Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Parenting & Education’ Category

Tonight, as I prepare for a Titus 2 Retreat, I read from my grandmother’s book, What A Young Woman Ought to Know.  The book, by Mary Wood-Allen, M.D., is but one in her Purity and Truth series authored in 1898.  If anyone wants to say to me: Hmm.  That’s quite dated, isn’t it?  I will respond: Truth is never dated.

Dr. Wood-Allen writes:

We seldom think of the fact that upon sex depend all the sweet ties of home and family.  It is because of sex that we are fathers, mothers, and children; that we have the dear family life, with its anniversaries of weddings and birthdays.  It is through sex that the ‘desolate of the earth are set in families,’ and love and generosity have sway instead of selfishness.  For this reason we ought to regard sex with reverent thought, to hold it sacred to the highest purposes, to speak of it ever with purest delicacy, and never with jesting  . . .  .”

Read Full Post »

I’m still wondering:  Why did publication of the article, “Child Abuse” (an original post of ezerwoman), bring an angry response from a Christian author on “sexuality?”  Might this response be similar to the response of a woman angered by her pastor’s pro-life sermon?  Pro-life pastors have learned by experience that when they speak God’s Word on abortion, it’s not unusual for a woman to respond in anger because she is either in denial over a past abortion or maintaining a defensive posture.

For many years, I’ve been made aware of certain choices, behaviors, defensive reactions (i.e. “abortion is the lesser of two evils”), and cover-ups within my own church.  Indeed, we are “saints and sinners,” but can we encourage the “saint” without calling to accountability the “sinner”?

Silence is not a virtue, not when virtue itself is being mocked.  Disrobed.  Stolen away.

Why would concerns about protecting virtue and modesty cause anger?  Why would someone take offense when others caution against breaking down naturally protective inhibitions, or putting children in harm’s way with too much information too soon (and then expecting them to “wait”), or raising curiosity about all kinds of “sex,” or borrowing tools and techniques from non-Biblical models, or choosing the word “sex” to describe the subject matter rather than “purity”?   To bring clarity, I’ve been digging out old phone logs, journals, scribbled notes, research papers, and stories from pastors, teachers, parents, and students I’ve met along the journey.  We are in a marriage-breaking, family-fracturing, child-hurting, soul-risking mess.  I wish I could word it better, but simply put: I’ve seen too much on my “watch.”  And…  there is a shameful lack of accountability.

Bearing that in mind, I’m further determined to hold myself accountable.   First to my Savior and, next, to those who put their trust in Him rather than human opinion.  Dealing with sensitive and difficult issues, even finding myself in conflict with well-meaning Christians, requires the good counsel of wisdom.  I make a practice of running my thoughts by my husband because I need his logic and practical sense.  He has a “three day rule.”  Give major decisions or responses three days.  Write the letter.  Make the phone call.  Speak up… but, when possible, only after three days.  In addition to my husband, I seek the counsel of a core group of pastors I’ve come to trust over the years.  I seek the counsel of wise women who properly understand the role of “ezer.”   By surrounding myself with a group of people who have also seen Christians build on the wrong foundation when it comes to “sexuality” — and then witnessed the consequences and mourned with hurting people — I hope to be faithfully encouraged to the highest standard.  The standard of God’s Word.  The Word that exhorts us to “speak up” when wrong things are happening and human lives are at risk.

Silence is not a virtue.  That’s what a woman told me following a Titus 2 Retreat.  She explained years of childhood sexual abuse that led to promiscuity, abortion, and despair.  She wanted the cover-up to stop.

Silence is not a virtue.  That’s what several men and women told me when thirty years of sexual abuse of children by their Christian school principal came to light.  They wanted the cover-up to stop.

Silence is not a virtue.  That’s what a young woman told me after being encouraged by Christian parents to date older, more “experienced” men.  When she became pregnant by an “experienced” man, money was handed over for an abortion so that the daughter “wouldn’t have her life ruined.”  She wanted the cover-up to stop.

Silence is not a virtue.  That’s what a Christian youth director told me after marrying his Christian sweetheart.  But, because both had learned about sex early and encouraged to be open about their “sexuality,” each had bonded to several others before the youth director and his sweetheart married.  The marriage was troubled for a long, long time.  He wanted the cover-up to stop.

Silence is not a virtue.  That’s what an older woman told me who admitted that, for years, she was taught to be comfortable with her body, her “sexuality.”  In boy/girl classrooms, inhibitions were stripped away.  Seeing herself as a “sexual” person, she played the “game.”  When she captured a man’s attention and certain expectations followed, she grieved her loss of innocence.  She wanted the cover-up to stop.

