FIVE MILES EAST OF STILLWATER, OK, you will find the Hardy Compound. Upon moving to Stillwater, we purchased 10 acres on which I eventually built a white two-story house with a full wraparound porch, complete with two Cracker Barrel rocking chairs on the front. Rocking chairs and wraparound porches are not complete without dogs lying around them, so we had Rascal and Pal, our own version of Hank and Drover (for the unenlightened, that would be Hank the Cowdog and his sidekick Drover from the John Erickson series). Rascal, a muscular, jet black mixture of Pit and Lab, was given to us as a puppy by some church members. Pal, a solid white mixture of Lab and Cocker Spaniel, was rescued from the pound.

They divided all life forms up into two categories. Pal alerted us to all humanoids who came on the property, while Rascal prided himself in making all animal life think twice about crossing his imaginary threshold, though few rarely got the chance to think twice. He specialized in armadillos with a minor in coyotes. They were quite a duo with an unwavering Baptist theology that refused to let a single guest get to the porch before their vehicle (tires) had been properly baptized. (They must have had some prior Catholic influence since they were content to sprinkle.) They were quite a pair, and I confess that we were all attached to them.

That’s why it was such a hard day when my wife, Lisa, called to inform me that Pal had been killed by a truck in front of our house. Once Pal discovered that those vehicles on the road contained humanoid life forms, we were never successful in training him to stay away from them. Everyone, including Rascal, went into depression without Pal around, so I decided to save the cost of buying Prozac and got another dog. Our son Daniel chose a pure-bred Bassett Hound and named him Floyd. I refused to make the same mistake this time and installed an electronic fence. It worked so well that Floyd never got to the cars in the drive to baptize them, although one day he substituted my computer case on the porch, but that’s another story.

I confess that the electronic boundary was bittersweet. It bothered me every time I watched Rascal blow right by the boundary, but Floyd would stop and look back at me with those sad Bassett eyes. It was hard denying him the freedom other dogs enjoyed. On the other hand, Floyd would never suffer the same fate as Pal as long as he stayed within the boundaries.

In fact, there’s an invaluable life lesson in deciding how to look at that electronic fence. It could be a limiting boundary, which it most certainly was, or it could be a tool for extending Floyd’s life, which it most certainly did. Both are true, but each describes the process from a different angle. The goal was to help Floyd enjoy a longer life, not simply limit his freedom. This contrast could be described as both a “yes” and a “no.” As a boundary, it is a No. In extending his life, it is a Yes. Both are necessary and accurate, but the Yes provides a clearer perspective than the No.

Predictably, I employ the “ditch on both sides of the road” analogy here. If I were a liberal, I wouldn’t have much of a boundary. I would value Floyd’s freedom as the highest virtue. That’s a ditch I spend a lot of energy trying to avoid. Unfortunately, I’ve spent too much time in the other ditch. As a “conservative,” I’ve emphasized the No above the Yes more times than I am willing to admit. One ditch is all about the Yes (without any No) and the other is all about the No (without understanding the Yes). The No is necessary, but it isn’t about the No and it never has been. We, as conservatives, have let the accelerated permissiveness of the world force our attention on the No to the extent that we are losing sight of the greater Yes. The “worse” the world gets, it seems, the more Noes we need. But, the more Noes we have, the less articulate we are of the Yeses.

I propose that we develop a foundational mindset that understands the Yes behind every No and strive to emphasize the Yes above the No. Rather than being a veiled attempt to reduce standards, this will actually give standards greater meaning and make them stronger.

A great example of this is found in I John 2:15. We are warned not to love the world and all that is in it, including the lust of the flesh and eyes, as well as the pride of life. One who loves the world is simply not of the Father. These verses have been used to support more standards than probably any other passage except …come out from among them and be ye separate… (II Corinthians 6:17). No telling how many Noes are justified by these verses, and rightfully so. Yet, I can’t recall ever hearing the Yes provided though it is clearly addressed in verse 17. The things in the world will all go away, crushing one’s attachment to them. On the other hand, doing God’s will instead leads to an eternal abiding. God doesn’t say No to the things of the world because they’re too much fun, automatically qualifying them as sins off-limits to His children. He says No because there is a much greater Yes that He doesn’t want us to miss. The No is to refuse to love the things in the world. The Yes is choosing to love that which will remain once all the other things in the world are gone.

