be different. We have imposed a fundamental tension on ourselves by maintaining a moral code, even in war. That's why we have rules of engagement that limit what actions may legitimately be done in warfare. It is why we don't indiscriminately destroy villages, despite having the means to do so. It is why we fight the enemy and kill him if necessary in battle, but once he is captured, wounded, or dead, he is no longer a legitimate target and must be treated with respect. That the enemy does not believe this is no excuse for us to abandon our own moral code.

Another Desecration

The desecrated dead know nothing of what's happened to them. But there is another desecration that happens, this time to the perpetrator's soul. In his World War II memoir With the Old Breed, Eugene B. Sledge wrote that Marines would sometimes pry gold teeth from the jaws of dead Japanese. He had refrained, but after one battle on Peleliu he decided to indulge. With knife in hand, he bent to pry the gold from a dead soldier's mouth when the corpsman, Doc Caswell, put a hand on his shoulder. "You don't want to do that sort of thing," he said gently. "What would your folks think if they knew?" Sledge tried to rationalize, but in the end he abstained. After the war he reflected that the wise corpsman, who had managed to retain his humanity in the face of incredible brutality, was trying to keep Sledge from forfeiting his own.

We should wish only the same for our men and women at war.

Whether someone is preaching in view of a call, filling in for a vacationing pastor, or performing a wedding, every pastor will have to deliver a "one time" sermon at some point. Deciding what to preach or how to preach can be a challenge, especially if the pastor is young and doesn't have a handy sermon stashed away in his back pocket for these occasions.

I asked Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research and author and co-author of several books, including Planting Missional Churches and Transformational Church, how would he advise pastors to approach a "one time" sermon.

-----------------------

I remember the first time I preached a sermon, though it's unlikely anyone else does. In fact, I'm actually relieved that no record remains of its existence. I was asked to preach one time and, like many other first-time preachers, I brought everything I knew into that message. It was long, painful, and scattered---but a kind group of older adults not only invited me to preach, they also patiently sat through my message---though they never asked me back.

Preaching a stand-alone message can be tricky. For me, they generally fall in between sermon series (as I much prefer to preach) or when I am invited somewhere as a guest preacher.

Sometimes, as a guest preacher you are part of a series. For example, at one church, I simply continued the series (though I was a little bitter with the passage I was assigned). This isn't too difficult---you listen to a few messages before, tie in to those, and help the pastor along the way.

However, it's harder when you are the guest preacher with a single topic. I think you can go about it in two legitimate ways.

1. Preach a text on a topic.

2. Preach a topic with texts.

Preaching a Text on a Topic

A message is supposed to be grounded in the text, but text-based messages can still become exegetically irresponsible if we force a theme onto a text when it really does not fit. For example, if you are preaching on "motherhood" on Mother's Day, it might be better to connect with multiple texts rather than preach a text that touches on motherhood and you make it all about motherhood.

So when preaching a text on a topic, you need to be careful that you don't let the topic mold the text. Rather, the text, if appropriate, will inform and mold your approach to the topic. However, approaching a message in this way means it may look somewhat different from a standard expositional treatment of the passage. If I am preaching a text on a topic, I do not tell everything I would in a verse-by-verse exposition. Instead, I talk about how this verse undergirds the topic, but also that it addresses more than this topic. I say that, but I do not explain that. The topic will limit, to a certain degree, what I unpack from the passage.

For example, when I filled in at another church, I preached from the text, 1 Peter 4:8-11, on "Engaging all God's People in Mission." When I preach a one-week message, after all the study and preparation I wind up leaving a lot on my desk that I don't take with me into the pulpit. Your text will always say more than what you have to say and that's okay. Just ensure that what you do say is faithful to that text.

Preaching a Topic with Texts

On the other hand, one can also responsibly preach a topic with texts.

I recently returned from a church where my job was to encourage people to "live sent." I preached a topic with a few texts. The topic was how we might live as the sent people of Jesus. The texts (as well as the title) were the "Sendings of Jesus." These commissions included John 20:21, Matthew 28:18-20, Luke 24:46-48, and Acts 1:8.

The principles are actually the same. I wound up leaving a lot on my desk, but I worked hard to be faithful in what I brought with me to preach.

Or, once when I preached, the theme was the "seven last words of Jesus." My assignment was forgiveness. My assigned topic was not just that Jesus forgave, but how it affects what God has called us to do. Thus, I made it clear in the title: "Forgiveness: It's Who God Is, It's Why Jesus Came, and It's What Christians Do."

I believe it's easier to be thorough and responsible with the text when you preach through a series. If you are preaching through a book (as I am right now at my church), it is simply following the arguments, themes, and stories of the author. If you are preaching doctrinally or thematically, you can bring the whole counsel of God to a topic by being faithful to what the scripture teaches in its multiple mentions of the topic.

However, you simply cannot be as thorough in a one-shot message.

