Yesterday I talked about charitable giving. Today I wanted to follow up by challenging us as Christians to consider giving even more than we do. Perhaps the best book on that subject was written by David Green. It has the arresting title, Giving It All Away. He is the founder of Hobby Lobby and tells the story of his success and calls for Christians to give generously to churches and other ministries. He and the rest of his family have been on my radio program. We often talk about Hobby Lobby, the Museum of the Bible, and even their court case that went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Most people know that Hobby Lobby is closed on Sunday. They may not also realize that their stores close earlier (8 PM) than other stores. That means that they are only open 66 hours a week and compete with stores open many more hours. David Green did this so that his employees can spend more time with their families.

Hobby Lobby also pays its full-time employees well. Back in 2009, they raised the base pay to $10/hour. The next year they tacked on another dollar. They next year they did it again and then again. This is another way that the Green family values their employees.

I asked David Green if he ever imagined that he would have to sue the federal government. The thought never crossed his mind, but they did so when the HHS mandate would have required them to provide abortifacients for their employees.

Much of his book focuses on giving and challenges Christians to engage in the adventure of tithing. He has three principles they use and encourages all of us to implement them as well. First, set your criteria. What are you going to fund? What are your priorities? Second, set your giving amount. Give the first fruits, not what is left over. And finally, set fire for the future. He also has thought quite about how to make generosity generational.

His book is certain to spark your interest and encourage you in giving.

As this year winds down, many Americans focus on year-end giving. There is abundant evidence that charitable giving has been affected by our newly revised tax code that rewards fewer taxpayers with tax benefits. Howard Husock wrote about this earlier this month when many Americans took advantage of “Giving Tuesday.” His observations then are even more relevant at the end of December.

Indiana University’s school of philanthropy have been able to document two significant trends. While overall giving has slightly climbed, individual giving has declined. Actually, when you adjust for inflation, then giving by individuals declined even more.

The major reason is the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which raised the standard deduction for federal income-tax returns for a larger percentage of taxpayers. In the past, many of these taxpayers would itemize their charitable deductions. Now they no longer quality for a charitable tax deduction.

The Tax Policy Center acknowledges that “most low- and moderate-income taxpayers do not claim a deduction for charitable contributions, largely because most do not itemize.” The 90 percent of households that do not itemize make at least 40 percent of all charitable contributions. The remaining 10 percent that do itemize account for 60 percent of charitable contributions.

I suspect that a significant percentage of those who don’t itemize but do make charitable contributions are Christians who do so because they believe they should give to their church and Christian organizations. Some are suggesting a future tax code revision provides for a charitable-giving tax credit or some other incentive.

Of course, these proposals won’t even be considered if we continue to elect to Congress representatives that try to find more and more ways to spend and continue to run up massive federal deficits.

At its Christmas party this year, the Texas Equal Access Fund, a non-profit that helps women pay for abortions, gave workers and volunteers candles that say: “Abortion is Magical.”

It’s a strange message. Especially since Christmas is about birth — as Family Research Council points out — “the most unplanned pregnancy of all.”

Still, it’s a reminder that, as we end 2019 and head into the new year, we face a stark divide regarding the issue of abortion.

Public opinion polls show the nation becoming more pro-life. The number of abortions taking place is declining year by year — a 25 percent drop over ten years, according to a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control. States have passed more than 500 pro-life laws in the last decade. Many are common-sense restrictions on abortion facilities and abortion doctors that at least make the procedure safer for women.

And yet blue states are solidifying abortion rights. Who can forget New York’s One World Trade Center and other buildings and bridges lit up in pink in celebration of a new law that makes it even easier than it already was in that state for women to get third trimester abortions?

In 2020, the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to a law passed in Louisiana mandating that abortionists have admitting privileges at a local hospital. Court challenges to Alabama’s new law banning nearly all abortions and to heartbeat legislation in six states could signal a challenge that goes to the core of Roe v. Wade.

This year’s March for Life will urge passage of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act. This legislation stipulates that any baby that survives an attempted abortion must be taken to a hospital and treated, given every opportunity to survive with criminal consequences for practitioners who fail to do so.

And, in November, we’ll either retain a proudly pro-life president or elect an abortion zealot who will tear away at this progress.

Although we usually sing the carol “Joy to the World” during the Christmas season, the hymn isn’t really about the incarnation of Jesus. Isaac Watts wrote it and has often been known as the “Father of English Hymnology.” He composed “Joy to the World” in 1719. It was originally titled “The Messiah’s Coming and Kingdom.” The original title illustrates why there is no reference to angels, shepherds, or wise men. It is really about Christ’s second coming. That doesn’t mean we can’t sing about the coming of Christ as King during the Christmas season since His first coming foretells His second coming.

