This is the transcript from one of my Sermons: “The Influence Myth”.

Introduction

There was once a traitor and a thief. A backstabber. One who stole money from his friends for personal use. One who was a devil in his heart [thinking center]. One of whom it was said, “It would have been better had he never been born”. One who nevertheless was able to spend several years with a Member of the Godhead – but despite direct teaching and influence, remained a corrupt individual and betrayed that member of the Godhead.

You know I’m speaking of Judas. If there was anyone who would be able to be a positive influence, it was Christ – but we must understand that many times, influence alone is not enough to correct the evil of this world. 

What I would like you to remember this evening is the following point – negative influence is dangerously powerful – far more powerful than positive influence. And as such we should minimize or eliminate negative influences around us. Based on that thesis, we will now build a case for this idea. 

The current belief in religions today is that influence is some kind of magical “cure-all” that, through forces unknown, magically lifts people up to higher righteousness passively. I believe this is erroneous. 

We have likely all heard countless times about the idea of influence. And the majority of them likely ended with some encouragement to “Be a good influence”. The problem with the majority of these lessons is three-fold. 

1 – First, terms are not clearly defined. It is unlikely that even one 2 of every 10 people could give you a formal, concrete definition of influence in their own words without referring to Webster’s dictionary. 

2 – The second problem is the obvious fact that it is much easier to strategize or give broad recommendations about influence than it is to actually put an idea like influence into practical action. Like most things in life, the “what” is easily defined while the “how” is harder to isolate. Everyone is telling you to “Start a business” – that’s the “what” – the instructions on “How to actually do it” are nowhere to be found. The same applies to influence – You are told to be a good influence, but you are not told how that actually works – mostly because it doesn’t actually work. 

3 – The third problem is more serious and is our focus tonight – and it is the fact that we overestimate the constructive power of a good influence while simultaneously underestimating the destructive power of a negative influence. Influence is like everything else in life – it is always easier to destroy than to build. 

Influence is the ability to affect others, to get them to adjust behavior based not on what you do actively, but what you do passively.  While it’s not difficult to define, the study of influence in action is much more nuanced – because Influence is an indirect force that acts subtly. 

The subtlety of influence is what makes negative influences so dangerous and positive influences so powerful. Humans always attempt to resist a force that overtly tries to manipulate our behavior, such as rules or the authorities who make them, especially when those authorities are arbitrary. But the subtlety of negative influence allows it to trickle into our minds undetected. When we spend time around evil, it slowly warps us to match it, but it does it so slowly that we don’t notice until our character has taken significant damage. 

Influence is not possible without some form of power, strength, or some desirable inspiring characteristic. You can only influence from a position of strength. We will talk about this more in a moment. It is the misunderstanding of the power dynamics of influence that we must first explore. 

The Myth of a Good Influence

We hear quite often that we are to be good influences on others. But when we look at the results of this advice in practice, we can see that it is not very practical without some degree of personal power.

When was the last time you heard about someone getting involved with good behavior because of some positive influence? While you hear those stories from time to time, they are far less frequent than the tales of good men being led astray by poor influences. In fact, the Bible is filled with examples of this that we will examine near the end. We don’t have sayings like “He ran with a bad crowd” but for good influence. 

Even though the positive results of a good influence happen the least, they get the most attention. This is not a bad thing – we certainly want to celebrate the good results of good influences, but the fairytale-like worship of positive influence becomes negative when we incorrectly believe that positive events and influences happen equally or more often than negative events.

I – Negative Influence is More Powerful Than Positive Influence

The first verse of the first Psalm opens with a simple lesson – Blessed is the man who avoids negative influence: Psalm 1:1 – “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful.” 

This verse outlines a progression in influence – that a man first walks by negative influence, second, he stands there, and finally, he sits with them – totally absorbed in evil due to their negative influence. He didn’t influence them for the better, he was led astray by their influence. The Psalmist through inspiration teaches us to resist the powerful pull of negative influence – and to do so is to be blessed.

We are naturally biased towards negative information of any kind.

Negative events are much more salient in our minds and elicit stronger emotional reactions than positive events. Even the way information is framed can change our opinion of it, even if it is the same information –  [Framing tricks MDs based on if surgery or radiation is framed as 10% mortality or 90% survival].

Classic news media understands this and they feed you almost exclusively negative stories and information.

Information on Social media is disproportionately negative and has negative influencing effects from social contagion of mind viruses [such as LGBT] to the active encouragement and celebration of sinful lifestyles – and we are just starting to see through scientific research the damage to people’s thinking, emotions and overall health of the mind as a result of social media.

Fear is a potent motivator.

When people want to get you to do something, they don’t try to inspire you with positivity but instead, they scare you with fear. They scare you with disease risk in order to push you into using their medications or unscientific “All-natural” remedies. Even religious people fall victim to attempting to scare others into compliance or into marriage by strategically deploying the “Myth of the Soulmate” and the “Myth of the Lonely Old Man”.

If we can understand rationally that negative events are more powerful than positive events in the way they affect our thinking and emotions, we can agree that negative influence will be more powerful and more influential than positive influence when they are compared one-to-one. If one unit of positive influence fights against one unit of negative influence, the negative will win 95 out of 100 battles.  

This is why positive influence, as it is marketed today, is a myth. Understand the influence myth.

Negative influence is not only more powerful one-on-one compared to positive influence, but it is also more powerful because it outnumbers the positive. Meaning: There are simply far more negative people being negative influences than there are positive people being positive influences. So add that to the fact that negative influence is already naturally stronger and we have a huge problem to deal with. 

School Influences 

You can see this clearly in school systems. How sad is it that Christian parents now have to compete with a modern school system to undo their damaging influence on their own children? 

Modern schools cannot be trusted to instill the values that you want to pass on to your kids, that is for sure. Four hours of positive influence with parents simply cannot outpace 8 hours of not just influence, but outright godless indoctrination from socialistic teachers and worldly peers – and our peers are one of the primary sources of negative influence from the time we are born, through our working life, to the end of our days. We are constantly exposed to negative influence, and how often does it turn out for the good? I argue very rarely.

But I’ve heard it said that to take a child out of school in order to homeschool them and protect them from the evils of this world is to “Take a light out of the world”, or to “Prevent them from being a good influence”. Respectfully, that is nonsense – a young child barely knows how to tie his own shoes, and his abstract reasoning and ability to resist the influence around him does not improve much by the time he graduates and doesn’t improve much beyond that even if he goes to graduate school, I’ve discovered – so he is not in a position to be a light in the world. 

