Do you love truth? Some links for pondering

“How colorfully and scientifically our generation talks down to the little child! What insipid, stupid, dull stories are trotted out! And we don’t stop there. We don’t respect the children’s thinking or let them come to any conclusions themselves! We ply them with endless questions, the ones we’ve thought up, instead of being silent and letting the child’s questions bubble up with interest. We tire them with workbooks that would squeeze out the last drop of anybody’s patience. We remove interesting books and squander time on ‘reading skill testing,’ using idiotic isolated paragraphs which no one would dream of taking home to read.” ~ Susan Schaeffer Macaulay

 I haven’t posted links for a while so there is quite a variety here. I welcome any thoughts…….

“It is time that such officials learn that being a good parent is a right not a privilege.” What does this mean? If this account is completely accurate, it is outrageous. But I do wonder if there is more to this story. It came along with a fundraising plea and these are the people who are pushing for the Parental Rights Amendment,which Homeschool Legal Advantage and others do not support.

 

I so appreciated this former EFCA pastor’s perspective on the Trayvon Martin story.  His question for all of us “Do you love truth?” is the right one to ask.

 

This is not a Christian website but this article that shows the link that evangelist Kirk Cameron has to Doug Phillips, Rushdooney, and the dominionist movement is alarming. Again, do we care about truth or not?

 

My friend, Sallie, a conservative Christian homeschooling mom whose thoughtful articles always make me think, has written these thoughts on Mark Driscoll and his notion that “manliness” is the future of the church. I can’t help but compare Driscoll’s notions with this story: “Pastor Cho of South Korea grew his church to close to 850,000 members, by encouraging women to have as much influence as God gifted them with, and he did this in a culture that, unlike America’s, has historically assumed women are subservient to men. Christian history may record that Pastor Cho’s decision to open the doors of influence to women in his church was a primary contributing factor in his country’s transformation from a predominantly Buddhist country to a Christian one.” from The Resignation of Eve by Jim Henderson. So, perhaps the so-called “feminization” of the church is a straw man? I have long suspected such. The truth is, the church needs BOTH men and women to fulfill the great commission!!!!!

 

Sallie further shares her concerns about the Acts 29 churches. I have seen this more and more….patriocentricity and patriarchy are becoming part of the code of orthodoxy to a point that differing views on baptism or cessation of tongues, for example, are all welcomed but the place of women in the body of Christ is never to be discussed. Be sure you are patient and look at Sallie’s link…I was stunned.

 

Here is also some insights from George Barna on why women are leaving the organized church in droves!

 

And now for a few fun educational/child development links that I found. Enjoy!

 

“Is your baby a good baby?” Ever get tired of hearing this? You will love this article plus all the links!

 

Are you also tired of hearing that you might be spoiling your baby because she actually wants to be held? This research confirms what mamas already know!

 

Those of you who love music will love this connection between rhythm and math!

 

The Hurried Child has been released….and none too soon! You will want to own a copy of this wonderful book!

 

Fans of Charlotte Mason and Susan Schaeffer Macaulay will appreciate these reminders on children basically needing to be children!

 

Some sound thinking on young dating. I so appreciated this balanced view.  

 

And finally, more thoughts on the Barna research regarding teens leaving the church and leaving the faith.

 

And last but not least, if you are thinking about attending a homeschooling convention this year, not sure you have the time, energy, or finances, or just want a little something different, I have just the resource for you! Now you can enjoy the perks of a homeschooling convention, 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week from the comfort and convenience of your own home! And the best part is that new and exciting resources, including reviews, workshops, forums, and much more are being added all the time! Check it out!

 

 photo Blog__Sidebar_Hello_zps79b9481b.png

Comments

  1. Adam says

    Karen,

    This is not a Christian website but this article that shows the link that evangelist Kirk Cameron has to Doug Phillips, Rushdooney, and the dominionist movement is alarming. Again, do we care about truth or not?

    I don’t know if I would be too alarmed about something like this. You need to understand that folks like Doug Phillips are very good at PR. Remember, these are people who honored Phylis Schlafly as mother of the year, when she has a carrier outside the home as a constitutional lawyer. They know how to make friends and influence people. Now, if Kirk Cameron starts talking about militant fecundity and this anachronistic view of patriarchy, or saying that it is a sin for a woman to have a carrier outside the home, then we may have problems.