Silence is not a virtue.  In a few short years and close proximity, four pastors within my Christian denomination apparently saw themselves as “sexual persons” with a “need” to act out their “sexuality” rather than as human persons created by God to live as men under Christ’s robe of righteousness.  One openly embraced his homosexuality, left my church body, and became an Episcopalian priest.  Another was charged and arrested for “lascivious acts with a minor and third degree sexual abuse.”  Two more were caught in a prostitution sting, one of them the former pastor of my home congregation.  Is the response to this: “Forgive me!  Love me!  Let’s go on with life”?  Or, do we want the cover-up to stop?

Christians may think they are different from the world when Jesus is wrapped around everything we say and do.  But — you’ve heard me say it many times — Jesus does not wrap Himself around worldly things.  Christians may believe they are helping others toward a brighter future.  But, if they’re using styles and techniques learned from any source other than God’s Word, then the outcome will have undesirable consequences.  God brought to Adam and Eve new emotions of embarrassment and shame with their nakedness and sin.  He covered that embarrassment with clothing and that shame with Jesus’ robe of righteousness.  We must honor that covering, even when a modern sex educator insists: “No need for modesty!  Don’t be embarrassed!  Be comfortable in your glory!”

When we see bad things happening and people being confused, hurt or — most tragic of all — tempted away from the Father God, we cannot be silent.

Silence is not a virtue when virtue is being stolen away.

Read Full Post »

The question was asked, “What is the difference between ‘modern sex education’ and ‘comprehensive sex education?'”  The answer: Both are education in sex.  Education in sex is quite different from God’s Word to instruct in purity and guard modesty.  So, perhaps, when we know a particular class is called “sex education” or “sexuality for boys and girls,” or a set of books is labeled “a sex education series,” or even “Christian Sex Education,” we ought to ask: What are the desired outcomes?

One of the desired outcomes of modern sex education is to help boys and girls become more comfortable with their bodies.  With their “sexuality.”  A well-known Christian author/teacher in the field of sex education once confronted me.  He said: I understand that you’re displeased with our church’s sex education.  In that particular time and place, I could only respond quickly with my concern about modesty.  “Yes, I am concerned.  Couldn’t we, at the very least, teach boys and girls separately so as not to break down their natural inhibitions and destroy protective boundaries?  Doesn’t God desire that we protect the innocence of children?”  His response?  He said he was pleased that his son, at age ten, knew more about sex than he did at that age.  I wondered aloud: “Is that a good thing?”

Modern sex education has, indeed, achieved a desired outcome.  Everywhere I look, I see young women who are comfortable with their bodies.  Their “sexuality.”  They are comfortably exposed at the Lord’s Table much to the discomfort of pastors offering the sacrament.  They are comfortably exposed at the mall, on the beach or at the pool, on dates, playing sports, at church youth events, or in Bible study.

Girls are, indeed, comfortable with their “sexuality.”  Christian girls shop at Victoria’s Secret or Abercrombie & Fitch just like non-Christian girls.  They purchase sensual dresses for prom or other social events, often to the delight of moms who gush pride in their “sexy” daughters.  Girls are not embarrassed by sexually-suggestive remarks.  They speak, text, and post sensual messages.  They are so “comfortable” with their bodies — their “sexuality” — that very little is left to the male imagination.

It’s difficult to mentor, guard, or practice modesty when sex education’s goal is to make classrooms of boys and girls together more comfortable with themselves.  When God speaks of modesty, isn’t He calling us to be “holy” as opposed to “sexy”?  Isn’t He calling us to dress and act in ways that call attention not to our glory, but His?  And, as with all things godly, isn’t there a reason for this?

Those who promote Christianized-sex education insist that their emphasis is on chastity.  They claim this is a far cry from secular instruction on how to use a condom or where to go for an abortion.  But, the innocence of children is stolen away by even the most passionate Christian who wants to come out of the Victorian closet of prudish inhibition.  There are many well-meaning Christians who, with the sincere hope of preventing sexually-transmitted diseases and unwed pregnancy, support some form of sex education.  But, Douglas Gresham, the step-son of C.S. Lewis explained to me that he views “modern sex education as child abuse because it is ill-planned and poorly thought out, thus adding to the very problem it is trying to address and eroding the structure of a healthy family.”