He just does not know enough, he doesn’t have his own beliefs fully developed as most of us don’t until adulthood, nor does he have the willpower to risk being ostracized from his peer group at such a young age. The average school-age kid is engaging in almost zero influencing of others and is almost exclusively being influenced by those around him. 

How many people come out of the school system as better human beings due to their peer group? More often than not they come out with the baggage of worldly influence, and as Earl Nightingale put it, “Barely enough useful information to find the seat of their pants with both hands.” 

Adult Influence

Even most adults lack the willingness to be ostracized from their peer groups for the sake of their principles. How then can we expect children to run headlong into embracing social ostracization for the sake of beliefs they have not even fully developed over years of thought? 

A child has essentially no influence, contrary to what his parents may think. This is simply because he has no power. It is humorous that parents think that their child will be a good influence on those around him instead of being led away by the group into poor behavior. 

This wishful thinking comes from the same parent who has worked the same job for 10 years and has failed to influence even a single co-worker into the gospel system – because the gospel is not spread passively through influence alone. But certainly, their child who does not even possess the ability of abstract thought will “be a light” in the world and influence people. 

The pull of the world is strong and the world is always trying to force Christians to engage in activities that are contrary to the will of God.

Proverbs 1:10 – “My son, if sinners entice you, do not consent.” – The actual proverb section of the Book of Proverbs also opens up with a short thesis on the importance of avoiding negative influence. In Psalms, it’s not “Blessed is the man who is a good influence”, but “Blessed is the man who avoids evil influence”.

If you send an athlete out onto a team of worldly players and they’re the only Christian, what happens 9 times out of 10? It’s the good person who is negatively influenced by the rest. What about sending one godly man to an evil workplace? 9 times out of 10 he is negatively influenced. I’m not trying to ignore the 1 out of 10 times, but I am saying that that’s not very good odds.

Even within the church, we can be negatively influenced: 1 Corinthians 5:11 – “But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.“

This teaching to avoid negative influence within religion echoes throughout scripture. Why would the removal of fellowship be a tactic employed by the church at all? Because God understands the potency of negative influences, and that they spread like viruses. I’ve heard that the purpose of withdrawing fellowship is to make a person regret their lifestyle and change in order to be brought back in. I think that’s less than half of the story – the purpose of disfellowship is primarily the protection of the rest of the body.

2 Thessalonians 3:14 – “And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.” Here is what I believe to be the small part of the story – make the Christian ashamed so he changes. Shame isn’t bad, it’s meant to motivate change.

2 John 1:10-11 – “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.” 

Paul and John through inspiration don’t take the time to say “Bring the sinful person in and be a good influence on him”. No, they say to remove the negative influence because it is damaging to the rest of the body – and positive influence would have only a minor effect on that.

For every example we can think of to support positive influence, the Bible will provide four more warnings about the danger of negative influence.

I think also that in the modern religious world, there are no criteria for when someone is being a positive influence or when they are being negatively influenced. People will tell others to “be a good influence” in one breath and “don’t hang around with those people, they are bad influences” in the very next breath. What are the criteria for determining this? I hope to give you a practical thought process to walk through by the end of this lesson so we can take out the guesswork and the arbitrary ways that influence is assigned in religion today – because most people just guess and end up not knowing whether they are the influencer or the “influencee”.

One man is almost never able to singlehandedly influence and turn a crowd – If he does, it makes for a good motivational story, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is statistically unlikely. You hear plenty of stories about how “one vote made the difference” or how “one man changed the world”. Those are the exceptions, never the rule. 

But it is on these anecdotal, exceptional [literally they are exceptions] stories that men tend to build entire narratives. “If one man is able to influence a crowd, then that is what all men should try to do” – many think. But this misses the reality that one man can almost never influence the crowd without being absorbed into them. One man is almost never enough to wage war against an army of evil. The opposite is true throughout the biblical narrative, and summed up succinctly in Gal 5:9 – “A little leaven leavens the whole lump”. A small amount of negative influence has an outsized negative effect on a group of good people. 

But this is not what modern religionists want you to believe – a rational discussion on influence is not an uplifting story. They want you to be a “good influence” (whatever that means) and change the world around you. You are going to need more help if you are going to change the world. Because the odds are that most of us will not be able to pull that off. I know Christ changed the world, but let’s not forget He was God. The majority of people do not have the personal power to make any massive difference on their own. Sure, we can make a difference in the lives of those around us, but our circle of influence is a fraction of the population – so we cannot overestimate the role of influence. 

II – Negative Influence is the Path of Least Resistance

We have to generate significant effort in order to be good, do we not? Naturally occurring phenomena follow the path of least resistance. This is why rivers are jagged instead of straight. It takes a man to put in work and effort to create a straight river. It takes no special energy to be a negative influence – because that is the path of least resistance.

To resist the negative influence of those around us is the path of maximum resistance. Positive influence is not possible from a position of weakness. Influence is a person’s ability to affect others by virtue of his power. Influence, therefore, is not possible without some form of power. A homeless man has almost no influence while the President or a celebrity has tremendous influence. 

Therefore, one of the key components of influence is the fact that it can only happen from a position of strength. The stronger influence will win out over the weaker influence. The man of weaker character is more likely to be influenced than the man of stronger character. A man who has amassed more power than another man will be more likely to influence him than vice versa. We will revisit this at the end.  

III – Positive Influence Is Not Nearly As Effective as Anecdotally Purported

Cute little anecdotes about the magical effects of positive influence make great stories, populate sermon illustrations and social media pages. The problem is that these stories represent a tiny minority of the cases of influence. 

Despite the feel-good stories of someone being influenced by a Christian and eventually coming to Christ, we have to understand that this is the spiritual equivalent of being struck by lightning: It’s primarily chance and happenstance.

We begin with this note on the overestimation of the power of positive influence because the moment anyone starts talking about the ineffectiveness of positive influence in relation to negative influence, someone in the crowd can easily pull exceptions to mind. 

Everyone can pull those stories that stand out in their mind where over years of faithful living, a wife influenced her husband to obey the gospel [and what a beautiful story that is, no one is denying that]; or after years of working side by side, a man is converted by his co-worker due in part to his good influence – and the list of stories goes on. 

