“Train up a child in the way he should go” (Proverbs 22:6) covers every area of a child’s development?emotional, physical, mental, spiritual and social. In the 21st century, technology has the potential to influence children in all of those ways. Here are some tips for guiding children in responsible, God-pleasing use of technology (adapted from Vicki Courtney’s book “Logged-on and Tuned-out”).

1. Set up a secure environment:
?Keep the family computer in an open, high-traffic area.
?Let children know that for their own safety, you will monitor their activities.
?Become a technologically savvy parent. Read articles and take classes. Know the technology your children are using and how to implement safeguards.
?Develop a contract your children must agree to sign and abide by before they may use new technologies. For sample contracts, visit loggedonandtunedout.com.
2. Discuss with kids some good practices for safe and responsible use of technology:

On pictures and videos
Safety:
4Use good judgment when posting pictures of yourself or friends?never post photos that reveal too much skin or inappropriate clothing.
4Never post photos or videos with the potential to damage anyone’s reputation, or that might solicit unwelcome contact from strangers.

Responsibility:
?Only post photos or videos of people you know whose permission you have.
?Don’t engage in crude or inappropriate behaviors that others might video and post.
?Make sure your videos and photos would not dishonor God.
?Know the legal issues. Posting videos and photos of people without their consent could lead to a lawsuit. Get permission, especially from people you do not know well. Serious legal charges might result from circulating pornographic videos. If at least one party in the video is a minor, it is child pornography, a felony.

On instant messaging & social networking
Safety:
?Never talk to strangers, and inform parents when strangers attempt communication.
?Don’t add friends of friends to your friend list.
?Don’t click through on links you receive.
?Don’t accept invitations to public chat rooms.
?Never list personal info like your last name, your school, your address, or your phone number.

Responsible, God-honoring use:
?Don’t post anything you wouldn’t say to someone in person.
?Don’t gossip or cyber-bully.
?Never pretend to be someone else.
?Block friends who communicate offensively?bad language, inappropriate topics, or bullying.
?Don’t post anything that would dishonor God.

On mobile phones, devices
Good manners:
?Turn off ringers in group settings.
?Turn off power when involved in activities that need your undivided attention (school, driving, or church among others).
?Don’t have phone conversations in public places where you can violate the rights or comfort of others (in restaurants, on airplanes, in offices, and others).
?Don’t allow incoming calls or text messages to rudely distract you from a face-to-face conversation?the messages will wait.

Safety:
?Never talk to or text strangers.
?Don’t publish your cell phone number on the Internet.
?Don’t drive while talking or texting.
?Don’t take or circulate pictures that might hurt someone’s reputation.
?Report to your parents or other authorities any inappropriate contact or images that you receive on your phone.

Used by permission. Excerpts taken from “Logged On and Tuned Out” by Vicki Courtney (B&H Publishing Group, 2007).

WASHINGTON?First, a federal appeals court struck down the FCC’s broadcast indecency policy that regulated TV obscenities. Then, the former FCC chairman who enforced the policy said he has had a change of heart and now believes curse words on TV deserve “full First Amendment protection.”

With television perhaps on the verge of becoming even more coarse and vulgar, what’s a parent to do?

A number of companies in recent years have sold products to help families customize movies and TV programs to their liking, but they’re getting more attention now in light of the court’s ruling. A device called TVGuardian mutes foul language on television and DVD movies, while another device, the ClearPlay DVD player, not only mutes language on DVD movies but also skips objectionable scenes. Both companies recently announced new models.

“Those of us who have been around a little bit longer tend to remember when most movies were PG at the theater. On TV, you didn’t hear any foul language,” Britt Bennett, president of TVGuardian, told Baptist Press. “Now the whole landscape has changed.”

Court rules against FCC
On July 13 a three-judge panel of the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ overturned the FCC’s indecency policy, ruling that the commission was wrong to find Fox Television in violation when a series of fleeting f-words were said on live TV in 2002 and 2003. The judges also said?without prodding?that they thought the Supreme Court’s 1978 FCC v. Pacifica Foundation case, which provides the foundation for regulating broadcast content, should someday be reversed.

The Hollywood Reporter warned that in light of the court ruling, “Primetime TV this fall is going to be chock-a-block with even more blatant sexuality and raunchy language. It’s a trend that’s been a long time coming and is now accelerating.”

TVGuardian was a leader in its niche industry for years but fell behind when high definition television grew in popularity. Although its older models could not filter HDTV, its newest model?due out in August?can. TVGuardian also is releasing a standard definition model for customers who do not need a high definition filter. It now is the only product on the market that filters television programs. It searches for foul language in closed captioning and simultaneously “mutes” the volume; it does not filter live programming.

TVGuardian sold about 400,000 of its older units and its technology was placed in about 12 million DVD players.
Bennett said too many families have set up a “moral double standard” in their home.

“If you invite me to your house for dinner and you’ve got kids there and I start using Jesus’ name as a curse word and using all sorts of foul language, you’ll be like, ‘We don’t use that language in our home.’ But then people finish dinner, they walk into the living room, and they’re essentially inviting people who speak like that into their home,” he said.
The court’s ruling had plenty of fans.