All of God’s Noes begin with Yes.

In the beginning God created an incredible garden for the first couple beyond anything we could imagine. They could enjoy every nook and cranny, except one tree. Just one. He was all about the Yes and in this case the Yes was being able to walk with Him in this Eden in unending fellowship. He also understood the threat, so He proclaimed a No to protect the Yes. Guess who focused on the No first? Not God. It was us. The No had a very important reason and it was to protect the Yes. God originally designed us to exist in 99% freedom and 1% law. He is not about the No. He has some incredible Yeses that are worth protecting through some necessary Noes.

I’m convinced that conservative pastors and parents are becoming known for No, not because of how many we have, but because we don’t emphasize the more important Yes. Don’t preach a No without studying why it’s there. What Yes will be lost without the No? It sometimes helps to look at the No as trying to protect something, then determine what Yes is being protected. Without practicing this, you become one of the reasons we get described as all about the No.

You cannot have God’s Yes without God’s No.

Since the No is there to protect the Yes, you will not long enjoy the Yes without practicing the No. Esau had what should have been a priceless inheritance, his Yes. But somewhere he let his passions lose sight of the No. The No was to resist impulsive hunger. He needed the No to protect the Yes. Without the No, the Yes was lost. We all want the Yes, but sometimes we want it too cheaply and don’t get to keep it because we are not willing to take the No that comes with it. The more valuable your Yes, the more vital your No. You might have a No without the Yes, but you will not maintain a Yes without a No.

The Yeses explain the difference in Noes among Christians.

Christians who don’t have the same Yes will not likely have the same No. You wonder why there are differing standards among Christians? One reason is because they don’t all have the same Yes in mind. A parent with a passion to produce a godly seed has a valuable Yes and will end up with different Noes than a parent who is content to produce a good kid. A Christian who values God’s holiness as a Yes will implement different Noes than one who finds God’s love to be His chief attribute. My No to dating for my children differs from some of my friends because our Yeses are different. You need not go on the defensive with those who criticize you for your Noes once you realize what your Yes is and how it differs from theirs. Teach your children to handle criticism from those with fewer Noes by explaining to them in clear detail the Yes driving the Noes.

We are more inclined to keep No once we understand the Yes.

Churches and parents often feel at a disadvantage because they have so many Noes. In fact, we often blame the departure of our children and members to other churches on the existence of the No. I propose that we lose some of them because they never understood the Yes. The pastor found ways to work the No into plenty of messages, but rarely, if ever, took time to explain the Yes. The parents could be hard on the kids for breaking the No, but seldom took time to articulate and celebrate the success of the Yes. It is hard work as a pastor and a parent to study and explain the Yes in an attractive way, but it pays dividends by grounding members and children in the value of what the No is protecting. Those who are trained by someone in one ditch will inevitably end up in the opposite ditch.

Live a joyful Yes life instead of a reluctant No life.

A biblically conservative life can be a blast! It can be filled with laughter and lots of joyful times. It comes with a great spirit and only gets better. Why? Because of what is being preserved and protected. Knowing the Yes has a way of producing joy, even with the limitation of the No. The spirit in your home or church likely gives away whether it is about the No or the Yes. Preach the Yes in the pulpit, then explain the No. Teach the Yes at home, then describe the No. Keep the Yes in your speech, even when correcting a disregarded No. With so many Yeses, our homes and churches should be among the happiest and most unified.

My last bit of counsel is don’t let the battery die in the collar that goes with the electronic fence. Floyd got through the No and lost his Yes. But, that’s another story.