I’m certainly not discounting those souls, stories, or examples; but I will argue that those are the exceptions to the rule – and they only serve to prove the rule. The Bible does have words to say about our influence based on the way we live [Matt 5:16], but we must understand that at the same time, it tells us that based on the way we live, we will be hated by the world – 1 John 3:13 – “So do not be surprised, brothers, if the world hates you”. How then can you simply rely on good influence to change the world if it is the very reason you are hated by the world?

How can these two ideas be in agreement? Because they are situational in nature. I argue that the situation of having little to no influence and effect on others is the norm, and having a positive influence on others is the exception.

The Bible tells us not to be shocked if the world hates us. That means we cannot logically, rationally sit back in surprise and say to ourselves “But I was such a good influence on these people” – While that can have a positive effect on others, the biblical norm is that the world in general will reject our influence.

We can infer important concepts within the biblical text based on the amount of Bible material devoted to them. When a lesson is repeated across the History of the Kings in Kings and Chronicles, we can infer important lessons – that the Holy Spirit would see fit to record information twice.

The biblical narrative is clear in the way it structures material, and given that it concentrates more on lessons we learn from people who fall due to negative influences than were lifted due to positive influences, we can infer that the HS is more interested in equipping us with knowledge of the overwhelming power of negative influence to allow us to make better strategic decisions. For this reason, It seems that there are more recorded events, teachings, and proverbs about avoiding the danger of negative influence than there are about being a positive influence.

People know this rationally when we aren’t busy engaging in simple wishful thinking, which describes the majority of our attempts to be good influences – When parents warn their kids about peer pressure, are they worried about other kids pressuring them to study, get good grades, pick up a reading habit, or exercise habit? No, they are concerned about the negative influence of peer pressure – they are worried about them being pulled into promiscuity, the latest drug fad, dangerous activity, etc. – This behavior of parents teaches us that we can overlook the feel-good anecdote of influence and learn what people truly believe by the actions they take.

 Parents or adults, when forced to deploy what they believe on the battlefield of life, show that when push comes to shove they give more weight to the potency of negative influence than to the hopeful attempt at positive influence – and their instincts are verified with even a cursory study of human nature. When was the last time you heard about someone being pressured to do what’s right? It doesn’t occur naturally in nature – that type of scenario can only occur within a righteous culture.

While there are plenty of anecdotes describing the good that comes from positive influence, we need to understand that those anecdotes are few and far between; the exception, and not the rule. 

IV – Attempts to Use Influence as Evangelism or Edification are Passive – Effective Evangelism and Edification Demand Active Work

Some people spend their whole working lives thinking that if they just show up on time, do their job, and sit quietly, their superiors will notice, pull them out of the working lineup, applaud them, and give them a raise. They wait for good to come to them as if it were to fall out of the sky. The average person’s impression of achievement in secular work revolves around this idea – just do a generally good job and others will notice and reward you. We understand this doesn’t work because it is passive in nature. And the majority of success in this world is determined by active work. You have to actively ask for a raise or pitch a project or find new work – it doesn’t fall from the sky. 

You do not passively increase your knowledge of the Bible only by what you hear from the pulpits on Sundays and Wednesdays. You learn some – but not as much as when you are active in your own study or interacting with your notes from those sermons – benign that Workman of God who studies [2 Tim 2:15]. 

You do not passively increase your knowledge of algebra by sitting in math class day after day – there is work that you must actively do to improve. Even so, some Christians believe that passive influence is adequate – that they are doing everything they need to do by being a “good influence” on those around them – I argued before that positive influence is generally ineffective especially when used in groups – but it is especially ineffective when compared to an active attempt at evangelism or edification. 

Active conversation beats hoping someone will passively observe my goodness every day of the week – and that’s essentially what influence is when defined by modern religionists: the hope that someone will passively observe my alleged righteousness and change their actions as a result. You cannot influence people out of their sin. The Bible is very clear that the path to conversion is through the word of God, not mere influence.

While influence may occasionally open the door to opportunity, it does not complete the heavy lifting of edification of evangelism. 

Attempting to change others through influence alone is a passive intervention. By that I mean we are expecting others to change their behavior without us having to do anything active beyond being who we are. While you could argue that there are “active” components of passive influence, the intervention itself is still passive at its roots. It’s an attempt to “Do good by doing nothing”. Passive interventions are going to be less effective than active ones for creating change in yourself and your environment.

You will hear constantly that you should “be a good influence”. Not only is this intervention undefined, but it is a weak intervention. I’ll plant a flag right here and state that prescribing influence as a tool for change is equivalent to prescribing Tylenol to treat cancer depending on the environment you are trying to influence. We might as well put a bandaid on a tumor if we are going to suggest that influence alone is enough to change the people around us. Change demands the principles and teachings of God, from the mind of God. 

Passive influence is very similar to passive income. You hear a lot about both these days. But what people don’t realize is that any form of passive income requires a massive amount of upfront work to develop. To earn passive income from a book requires the massive work of writing a book. To earn passive income from dividends requires a consistent and focused investment of money over years. Even so, look at the example of influence. It requires a massive amount of upfront work to become the type of person who even has influence, at least to any respectable degree. 

While it is true that we all influence people in our lives to some extent, I would argue that for the most part, this influence is very small. The people with massive success, business success, successful athletes, actors, and God forbid social media influencers etc. are all able to exert large influence, for good or for ill, because they have a large base of success they built up beforehand. So let’s not worry too much about passive influence because the majority of people don’t have the base of power necessary to be a person of massive influence – and even if they did, it would be no match for the influences of the world.

It is hard enough for Christians to try to be righteous. Do we truly think that people of the world are going to uproot everything about themselves due to the passive observation of someone doing a good deed?

I argue that the modern conception of Influence is an attempt to be righteous and to feel like one is doing a good deed without actually doing anything. People treat it like a retirement account of faith – “I’ve invested my righteousness in here, and now I can just collect dividends and don’t have to work”. I think that is a fantastic financial goal for secular life – but it does not work at all when we discuss evangelism or edification.