What does he mean?  Perhaps this.  So-called “sex education” before Alfred Kinsey was generally a discussion of human biology and procreation, hygiene, and marriage.  It was a discussion to be had in the home with the parent in the role of teacher.  Who would better guard the virtue of children?  Who would better explain “sex” (defined by a pre-sexual revolution dictionary as ones “maleness” or “femaleness”)?  Who would better assist a son or daughter in being patient until marriage and, thus, help build a structure for a healthy family?  But, after Alfred Kinsey, this life-shaping responsibility was transferred to school teachers and so-called “experts.”  Prior to the release of Kinsey’s research, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948, no child development experts suggested that children were sexual from birth or that they benefited from childhood sexual activity (or, I’d like to add, from childhood sexual discussions between boys and girls in classrooms).  (Note: For documentation on this and more, I recommend you read Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences by Dr. Judith A. Reisman, 2000)

In 1986 Planned Parenthood (PP) commissioned a poll to determine how “comprehensive” sex education affected behavior.  “Comprehensive” means placing emphasis on the practice of “safe sex.”  Much to the PP’s dismay, the study showed that children exposed to such a program had a 47% higher rate of sexual activity than those who’d had no sex education at all.  (Planned Parenthood Poll, “American Teens Speak: Sex, Myths, TV and Birth Control.”  Lou Harris and Associates, December 1986, p. 59, table 6-1.)

So, I wonder:

  • Do Christian children exposed to modern sex education (post-1960, teacher/expert, boy/girl classroom-style) have a higher rate of sexual awareness, sensual dress, and sexual inhibition than those who’ve had no sex education at all?
  • Has sexual activity increased more among Christian young people who’ve been sexually-educated in the last three decades than those who’ve had no sex education at all?
  • Do Christian young people who’ve been made more comfortable with their “sexuality” suffer from more sexually-transmitted diseases, depression following multiple bonding, unwed pregnancy, and post-abortion grief than those who’ve had no sex education at all?

I’m thinking that it just might not be a good thing — no, not a good thing at all — if my nine-year-old grandson knows more about sex than I did at his age.

Read Full Post »

An editor asked to reprint one of my blogs in a national publication.  The article, “Child Abuse” (7-29-11), suggested that we ought to examine the source of sex education.  It prompted notes of appreciation… but also a call of anger to the publisher from a person of authority in the church.  He felt as if he’d been “attacked.”  “Labeled.”  Why?

Some think the Old Testament is, well, “old.” But, I’ll tell you what.  At times like this, I find lessons taught by historic events refreshingly helpful and hopeful.  At this moment, with division caused among God’s people over sex education versus instruction in purity, I turn to Ezra 4:1-6.

The people of Israel had just been set free from captivity in Persia (formerly Babylon) so that they might return to Jerusalem.  Few Israelites, however, wanted to return to their homeland.  A great many had adapted to their new surroundings.  They had property and liked their new lifestyle.  Going back (as in “backward”?) was not appealing.  Very few packed their bags and returned to rebuild a crumbled and decaying Jerusalem.  Reality hit hard.  The job of rebuilding the temple to the Lord was going to be difficult.  How tempting it probably was to accept the help offered by unbelieving neighbors in the land.  Were the neighbors being kind, or did they have an agenda of their own?  Whatever the case, fathers of the Israelite houses said, “No.”  To maintain pure worship, the Israelites rejected the offer of help from the people of the land who lived a life of blended and false religious beliefs.  To accept would have placed households at risk of being deceived away from Jehovah God.  To accept help from nonbelievers — to use their tools or building materials — could not be tolerated.  The task before the few and faithful Israelites was daunting, in fact, reminiscent of Noah building the Lord’s ark in the midst of his more “progressive” neighbors.  But, then — as today — clear boundaries in doctrine and practice are necessary because a corrupt gospel is no Gospel at all (Galatians 1:8).

The Christian finds him or herself facing a similar challenge today.  God’s Word tells His people to instruct sons and daughters in purity.  But, the people in the land where we Christians live practice the impurity of blended religions.  These neighbors offer their assistance — tools and building materials (with an agenda of their own?) — to us .   But, what will happen if we Christians accept that offer of help?  Will there be compromise?  Clear boundaries in doctrine and practice are necessary because a corrupt teaching of purity is no teaching of purity at all.

Here is my prayer.  May the eyes of Christian parents, pastors, teachers or students be open to the deception of blended religious beliefs.  May we refuse the assistance of people in the land who have turned from the Creator of life, marriage and family to follow false gods.  May we, with humility, examine our building materials and if found impure, disgard them as trash.  If we have been influenced by the “father of modern sex education,” Alfred Kinsey, may we turn from the lie.  Yes, Kinsey attended a church.   But, he practiced the religion of Darwin.  He built on his own theory that “children are sexual from birth.”  He coined the term “sexuality” and worshiped in its temple.   False gods always demand sacrifice.  Today, Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, and GLSEN build on the religion of my personal “sexuality.”  The sacrifice is the innocence of children; the very lives of children through abortion.

