Dear Professor Theophilus:

Recently I read your column Mixed Bag. I generally enjoy your columns greatly, but sometimes — even though I agree completely with your biblically based perspective, and even though I appreciate your insights into dating and marriage — I grow weary of reading about male-female relationships. "Mixed Bag" was different. It was about plain ole' friendship, managing time and general matters of spiritual growth and fellowship in the college years. The reason I enjoyed it so much more than other columns is that you addressed some of the underlying principles for living and preparing for the future, which I believe are more important than most questions about dating and marriage.

I don't mean this as a criticism of your other columns, because I do enjoy them, and I've learned much from them. I'm only saying that I would like to see more articles like "Mixed Bag." Advice about vocation ("Perhaps your uneasiness arises from the fact that even though you've succeeded in all of your courses, God really intends you for a different field altogether"), the art of friendship ("Bear in mind that friendship isn't so much a set of "skills" as a set of virtues"), and Christian fellowship ("The price of never getting hurt is never loving") — this addresses fundamental topics that all of us face.

Reply

Many thanks for your letter; it arrived some time ago, but I haven't had an opportunity to use it in the column until now. My editor found it very amusing. "A rarity," she wrote — "a reader who wants to see less on romantic relationships!" Well, this month you've got your wish, because I haven't included a single letter about romance.

When I first began writing Office Hours and Ask Theophilus, I hadn't expected to deal much with romantic issues at all. After the letters began pouring in, I found that I had to make a course correction. There turned out to be far, far more confusion among my readers about relationships between the sexes — and about sex, period — than I had ever expected to find.

Later, on the other hand, I made another course correction in the other direction — did you notice? Here's why.

1. This has never been an advice-to-the-lovelorn column. I'm also receiving letters about more diverse topics than I used to.

2. There are only so many things I can say about relationships between the sexes before I begin repeating myself. Fewer and fewer of the letters I receive raise relationship questions that I haven't already addressed.

3. Although my personal focus is college students, mid-twentysomethings who have already graduated from college make up a substantial portion of my audience. They too have questions about relationships between the sexes, but not necessarily the same ones.

Do you represent the silent majority? What do I know? Readers, which topics would you like to see more of in Ask Theophilus, and which would you like to see less of? To put it another way, which topics help you most to think and live like Christians (and which would you actually read)? Though I won't be able to respond to all the letters, you may send your ideas to me through the Boundless editor.

Grace and peace,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

Dear Professor Theophilus:

In No Big Deal?, you wrote that you view expulsion as an appropriate sanction for cheating. As an adjunct college instructor for 20 years or so, I have encountered cheating on several occasions. On each of those I spent considerable time with the student, trying my best to understand what made him do it, and also to let the student know that while it would adversely affect his grade, I was open to alternative ways that he could make up at least partly for this egregious error in judgment.

To do otherwise would cause a fair amount of cognitive dissonance for me. For as sinners we all dig ourselves into a hole from which we could never escape were it not for the grace offered us through Jesus Christ. He throws us a lifeline. The lesson I learn from His forgiveness and admonishment of the adulteress in John, chapter 8, was that there was no complete and utter repudiation (e.g., expulsion). Rather there was a "your sins are forgiven" followed by a "go and sin no more."

Which brings me to my question: How do you reconcile the two? To hold that cheating should give rise to the severe punishment of expulsion in light of the example set by Jesus Christ seems incongruous.

Reply

Thank you for your letter; you raise good questions, but you overlook a number of important points.

First, you base your whole case on the importance of personal forgiveness. Yes, we should forgive, but the principles of personal forgiveness are not the same as the principles of earthly legal pardon — and there are good reasons for the difference. Human authority must take into account what is necessary for the welfare of the community. Moreover, although God can see whether the offender is really repentant, human authority can only guess.