One of the problems is that the return on investment of influence is tiny compared to active work. It is the spiritual equivalent of me putting money in the bank and thinking that I’m a financial genius because I earn 1% interest, as opposed to active investing and earning 10% compounded. So based on this, influence isn’t unprofitable in the absolute sense [I’m still earning 1%], but it is my contention that it’s essentially profitless in the relative sense – [compared to a 10% gain, who would pick 1%?] Compared to the benefits of active work, who would house passive influence?

Evangelism, edification, and personal righteousness within the system of faith demand active work. 

I’ve heard a man recently boast about never once trying to convert people at his work because “The best sermon is one that’s seen, not heard”. That’s the mindset that overreliance on passive influence leads to – the slippery slope of human laziness. I’ll let you guess how many people this man converted during his time in the workforce. Relying on his influence alone yielded a whopping zero souls for the cause of Christ- and though anecdotal I believe this reflects the majority of the effectiveness of influence.  It’s no replacement for active work. We understand instinctively as well as rationally that mere positive influence, without additional action is not enough.

And we learn through the Biblical text that we have to judge character, and be careful with what influence we have, because some people are so wicked or hate God and religion so much that it is of no use attempting to influence or repeatedly share the gospel with them, and this is what is meant in Matt 7:6 – “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.” You might put Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris in this category.

And based on that idea I want to give you one positive note about influence before I give you a few other positive notes about it at the end. Positive influence is worthwhile only as a supplement to active, direct work. Without active work, influence is empty. So influence can gain some effect, some power, but not if it is standing by itself. For a sports supplement to be effective, I have to first go and actually exercise – trying to take supplements without first investing in active work is emptiness, and it is the same way with influence.

Christ said “Go and teach all nations” [Matt 28:19-20], He did not say “Go and be a good influence”. He did say to do good works so people see them and glorify God [Matt 5:16], but that still demands an active component of actually doing good works. Christians are required to go beyond letting their residual righteousness do the work and actually, actively doing good works – which includes righteous living [John 6:29, Acts 26:20].

Have you ever noticed someone in a church reach out to another respectable individual in that church and try to get them involved in some group or activity at church in order to be a good influence on that group? 

It’s always interesting to me when this happens – what does the person making the request think is going to happen? That by sitting in the room, one righteous person can passively lift the others around him to levels of righteousness not previously known? By bringing in one good influence to a group of 50 college kids, do they suddenly start acting in a different, more positive way than they had before? That they will suddenly know how to dress as if they are in the assembly of God, take on an attitude of reverence and godly fear [Heb 12:28]? That their spiritual mindedness would improve and change the fundamental way they live their lives?

I argue not – It is mostly wishful thinking. Once field-tested, it is clear that one positive influence does very little to a group of negative influences. 

V – Understand the Role of Positive Influence

You might be thinking after all this that I think positive influence is completely worthless – I don’t think that. 

Positive influence isn’t totally useless or completely weak. The purpose of this discussion was to bring the worshiped and glorified mythical philosophy of “Positive Influence” down from high in the heavens back to reality where it belongs – it’s nota. Superfood, it’s just regular food. It is just another tool in a plethora of other tools – 

Certainly, positive influence can have its place, I just suggest to you that its place is smaller than otherwise thought in religion today. 

Positive influence is expensive – because influence is a two-way street. If I’m going to positively influence someone, it comes at a cost to me. If we are the average of the five people we spend the most time with, increasing time spent with someone who is a negative influence will have a cost to our own character. Both people affect each other. 

This section would not be complete without noting biblical examples of positive influences. Please understand that it is much more rare and more difficult to be a positive influence than it is to be damaged by a negative influence. Use your best judgment in determining where you stand on that spectrum.

Matthew 5:13-16 ~ “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet. “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”

Hebrews 10:24-25 ~ “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”

Proverbs 27:17 ~ “Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.” Iron cannot sharpen clay. The positive influence works here because the two men are of equal character (iron and iron) and share the common goal of improving. This is not an admonition to influence those who have no goals for themselves or do not want to improve. 

1 Peter 2:12 ~ “Having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation.” 

1 Peter 3:16 ~ “Having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed.”

Titus 2:7 ~ “In all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility.”

The role of positive influence is a supplement to active work.

V – The Instances When Positive Influence Works

Influence is a form of help. It is a way we help others. As such, it obeys the Laws of Help – which demonstrate that help can only come from a position of strength. Influence demands strength of the individual who is doing the influencing. 

If you need $100, no one can help you unless they have the financial strength to be able to spare $100 without harm to themselves. To help someone financially requires a position of financial STR. 

If you are hanging over a ledge, someone has to have the physical strength to lift you from the edge since you didn’t have the strength to lift yourself. 

If the oxygen masks deploy in the airplane, you put yours on before you help the kid beside you, because you are no help at all to the kid if you pass out. We are no help at all to the world around us if we are damaged by negative influences before we ever have a moment to be a positive influence.

Others have to look up to you in some manner [respect, admiration, skill, etc.] as a prerequisite for influence. This is why kids copy their favorite athletes. Therefore to assume that I have influence is presumptive and because I am assuming that I’m holding a Position of strength. Many people assume they are in a position of strength, but they do so without objective evidence.

Influence occurs through role models. While it’s true that we are all role models to someone at some point in our lives, this is a minor percentage of our lives. The people who hold lasting influence are people with fame, power, or extraordinary skill. For the average individual, influence is a much less potent intervention.

Look at the influences of today. Kids are looking up to Instagram models, celebrities, and athletes – they are not looking up to Christians. Because the influence projected by the people of the world appeals to our earthly nature and can easily drown out our spiritual nature. It appeals to the superficial desires we all have. And people obsessed with the superficial are in no position to desire or be influenced by the deep philosophy of Christianity. It doesn’t appeal to the surface-level people of the world.

Influence also happens when the positive source of influence is overwhelming – When one person comes into contact with hundreds, thousands, or millions of people who are positive influences – but even in this instance still has to be careful that “a little leaven doesn’t leaven the whole lump”. 

The positive has to be so great that it easily absorbs people into a culture of righteousness. God understood this in the OT and this is why he outlined a muscular foreign policy, one might say. No intermarriage, no interaction, only the utter destruction of the enemy and their influence. Anyone taken in [Such as Rahab in Joshua 6] has a process of assimilation and they have to submit to the behavioral guidelines of God, leaving behind their pagan ways. And even then they would be excluded from certain religious practices. 