If we have put our trust in ways of the world rather than in the purity of God’s Word, may we let go of pride and hurry to the Cross.  If we have innocently accepted help from unbelieving people of the land, may we repent and be drenched in Christ’s mercy.  The pure Gospel is this: Jesus is our Robe of Righteousness.  Even if we have been deceived and unintentionally brought harm to others, we have hope.  In our Savior Jesus Christ, there is always hope.

Only one voice hisses: There is no hope.  But, that lie of Satan has no authority over us.  Because of what Jesus has done for us — in spite of us, we have dominion over the father of lies.  Of false religions.  Of hopelessness.

Dear Lord,

You are the Builder of all that is good, right and true.  Give us courage to examine the source of our tools and, when we’ve trusted our judgment rather than Yours, accept our humble confession.  Forgive us.  Lead us away from the temptation to wrap Jesus around false teaching…  false hope.  Equip us to set the gate of innocence back in place and guard the household of faith.  AMEN.

Read Full Post »

It happened several times while I was on my recent road trip.  A decision needed to be made.  Take the interstate and make time, or meander the backcountry road and enjoy the scenery.  Stop two hours earlier and “wind down,” or press on to a further destination.  Stay with a friend or relative another night, or reserve a motel room and get some work done on the laptop.   Relying on my feelings left me hanging in mid-air.  One minute, I felt like exploring the aspen groves and kicking my shoes off by a mountain stream.  But, maybe less than an hour later, I felt like I just wanted to be home.

My feelings changed with my moods.  Refreshed and starting a new day with beauty all around me, I felt adventuresome.  Undaunted.  But, as the sun lost its brilliance and slipped beneath the horizon, I felt like settling some place safe and making my “nest.”  Plans for the day made, I felt like engaging.  Plans changed or unsure, I felt like disengaging.

Feelings are fickle.  They cannot be trusted.

Yet, for a long, long time, I’ve been watching a younger generation make life-altering decisions based wholly on feelings.  The sixteen-year-old knocks at the door of our caring pregnancy center.  “He told me he loved me.  Do you think I’m pregnant?”  The phone rings late at night.  “I felt like moving in with him would secure our relationship, but tonight when I shared my concerns with him, he kicked me out.  Will you come get me?”  Years of separation from God haunt the woman.  “In that moment of despair, I felt like an abortion would make things right again.  But, I never again felt good about myself.  Can God ever forgive me?”  The young man’s shoulders slump under the orange prison garb.  “Pride pumped my ego.   Boundaries were for lesser men.   I felt in control, exhilarated by the risk, and confident in the adulation of others… until they slapped on the cuffs.  Now, my family is paying the price.”

What kind of people do we become and what kind of culture do we build when we are ignorant of “right” and “wrong?”  When we are “self”-guided by feelings?

Some time ago, a sociologist from Notre Dame interviewed 230 young people across the U.S.  The sociologist, Christian Smith, asked questions pertaining to morality.  Smith summarized in his book, Lost in Transition, that the results were “disheartening.”   It isn’t that the behavior of young people today is better or worse than my generation.  The problem is a lack of moral reasoning.  When asked about the “moral dilemmas and the meaning of life,” the young people offered Smith “rambling” replies which testified that “they just don’t have the categories or vocabulary” to even engage in moral reflection.  “I don’t really deal with right and wrong that often,” said one young person.  For these 18-23-year-olds, right and wrong is judged by how a particular action made them feel.  As one put it, “I have no other way of knowing what to do but how I internally feel.”

But, asks Chuck Colson, what happens when doing the right thing requires ignoring how you “feel” and, instead, determining actions by an external standard?  In what ways are parents — with the support of the Church — helping the younger generation to think rather than just feel?  There are those who predict that these young people will grow more reflective with age.  But, reflection requires that we have principles and ideals on which to base our reflections.  Young people who are bombarded by messages from the world, deceived by Satan, and influenced by their own fickle feelings and changing opinions will be ill-equipped for ethical decision-making.  Marriage.  Parenting.  Being a good neighbor.

So, what can we do?  There is a practical tool for congregations to use with parents, college students, teachers, and a concerned community.  It’s a DVD series titled Doing the Right Thing featuring a panel of morally academic “thinkers” interacting with an assembly of students.  Panelists include Chuck Colson, Dr. Robert George of Princeton University, and other astute and principled men.  The series is moderated by Brit Hume.  Our son, Jon, purchased the series and our family has viewed it.  We highly recommend it and hope to make use of it in our own congregation and community.  Why don’t you, too?  Doing the Right Thing is available from The Colson Center for Christian Worldview.

Fickle feelings can’t be trusted.  But, doing the right thing — based on a standard outside of ourselves — can.