The hymn is actually a paraphrase of Psalm 98: “Make a joyful noise to the Lord, all the earth; break forth into joyous song and sing praise.” It then answers why: “for He [the Lord] comes to judge the earth; He will judge the world with righteousness, and the people with equity.”

Psalm 98 was originally a song of rejoicing for the Lord’s protection of His chosen people. Isaac Watts used it as a New Testament expression of praise. Remember what the angel said to the shepherds: “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy.”

The hymn proclaims that the earth should “receive her King” and every heart should “prepare Him room.” That has not happened yet, but there will be a time when as the hymn says “the Savior reigns.”

“No more let sins and sorrows grow, nor thorns infest the ground. He comes to make His blessings flow far as the curse is found.” Because of the Fall, we now have thorns and thistles. But in the New Heaven and Earth, the curse will be gone.

Christ will also come as Judge and Ruler. The hymn proclaims that: “He rules the world with truth and grace, and makes the nations prove the glories of His righteousness and wonders of His love.”

On this Christmas week, I thought it would be appropriate to reflect on the coming of the Messiah. The Old Testament contains hundreds of prophecies that give specific detail about the “anointed one” who is the Messiah. The prophets proclaimed that He would come to save the people.

The Bible is unique in many ways, especially when it comes to fulfilled prophecy.
At the time when it was written, 27 percent (1800 verses) of the Bible was prophetic. Large portions of those prophecies have been fulfilled, and that is a powerful argument for the inspiration of the Bible.

What is the probability that these Messianic prophecies could be fulfilled in the life of one person by chance? Peter Stoner, in his book Science Speaks, calculated the probability of just eight Messianic prophecies being fulfilled by chance. These included the prophecy in Micah 5:2 that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Another was Malachi 3:1 that predicted that a messenger would prepare the way for the Messiah. Four of the prophecies were from Zechariah. They predicted that the Messiah would be betrayed: by a friend, for 30 pieces of silver, and it would be used to buy a potter’s field. Another prophecy said that the Messiah would die by being pierced (crucified).

Multiplying all of these probabilities together, Peter Stoner came up with a number of 10 to the 17th power. In other words, the chance that just eight prophecies could be fulfilled by chance is one in one hundred quadrillion. In order to illustrate this, he says imagine we could fill the state of Texas with silver dollars two feet deep. Put a red mark on one and then ask a blindfolded person to travel anywhere in the state. The chance that he would pick up the marked silver dollar on the first try would be one in one hundred quadrillion.

The conclusion is simple. Jesus is indeed the Messiah predicted by the prophets.

On this Christmas day, I think it would be good to reflect for just a moment on the Incarnation. God became man and took on human flesh. This is a great theological wonder and mystery.

Malcolm Muggeridge wrote this to describe the importance of the birth of Christ. “Thanks to the great mercy and marvel of the Incarnation, the cosmic scene is resolved into a human drama. A human drama in which God reached down to relate Himself to man and man reaches up to relate himself to God. Time looks into eternity and eternity into time, making now always and always now. Everything is transformed by this sublime drama of the Incarnation, God’s special parable for man in a fallen world”

God reached down to us by sending the second person of the Trinity to earth to become part of the human drama and human dilemma. God stepped out of eternity into time to become part of the human community. What an incredible act of love and mercy.

God did not just come to dwell among us and comfort us. He came that He might raise us up through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Although we celebrate the birth of Christ today, we also look to the death and resurrection of Christ that we celebrate at Easter. Romans 5:8 proclaims: “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” 1 Peter 2:24 says that Christ “bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed.”

One this Christmas day, we should pause to reflect on why Christ came to earth and what He did for us on the cross.

It is estimated that Charles Wesley wrote over 6500 hymns. Perhaps his best-known hymn is “Hark! the Herald Angels Sing.” Over the years it has been edited slightly, but the meaning and theology remains as he wrote it more than two centuries ago.

It begins with a proclamation of the birth of Jesus: “Hark! the herald angels sing, Glory to the newborn King; Peace on earth, and mercy mild, God and sinners reconciled.”

The hymn reminds us why Christ came to earth. Jesus came into the world to bring peace, but many who sing this song fail to realize that it was to bring peace between us and God. Wesley’s hymn reminds us that His birth was so that God and sinners would be reconciled. We are the sinners in this hymn, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). All we like sheep have gone astray (Isaiah 53:6). We have broken God’s commandments and need to be reconciled with God. This was done when Christ died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3).

This hymn by Charles Wesley goes on to describe who Jesus Christ is. “Christ by highest heaven adored; Christ, the everlasting Lord! Late in time behold Him come, offspring of the Virgin’s womb. Veiled in flesh the Godhead see; hail the incarnate Deity,
Pleased as man with men to dwell, Jesus our Emmanuel.”

This is the wonder of the Incarnation. Jesus became the “offspring of the Virgin’s womb.” God became man and was “veiled in flesh” even though He was the “incarnate Deity.”

This Christmas week, let us once again reflect upon the Incarnation. How wonderful yet mysterious that God would become man and dwell among us. And that He would be willing to die on a cross for our sins.

The carol “O Come, O Come, Emmanuel” is an English translation of a Latin hymn that is sung during Advent and Christmas. The text goes back to at least the 18th century (and perhaps much earlier) while the music put to it goes back to the 15th century.

“O come, O come, Emmanuel, And ransom captive Israel. That mourns in lonely exile here, until the Son of God appear. Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.”

Emmanuel means, “God with us.” Even before the coming of Christ, we see passages in the Old Testament that remind us that God was with Israel. In 1 Kings 8 we read, “Praise the Lord who has given rest to his people Israel, just as he promised. Not one word has failed of all the wonderful promises he gave through his servant Moses. May the Lord our God be with us as he was with our ancestors; may he never leave us or abandon us.” In Psalm 46, we read that, “The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our stronghold.”

One of the most visible reminders of God’s presence was during the Exodus. God was with the Israelites as a pillar of fire by night and a pillar of smoke by day. His presence was with them in the Tabernacle and later the Temple in the Holy of Holies.

But the most important aspect of Emmanuel is found in the New Testament. John tells us in his gospel, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). This is the miracle of the Incarnation. God put on human flesh and came to Israel so that He might give His life for all of us. Paul writes to Timothy, “Here is the great mystery of our religion: Christ came as a human” (1 Timothy 3:16). This is what we celebrate at Christmas.

People looking to shop this year for the gender confused have options. Online fashion collections and even retail shops feature what’s being called gender-free clothing.

Gender-free clothing has been out there, on runways and in fashion magazines, for years. I received an ad from a clothing company called Primary that gives kids a chance to choose from a rainbow of colors. The photo shows a kid in a blue dress. It’s labeled “the-boys-long-sleeve-dress.” In cobalt.

More recently, some companies have taken trans retail. ‘Phluid Project’ is a store located in Manhattan’s Soho neighborhood. FORTUNE magazine explains: “The space is a combination store, café, and event space geared toward the LGBTQ community.”

Inside is an open sales floor with no gender-specific departments. Instead there are non-gendered mannequins with straight hips in clothing emblazoned with messages like the phrase, “They Power”.

In addition to the New York location, Phliud partnered with HBO’s series “Euphoria” last summer to open one-day-only pop-up shops in San Francisco, Seattle, and Miami. “Euphoria” explores the inner worlds of troubled high school students and with strong themes surrounding gender identity. In these stores, shoppers were invited to sit in on panel discussions with cast members.

Phluid Project founder Rob Smith, draws on his 30 years of executive retail experience with brands including Nike, Levi, Macy’s and Victoria’s Secret. He says, “we want to erase any preconceived notions of how people should dress.”

Cosmetics giant, Sephora, added “Trans is Beautiful “to its diversity push and offers beauty classes for transgender people.

H & M offers a unisex collection that includes mostly denim pieces jeans overalls, jackets, and also some hoodies and t-shirts. And Zara has a line dubbed “Ungendered.”

Some of these companies, like H & M, are simply checking the inclusivity box. Others, like Phluid, seek to destigmatize the trans identity.

I wish this was a passing fad. But, these retail executives are mainstreaming a destructive delusion.

Many of the Democratic presidential candidates have been critical of charter schools, and you might wonder why. After all, they are public schools and have a relatively good track record.

David Osborn, writing in the Wall Street Journal, documents some of the charges made against charter schools. Senator Elizabeth Warren argues that these schools “strain the resources of school districts.” Senator Bernie Sanders also says that the growth of charter schools “has drained funding from the public-school system.” This is interesting since the only difference between charter schools and other public schools is the fact that they can operate independently of district bureaucracies.

Of course, that is the real reason. Osborn reminds us that no interest group has more clout in Democratic primaries than teacher unions. “In the last presidential election, the American Federal of Teachers and National Education Association combined spent $64 million.” Charter schools are free to unionize but rarely do. Only about 11 percent of them chose to do so. As the charter school movement grows, union influence shrinks.

Charter schools are quite successful and provide an alternative to millions of students (two-thirds of which are nonwhite). “Graduation rates, college-going rates, and college completion rates are also higher among students who enroll in charters schools.”

There is another benefit: competition. We don’t have true school choice and won’t get it any time soon. But the presence of charter schools does provide some competition to the public school. It encourages school leaders and teachers to improve their schools so they are more attractive to parents wanting to give their children the best education they can receive.

Charters schools don’t deserve the criticism they are receiving these days from many of these candidates.