One author in the book “Learn Better” wrote that it’s been statistically shown that more than two-thirds of Harvard University’s students’ academic success can be attributed to peer-on-peer excellence standards. The culture is one where students push each other to be better. The teachers and programs aren’t that special when compared to other colleges – but the culture is so strong that it promotes excellence.

The church is built such that this can be how it operates. It is rare that this actually happens nowadays, but it can work if the negative influence of the world is minimized. Should not the church be a place where spiritual excellence is encouraged? But many would rather mold the church into something that appeals to the masses, avoiding teaching the whole counsel of God so no one gets offended, and avoiding any accountability of any kind. 

Here are 3 practical instances in which influence occurs. And how you can know who is being influenced, and who is doing the influencing. 

Modeling – If others are modeling or copying you, you are influencing them. If you find yourself copying them, you are being influenced by them. Peer pressure is the basic form of influence, and how often does the average person resist the urge to conform to the group? It is not often, because the power of negative influence is much stronger than the character strength of the average person. The average person models the group – and this is predominantly negative. 

Influence pushes us to model others because we want the results they are getting. We model athletes who are the best in their field so we can try to reach their levels of athletic success. We model successful businessmen or other people we admire because we want to achieve similar results, character, or wealth in our own lives. 

Again notice that this form of influence happens from a position of power. When we model someone else, it is because they have something that we want but do not have, and so we adjust our behavior to be more like them in the hopes of getting it.

Motivation – Another aspect of influence is the urge to be like someone. It’s more subtle than actively imitating or modeling them. Here we are focusing on the desire we have to be like someone rather than the active attempt to model them – the pull of their influence. 

While modeling is the action itself, motivation is the simple desire to model someone. If someone motivates you to take action, they have found a way to clearly show you the positive results of their action, and that is motivating to you. 

Athletes motivate you to train and musicians motivate you to practice your instrument by showcasing top-level skills in their field. Their demonstration of success, skill, or wealth has opened your mind to the possibilities of what

Osmosis – How often have you been around someone, and without noticing, their behavior rubs off on you? And how often is this a good thing – depends entirely on who you spend time with. This is why “the righteous must choose his friends carefully, because the way of the wicked leads them astray” [Pr 12:26]. 

So what do you do about rampant negative influences around you? If you are not a man of power and great influence, you need to first build yourself and position yourself in strength before you can hope to influence others. 

Lesson: Mercilessly cut every negative influence from your life that you actually can. If people around you want to be stupid [Pr. 12:1], lazy, or evil, get away from them. You may have the feeling “But who is going to help change them?” Many people will be unlikely to change until they decide to change for themselves, hit rock bottom or have some other strong motivator. 

Put on your own oxygen mask before you help the person beside you. If your own character is holding on by a thread, you are not in a position of strength to help others and they will more than likely tear you down to their level. 

We must understand the overwhelming power of a negative influence. We can not be so naive as to think we are strong enough to resist the pull of the crowd. 

VI – Concluding Thoughts

These thoughts were not meant to be negative but meant to inform your strategic decision-making. If I tell you that “What goes up usually comes down” you don’t take it as negative, you take gravity as a law of nature and adjust your behavior accordingly, not jumping off or climbing up anything dangerously high because you understand the law. 

If I tell you that “Negative influence is far more powerful than positive influence”, you can take it as negative, or you can take it as a law of human nature and work around it with a cool head.

If the negative is more potent than the positive, we need to change our strategic decision-making to minimize the negative influence we are susceptible to and maximize the positive. We should still try to be a good influence on the world around us, understanding it’s not going to have a massive effect. But first and foremost, and more importantly, we should arm ourselves against negative influence. 

Practical Summary

1. Humble ourselves and admit our susceptibility to negative influence. To think that we can walk through this life just being a positive influence on others and being unaffected by negative influence is the height of arrogance and the height of naivety regarding human nature.
   
2. Reduce and eliminate your exposure to negative influences as much as you can. This may involve cutting off friendships. This may be painful, but it is necessary – as Christ Himself said, if you have to cut off appendages to be faithful to Him, it’s better than eternity in hell. So cut off and cast from you any negative influences in your life. 
   
3. Construct a bullet-proof peer group. The righteous chooses his friends carefully, vetting their character. Would you be better or worse spiritually, personally etc. if you were more like your closest friends? Choose people who you would be excited to be more like.
   
4. Dig trenches and foxholes – exposure to negative influence is inevitable, but you must plan in advance what you are going to do about it. This requires a mind saturated in the principles of God so deeply that you are unmoved by those around you. [Perhaps you have been at the beach and tried to stand against huge waves and not get knocked over as a little game. If you stand on top of the sand, every wave knocks you down. If you dig your feet down to where your ankles and entire lower leg are in the sand, huge waves can hit you and you won’t be moved, because you are embedded deeply in something that will hold you steady – even so our mind should be embedded deeply in what holds us steady, the anchor for the soul [Heb 6:19].
   
5. To study is to prepare yourself for war before you engage in it. The word must be embedded in the mind for the purpose of not sinning [Psalm 119:11]
   

I leave you with a handful of examples:

• All the years of the direct influence of Christ didn’t change Judas for the better [John 18]
  
• Direct contact and instruction from God didn’t influence Cain towards righteousness[Gen 4]
  
• The lie and peer pressure of the man of God cost the young prophet his life [1 Kings 13].
  
• Seeing the miracles of God didn’t stop the Israelites from making a golden calf, so even Aaron was taken away with them [Ex 32].
  
• The negative behavior of Peter even carried away Barnabas with hypocrisy [Gal 2:13]
  
• Direct miracles from God could not influence Pharoah [Ex 7-12]
• Lot could not influence a solitary soul in Sodom or Gomorrah, not even his future son-in-laws. But they certainly had a negative influence on Him, tormenting his righteous soul day by day, and undoubtedly being a Contributing factor to the perversion his daughters would engage in later.
  
• Saul’s wives had an influence on him, such that his heart was turned away from God in his latter years [1 Kings 11]
  
• All the wisdom, advice, and sound counsel of the old men could not influence Rehoboam to make wise policy decisions, lighten the load of the people, and be a good king – he was negatively influenced by his peer group – and this would have devastating effects on the kingdom [1 Kings 12:7-15].
  