Read Full Post »

Liberal thinkers like to call themselves “progressive.”  They have “evolved” to a higher and more enlightened view and practice of life.  Is this true?

Between the years of 1904 and 1909, archaeological excavations at Gezer (once known as the Canaanite region) revealed the ruins of a temple.  This temple, or “high place” was built to worship Ashtoreth, the “wife” of the idol named Baal.  Great numbers of jars were discovered under the debris of the temple.  These jars contained the remains of children who had been sacrificed to Baal and Ashtoreth.  The whole area (an enclosure 150 feet by 120 feet) proved to be a cemetery for babies.

“Foundation sacrifices” were performed by Israelites who had adapted the ways of the people around them.  When a house was to be built, a child would be sacrificed and his or her body “built” into the wall with the belief that “good luck” would come to the rest of the family.  Many tiny bodies were dug up in Gezer, Megiddo, Jericho, and other sites.

How could a mother lay her child in the arms of Baal, a stone-cold idol who stood above a flaming fire?  How could the father permit it?  Infant sacrifice was practiced by parents seeking a change of circumstances.  A better life.  Prosperity.

Are we more civilized today?  Are we truly more “progressive?”  We have sacrificed 53,310,822 preborn babies in the United States since 1973.  Biology and ultrasound technology remind us that the abortionist is not removing “globs of tissue” but sons and daughters.  These children are sacrificed, not at the temple of Ashtoreth or Baal, but at the temple of Self.

Approximately 95 percent of abortions in the U.S. are not for rape, incest, or the life of the mother, but for convenience.  Mothers and fathers in Canaan sacrificed their children to idols for personal gain or out of fear.  Today’s practice of abortion is really no different.  Mothers and fathers lay their babies in the arms of stone gods named “my choice.”  “My convenience.”  “My best interest.”  One life is sacrificed for another.  “If I have an abortion, I will regain control of my life.”  “If I have this abortion, my future won’t be at risk.”  “Having this abortion is the sacrifice I must make for myself.”

But, God demands no such sacrifice.  He has already paid the ultimate and only necessary sacrifice for a future of hope.  God does not require mothers and fathers to sacrifice their children so that others might live well or fear less.  God made the sacrifice for us.  The Cross of Jesus Christ is the reminder of amazing grace on pitifully desperate people.  The Cross tells us that no one else — not even a “fetus” (Latin: young one) — needs to be sacrificed.

No peace for the soul was found in the temple of Ashtoreth.  No hope for the future was found in the temple of Baal.  Peace and hope elude the mother or  father who bend at the temple of Self.  “The sorrows of those will increase who run after other gods” (Psalm 16:4 NIV).  Ashtoreth. Baal.   Self.  All seek to deceive, then forsake.

But, those who trust in the God who calls each child by name will not be deceived.  God’s Word opens eyes and changes hearts and minds.  When fear presses down and momentary evil seems justifiable, God’s Word convicts… then comforts.  God does not forsake those who cry out to Him. He may not answer in the way we want or expect, but He promises His faithfulness in all circumstances.  Apart from God, there is no good thing.

With God, goodness and mercy rise up.  Push back against evil.  Overcome.  When wrong choices of the past made in fear and desperation are confessed and taken to the Cross, they are forgiven. Forgotten.  Covered by Jesus’ robe of righteousness.

I sought the Lord, and He answered me; He delivered me from all my fears.  Those who look to Him are radiant, and their faces shall never be ashamed . . . The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him, and delivers them (Psalm 34:4-5, 7 ESV).

Read Full Post »

Christians have taken up with a man named Alfred Kinsey.  Knowingly or not, we embraced his worldview and adapted it as our own.  We rejected whatever seemed perverted, but quickly wrapped Jesus around whatever appealed to our (sinful) human nature.

Has the church paired with the “Canaanite woman?”   Have little icons of Kinsey’s religion been placed in the house?  Are not we all under the influence?   Have not the heads of two or three generations been turned by a worldview contrary to Christianity?

Kinsey’s worldview promoted the idea of total sexual autonomy even for girls and boys.  His beliefs were shared by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.  Together, they determined to free every man, woman, boy, and girl from the restraints of Biblical bondage.  They have accomplished what they set out to do.  It was not difficult.  One phrase — one simple distortion of truth — was repeated over and over: “Children are sexual from birth.”  If indeed “sexual,” then “sexual needs” cry out to be met.  “Sexual rights” must not be denied.  “Sexual expression” must take its “personal course.”

Once deceived, it was not long before fear took root.  “If children are intrinsically sexual beings, they will probably ‘do it;’ therefore, we have to help them ‘do it’ safely.”  No parent wants to see their son or daughter suffer HIV/AIDS or the new “illness” called pregnancy.  PP stood ready to help with a plethora of services including the s0-called “planning of parenthood” or practice of “reproductive choice,” a.k.a. abortion.