Michael K. Powell, who was the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission when it found Fox in violation of the indecency policy, wrote a column for The New York Times applauding the court decision and arguing that the FCC’s decision was a mistake. He said he had joined the FCC’s ruling against Fox “with reservations.”

“It is time now for the Supreme Court to revisit its half-century-old decision that broadcasting alone is undeserving of full First Amendment protection,” Powell wrote, noting that the Supreme Court’s opinion was handed down in an era without cable, satellite and the Internet. “… If the case for lesser speech protection for broadcasting was ever sound, that case is eviscerated today by the sheer abundance and accessibility of other media sources, which enjoy full constitutional protection. We cannot have one First Amendment for broadcasting and another one for every other medium.”

The Chicago Tribune’s Steve Chapman called the FCC policy “censorship,” asserting that the “FCC and its supporters seem to think Americans desperately need government assistance to protect themselves and their children against an onslaught of filth.”

“But why?” he asked. “Since broadcasters have an interest in not alienating their audiences, they are bound to exercise discretion.”

But that doesn’t seem to be the case with this fall’s lineup, where NBC is promoting a sexually charged comedy called “Friends With Benefits” and CBS is advertising a comedy, “$#*! My Dad Says,” that is bound to push the envelope.

The V-chip?
Chapman argues parents can fight back by “deploying V-chips” that are found in all new televisions and are intended to block programs with objectionable content, but critics say the technology relies on a network self-rating system that doesn’t work. A 2007 Parents Television Council study of 546 hours of primetime broadcast programming found that two-thirds of the shows had objectionable content without the proper warning label.

TVGuardian’s Bennett said he’s never considered the V-chip a viable option.

“I can already decide to block out the whole program by not watching it in the first place,” he said. “So, for me personally, the V-chip was not a technology I used. I can already turn it off.”

Although TVGuardian allows families to watch TV programs and DVD movies without foul language, it does not block all objectionable content; for instance, violence and sexuality are seen, uncensored. There currently is no product that skips all objectionable content on TV as it is aired, but some families have chosen to wait until their favorite programs come out on DVD and watch them on a ClearPlay DVD player, which uses downloadable “filters” to skip objectionable scenes?such as bloody, violent content?and mute foul language. The company has filters for hundreds of movies and TV programs, including

You have to be my age having grown up a Southern Baptist to remember filling out a Sunday School envelope and placing money inside. My parents started me out with the practice. Once I earned my own money from cutting grass, working at a summer job or laboring on a farm, my tithe went in the envelope. I was a tither before I was a believer. When Jesus became my Lord, I started to give above the tithe.

June and I have always given above the tithe. It has been our practice through the years. June is so generous I have to answer the phone when the telemarketers call or we would be giving to countless causes. We give to missions offerings, special needs of the church and to individuals. My personal conviction about the tithe is that it belongs to the Lord Jesus and should be given through His bride, the church.

As a pastor I learned how to become a good receiver as well as a giver. There was always a layperson or two who would occasionally press a $100 bill into my hand after a worship service. Pastoring in rural areas had advantages. My family would get a side of beef or all the corn we could pull from a church member’s field. God’s supplies are abundant. God uses people to meet those needs.

During this economically hard time many people are struggling. Some have lost their jobs. Some are over-extended financially and cannot catch up. If you are able to help someone through a material gift, I encourage you to do so. You may not be able to do much, but do something. It will mean much to those on the receiving end. Your compassion could open the door for the gospel. Your expression of giving might salvage a weak believer’s walk.

Thank you, Southern Baptists of Texas Convention churches. Since the economic downturn of October 2008, the Cooperative Program budget receipts have continued strong. Your gracious giving and faithfulness through tough times make it possible for the SBTC to move forward for the cause of Christ in Texas.

However, some churches have experienced the repercussions of the poor economy by having budget shortfalls. Unfortunately, one of the easiest areas to cut is missions. Taking a percent or two from the Cooperative Program is a choice some will find tempting. It is reasoned that Southern Baptists will never miss their reduction. Let me encourage everyone to remain faithful through difficult days. College and seminary students, church planters, disaster relief workers, missionaries and other servants of the Lord in our Southern Baptist family depend on the strength of the Cooperative Program. Your gifts make it possible for the sun to never set on Southern Baptist missions. Your gifts make it possible for the Son to rise in the hearts of those living in darkness.

Giving is one of the evidences of being a Christian. John 3:16 tells us God loved us so much that He gave His only begotten Son for us. Jesus gave His all. It is the height of ingratitude for us not to reciprocate by giving ourselves totally to the Lord Jesus.

A recent news article about immigration set me off a little. The focus was on the diversity of viewpoints within biblical Christianity. Within the article, a Republican lawmaker indicated that religious leaders would lose their churches and the White House if they didn’t get on his side of the question, and at his volume level. Another political operative suggested that temperate voices in the immigration debate were being co-opted by the political left. Again, if we don’t all get in the same place on the same side, we’ll lose elections.