• Time and time and time again Israel would be led away due to the influence of the “sexually liberated” societies in Canaan – [Judges]
  
• Peter, a companion of Christ for years, could not resist the negative influence of little girl and ended up denying Christ [John 18:15-26]
  
• James teaches us it is possible to wander from the truth, which earns that natural passive influence of the world pulls man off the track and he requires redirection [James 5:19-20]
  
• Pr 12:26 – “The Righteous should choose his friends carefully for the way of the wicked leads them astray.”
  
• Pr 13:20 – “He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will be destroyed”.
  
• Pr 14:7 – “Go from the presence of the foolish man when you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.”
  
• Pr 22:24-25 – “Make no friendship with an angry man, And with a furious man do not go, Lest you learn his ways And set a snare for your soul.” One-to-one ratio – even if there is only one source of positive and one source of negative influence, the biblical warning is to avoid the negative because the good may learn the negative behavior. Solomon tells us to not endanger ourselves by trying to be friends with or have an influence on these types of people – An idea cross-referenced in Matt 7:6 “Pearls before swine”.
  
• Pr 23:20-21  ”Do not mix with winebibbers, Or with gluttonous eaters of meat; 21 For the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, And drowsiness will clothe a man with rags.”
  
• 1 Kings 21:25 ~ “But there was no one like Ahab who sold himself to do wickedness in the sight of the Lord, because Jezebel his wife stirred him up.” Negative influence coming even from within the family unit caused massive trouble in the land of Israel.
  
• 1 Corinthians 15:33 – “Do not be deceived Evil company corrupts good habits.” Do not let wishful thinking trick you into thinking you will be unaffected by negative influence, Paul says. Note that the Bible does not say “Good company influences bad company for the sake of good good”. A lazy company corrupts discipline habits. Weak company corrupts strong habits.
  
  
• “Little Leaven leavens the whole lump” [Gal 5:9]. A small amount of negative influence can overpower the entire assembly. Cancer starts with one cell.
  
• Ephesians 4:14 ~ “Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming.” This passage shows one of the most basic truths: the mark of maturity and adulthood is the ability to think for oneself and not be tossed around by outside influences.
  
• 1 Timothy 4:1-2 ~ “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.”
  
• 1 Corinthians 3:3 ~ “You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans?” The church as Corinth was overtaken by human nature and its tendency to be a negative influence rather than a positive one.
  
• 1 Corinthians 12:2 ~ “You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols.”
  
• 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 ~ “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them and walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people.” Therefore “Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.” “I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the Lord Almighty.” – God, knowing the hearts of men and how easily they are influenced to do wrong, encourages his people to be separate and to keep themselves from evil. Why would God not simply suggest being a good influence on the pagan nations of Canaan? Why not display their good behavior to the world? If what many religious men thought was true, pagans would be coming out of the woodwork to join the nation of Israel just because of their good influence! But this is not the case, as positive influence will never overpower negative influence. It is for this reason that God always commands His people to remove themselves from the presence of negative influences. 

I – Thesis statement

Many people claim the following, “God is calling me to do this,” but the subjective nature of interpreting emotions resulting from prayer leaves them open to total deception because they do not have empirical evidence for who or what is “calling” them or what “calling” actually means.

What even is “calling”? I think it’s simply a desire to do something that people try to justify with vague divine approval.

“God’s calling me to major in Liberal Arts” – no, you want to major in Liberal Arts because it’s not as objectively difficult as physics and you want an easy degree. 

II. Understanding the Phenomenon

Who makes this statement? 

People who are looking to justify a choice or course of action [usually that they have already made up their minds about before God ever “called” them] by linking that action to divine approval.

It is a good way to immunize oneself to the majority of pushback or argumentation. Because who is going to come up to them and say “God’s not calling you”? It’s an unassailable position.  To attack their decision is to attack the calling of God.

What do they mean when they say “God is calling me”? 

They usually mean that they feel some sort of internal emotional push to take some action. They have no objective, empirical evidence of God’s calling [and they almost certainly can never support their claim through scripture], but nonetheless, because they felt the warm-and-fuzzies in their little hearts, they assume it’s God. 

What do they truly mean?

When people make a statement like “God is calling me”, they mean that they decided what they wanted to do and are looking for external validation that cannot be questioned or opposed.

“I came to this decision after a lot of prayer and study” is another statement often used. And for most people, this is not true – they come to a decision first, and then try to validate that pre-made decision through “prayer and study“. 

“God is calling me” is mere emotionalism in 98% of cases. 

The claim that a person is being singled out by God in order to do something is silly. The only way God speaks to anyone in this modern day is through the scripture. No one is getting a  special message. There is not a man alive receiving a new revelation of any kind.

Therefore, unless a position is rooted in scripture, it cannot objectively be said to come from the mind of God.

And that is the case with these statements. They cannot objectively be said to have originated with God. 

But the average religious person doesn’t let a lack of empirical evidence stop them from having their opinion!

And understand, unless one is engaging in tactical prayer, the ability to definitely know God’s answer is reduced. Therefore most people are left with their own subjective interpretations of God’s answer to their prayer.

“God, should I take this job or not?” After this question, they wait but hear no answer. Then they feel some kind of emotional feeling telling them “Yes, you should take the job”. And from that they assume “That must have been God”. But the reality is they engaged in a subjective interpretation of a prayer they offered. 

That is an example of a personal bias affecting the interpretation of prayer. The person already knew they wanted to take the job. They had the desire ahead of time [“I wanted to do this anyways, so lemme just slap a ‘God is calling me’ on there to justify it”]. 

If you want to know how to ask a specific prayer and know without a doubt if it was answered, look no further than the example in Genesis 24. 

III. The Subconscious Mind at Work

A. Much of what we learn and think goes below the surface of our minds into the unconscious areas. Much of our behavior is automatic – we call this habit. So during prayer, it may be that we already have a thought or a desire that we want to have fulfilled and it dives below the surface of our mind.

During or after prayer, when we ask God to “tell us what to do”, emotions bubble up. But these emotions are not from God, they are the results of thoughts and desires that already exist in the recesses of the mind – and they are the perfect tool for an individual to justify his own decision to himself. 

But note that in that example, there was no interference or action from God. All of it happened within the mind of the individual. But he will be more than happy to attribute it to God because that “Locks the decision down” and “God agrees with me” – who is going to argue with God? Especially when He is agreeing with me!