    My concern is not so much dominion theology itself. My concern is the way dominion theology and the Theonomy has gone as the newer, younger generation of the theonomists step forward such as Doug Phillips, Voddie Baucham, Bojidar Marinov, Joel McDurmon, etc. Greg Bahnsen, in his review of David Chilton’s commentary on Revelation, had the following to say:

    The revival of Biblical postmillennialism which we are witnessing in our day will be sustained only if it is fueled and fortified by diligent attention to the Scriptures.

    It is this main and central criticism which I must lay at the feet of the younger dominionists. Greg Bahnsen’s warning before he died was that, if dominion theology did not continue to grow in their understanding of the scriptures, the revival of the system of thought would not be sustained. What modern dominionists have done is simply go back to the writings of their forefathers, and mixed in antithesis from society. However, seeking to come to a more and more accurate understanding of what scripture teaches is not something into which these folks have put much time.

    There are many things which I appreciate about dominion theology. I do believe we as a church need to apply the Bible to every area of life, and that includes politics. I do believe that the escapism of premillennial dispensational theology has hindered the church. I also agree with them that the law of God should be used in our understanding of Christian ethics.

    However, my concern is that they have taken these concerns [which are good in and of themselves], and they have tried to apply them in a manner which is quite simply ignorant of how the Bible specifically, and human language in general, operates. For example, many of these folks will quote Genesis 1:26-28 about dominion, and assume that the way we are to take dominion is through the bearing of children, completely ignoring that the command “Be Fruitful and Multiply” appears to be related to the command that was already given back up in verse 22 to the birds and the fish. [This is, of course, not counting the complete abuse of the text that says that this command is given to individual couples, and therefore, forbids contraception].

    However, there is also a problem in that this command is not understood within the context of the book of Genesis itself. I remember when I took Exegesis of Genesis, and I found that the book of Genesis is really about the failure of man to take dominion. However, that failure is found clear back in the Garden of Eden. The reason why man repeatedly cannot take dominion throughout the book of Genesis is because of his sin. In fact, this becomes a major theme of the Hebrew Bible. Although man is obligated to take dominion, because of his sin, he can never do so.

    In fact, it is this kind of tension that is left unresolved in the Hebrew Bible. It is only in the coming of Christ and his work on the cross that sin is truly defeated, and dominion is restored. It is only through the incarnation, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit through the proclamation of the gospel that man is able to take dominion. Our ultimate goal which will restore dominion is to see hearts changed and transformed through the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is to this end we should be working.

    Unless the heart is changed, people will continue on as before. They may comply for a while out of fear, but, if they never truly learn to love what is right, all of the political manipulation in the world will eventually fail. That is why my suggestion has been that, in our political messages and in our messages to our children, we present the world’s way of thinking as a false gospel. It really is incredible how you can find a view of who man is, what man’s problem is, and what the solution to that problem is in just about every secular philosophical anthropology. Hence, when the secularists present their position as to who man is, what is problem is, and what the solution to that problem is that we as Christians present, in antithesis to this, the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus [and this is key], in our political involvement we should always point out that the reason why support what we support is because our hearts have been changed by the gospel, and no other view of man can make sense out of who we are, and, as Francis Schaeffer pointed out, will end up destroying man as man.

    It is through this antithesis that I believe the true battle can occur-the battle between submission to God and his word, or submission to human autonomy. The newer dominionists, however, cannot do this because most simply don’t give do consideration to how to accurately handle the scriptures, since most of them are simply following what was handed down to them, and also, as a result, they are forced to be very pragmatic in their handling of political issues, and never really challenge the humanist gospel of the leftists in this country. Because of this, it merely becomes a battle of political maneuvering, and the ideology and worldview of the people involved are never changed. Even more disturbing, some things are blatantly added to the gospel, and viewed as “presuppositional,” even when it is questionable as to whether the Bible teaches it in the first place!

    So, my concern is that many of the warnings that Bahnsen gave just before he died are not being heeded. It is leading modern day dominionists down a very dangerous road that, I believe, will ultimately end up destroying the movement. I wish that this were not so as I have many friends who would fall into this camp, and many friends who would fall into this camp who are concerned about the antics of some of these newer dominionists. Hence, it is not really dominion theology I am concerned about; it is the fact that the newer proponents of this theology are headed down a dangerous road that will end up destroying the movement.