Parents — those to whom children are entrusted — doubted Biblical instruction in purity and stepped into the quicksand of sex education.   One worldview was exchanged for another and association with PP was rationalized.  But, Jesus — The Word — does not wrap Himself around opposing worldviews.

Jesus — The Word (John 1) — does not say that children are “sexual from birth.”  He says that children are knit together by God in the wombs of their mothers as human beings of the male or female sex.   He says that dads and moms are to guard the innocence of boys and girls, equal but different, as they also mentor Biblical manhood and womanhood.  Good parents do not rev up their son’s engine nor encourage their daughter’s provocative dress.  Good parents, according to the Christian worldview, instructs sons and daughters in patience.  Purity.  Wisdom.

Stealing away — child by child — from the Biblical worldview is the institutional monolith created by the Kinseyites and Sangerites.  Can we be so foolish as to not learn from history?  Just as the Canaanites had their way with the Israelites, do these modern “ites” have their way with us?  Does the modern church think itself beyond temptation? Can Christian parents — in any way — defend the work of PP?

Some Americans are calling for a full-scale Congressional investigation of PP.  In recent years,  PP clinics have been caught placing girls and young women at further risk.  PP employees have assisted pimps and sex traffickers, misled girls and women about the dangers of abortion, refused to comply with parental-notification laws, and misused millions of taxpayer dollars.  Evidence reveals PP’s failure to report child sex abuse.  Instead, PP clinics have been caught advising under-age girls and those who exploit them on how to circumvent mandatory reporting laws on rape and abuse.

PP needs to be investigated.  But, at the same time, Christians should be calling for full-scale investigations of their church’s educational sources, teaching, and practices.

We should clear our houses of Canaanite icons.

As people of God’s Word — both Old and New Testament — we should repent of our failures to guard the innocence of the little ones He calls by name.

We should contrast the Biblical worldview with all others.

Then, remembering that we have forgiveness in Jesus Christ, we can leave wrong ways behind.  Resist temptation and doubt.  Push back against ungodly-ites.  Restore and rebuild.

Early Christians knew they should stand in protection of their children.  That is why they instructed sons and daughters in patience.  Purity.  Wisdom.  That is why they encouraged modesty of dress and behavior.  That is why they taught that God’s Word can be trusted.

Modern Christians are compelled to do the same.

Read Full Post »

“Am I the only one who thinks government-mandated health care telling me that my children are ‘targeted diseases’ is utterly revolting?”  This is a fair question asked by Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life.

To what is Kristin referring?  The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), at the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has decided to re-define women’s health care, mandating that by 1-1-13 insurance providers give women a range of new “preventative services” free, no co-pay or deductible.

These “preventative services” are to include all FDA-approved birth control.  This means even proven abortion-causing drugs such as ella and Plan B.  To be given “free” to married or unmarried women.  So, with Kristin, I ask: Since when is pregnancy a “disease”?

On July 19, the IOM released a Consensus Report: “The IOM defines preventative health services as measures — including medications, procedures, devices, tests, education and counseling — shown to improve well-being, and/or decrease the likelihood or delay the onset of a targeted disease or condition.”  Under these conditions, insured women will have access to free birth control because pregnancy has been redefined as a ‘targeted disease.”

This presidential administration wants women to have free access to abortion and cancer-causing birth control in order to fight the “disease” of pregnancy, notes Kristin, yet “medication that literally keeps my 2-1/2 year old son, Gunner, from dying costs my husband and me hundreds [of dollars] every month.”  Gunner has cystic fibrosis.

HHS announced new preventive-care guidelines will require all health insurance policies written on or after August 1, 2012, to offer contraceptives and other women’s health services without copays, coinsurance, or deductibles.  Included in the guidelines are voluntary sterilization procedures, breastfeeding support and equipment, annual well-woman visits, counseling on HIV and sexually transmitted diseases and screenings for human papillomavirus, or HPV, gestational diabetes, and domestic violence.

There are many individuals and organizations who protest on moral, ethical and economic grounds.  Supposedly, “religious” employers may “opt out” of the mandate.  However, NARAL — the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws — is urging its members to write HHS, saying, “I am concerned that certain religious employers may be allowed to opt out of the requirements.  All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless of where they work.”  Has NARAL forgotten?  Birth control is widely available and publicly funded programs already provide it for women who cannot afford it.

Is pregnancy a “disease?”

Pregnancy is the carrying of one or more offspring.  New human life.  To be pregnant means to be “with child.”  Every child is fearfully and wonderfully made by God.  Every child is knit together in the secret place of his or her mother’s womb.  Within the womb, and not by accident, the placenta nestles around the child to nurture and protect.