Avoid letting personal desires, wants, fears or motivations influence the interpretation of prayer. There is nothing tactical or objective about that behavior. 

IV. The Temptations of the Devil

Most Christians understand that one possible source of temptation is the Devil. Most people are not tempted by the devil, they are tempted by their own desires [James 1:13-15]. 

Understand that one of the best tools the devil has in his arsenal is our own personal desires. He does not have to waste time directly tempting each one of us. He has set up “investments” of sorts within most people that allow those people to continually sin because they are at war with desires and often lose. 

The Devil can, directly or indirectly, tempt people using the tool of desires and wants. 

So tell me, based on that information, if you cannot prove objectively that God is the one calling you, then how do you know that “calling” is not the devil? 

And the answer is that most people will never know. They do not know if God or the devil is talking to them. That is the severe downside of lacking objective measures when speaking about what God is or is not calling one to do. 

And because of the subjective nature of the interpretation of prayer for most people, the Adversary can exploit this and turn it to his advantage.

If some desires come from the devil, and you make a decision based on some of those desires that you mistake for “God’s answer” to your prayer, you mistake God’s calling for “The Devil’s Calling” and you lack any objective way to distinguish between the two. 

And some may try to argue that “Well God’s calling me to be a preacher/minister! How can you say that is from the devil?” I happen to know that the devil can turn anything to his advantage. He may be more than happy for you to be a minister because now you will be in the perfect position to cause division in a church, fragment it, alienate people, cause a lack of growth in the church, or a plethora of other options. To severely damage the spiritual growth of a church, the devil just needs weak people in leadership positions. 

1 John 4:1 – “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world”.

V. Lack of Concrete Evidence

As we continue to mention, confusing God’s calling with personal emotions is the key way that people become confused about what God is or is not calling someone to do. It’s confusing because for most people, “God’s calling” lacks concrete evidence. You may say “Well, there is never any way to know for certain what God’s answer is”, but I think that is also untrue. Go back and look at the example in Genesis 24 – that is a highly specific prayer. It guarantees that there will be no confusion about the answer due to its specificity.

The problem is most people do not want to pray this way because it means you will know for certain what the answer to the prayer is. It crystalizes God’s answer, making it perfectly clear. If you pray in a specific manner, then you know what “No” looks like. And that is scary. We would rather keep it vague so we can try to interpret the answer to prayer based on our emotions. 

Therefore, prayer has to be approached specifically, with critical thought, and then we need to analyze what we believe is the response to the prayer by cross-referencing the Word of God. 

Why is that important?

Because if “God is calling me to do something”, and that ‘something’ goes against the teachings of the Bible, I can quite effectively rule out God as the source of my answered prayer and information.

God will never call an individual to sin.

For example, God doesn’t call people to leave their spouse for any reason other than that which is authorized in Matt 19. 

If a biblical position cannot be backed up with scripture, it is likely an incorrect position. 

By mistaking internal thoughts, feelings, and desires for God’s word, you get the Catholic Pope initiating the Crusades. That wasn’t a win for the “God is calling me” team. Nor was it a win for Christianity as a whole, because people still love to point that out as a “horrible thing Christians did in the name of God [even though the Pope and catholicism shouldn’t be confused with Christianity – they are different]. God did not initiate the Crusades – it was the choice of a flawed man. 

VI. NKJV Bible Verses as Cautionary Guidance

Ephesians 5:15-17 ~ “See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is”.

The Bible is a book encouraging discernment among people. Random decisions and choices made on emotional bases are not wise. Most people approach God, approach His word, and pray without discernment of what the will of God is. God’s will is clearly outlined in scripture, and He has one main objective: “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” [2 Peter 3:9]. All of His actions, His complete will converges on this very statement. 

And therefore, objective measures and rational discernment are required rather than internal emotional sensations when attempting to understand the will of God.

Part of this article is used in another upcoming post that contains a few comments on a sermon available online.

It involves a common theme in Christianity: what should we do to help the homeless person on the side of the road who is asking for money?

There is an underlying assumption that Christians will be giving to the poor and needy. And this is a good assumption, as there are biblical commands to take care of those who are legitimately in need. Especially those of the household of faith. And I would agree with that statement that is frequently made by speakers.

⁴⁴ Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, ⁴⁵ and ^[o]sold their possessions and goods, and divided^[p] them among all, as anyone had need.

Acts 2:44-45

What I don’t agree with is an Inception-style assumption within the assumption.

So often you hear speakers today talk about the poor and needy and they’re often indirectly or even directly describing the people you might come across in the street or on highways. I have known of some speakers to even make it a point to suggest that you are neglecting a Christain duty if you drive past the panhandler on the highway. They then place some moral judgment on you based on how you view and what you do for those people.

Here’s the problem: these speakers have no idea if those people are actually poor and/or needy.

The assumption within the assumption is that panhandlers are actually poor.

I’m not denying that there are people who are legitimately homeless and who need help with their physical needs.

But as I state frequently, many times those so-called poor and needy are better off financially than most of the members of the congregation that are being shamed for not supporting those allegedly poor, needy people. 

Kentucky Beggars Earns $100,000 Yearly by Faking Disability

Panhandlers who work deceptively have a good racket going, and they’re providing value to people who give them money.

This is a point in and of itself and a side note that deserves further elaboration.

I’ve often wondered why panhandlers, loiterers, and the allegedly homeless receive so much money in donations from people who drive by them on the road. I frequently wonder this because my underlying belief has always been that if a person receives money he/she must be providing something of value to society. And what value are panhandlers providing?

This question rolled around in my mind for some time until a potential answer became quite clear.

People aren’t just giving money to the supposedly “homeless” person.

No, people are giving money to purchase the right to feel good about themselves and/or morally superior to others who do not give.

They are purchasing a feeling of altruism.

They are purchasing the freedom from the guilt they feel when they ignore a panhandler.

The allegedly homeless allow donors to lift their spirits and feel morally superior to those who don’t mindlessly donate money.

I’m not arguing that everyone behaves or thinks this way after giving money to a homeless person, but it is a common theme among religious people.

Giving money to the allegedly homeless person provides you with the feeling that you are righteous. And that is what you are after.

And that’s what you’re doing. You’re attempting to purchase righteousness. It’s not about helping another person, it’s about the emotional and spiritual elevation of the self. Whether or not this is done on a conscious level is irrelevant – because this is based on an analysis of human nature.