Second, even if the principles of personal reconciliation and legal pardon were the same, it wouldn't follow that legal penalties should be mild — it would imply that if the offender repents, there should never be any legal penalties at all. Surely this would be detrimental to the welfare of the community.

Third, it is not at all true that expulsion is "complete and utter repudiation." To expel a student is not to consign him to hell. It is not to shun or excommunicate him. It is not even to keep him from getting a college degree. All it means is that he will have to start over at another school — which should be a salutary lesson to him.

Fourth, punishment does not imply withdrawal of love or refusal to forgive; in fact, Scripture teaches that punishment can be an exercise of love. Not only does it sometimes bring a person to repentance, but when the person has already repented, it aids greatly in the amendment of his life.

Finally, endless discussions with the offender about his reasons for cheating are not only beside the point, but unhelpful to him. What he needs to learn is not to cheat no matter what his reasons may be.

To shed a bit of light on the issue, consider Hebrews 12:7-13 (RSV): "It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed."

Grace and peace,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

WHAT DO I TELL THEM?

Dear Professor Theophilus:

Some time ago, after traumatic events in my life, I became a Christian. I come from a mostly non-Christian family, and that's hard for me right now. In what I've read, you've never really talked about alcohol. My entire family drinks. I used to, but gave it up for Christ because it seemed to have been such a big factor in all of my previous problems. How do I approach my family and friends who don't understand why I don't drink? Is drinking flat out wrong, or is it just drunkenness that is wrong? What are ways to resist the drinking temptations my family, and college life in general, put in front of me?

Reply

Let's divide up your questions. First, is drinking wrong, or only drunkenness? That one's easy. Drunkenness is wrong for everyone; drinking is wrong for those who are tempted to get drunk. Because alcohol has been such a strong source of temptation for you in the past, I think you're right to stay away from the bottle completely.

Second, how can you avoid the temptation to drink? That's easy too. The main thing is to stay away from places where the temptation rears its head. For example, don't spend time in bars (they aren't a good place to make friends anyway), and avoid people who pressure you to drink. A little bit of reflection will tell you whether there are any other situations that you need to avoid. I also strongly recommend Alcoholics Anonymous.

Finally, how can you explain your new view about drinking to your family and friends? If you're offered a drink, say something polite like "Just a ginger ale, thanks." If asked why you aren't drinking, say something that doesn't imply an accusation, like "I found out that I actually don't like to drink." (That's true, right? The change came when you found that you don't like what drinking does to you.) If a family member simply insists on pushing a drink into your hands, say "Thanks," but set the drink down and ignore it. If the pressure to drink doesn't stop, firmly say "I love you all, but I have to go now," and leave.

My four guidelines for situations like this are Don't Argue, Don't Apologize, Don't Back Down, and Don't Get Trapped. Don't Argue means don't let yourself be drawn into a shouting match or debate. Don't Apologize means don't feel guilty or make excuses about not doing what you know you shouldn't do. Don't Back Down means stand your ground without wavering or changing your mind. Don't Get Trapped means stay away from situations where you may be tempted to give in.

To those four guidelines, I'll add one more: Set your limits ahead of time instead of waiting until temptation has struck. You don't actually need to be told this guideline, because you've set your limits already. However, some of my other readers may need to hear it, and by the way, it applies to all situations where there is risk of temptation — not just drinking!

Grace and peace,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

THE PILL (NO, NOT THAT ONE)

Dear Professor Theophilus:

For several years I've struggled with depression and thoughts of suicide. About a year ago I began taking an antidepressant medication, which has helped tremendously. I feel alive again, which in some moments never seemed possible.

Recently I spoke with a friend who told me that if I'm "really" a Christian, I shouldn't need to rely on the medicines. The gist of her advice was "Your joy should come from the Lord, not from a pill."

On the face of it, I agree. But I'm not taking the meds to get high or anything like that. Without them, I was suicidal. Still, the conversation has been bothering me. Is it really wrong to be taking antidepressants? I hope you can give me some insight.

Reply

Your friend's advice is not only wrong, but more than a bit Pharisaical. Suppose you had broken your leg and your friend urged you not to call a doctor, saying "If you're really a Christian, then your healing should come from the Lord, not from a splint or a cast."

It would be wrong to use psychoactive drugs to avoid dealing with your problems — and of course there is a lot of abuse. But to use such drugs, under medical supervision, in order to reach the point where you can deal with your problems, is not abuse. It's simply good medicine.

You need not justify yourself to your friend, but if you have a chance to correct her — and if you can do so with gentleness and patience — then it would be an act of charity. Her misguided advice could do someone unintended harm.

In the meantime, I'm glad you're feeling better. Thanks be to God.

Grace and peace,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

ERRANTS IN LAW

Dear Professor Theophilus:

I'm in grad school, and I've appreciated your book Ask Me Anything. What I liked was that you're willing to deal with tough and controversial topics. Recently I heard a minister say that he avoids issues like these because they cause problems in the church if he addresses them. I think not addressing them causes problems — for the future church. My own tough question is about relations with divorced parents.

It was quite a shock to us and to the whole extended family when after almost 30 years of marriage, my husband's parents divorced. Although our relatives have always thought of themselves as a "strong Christian family," it has almost torn them apart. My husband and I know divorce is wrong in God's eyes, but we don't know how to relate to his parents now that they are divorced. Several of our relatives wanted to cut them off completely. Frankly, that would be easiest, but my husband and I just can't believe that it is our job to punish them. If we can't show them Christ's love, who can?

But that doesn't answer the question. Do we see them each separately? Do we see them only together? If they marry others, do we spend time with them too? All of these questions become magnified when we consider the future. We don't want to offer our own children the model of their grandparents' divorce. I would love to hear your thoughts.

Reply

You already realize that the commandment to honor mother and father remains in force even if father and mother have dishonored each other by divorce. But you're also right that this makes it terribly difficult to know just how the commandment should be obeyed. Fortunately, you're already on the right track. Remember the two things you've already figured out: First, that it isn't your job to punish your husband's parents; second, that avoiding self?righteousness doesn't imply conniving at their sin. Divorce is a natural and supernatural disaster.

Should you continue to see your husband's parents? Unless there are grave additional problems that you haven't mentioned, yes, of course you should. Should you see them separately, or together? I don't think you have a choice; you can't compel them to get together just so that you can visit them. If they remarry, should you spend time with their new partners as well? I don't think you have a choice here either. Your aim should be to avoid broadcasting your disapproval — yet without sending the opposite message of approval. Treat everyone with graciousness and respect. You can be friends without implying that you consider a new marriage valid; there is a time to speak and a time to be silent. Remember that although God forbids divorce among Christians — in fact, He detests it even more than you do — He was patient in this matter with the Hebrew people, "because of their hardness of heart." If the Author of morality Himself can be patient, then we must be patient too.

How can you and your husband remain in loving relationship with your husband's parents without giving your future children the impression that keeping the marriage vows is optional? The answer is to teach them the truth about marriage right from the beginning, and live it.

Don't answer The Question about your children's grandparents before they ask it. When they do ask it, don't answer it in front of their grandparents either, because that would dishonor them. Simply explain that although you're very sad that Grandma and Grandpa didn't stay married and go on loving each other as God commands, the best thing you can do for them is show them how that kind of love works, by being a loving family yourself. Explain to your children that this includes everyone, so they should love Grandma and Grandpa too.

Promise your children that you won't get a divorce or stop loving each other. And you'd better keep that promise!

Grace and peace,
PROFESSOR THEOPHILUS

* * *

If you have a question you'd like Professor Theophilus to consider for this column, please send it to asktheo@trueu.org. Please note, all questions that are selected for "Ask Theophilus" may be edited for clarity and privacy and become the property of Focus on the Family.