Pregnancy is not a disease.  Were it true, what would that make each of us?

Read Full Post »

A group of judges took it upon themselves to re-define marriage in Iowa.  Within the year, a new definition was given to the Holy Family in my neighboring town of Cedar Falls, IA.,  when two women posed with Baby Jesus in their congregation’s “living” Nativity.

We used “the youngest baby in the congregation to play the role of Jesus,” said Rev. Linda Butler, pastor of St. Timothy’s United Methodist Church in Cedar Falls.  “The parents just happened to be two women.”

“What we emphasized was that this was two parents,” she said, “and this is our baby and this is our story.”  Butler continued, “It does fit so well biblically,” noting that Jesus had a human mother, but Joseph was not the Savior’s actual father.  “If He was born of a virgin, then Joseph is not the father.  He’s not part of the conception.”

In an interview with WND (WorldNetDaily), Butler explained that her church welcomes all sexual orientations and gender identities.  In his article for WND, Joe Kovacs quoted from Butler’s sermon of December 26:

“In the midst of this Christmas joy,” she said from the pulpit, “when God appears to us in human form, the gospel reading reminds us . . . we have to shout at church actions . . . that do not affirm God’s holy work among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.  We have to shout [that] the government shifts money away from the prevention of AIDS and HIV to abstinence-only policies . . . We have to increase our efforts to strengthen LGBT youth who come out, and are thrown out of their families so depression and suicide do not become their modus operandi.  We have to advocate against local schools . . . that have attempted to eliminate books on multi-dimensional families from curricula and libraries.”

Kittredge Cherry, who calls herself a lesbian Christian author and minister from Los Angeles, promotes her own style of “gay” Nativities on YouTube.  “What if the child of God was born to a lesbian couple or a gay couple?  Because, after all, love makes a family.”  Cherry admitted, “Obviously this is not about historical accuracy, but I believe that [it is] true to the spirit of the Christmas story in the Bible: God’s child conceived in an extraordinary way and born into disreputable circumstances.  Love makes a family . . . including the Holy Family.”

God’s Word, the Bible, never once describes or mentions same-sex “marriage.”  The opposite is true.  The Old Testament, rich with the history of civilization, records warnings against homosexuality, calling it an “abomination” and a “sin.”  God’s Word in the New Testament is consistent.  Romans 1:26-27 explains that the “unnatural relations” and “shameless acts” of sodomy bring dire consequences.

Ms. Butler doesn’t want depression and suicide to become the modus operandi of young people.  Nor do I.  But, for that not to happen, two things must take place.

First, we have to expose the modus operandi of those who deceive young people.  GLSEN and other LGBT advocates work feverishly to mentor girls and boys because, as Dan Savage (founder of the “It Gets Better” anti-bullying campaign) writes, “. . . Gay activists want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality” because “our future depends on it.” (Salon magazine)  Daniel Villarreal is just as candid as Savage in his article that appeared in the homosexual blog Queerty in May.  He wrote,  “I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach and expose children to queer sexuality.”  So who, Ms. Butler, is putting young people at risk for depression and suicide?  And, for what reasons?

Second, God loves all of His creation.  Each one is precious in His sight.  In a fallen and sinful world, however, we struggle against our own passions.  We desire to do the things we shouldn’t and fail to do the things we should.  But, once again, God’s love appears for our benefit.  In Jesus Christ, we have an advocate before the Father.  In Jesus, we find strength to leave dangerous ways behind and, with the help of caring parents and community, move patiently forward on a safer and more hopeful journey.  God is not cruel.  He does not create people to be homosexual or lesbian and then laugh because they don’t “fit.”  Can’t procreate.  Are at higher risk for anal cancer and HIV/AIDS.  No!  God wants all of us — those tempted by homosexual or heterosexual sins — to practice self-control.  Turn away from the cliff of despair and toward new beginnings.  Leave old ways behind and shed burdens at the foot of the Cross.

Ms. Butler, we prevent HIV/AIDS by helping people abstain from sex apart from real marriage.  We show compassion not by tolerating harmful behavior and calling it “good,” but by involving ourselves in the lives of young people and leading them away from deception, predators and profiteers.  Young people rarely ask to be restrained.  But, responsible adults do it anyway – for the sake of the boy or girl.  As a Methodist in your position, Ms. Butler, you serve your people best with God’s Word rather than improvised words of your own.

And, Ms. Cherry, contrary to what you may think, love doesn’t make a family.  God makes a family.  He uses the love of a man for his wife in the procreational act of sex to bring new life into the world.  That is a family.  In His Book, it always has been.  Always will be.