    God Bless,
    Adam

  2. says

    The Kirk/Doug connection troubles me :( But I’m not surprised at all.

    Thanks for all the links. Can’t wait to dive in.

  3. says

    I found the Kirk Cameron-Phillips connection interesting but uninformative. What exactly does Kirk have in common with Phillips in doctrine and practice? Did Cameron become a Calvinist? Postmill? Reconstructionist? Or is he using their forum to promote his movie as they use his name to promote their events? I think more the latter than the former.

    Cameron’s weak discernment is especially telling in the movie itself when he interview the Mormon, Glen Beck, and ties it in to the Christian narrative of the movie (my review is coming out shortly).

  4. Laura says

    I suspect that the connection is for promotion of his products (films). I find that among intelligent, seemingly well informed people in my home school community, there is often a total blank spot when it comes to really understanding or even recognizing the insidious nature of some of this cultish patriarchy stuff.

    It doesn’t seem like a Hollywood couple, Christian or otherwise, would really buy into this. Maybe I am mistaken, but I know a lot of people who just want to think all Christians are on the same page.

  5. Anthea says

    Hello Karen

    Your website isn’t crashing my netbook any more. It’s good to be back.

    All this patriarchal stuff is fascinating, esp as I am in an Assemblies of God church. We have women doing everything — cos the Holy Spirit gets to decide, not a committee. This is at the same time as having traditional marriage guidelines within the home.

    This is just weird for me, but fascinating, as I said.

    A big thank you for the Artisan Bread in 5 Mins a Day hints. We were given a bigger fridge, so I am now unstoppable.

  6. Anthea says

    You probably don’t recall, but I live in the UK, the Land of Tiny Fridges. Hence why I had to wait until we got a new-style one, which imitates the glorious US fridges. I love your whitegoods!

    I also live in the land of real princesses. I was not impressed with the article on “Why Princess Parties are a tool of the patriarchal devil”. It was eloquently-written, but no way reflects our experience of, say Princess Anne. Look her up on Wikipedia. Princesses win Olympic medals.(Anne and her daughter Zara) Princesses fight to outlaw landmines (The mighty Diana). Princesses tell a would-be kidnapper “Not bloody likely,” and outfox him. (Anne — this is typical of her. She takes after her father. )Princesses are homes educated (A whole bunch of them.)

    Anybody who thinks princesses are weak, pretty and passive needs to get acquainted with the Saxe-Coburg Gothas – I mean, Windsors. They are a pretty tough bunch, and not all of them china-doll pretty, either.

  7. says

    The Phillips/Cameron connection isn’t as alarming as the amazing amount of Christian revisionist history in just the trailer of that movie. David Barton is is the movie as an “expert”? Come on. I know more real history then that man does. This isn’t real history…it’s dominionist agenda.

    Here’s another link with resources that explains a lot of the issues with the fake “history” in this film: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/kirk-camerons-movie-monumental-has-chilling-agenda

  8. says

    Greetings Darcy,

    The article you linked had very little facts to back up its claims (I followed the links).

    For instance, “Another featured “expert” is Herb Titus, a law professor so extreme that TV preacher Pat Robertson had to can him as head of Regent University Law School.” The link to the book did not offer any evidence on that page (other pages were missing)about Titus being “so extreme” theologically or otherwise (the context of this opposing view article is cultural and theological). He may have been power hungry or stubborn but that is not culturally or theologically extreme. Just wrong.

    Next, he states: “Well, here’s some news, Kirk and Company, the Pilgrims and Puritans did come here seeking religious liberty…” This is disingenuous because most Christians and non-Christians have different views of religious liberty. The Pilgrims were looking for a form of religious liberty but certainly not the 21st century version. And frankly, the religious freedom the author purports to defend is not one the Founders would understand (just read the original Sabbath laws and state constitutions). And the quotes I can offer are from secular professors from Harvard and the like.

    Again, the evidence used for Cameron’s connection to “Reconstructionism” (the left-wing dirty word?) is his hobnobbing with Phillips on one occasion. It did not offer answers to any questions I asked previously above.

    No, I am not defending Phillips, poor history (read my review), or Cameron. But I am cautioning us to be careful about the facts and the articles we reference (the author clearly wrote with a snobbish and dismissive attitude). The simplest reason for their connection is mutual benefit. Unless there is better evidence out there I will assume this more charitable interpretation.

    in Christ,

  9. another Laura says

    I’m the mother of a 25-yr-old daughter. My thoughts on the article about holding babies: I am all about cuddling kids who want to be cuddled without regard to spoiling them. However. I have known about my daughter, since she was a toddler, that she is an introvert. She has very dear friends and they do fun stuff together, but she has GOT to have her space. And she’s always been that way. When she was a baby she cried until I thought I would lose my mind. I tried everything I could think of to comfort her but the only thing that worked, usually, was to take her outside and hold her so that she could not see me, and walk with her. (She hated the stroller and the carseat too, and I now know that she gets terribly carsick.) If I could go back and redo her infancy, I’d give her a lot more alone time in her crib because I think that’s what she really wanted.

    It’s the one thing that bothers me about attachment parenting. I don’t believe in the blank slate, not at all. I think people are who they are from birth, if not before. Attachment parents are making the decision for their baby that that is what they are going to do, without regard for whether it might actually not be what the baby wants or needs. I think you have to let your child, even your infant, reveal herself to you, and be ready to accept her however she is, even if you want to attach and she doesn’t.

    Anyway, we all survived it. My daughter is a happy young woman who lives alone with her two cats, about an hour’s drive away from us, which is probably about right. We are very close and see each other often, but not so often as to get on her nerves.

  10. Laura says

    Well, I guess this could be called “from one Laura to another?…” :)

    Couldn’t agree more. We did our own version of “attachment parenting”, and ended up with a big family of VERY different personalities, more introverts than extroverts. I guess we tried to give them the cuddling they needed. I don’t believe in blank slates AT ALL- if you met our crew, you wouldn’t either!

    But, I do think responding to an infants need for love and security will help them to be loving people, no matter what the personality.

    My big thing is not to raise kids by a theory or a book.We have to treat them as individuals. Some kids just don’t need as much holding, rocking, etc. as others. One of our kids loved being put in her crib to nap and never seemed to need as much “attachment”. She is a very loving and affectionate mother to her own daughter, though, who was wired completely differently as a baby!

    By the way, speaking of “introverts”, there is a book out that I highly recommend called “Introverts in the Church”. Very good and very thought provoking. Seems to me churches today are really set up to promote the idea that all “spiritually healthy” Christian people will be extroverts, and I think this idea has disenfranchised many quiet and contemplative Christians along the way. If you are, or know, an introvert, this is an excellent read.

    So glad God made us all different, even though we try to “improve” on His design!

  11. says

    Other Laura, ;)

    Sounds like a good book title. Adding to the list. My thoughts are that there isn’t truly a desire to see people grown as believers in many churches today. After all, if you become mature in your faith, you might actually not need all the programs and counseling etc. that the “professionals” have to offer. You might actually be growing in grace and studying and learning yourself and taking responsibilities in your own life and obeying Scripture by putting on good behaviors and putting off old ones. If everyone did that, after all, who would need staff?

  12. says

    Well, we can call me this, which incorporates the name of my sadly neglected blog. I’ve used it elsewhere.

    I’m remembering half a century ago, when my little baby loved, LOVED to have her daddy take his shirt off and hold her on his chest, her only in a diaper. She loved that skin-to-skin contact. She just didn’t want to see anybody’s face, or hear their voice or anything. He would get up with her in the night and hold her like that, and watch country music videos with the sound off, so I could rest. I’m glad the internet wasn’t around then, or I’d have probably been convinced she had autism or something.

    Going through a season now of not going to church. We went every Sunday for years back in Memphis – I was even a deacon. And we went for a while after we moved to Florida but somehow it’s not doing it for me anymore. Some Jehovah’s Witnesses came by the house recently and asked me if I was churched. I surprised myself by saying, “You know, I’ve heard it all. I’ve heard all there is.” They were kind of taken aback but I feel like it’s the truth.

    I know there’s more to church than the sermons, but it’s just so hard to sit through them anymore. Trying to get my butt in gear to find one I can stand. It is important, I know it is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>