We are pleasure-seeking and pain-avoiding organisms. We seek to avoid the pain of guilt we feel when we drive by those people and seek the pleasure we feel from giving them money. It is an emotional proposition all the way around.

And even if you aren’t giving money to feel morally superior, I would argue that the next most likely reason is that you are giving money to avoid guilt.

The second way the allegedly homeless person provides value that people will pay for is they alleviate people’s sense of guilt.

Many people simply feel bad for driving by a homeless person. So they give money to them to make themselves feel better.

Again, it is not about giving money, it is not about helping people who have a legitimate need, it is about purchasing the freedom from guilt.

People are always less kind and altruistic than we give them credit for. If I was a betting man, I would always wager on the side of human nature. Human nature seeks pleasure and avoids pain. Many people give money to the homeless to seek the pleasure of moral superiority or avoid the pain of guilt. I would argue that this is the majority of cases.

Cultural Impact

Have you noticed the rate of panhandlers and allegedly homeless in America increase under the Biden administration? It seems to be clear that certain forms of government are soft on crime, weak on rules, and generate the incentive for pseudo-poverty. It is worth noting that even those under the poverty line in America are wealthy relative to underdeveloped countries experiencing true poverty.

At the time of this writing, there are “help wanted signs everywhere. There are more Jobs available than there are workers to fill those jobs.

Yet despite that, homelessness has remained the same or even increased!

Life is not harder. Living environments and situations are not worse. America and the rest of the modern world are in upward trajectories yet there are still high levels of unemployment and homelessness.

So are the allegedly homeless unable to find work? Or perhaps are they unwilling to work because doing so would require them to take a pay cut? I would argue for the latter.

The note about the government is to suggest that people were not in “poverty” and panhandling at the rate they were previously, but have since increased due to governmental incentives.

When you can get paid for doing nothing, you just became incentivized to do nothing. We cannot be shocked when more people do nothing after being incentivized to do so.

This is one of my concerns with Universal Basic Income (UBI). Some think that it will liberate people and allow them to do what they want for work with less concern for the earning potential of the field. With an extra $10,000 yearly coming from the government, a person would have less financial concerns about being a teacher, artist, or some other profession with low or staggered income [except at extreme levels of professional success].

But I believe, as we have seen with the modern welfare state, UBI will encourage people to sit and do nothing. Once people start receiving payouts, they will demand more – it is human nature. $10,000 will not be enough. They will require more. Human nature requires more.

And individual inactivity will lead to crime. Humans do not do well when they do not have work to do. They will create chaos just to have some excitement.

It is unwise to indiscriminately incentive panhandling by mindlessly giving money to the homeless.

Again, lest anyone gets offended [which no doubt they will], I am not suggesting that there are not legitimately homeless people.

I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t help anyone. And I am not suggesting that everyone who gives to the homeless is mindlessly trying to purchase righteousness or avoid personal feelings of guilt.

What I am requesting is that concerning the matter of giving to the poor, we use discretion, as we should be using it in all endeavors.

The solution is discretion-based giving.

If the goal of the Christian is to convert souls, we cannot hope that the simple provision of money will complete that goal. The Goal of Christianity is not to mindlessly give away as much money and food as possible.

Some Christians suggest that “free-giving” [a more politically correct term for “mindless giving”] of food and money is a way to “make connections” and “connect with the community”.

Oftentimes the community is just looking for a handout. And “Connection” is not the final step in the process of salvation.

Discretion-based giving involves discretion.

This is obvious, but it is a favorite pastime of religious people to mindlessly do what they think are good deeds without any rational thought and without any concern for second and third-order consequences of actions. How many good actions have been taken that have negative downstream consequences?

Resources are limited. We cannot mindlessly give without using our minds first.

If a person who panhandles on the side of the road is one of the many fakes who take advantage of people’s guilt, should that person be given money? Again, not all people are like this. But if they are, should we be giving them money? Is mindlessly giving them money good or bad stewardship?

I would argue that this person should not be given money and it would be poor stewardship to do so.

So there must be some form of criteria by which we can determine the legitimacy of panhandlers. There must also be a framework for how to work on converting these individuals as well.

Even the bible has a discretion-based process for taking care of widows based on if they are true widows or not.

³ Honor widows who are really widows. ⁴ But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is ^[a]good and acceptable before God. ⁵ Now she who is really a widow, and left alone, trusts in God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day. ⁶ But she who lives in ^[b]pleasure is dead while she lives. ⁷ And these things command, that they may be blameless. ⁸ But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

⁹ Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless she has been the wife of one man, ¹⁰ well reported for good works: if she has brought up children, if she has lodged strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has relieved the afflicted, if she has diligently followed every good work.

¹¹ But ^[c]refuse the younger widows; for when they have begun to grow wanton against Christ, they desire to marry, ¹² having condemnation because they have cast off their first ^[d]faith. ¹³ And besides they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house, and not only idle but also gossips and busybodies, saying things which they ought not. ¹⁴ Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully

1 Timothy 5:3-14

Imagine that, there is a discretionary outline for how to provide for widowed members of the household of faith!

There was a problem in the church with people who were not true widows leeching off the church and being busybodies. And Paul outlines criteria for true widows and what should be done about the busybody younger widows.

If discretion is involved in taking care of widows, and not worldly widows but Christian widows, how much more so should there be a discretionary thought process when providing physical resources to people who are not actually homeless and who are not Christians?

So to answer the question of the article in a line – should we give money to the homeless? If they are truly homeless, we can consider helping. If they are taking advantage of us, we should not. Discretion is required to determine if people are homeless or not. And discretion is needed when determining if they should be given money or not.

Here is a framework and list of tools that people can use to determine if someone should be given money:

1. Are they legitimately homeless? If you do not know, better to err on the side of caution.
   
2. Can you work to convert them? Everyone has a chance at salvation – and this is the goal of giving to people. Are they willing to trade food for Bible study? If they are willing, trade them.
   
3. Will they accept a simple meal or do they demand cash only? If they demand money, do not give.
   
4. Will they accept a gift card that can only be used at a restaurant? If not, do not give.
   
5. Here is a critical question: are they willing to trade some work for food and money? If they answer”no”, you likely know exactly the kind of person they are. What “hungry“, rational person would not trade a little effort for food unless they already knew they could get food in easier ways?