So, here is what I try to do:

1. Never use verses in way that would result in the apostle Paul (or Moses, Jesus, etc.) to say, "Whoa, that was not my point."
2. Don't share everything you know---leave some things on your desk and tell people you are doing so.
3. Don't preach a single message like a series---you can't do it well. Single messages have limitations and you have to live with them.
4. Point people to Jesus. Don't simply leave them with commands, lead them to the promises of God in Jesus.

I should end with my bias. I don't like single messages. I prefer a series because I find I can present a clearer picture of scriptural teaching on an issue. But do not despise the single message---nobody ever preaches a series in the Bible, and we don't see it much until John Chrysostom in the fourth/fifth century after Christ.

Be faithful with the small things . . . even the small sermons.

The inability to have a child is a true burden. Would-be parents often ask both God and themselves why their innate desire to have children cannot be fulfilled. This kind of self-examination reflects how deeply emotional and traumatic infertility can be. Sometimes a couple may even keep the situation secretive to avoid embarrassing themselves in front of family and friends.

Sadly, this response only heightens the pain endured by many couples experiencing infertility. In the United States, 15 percent of couples cannot have children after one year of sexual relations. As a result, clinics specializing in aiding the reproductive process have sprung up all over the country. Couples spend many thousands of dollars to increase their chances of having a child.

There are several reproductive technologies currently in use, including fertility drugs, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization (IVF), use of a surrogate mother, gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT), zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT), and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Although these technologies differ from each other, they all raise certain ethical issues that should concern anyone considering them.

Care of Multiple Embryos

A crucial issue in reproductive technologies is the safety of the embryos, whether they are inside a mother's body or in a laboratory. Because human life begins at conception, all embryos should be treated with the utmost care. For example:

1. A couple using IVF should decide ahead of time how many embryos to implant and attempt to create only that number of embryos. If more than the ideal number of embyros are created, the extras may be implanted with the others or frozen (to be implanted later)---whichever option poses less risk to the lives of the mother and embryos. No embryos should ever be discarded.
2. Only a limited number of embryos should be implanted following in vitro fertilization. Such an approach will decrease the chance that too many embryos will implant, thereby risking the lives of all the embryos and/or the mother.
3. A couple considering fertility drugs should research the options carefully. Some drugs may cause multiple eggs to mature rather than merely putting the body back into a normal, healthy, fertile state. Potentially harmful multiple pregnancies can result. One drug, clomiphene citrate, does not carry the risk of multiple pregnancies that some of the other fertility drugs now available do. Also, the multiple pregnancy risk can be minimized with the use of ultrasound to monitor the maturing egg(s). With monitoring, multiple simultaneous pregnancies can be avoided.
4. Selective reduction (abortion of some implanted, developing embryos so the others have a better chance to survive) is not an ethical option. However, selective reduction should not be necessary if an appropriate number of embryos are implanted in the first place.
5. A couple should only consider implantation procedures whose percentage of success is equal to or greater than that of unassisted natural implantation. Otherwise, embryos are being placed at greater risk than is normally the case in human reproduction.

Use of Donor Eggs/Sperm

For a variety of reasons, it is not advisable to use donor eggs or sperm in any reproductive technologies:

1. Who are the parents? Are they the ones whose genetic material (sperm and egg) combine to form the child or the people who raise the child? This question might be a simple one for the parents caring for the child, but how simple is that question from the viewpoint of the child? Sometimes, legal battles even result between the sets of parents involved in the child's life.
2. Should children know that one or both of his or her (rearing) parents did not provide the egg or sperm that brought them into being? Should children have access to the donor(s) (genetic parents)? Should genetic parents have visitation rights?
3. A distinctive imbalance may be introduced into a marriage where donor eggs or sperm are used in place of one parents eggs or sperm. There is the possibility of resentment from the partner whose eggs or sperm were not used. ("You take care of her! She's your child.") Accusations of unfaithfulness can result because, in a real, genetic sense, one of the spouses has had a child with another person. Emotional attachment to the "mystery person" can also develop in the spouse who genetically had the child with the donor.
4. These and other difficulties flow from violating the "one flesh" model of marriage in Scripture, in which children are literally to be the result of the two married parents (and their eggs and sperm) becoming "one flesh."

Surrogate Motherhood

The most common form of surrogacy involves inseminating the surrogate with the husband's sperm---generally because the wife cannot carry a child through pregnancy. Such an arrangement should be avoided because a donor egg is involved, as explained above. Even when a donor egg is not involved---e.g., when the husband's sperm and wife's egg are joined in vitro---the bonding problems discussed below generally make such an agreement unwise. Particularly problematic are commercial arrangements in which surrogates receive payment for producing a child beyond expenses they incur. Like the selling of organs, such arrangements wrongly commercialize the body. In fact, financial contracts essentially entail the purchasing of the baby and imply an unacceptable form of human ownership. Less problematic are altruistic surrogacies, such as rescue surrogacies, where a woman acts to save an embryo that would otherwise be destroyed.

Bonding

Whenever donor eggs/sperm or a surrogate are used, the question of bonding can affect all parties involved. Bonds can develop between child and genetic parent(s), between surrogate mother and child, and between the genetic parents. The risk that inappropriate bonds will be created through the reproductive process is very real and can cause many problems. On many occasions, surrogate mothers have sued the genetic parents for custody after the baby was born or for the right to abort a malformed fetus, even though the genetic parents wanted the child to live.

Financial Implications

Undergoing reproductive treatments is very costly. In vitro fertilization costs between $10,000 and $20,000. Surrogacy can cost between $20,000 and $40,000. And these treatments do not guarantee that a child will result. In fact, clinics average only 20 percent to 40 percent live birth success rates. However, these success rates are most likely this high due to the implantation of multiple embryos and selective abortion. Following ethical guidelines that protect human life from conception would likely make the percentage much lower.

Prudence

One serious consideration is the prudence of seeking to have a child with reproductive technologies when the costs and risks are so great. There are two primary concerns:

1. The money could go towards meeting another great need. It can be difficult to imagine anything more important than the creation of life. However, we also have a responsibility to be concerned about those people already in the world today. There are people in many parts of the world without adequate medical care. For example, it costs just pennies per person to inoculate them against many of the world's greatest killers.
2. Adopting a child is often an option for people to consider. It is difficult to adopt in some countries, but international adoption is gaining popularity because of the number of orphaned children and speed with which the adoption process can often be completed. There are many children in the world in need of a home. In Cambodia, many children have been orphaned through years of war. In China where the government allows parents to have only one child, many female babies are left with orphanages by parents who want a boy. In Bulgaria, a reported average of 90 percent of the many children in orphanages will become criminals unless they are adopted. Those who are able should investigate the possibility of international adoption before ruling it out.

Many people experience a very natural urge to be parents. Some are seeking to satisfy this urge using reproductive technologies without fully understanding all their implications. Before using technological methods of reproduction, it is wise to study in-depth the available options, understand the ethical issues involved, and above all, seek the will of God before moving ahead.

Mommy-y-y-y! Dad can't find his keys again and Judson is eating crayons and Norah didn't make it to the potty and I need help with my homework and someone rang the doorbell and now Dad really needs his keys and Mommy, why are you closing your eyes like that are you tired?

If this scenario sounds familiar, then this article is for you. Yes, you with the peanut butter handprints on your blouse and 14 sticky notes on your refrigerator.

I suspected that I could relate to you when I saw you drinking room temperature coffee leftover from yesterd--

Oh, hang on---I hear a baby waking up. . . . False alarm. Poor guy---he's teething. I started to tell you something. Hold on, it will come back . . . ah, yes!

Did you hear about The Gospel Coalition women's conference in Orlando this summer?

If you frequent the TGC site then you might have read about the conference. Perhaps you dismissed it as something you couldn't possibly attend because of your responsibilities at home.

Or maybe when you read about the conference the most pressing thing on your mind was multitasking your email and laundry at the end of a long day. I'm right there with you.

So while you're multitasking your email and laundry, I want to take a minute to encourage you to consider attending the conference in June.

Maybe the best way for me to do that is to tell you why I'm excited about going.

Behold Your God

My life is mundane. I don't say mundane in a negative way, but with a sense of hopefulness for holiness because of what Christ has done on the cross. The "whatever you do" in 1 Corinthians 10:31 includes all the little mundane moments like graciously finding my husband's lost keys (minus any sarcastic remarks), humbly cleaning up the mess on the bathroom floor, and cheerfully extending hospitality to those the Lord sends my way.

The theme of the conference is "Here Is Our God: God's Revelation of Himself in Scripture." To quote the conference overview:

It's a time to learn more of what Scripture says to us---and to say it to each other. A time to dig deeper into the character of God and his purpose for his people.

The subject matter of this conference is acutely relevant to my image-of-God-bearing, one-flesh-mystery-living, soul-shepherding, casserole-cooking, and Olympic shirt-ironing.

I can't think of anything that makes a more significant effect on my mundane life than the good news, "Behold your God!" (Isaiah 40:9)

Take a minute to read over the conference schedule---even the message titles are edifying! Women from various backgrounds---single and married, young and old, no children and grown children---should enjoy the teaching and fellowship.

But What About ___?

Maybe you thought about going and ran into these obstacles:

Life is too complicated.

You have responsibilities at home---you are the Manager, after all. Plus, your husband may not be available to take care of the kids. I hear you. We have three kids younger than five, and my husband's job (which is a blessing) keeps him very busy. Plus he has chronic nerve pain in his arms that prevents him from physically helping with the children. Every single day I pray that God would give me extra arms to help around the house---so how could I even dream about going to the conference?

When I realized that God faithfully provides everything I need for life and godliness, I thought, Well, why wouldn't I ask him to provide the simple resources I need for this special occasion?

So we prayed. Then we did some budget shuffling and calendar adjusting to make the conference part of our family vacation. Then God raised up some friends to help my husband with the kids during the sessions!

The Lord provides---ask him to provide for you if similar circumstances are holding you back from attending this conference.

It's too far away.

You might have to drive long distances or fly---and perhaps with a baby in tow or in utero. I can sympathize with you. Something I've learned from taking innumerable road trips and 57 flights with our kids is to never forget to pack three things---tenacity, a sense of humor, and earplugs.

I hope it encourages you to hear that a group of us from Dubai in the United Arab Emirates are planning to attend. You'll recognize us right away. We'll be the jet-lagged ladies carrying bags of American candy to pack in between all the awesome books we plan to buy.

Whether you're half an hour or 24 hours away, it could be a logistical challenge to get there. The Lord generously gives wisdom to those who ask, so ask him for wisdom as you consider making this trip.

God's Delight in His Gracious Providence

I'm excited to meet many of you in Florida this June! But I know that for every woman I meet at the conference, there are hundreds more who just aren't able to go.

And that's okay! God has determined the duration, intensity, and every other circumstance of this season according to his sovereign goodness.

Whatever season we're in we have reason to rejoice because . . .

• God the Holy Spirit illumines God's Word for us (1 Corinthians 2:10-13).
• God the Son is the living Word who became a human being and lived among us so we could behold God's glory (John 1:14).
• God the Father purposed since before time began to bring us near to himself through the blood of Christ (Ephesians 2:13).

Rejoice that the Holy Trinity is working to ensure that you behold the beauty of your God and enjoy him forever!

Now go to the conference website to read more details about "Here Is Our God: God's Revelation of Himself in Scripture" and prayerfully consider if you should join us in Orlando from June 22 to 24.

Oh, and don't forget to take your clean clothes out of the dryer before you go to bed.

If former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno had died the evening of October 22, when I saw him pull away in a bus from Northwestern after defeating the Wildcats, he would have been celebrated as a national hero. One week later he coached his final game, a home victory against Illinois, giving him a record 409 wins for his distinguished career. A few short days later, the long-tenured and widely revered coach lost his job in perhaps the sorriest scandal in the history of college athletics. We've grown accustomed to learning that amateur college athletes shaved points or solicited pay for play. But the allegations that a longtime Paterno assistant sexually abused young boys roiled even the hardest sports scribes. Following the 85-year-old Paterno's death due to lung cancer on Sunday, fans have struggled to make sense of his mixed legacy. In the case of Paterno, it turns out good isn't good enough in the court of public opinion.

No one can dispute that Paterno did a lot of good in his long, illustrious life, probably a lot more good than you and I can boast. He coached players on how to maul each other on a field of grass, yes, but he also molded generations of young boys of 18 into model men of 22. Those disciples have turned out in droves this week to honor their beloved mentor. Paterno has been lionized for coaching winning teams that also succeeded in the classroom. Sure, he may have covered for some players who deviated from this culture, but his example contrasted with so many other coaches and schools who willingly sacrificed integrity for victory. Not content merely to win football games, Paterno also contributed to Penn State's improving academic reputation. Indeed, the library bears his name, due to a multi-million dollar fundraising campaign he and his wife spearheaded. They also contributed at least $1 million to build an interfaith student center.

And yet, we're still debating whether this man should be remembered as a hero or villain. Do we remember a lifetime of good works or one horrible mistake? Paterno's most famous words might have been, "I wish I had done more." So do many others. When Paterno learned that trusted former assistant Jerry Sandusky may have been raping boys---in Penn State facilities, no less---the coach did not investigate further. He passed responsibility up the chain of command. But his superiors (in name only) didn't do enough, either. The abuse allegedly continued until someone outside the cloistered community finally sounded the alarm. All that good--gone in a moment everyone would deeply regret.

"I made a lot of mistakes in my life," Paterno told Sports Illustrated writer Joe Posnanski in his final days. "But I thought people could see that I tried my best to do the right things. I tried to do the right thing with Sandusky too."

Sin A La Carte

I'm not trying in this article to determine whether or not Paterno sought forgiveness from Jesus. I have no idea about his spiritual state. I'm merely reflecting on our society's inconsistent standards for what constitutes a life well-lived.  When you talk to unbelievers about the gospel of Jesus Christ, you often hear them say that they will stand before God on Judgment Day and tell him they tried to live a good life. "Sure, I've made mistakes," they say. "But who hasn't? I've tried to do the right thing. I've been good to my friends and family." You point them to passages such as Romans 3:10, which says, "None is righteous, no, not one." But everyone knows someone who is less righteous. "At least I didn't kill anyone." "I only stole something that one time as a stupid teenager." "I might have driven drunk a few times, but who hasn't?" Compared to [insert dictator or serial killer here], we're all saints.

Unfortunately for Paterno, he committed one of our society's unforgivable sins. In the public reckoning, he would have been better off cheating on his wife or his taxes. But child molesters and those who harbor them will not find forgiveness in this culture. Same goes for racists, sexists, and homophobes. Ask Mel Gibson. Not even making a movie about Jesus covers a multitude of sins. Our society merely pretends to be forgiving. Fact is, everyone knows exactly which laws can never be transgressed. Call it common grace, if you like.

Against a society that picks their sin a la carte, Christians aim to bring everyone under the full weight of conviction before God's law. Jesus taught in Matthew 5:48, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Christians know God's law indicts all as dead in our trespass and sin (Ephesians 2:1). We join in the hand-wringing over Paterno's negligence. We pray that justice might be done, if indeed Sandusky abused these children. Following Jesus' example, we urge, "Go and sin no more" (John 8:11) to anyone caught in webs of deceit and depravity. We don't delight in pointing out wrong, but we recognize the need to heed all God's laws, not just the ones that match our culture's ever-changing values. Contrary to popular expectation, this makes Christians more understanding of sin---not that we condone it, but we're not surprised by it.

Truth Revealed

By contrast, our unbelieving neighbors regard themselves as more tolerant. They suppose themselves to be morally superior to judgmental Christians with our exacting, unrealistic standards of holiness. But the reality of the situation reveals itself in a case like Paterno. No good is good enough to wipe away his sins from the record of history as judged by his peers. He could never recover. The first paragraph of his obituary tells the story. Richard Goldstein wrote in The New York Times:

Joe Paterno, who won more games than any other major-college football coach, and who became the face of Pennsylvania State University and a symbol of integrity in collegiate athletics only to be fired during the 2011 season amid a child sexual abuse scandal that reverberated throughout the nation, died Sunday in State College, Pa.

Paterno's fame revealed his great sin of omission, something he left undone. Examine yourself. What have you left undone? Or what have you done wrong, your sins of commission? What if they were revealed to your neighbors, your family, the media? Would you fare any better than Paterno? Truth be told, no one can withstand such scrutiny. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us," 1 John 1:8 reads. Furthermore, we deceive ourselves if we think we do not sin in such a way that would bring such shame if exposed.

Apart from the gospel of grace, there is no hope. You will find no redemption in the faux tolerance of an unforgiving society. Yet if Jesus can forgive the very men like Paul who cheered his crucifixion, then he can forgive you, too, no matter what lurks in your past. Your good is not good enough. But his is. As Tim Keller often says, "The gospel is this: We are more sinful and flawed in ourselves than we ever dared believe, yet at the very same time we are more loved and accepted in Jesus Christ than we ever dared hope."

It's been a few months since we received the hard news that our struggle with infertility would require more treatment before we are able to proceed with trying to get pregnant. Few things feel worse than waking up from surgery and hearing the words, "It was worse than the doctor thought, you will need more treatment." I went into surgery hopeful and came out feeling like I had been punched in the stomach (physically and emotionally). This is not how we planned. This is hardly what we wanted. And this diagnosis only prolonged, and solidified, that we weren't just a couple who was having a hard time getting pregnant again. We were infertile, at least for the time being.

I wish I could say that my response to this news has always been Christ-like and admirable. It hasn't. But through this trial, God has taught me some specific things about his character, my depravity, and his goodness in all things. I believe that God is absolutely sovereign over my infertility in the same way that I believe he was sovereign over my miscarriage. It was not a surprise to him. In fact, it was designed by him for my good, and he doesn't want me to waste this suffering. What I've learned is hardly exhaustive, but it's a start. If you are struggling with infertility, too, I pray that God uses these words to encourage you as we walk this road together.

Not wasting your infertility starts with a deep and abiding trust in the God who knows the end of your infertility.

He knows the end of it because he gave it to you (Gen. 50:20; Job 2:10; Ps. 88:6-7). But he also knows the end of it because only he can truly heal your body and give you a baby. Know God's Word. Study it. Live off of it. It is in his Word that you will see God and know him more deeply. You will find that he is good all of the time, that he loves you more than you know, and that he wants to give you a greater knowledge of himself through this devastating trial. In his Word you will find comfort for your soul. Not wasting your infertility is a constant fight to see God as good, but it's a fight worth having.

Not wasting your infertility means you worship even when your heart is breaking.

John Piper says that the "unwasted life is the one that continually puts Christ on display." That's what worship is, giving God the glory due his name. Worship means treasuring Christ above all things, even a baby.

Not wasting your infertility means praying boldly.

Only when we trust God as the all-sufficient creator, healer, and sustainer can we worship him and also pray to him boldly. Knowing God enables us to pray to him with confidence that he can and will act in our best interests. Infertility is a disease of the helpless. You can't change your condition. You can't make two blue lines show up on a pregnancy test instead of one. But God can. Your experience with being utterly helpless to change your circumstance puts you in fellowship with many biblical characters. Pray like King David in the Psalms (see Psalm 27, 28, 30, 56, 62 and many others). He faced great difficulty and tribulation. His prayers were honest, bold, and worshipful because he trusted in God to be his hope and salvation.

Not wasting your infertility doesn't mean you can avoid grieving and pain.

This might seem like an odd addition, but the unwasted life isn't the triumphalistic life. The apostle Paul accurately described walking through this life as, "sorrowful yet always rejoicing" (2 Cor. 6:10). That applies to infertility as well. We are sorrowful because it's devastating, painful, and sometimes neverending. But we are rejoicing because we have hope that this is not all there is to life. It's not that we are happy with our circumstances. There is nothing happy about infertility. Oh, but there is a great Savior who has given us everything we need through his death---including comfort in our pain.

Not wasting your infertility means taking your thoughts and emotions captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5).

Infertility brings with it a minefield of scary scenarios and questions (What if I can't get pregnant? What if I miscarry again? What if I can't afford treatment?). Those thoughts tend to bring emotions, which then bring stress and worry. Infertility, like all suffering, has a way of putting pressure on us and our relationships. Infertility doesn't bring with it a free pass on how I treat people, my husband especially. Nor does it give us license to daydream about the many "What if's" that come with infertility. I have learned this the hard way. God gave us real emotions and feelings, but they are not morally neutral. And our husbands are real people who hurt just as much as we do. Talking to yourself, instead of listening to yourself, is especially helpful when you feel your emotions taking over. Ask yourself, "Is this feeling true?" (Phil. 4:8) If it is, you have a faithful, sympathetic Savior who understands your feelings. If it's not, that same Savior is able to comfort you and change your feelings for his glory.

Practical suggestions and ways to stay busy can be helpful, but even more important, the practical cannot happen unless we embrace Christ as our greatest treasure in our season of infertility. Sure, we can find ways to stay busy to take our mind off the pain, and those are good things to do (I've done it). But busyness in order to run from the suffering is not the same things as busyness in order to fill the season with good things. God has designed suffering to chisel us more into the image of Christ, to draw us closer to himself, and to give us a greater vision and understanding of his glory. We could easily miss that if we fill our schedules in order to forget.

I don't know the outcome of my journey of infertility. Right now, I know that I've still got a road ahead of me that needs to be traveled. I don't know where you are, either. But I do know this: no matter where we are in the journey of infertility, God has a sure and good purpose for us. He will test us, he will chisel us, and he will show us more of himself every step of the way. And after he has tried us, by his grace, we will come forth as gold (Job 23:10).

Some people appreciate observing Sanctity of Life Month in January. Some don't. I've heard Sanctity of Life Month compared to Mother's Day: each of these special times directs a little bit of attention to something so huge that it deserves much deeper and more consistent notice.

Actually, the comparison might lead to fruitful pondering. Motherhood, which begins with having babies, is in serious decline. Last Christmas Eve, Mark Steyn published a piercing editorial diagnosing Western culture with the barrenness of Elizabeth in Luke's Gospel. Steyn's main argument in the piece is an economic one, but the larger perspective with which he begins and operates---seeing the birth of children as a divinely given good---comes through. More and more potential mothers are choosing not to realize that potential, or to realize it in an extremely limited and controlled way. Those choices are leading to dramatic population decline, or, as Steyn puts it, "upside down family trees." Upside down trees don't live long.

Motherhood, we somehow keep forgetting, doesn't have to do exclusively with a mother's experience; it has to do with life and death---of human beings, and even of whole societies.

Right to Life

And so enters a child's "right to life." That much-used phrase captures part of the truth, in that the life of each human being deserves to be protected, as each has been created by God in his image. Perhaps part of our problem, though, is that we have come to think of child-related issues in terms of rights---that is, we have come to think politically. If we thought more biblically, perhaps we would think of children less in terms of individual human rights and more in terms of God's divine gifts. Steyn is right: Luke 1 highlights that perspective. The whole Bible highlights that perspective, starting with God's promise of a child in Genesis 3, as the seed of the whole redemptive story. According to the psalms, "Children are a gift from the Lord," meant to show and pass on God's blessings from generation to generation (Psalm 127, 102, 103).

Political systems do protect individual rights, and so of course political thinking involves individual perspectives. But the Bible does not allow us to focus simply on individuals; it asks us to receive God's perspective on the whole human story, and the means through which he advances it.

From a biblical perspective, children are gifts given by God through whom he means to work, generation by generation, as he creates a people for himself from all the nations of the world, through Christ and for the glory of Christ. From that perspective, when we refuse or destroy new human life, we are refusing or destroying God's gifts, and in so doing we are rebelling against our Creator's redemptive purposes for human life. If Sanctity of Life Month is good, it's good partly because it comes right after Christmas, when we've just remembered that God sent his greatest gift wrapped up as a baby, emerging from a human womb. Denying or destroying the gifts of babies has to relate to this event.

Receiving Gifts

So I'd like to acknowledge this Sanctity of Life Month, but not simply by focusing on rights. Rights are important, but perhaps we need just as much or more to focus on looking up and receiving gifts. Gifts inevitably pull us out of our own individual perspectives. With a gift there are at least two involved: the gift and the giver. But usually there are even more; a gift-giving celebration most often involves people gathering round to help prepare the gift, or to rejoice in the gift, or perhaps simply just to admire the gift.

The gift of children is like that. We can't talk just about mothers, of course, or babies. We should talk also about fathers and families and friends who gather round to help and rejoice and admire the work of God. The subject of new human life involves all of us in Christ's body, whether or not God has granted us children individually, and whether or not we're involved in public pro-life efforts. It's not just that we have a duty to protect rights; maybe we'd be better motivated by a longing to be in on the celebration of God's gifts!

It seems Christians are making some progress in together receiving God's gifts of children, with growing attention to adoption and pro-life services, including the advent of the ultrasound machine. An ultrasound picture offers an awesome glimpse into the handiwork of God, a gift so precious that it would be unthinkable to kill it. Certainly it is a good thing to work for laws that protect the rights of mothers to get such true glimpses---and the rights of their babies to live and not to die. Certainly it is a crucial thing to offer God's love and God's Word to those anticipating or grieving abortions, in order to lead them to the Savior in whom is forgiveness and life.

We'll keep making progress, by God's grace, if our efforts grow from hearts and minds that have embraced God's redemptive purposes for the human race. His purposes are all about the gift of life as opposed to death---through Jesus Christ who was born and died, so that we human beings might not die, as we deserve, but rather live. In Adam we all die, Paul teaches, but in Christ we are made alive. How might this biblical perspective on human history increasingly motivate us as God's people to receive and to help others receive God's good gifts of life, generation after generation, until Jesus comes again?

Are pro-life advocates guilty of moral compromise when they support incremental laws aimed at limiting the evil of elective abortion?

For example, when Texas passed a bill requiring abortionists to offer ultrasounds to any women considering abortion, most pro-lifers applauded the legislation. After all, studies show that women who see their unborn offspring via ultrasound overwhelmingly reject abortion. There's no doubt the legislation will save lives.

Yet not all pro-lifers agree with an incremental approach. Some view ultrasound legislation, parental consent legislation, and partial-birth abortion bans as a gigantic permission slip to kill unborn humans provided you jump through a few administrative hoops.

For example, in reference to Ohio's proposed heartbeat legislation that would restrict abortions after fetal heartbeat is detected, Patrick Johnson writes, "Do not murder has no exceptions....Consenting to the murder of one in order to save another is never justified."

Johnson and others like him reject most incremental legislation and instead support state personhood amendments---which seek to outlaw abortion by declaring the unborn "persons" from conception. As one such advocate once told us, personhood is the only way position that isn't morally compromised since all incremental legislation ends with "and you can kill the baby."

But are personhood advocates fair in the way they frame the debate over incremental legislation? Not all frame the debate this way, of course, but many do. We think their attacks on incremental laws are unfair and dangerous.

First, how does it follow that because we can't save all children we shouldn't try to save some? Pro-lifers are not the ones compromising when we support incremental laws aimed at limiting the evil of abortion. Rather, the abortionist is compromising because he's forced to give up the current status quo---namely, that any child can be killed at any point in pregnancy for any reason. Whenever we chip away at that status quo so that some lives are saved, we are not compromising, we are improving the moral landscape. Make no mistake, we do not intend to stop chipping away at the legal protections for abortion until all children are protected in law. But until that day comes, we will work to save as many as we can given current legal restraints.

Second, we reject the premise that pro-lifers who support incremental legislation are deciding who lives and who dies. They have no power to decide any such thing. Let's be clear: The federal courts in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton have stripped the legislative and executive branches from having any say whatsoever on the unborn's right to life. Instead, the courts---and the courts alone---have already decided that no unborn child has a right to life and can be killed for any reason the mother sees fit, which is why they currently disallow any direct legislation protecting all unborn humans. Instead of "consenting" to the deaths of some humans for the sake of saving others, we're simply trying to limit the evil done until those court decisions are overturned.

Third, because the court-mandated abortion license is already extensive, the only thing state and local laws can do is limit that license around the edges---which they do quite effectively---while educating the public on the humanity of the unborn and the inhumanity of abortion. Thus, far from ending with, "and then you can kill the baby," incremental measures really say just the opposite: "If you're 14, pregnant, and want an abortion, you can't kill the baby without your parents knowing about it." Or, "If you aren't shown the ultrasound, you can't kill the baby." Remember: The default position under Roe is that you can kill any baby. Incremental measures say, under certain circumstances, you can't kill the unborn child. We believe that if you cannot ban elective abortion outright, you should work to limit the harm done.

Fourth, personhood advocates should be careful about making claims about pro-lifers compromising the cause. Was William Wilberforce guilty of "compromise" because he supported defunding the slave trade before it could be effectively banned? Was Abraham Lincoln a great compromiser rather than a great emancipator because he worked incrementally to end the American version of that monstrous evil? We have never stated---nor have we heard Greg Koukl, Francis Beckwith, or any other pro-life thinker who favors the incremental approach---suggest compromise on the complete humanity of the unborn or the inhumanity of abortion, even in so-called hard cases. What we suggest is that we accept legislation that represents a compromise from the other side for the purposes of saving lives right now. The law is compromising, not us. The law is 100% on the side of the pro-abort position right now. Movement in the pro-life direction represents compromise by our foes, not by us.

Finally, incrementalists have good reasons for shying away from outright bans on abortion. Currently, we do not have the votes on the federal courts to support such a move. If a state were to pass a bill banning all abortions, the federal courts would immediately enjoin it based on the legal precedent of Roe v. Wade. Until liberal judges are replaced with conservative ones willing to overturn or significantly chip away at Roe, we risk yet another layer of case law decided against us. The approach preferred by the absolutists would do nothing but hinder the pro-life cause.

So, we say "yes." Yes, we support the same goal as personhood advocates---that is, the complete protection of unborn humans. And yes, we support legislation that limits the evil done while we continue working to reverse the pervasive influence of the federal courts. That's not compromise; it's sound moral thinking.

Shepherd the flock of God that is among you.

I've read 1 Peter 5:2 many times. As a young pastor, I'm paying more attention to its straightforward directives for my calling as a shepherd.

But it wasn't until a few weeks ago that the simple, often overlooked phrase "among you" leaped off the page and into my mind.

Why did Peter add this prepositional phrase? We know he wasn't meeting an editor's quota. And unlike so much of my writing, the inspired Word of God doesn't contain throwaway phrases. No filler here.

So this means the phrase has significance. Peter could have easily said, "Shepherd the flock of God." But he didn't, because there is a lesson in that seemingly innocuous string of words.

Visionary Leaders

By nature and gifting, many pastors are visionaries. When we assume the position of senior pastor, we assume a natural responsibility to grow the body.

Most of us live with a sort of holy discontent. If you gave us a dose of truth serum, we'd admit that we're not that satisfied with the size and scope of our ministries. We want bigger crowds on Sunday. We want our small groups or Bible studies to multiply. We'd like to see an enlarged community footprint. This is not just the province of small church pastors like me. I've seen this same angst in conversations with pastors of large multi-site churches.

Church critics will decry this as the symptom of a church besotted with the lust of American consumerism. And some of their rebuke is true. Often church leaders have eschewed sound teaching and good ecclesiology simply for the sake of growth. Pastors must kill daily the selfish desire to be personally great.

But more often I suspect our desire for bigger and greater ministry is sincere, a heartfelt passion to see the name of Jesus proclaimed farther and wider in our communities, to see lives transformed by the power of the gospel. The desire for growth is neither vulgar nor unbiblical. The early church both experienced massive growth and recorded the numbers in intricate detail by Luke's hand in the Book of Acts.

And yet pastors are often tempted to lean so heavily toward growth that we give our best shepherding resources to those who are not yet among us. Therein lies the problem Peter is addressing.

Household of Faith

I'll never forget a conversation I had with my pastoral mentor. I was discouraged by the small attendance at our church. Every week after church I would lament who wasn't there. At our monthly breakfast meeting, he shared a simple but important truth with me: "Dan, work hard to grow the church. But remember you can only pastor the people you have. They deserve the best of you."

In his book 5 Ministry Killers, Charles Stone shares of his struggle to "count heads" on Sunday. It so distracted him during the worship time before his message that he stopped sitting on the platform facing the congregation. His new position in the front row kept him from seeing the size of the crowd in the auditorium.

I don't hear Peter saying we should abandon our efforts to extend the gospel in the community or to become an insulated, isolated church. What I do hear him saying is that, if we were to be honest, we put more passion into caring for sheep not yet in the fold than the precious souls who are. We can be tempted to give the best of ourselves to the new young family who walks in and ignore the longtime, elderly couple whose faithfulness we assume.

Peter's admonition to preachers seems to echo Paul's words to the Galatian believers. He urged them to reserve their best works for the "household of faith" (Gal. 6:10).

How this breaks down in terms of time commitment and resources varies according to the church context. Most large churches have several, specialized pastors on staff. They can easily delegate a team to focus on "inreach" to members while others focus on "outreach." In a small church or church plant, the senior pastor fills all of these roles and more.

Even so, Peter's words are a sober warning to pastors everywhere that care of the church family and evangelism should never be an either/or proposition. Because until the Lord gives us more sheep, we can only shepherd those who worship among us.