OK, this is the last time I’m going to use the word “immigration” in this column, so don’t write me about that issue until I say something about that issue. Look at the other point, the assumption that our agenda related to the loudest issues of our day should be crafted in a way that helps one side or another win elections. That’s the kind of language that makes biblical Christianity shy away from political discourse.

Let’s look at some of the assumptions present in just the brief description I’ve given of this news article. First, the assumption that “we” can win or lose the White House. Of course I know what he means by that, but think about what actually happens. I’m 5 for 9 regarding presidential elections since 1976. During the years that my candidate was actually president, some things on my agenda improved though not as much as I’d hoped they would. Some things got worse. When the other guy was in the White House, my agenda suffered, though not as much as I feared, and other things got worse than anyone expected. There has been no presidency that fixed America and no presidency that was the end of hope for our country. So I’ve never had the White House and neither have you. For churches, even for individual Christians, to put winning or keeping a political majority too high on their priority list is a roller coaster ride of futility, despair, and misplaced optimism.

The second assumption is that what Christians should do is the same thing that churches should do. I understand the math. If a political advocate can convince the pastor to help his cause, he’s got his foot in the door with a hundred or more people that he’d otherwise have to convince one at a time. That’s what churches are to them, gaggles of voters who will more or less do what their leaders tell them. Few political operatives understand Baptists to any degree. While church members are citizens and should be informed voters, the church they attend is something beyond the sum of its members, the body of Christ. That matters in ways that outsiders can’t imagine. That’s why, IRS regulations aside, a political sign in my yard is a far different thing than a political sign in the front yard of my church, even if every member agrees with the message of the sign. My call to be a good citizen is an extension of our call to be the body of Christ but it is not the reason that we have been called together.

And then there’s the question of why, upon what basis, a church or its pastor might express a conviction regarding a timely issue. Issues are part of but also transcend politics. Those who wish to win elections think in terms of how to advance a cause while keeping the cost as low as possible?compromising a lesser thing to get a little more of a greater thing. Those lesser things might be core values that the politician hopes to go back and renew, after making sure he’ll stay in office long enough and with sufficient influence to do so. I’m not judging hearts here; I’m pointing out that preachers and churches don’t have the prerogative of saying that we’ll let this thing that God has told us to do go by the wayside in order to ensure the strength of our “ministry.” Later, we can apologize and hope God will understand. Check out 1 Chronicles 13:9,10 for a cautionary tale. The way politics works, universally I think, is not the way churches, who live according to the revealed will of God, should work.

To what degree should pastors base the things they say or don’t say on whether or not they’ll lose their churches? This threat is one that all pastors consider at one time or another but none would say that continued employment and climbing numbers should dictate his message. Sometimes it does happen that way, but there is consensus that it shouldn’t. So suggesting that pastors need to toe this political line or that one in order to keep their congregations is insulting. And hard-fought public policy issues are not the places where the battle for a pastor’s integrity or a congregation’s unity will be fought.

Regarding the suggestion that some leaders are unwitting dupes for the left: It’s insulting to suggest that a Christian leader should change his viewpoints in order to keep the other side from benefitting from a misunderstanding of his intent. Clearly one group is hoping to co-opt Christian leaders and yelps when they think the other side might beat them to it. We should base our leadership on a constant effort to discern God’s will. Once we believe that we have heard the voice of the Lord, we are obligated by it. If we have rightly discerned the Lord’s leadership, being called “pawn” or “traitor” by those whose calling is different from ours is often the lightest blow we’ll take for our stand.

We shouldn’t despise the fact that groups of people make decisions, politics. Even anarchy has political dynamics I expect. In fact, I reject the commonly expressed opinion that all those involved in politics are of the same cynical and crooked clan. I think our elected leaders and their supporters represent more idealists than the general population. Some of them are more godly and sincere than most of their Christian brothers and sisters. In fact, I imagine that quite a few politicians would never suggest that pastors or churches should place gaining or retaining the White House anywhere on their agenda. My warning is to those who focus too narrowly on winning what seems to me to be temporal and illusory. My warning is to pastors who might be tempted to trade their God-given influence for flattery or a place at the head table and a plate of chicken cordon-bleu. My warning is to me when I feel vexed and powerless in the face of the absurd knavery sometimes done in my name by my elected leaders. Anything that empowers me to express that frustration is a temptation to leave the battle so I’ll have time to tilt at windmills. I’m tempted to let some expert convince me the real battle is engaged in Austin or Washington. I’m tempted to run toward the sound of pop guns.

Let’s do that less often. We are engaged in a great undertaking already. The agenda that God sets for our churches is one that only the body of Christ is called to do. It is a diversion and dissipation for us to leave what no one else does to dabble in what others do better.

God is the Lord of churches and of Christians; and it’s hard to imagine that a political issue or particular candidate will ever be the reason for his calling out of any church. Hopefully without overstating my case, I maintain that pastors should carefully guard the unique identity of their churches against those who do not understand what a church is or does. One of the things we can bring to every corner of our society is the distinction between those things that are ultimate and those that are merely important. Our churches and their leaders must do that first by example.