My appreciation to Joe Kovacs and WND, 8-5-11

Read Full Post »

What web does Planned Parenthood (PP) weave, its victims to deceive?

What is the deceit?  Who are the victims?  How is it funded?  Why?

The web begins to spin in public elementary schools.  It seems silly to help first graders plan parenthood, so perhaps something else is going on.  “Obstacles that make young people uncomfortable about themselves, their bodies and their relationships should be removed.”  Would that be parents? (“Manifesto” of PP, April 2001, CITIZEN, 7-01, p. 17)

More spinning.  “Society may frown on sex play between children, but we have to remember that society disapproves of a great many sexual acts that take place, and there are two sides to the story.”  (Girls and Sex by Wardell Pomeroy, a member of Kinsey‘s research staff, 1981, p. 48 and 52)

More spinning.  “If [your parents] seem to fear your sexuality . . . you may feel you have to tune out their voice entirely.”  (Changing Bodies, Changing Lives by Ruth Bell, 1980)

More spinning.  “. . . Boys and girls who start having intercourse when they’re adolescents, expecting to get married later on, will find that it’s a big help in finding out whether they are really congenial or not . . . it’s like taking a car out for a test run before you buy it.”  (Boys and Sex by Wardell Pomeroy, 1981, p. 117.  This and the two books above have been used by PP.)

Pause spinning.  Did you note when these textbooks were written?  Do you realize that as early as 1970, PP encouraged homosexuality as a way to reduce U.S. fertility?  So, should we be surprised that PP shared their key to the schoolhouse door with LGBT advocates?  Should we be surprised by the boldness of GLSEN, Dan Savage’s “It Gets Better” program, and same-sex marriage proponents teaming up with PP in public schools?

More spinning.  Working hard to preserve “reproductive freedom,” PP disconnects procreation from sex.  In PP’s Young Woman’s Guide to Sexuality, girls learn “we are all sexual” and “sexual expression is one of our basic human needs, like water, food, and shelter.”  But, as Dr. Miriam Grossman asks, does PP mention that a girl is born with all the eggs she’ll ever have, and that when she turns thirty, her eggs do, too?

More spinning… and spinning.   Oh, my!  Our kids are sexually active!  (Does PP feign surprise?)  We can’t let children have children.  And, HIV/AIDS isn’t just for homosexuals anymore.  PP stands “ready to serve”.  Contraceptives all around!  Sixth grade girls practice putting condoms over the finger of sixth grade boys.  By freshman year, girls are on The Pill.  But, even after lessons on how to have sex without getting caught, pregnancy happens.

More spinning.  “These girls are much too young,” laments PP.  “They have college, careers and marriage ahead.  Let’s help them out of a difficult situation… by postponing their parenthood.”  In 2009, PP in the U.S. performed 332,278 surgical or RU-486 “home” abortions.  How many were on minor girls?  I’m not sure.  Parents aren’t always sure, either, because not every state requires parental notification.  Alternatives to abortion?  PP, last I knew, performed 134 abortions for every 1 adoption referral.

Certainly, the spinning stops here.  But, no.  Once a girl or young woman agrees to let PP help them and consents to an abortion,  she may be asked if she’d like to have “some good come out of a difficult situation.”  Fetal tissue “banks” stand ready to receive human embryos and, if a young woman is a certain number of weeks along in her pregnancy, she may choose to “donate.”  Human tissue “banks” don’t pay abortion clinics for the “products of conception.”  However, money may exchange hands for “handling, transportation, and/or storage.”  (WORLD, 8-13-11)

The web is tight.  Well financed.  Government is complicit in the deception and entrapment of our children.  PP is tax-payer funded.  SIECUS is tax-payer funded.  The California Teacher’s Association which supports the LGBT-friendly textbook is tax-payer funded.  The National Institutes of Health (NIH) which funds grants to fetal tissue distributors (WORLD, 8-13-11) is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); and, yes, is tax-payer funded.

The web is spun.  The child deceived and caught as prey.  The spinning continues night and day.  “Once I had an abortion, what did it matter?” a 40-something woman told me.  Her life, for many years, was a blur of promiscuity, alcohol, drugs, and two more abortions.  Until, one day, she heard the words, “The Spirit of the Lord . . . sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound” (Isaiah 61:1).

The web will be spun as long as the culture allows it.  But, one life at a time can be kept from the snare.  And, even after becoming prey, a single, precious life can be set free.  Free to begin again.  To heal.  To better navigate the journey.  To warn others away from the web.

The Failure of Sex Education is a short booklet written by L. Bartlett
for parents, educators, and church workers who want to protect children
from PP’s web.  Available from Lutherans For Life or CPH

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »