Appreciating the First Lady (4)

Two are better than one because they have a good return for their labor. For if either one of them falls, one will lift up his companion. But woe to the one who falls when there is not another to lift him up. Furthermore, if two lie down together they can keep warm, but how can one be warm alone? And if one can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him (Ecc.4:9-12).

Individual responsibility is a godly thing, and it has to mesh or coordinate with our obligation to work with others. This needs to take place everywhere in the church, the community, at work and it has to begin in marriage.

Within marriage, everyone has to learn to work with their spouse, and there are often challenges with this. Working with your spouse can actually take a long time to work out, which can seem to be depressing. “Why all these problems?”

Well, there are lots of mistakes because some of us are slow to learn, slow to give up old habits of individualism that don’t help.

Eve was his “helpmeet,” to use a common term (Genesis 2:20). Actually, the King James Version never uses “helpmeet.” That is a word which developed from the King James phrase, “an help meet for him.” What the phrase really meant was “a helper fit for him,” or better yet, “designed for him.” Eve was designed to complement Adam and make his work more efficient. Adam was limited from the start, an incomplete creation, just as the earth was an incomplete creation. Adam needed Eve. He needed her to work better, enjoy life better, procreate children, and most important of all, better reflect God’s image.[1]

Men ought to always appreciate their wife. Of course she isn’t perfect. Are you? It’s a foolish thing to take her for granted. Firstly, she’ll notice it, and won’t appreciate it. Secondly, if you had to do without her for a month, how would you go?

In September 2007, Dr Thomas Kossman, a German trauma surgeon working at the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, Australia since 2001, was told by the hospital’s CEO, that he was under investigation for shoddy surgery, and for rorting the public purse. The allegations nearly destroyed him, and his career. He said,

I was on my knees. I broke down twice, which is something I don’t do. I had depression, sleeping pills, weight loss-you name it, I had it. The stress was so great my wife thought I wouldn’t make it.

Thomas had one great person on his side-his wife, Cristina. He said of her,

I was struggling; my wife kept me alive. She fed me, she loved me, she invited me to lunch with her…and every day she has continued to walk into that place with her head held high.

Cristina said at the time, “I am sure the sun will shine again on our family.”[2]

Not every husband is accused or faces public ignominy like Thomas Kossman. But over the life of a marriage there are generally enough challenges, for a prudent man to realise just how much his wife can be a help to him.

Do you?

 

 

[1] Gary North, “Unconditional Surrender,” 2010, p.29-30.

[2] “The Weekend Australian Magazine,” August 16-17, 2008, p.18. Kossman was later exonerated.

Appreciating the First Lady (3)

You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honour as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered (I Pet.3:7).

This passage is clear: when husbands show their wife honour as a “fellow heir,” it leads to improvement in their relationship, and blessing in the home.

What is it that stops husbands honouring their wife? When they neglect to love her, and focus on their own status and power, rather than integrity, responsibility, faithfulness and being a team player. Status and power are not wrong in themselves, but the single-minded pursuit of them always leads to distortions in people’s behaviour: sin.

 Fallen man’s exercise of power is demonic (Rushdoony).

The Bible gives us a different approach.

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus… (Phil.2:3-5).

Jesus described Israel in the 1st century as an “evil and adulterous generation…” (Mat.16:4). Consider the occasions in the Gospels when Jesus, in this unbiblical, misogynist culture, spoke (directly or indirectly) to women. His mother Mary at the wedding in Cana (Jn.2:1-5), when she comes to visit Him (Mk.3:31-35), from the cross (Jn.19:25-27), the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn.4:7-42),  the woman caught in adultery (Jn.8:1-11), Mary and Martha, when Martha was frustrated with Mary (Luke 10:38-42), when Lazarus died (Jn.11:1-46), and at Jesus’ tomb (Jn.20:9-18), the woman with a haemorrhage (Mat.9:20-22); the Syrophoenician woman (Matt.15:21-28); and the daughters of Jerusalem (Luke 23:26-31).

Jesus endorsed their faith in God. On one occasion when a dead man was resurrected, he was the only son of a widow (Luke 7:11-17). He invariably looked after the best interests of these women. The man’s resurrection had huge economic implications for his mother.

Status and power seemed immaterial to Jesus. As the Son of God they were His, and He would receive much more at His enthronement. But He made it clear:

…The one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves (Luke 22:26-27).

What should always govern husband and wife relationships, is the motivation of godly service. The idea that this relationship should ever degenerate into some kind of power struggle, has no place in scripture. People locked into a power struggle will never serve one another.

How should we view the scriptural role of women, especially when we consider the popular notions of equality? Firstly, neither males or females are superior to one another. As the Bible says,

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave or free man, there is neither male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal.3:28).

Equality of worth is not the same as equality of role, or function. Just as the Son is subject to the Father, and the Father sent the Son, the husband is responsible as the head of the family. Paul explained that “…Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ” (I Cor.11:3).

Paul, in alluding to the relationship within the Trinity, uses that relationship to explain how a husband and wife should operate. Just as there is equality of worth within the Trinity, there is equality of worth or dignity, between the husband and wife. Men are not superior to women, but in God’s chain of command, He has placed husbands in authority over their wives.

As one helpful minister said:

Women are redemptively equal, functionally different.

You don’t need a degree in biology to know that a man cannot fulfil a woman’s role in reproduction, and neither can a woman fulfil a man’s. But our differences go much deeper than that.

These differences can be frustrating to us. But what was it like for Adam and Eve in the Garden? Seeing the differences from God’s perspective should lead us to understand that different does not mean wrong. On the contrary, differences challenge us to harmonise.

If the members of the orchestra cannot accept that they all have a different but valuable contribution in the performance, how will they ever produce a harmonious sound? We must learn to respect and appreciate gender differences as God designed, and not war against them as though they are some kind of evil conspiracy against our sex.

The recognition that our God-given makeups are entirely different should lead to greater understanding and appreciation for our spouse, and to this conclusion: consultation and harmony between husband and wife is the name of the game. And the Bible speaks of this:

Prepare plans by consultation, and make war by wise guidance (Prov.20:18).

Consultation requires a number of things, beginning with setting aside our pride and individualism. And there are other things required like time, patience and understanding of one another. But it pays off. When a couple are unified and of one mind, it elevates the role of both husband and wife, so that

The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain. She does him good and not evil all the days of her life (Prov.31:11-12).

And there’s more:

House and wealth are an inheritance from fathers, but a prudent wife is from the Lord (Prov.19:14).

       He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favour from the Lord (Prov.18:22).

Conclusion:

So, you really want to make headway with your wife?

Do what the Bible says, and live with her “…in an understanding way.” Then you’ll really be able to make some good music!

The Greatest Rollback of Statism in American History Has Just Occurred.

Gary North – May 14, 2020

I am here to remind you about what should be obvious to every conservative and every libertarian in the United States.

The greatest enemy of freedom in American history has been the public school system. From the middle of the 19th century, beginning in Massachusetts, the public schools have been used to remove the authority of education from parents. This project was begun at taxpayer’s expense. By the end of the 19th century, it was beginning to be made compulsory across America. This was social control on a level never seen before in America. The model was Prussian education, which was statist to the core.

The philosophy of the statists who designed America’s public schools was messianic. R. J. Rushdoony’s 1963 book, The Messianic Character of American Education, goes through the primary sources of three dozen of these social experimenters. The footnotes are detailed. These men were open about what they were attempting to do: reform the American people and American society through tax-funded education. They disagreed with each other on the proper pedagogical methods, but they were unified in their agreement that the state, not parents, should be in charge of the education of all children. The state would then become the redeeming agent of society. It would replace churches and families as agents of redemption.

THE GREAT REVERSAL

We have seen a shutdown of the public schools since mid-March. Nothing in American history can compare with this as a direct assault on the messianic statism of American humanism. The parents have accepted it. The teachers have moved to online education. There has been no protest.

What hard-core libertarians and hard-core conservatives and hard-core Christian parents have been calling for ever since the early 1960’s has been achieved by fiat executive orders by governors. They did it. We didn’t do it. They have received voter support for this. We were laughed at.

The teachers still control the content and pedagogy of education. What they have lost is social control. But the heart of the public schools has always been social control.

The yellow school buses no longer cruise in the mornings and afternoons through American towns and cities. Back in 2004, I wrote about the yellow school bus as a symbol of social control. You can read my article here.

The school bells no longer ring. Students are not forced to go from class to class in high schools.

The teachers are no longer disciplinarians. Students are not forced to line up in an orderly fashion. The students are not forced to play together outside.

For the first time, parents can see exactly what is being taught to their children. They can see the quality of the teachers. They can learn about the content of the educational materials. This has never happened before.

They have another option. They can substitute homeschooling. This can be online homeschooling free of charge. They can switch to the Khan Academy. Overnight, the quality of the educational program will rise. At that point, they don’t need the teachers anymore. Khan’s program rests on structured testing. Students can be taught all year round, so they can graduate at age 16 or 17 if they start young enough in the program.

Parents could switch to the Ron Paul Curriculum, but not many parents are aware of this. Also, the parents would have to pay. That eliminates most of them.

It doesn’t matter. The parents are now in full control. The schools cannot send out truant officers, if truant officers even exist anymore. There are no means of judicial control over what parents allow to be taught in their own homes.

This has transferred more power to the people than any single event in American history.

This is historically unprecedented. It could not have been foreseen on February 29. Yet here it is.

I don’t think that the educators recognize what is taking place. They don’t recognize the degree of authority over education that they have lost in the last eight weeks.

What amazes me is that libertarians, conservatives, and Christians also do not perceive the extent of the setback that has been suffered by the entire public school system, including its underlying ideology. Social control over education has now shifted from the state to parents. Some of these parents are never going to surrender it back to the state.

Nobody is talking about this in the mainstream media. Everybody thinks it’s temporary. But, for millions of students, it is not going to be temporary. The parents are going to switch. There are about 55 million students enrolled in K-12 schools in America, and only about 2 million of them are homeschooled. That figure is going to go up faster in the next 12 months than it has ever gone up before.

Classroom-based education is based on state-regulated social controls, but online education isn’t.

ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMESCHOOLING

The public’s attitude towards homeschooling has switched dramatically. A recent poll indicates that over half of Americans are now favorable towards homeschooling.

Parents who had never considered the possibility of homeschooling have been forced to adopt it. Parents who thought it was radical or inefficient have been forced to adopt it. The teachers are now proving in full public view that online education is as good as classroom-based education.

From this point on, the educrats will not seriously be able to argue that online education is inferior to classroom-based education. Parents will know better.

The governors did it. That is the magnificent fact. They closed the most important institutional system of long-term social control in America. They didn’t ask permission of the legislatures. They just did it.

If things go really well, the governors will not reopen the public schools in fall. They will reopen everything else, but not the public schools.

I can dream, can’t I?

But even if they do reopen the schools, the schools will never be the same. The governors will not reopen the schools in such a way that they will ever get back to what they were in February. Post-February 2020 will go down in American history as the era in which the public schools were finally reformed. If the projected reforms are carried out, we will see either the bankrupting of school districts across America or the defeat of the teachers’ union.

I can dream, can’t I?

Appreciating the First Lady (1)

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him” (Gen.2:18).

The most important relationship married men have, is with their wife. Wives are like their husbands; they are not perfect. But they’ve had a calling from God since Genesis, to help their husbands. Christian husbands generally believe this. But, how do we define “helper?”

This is where life can get interesting. The point is, it is God who defines the nature and extent of what a wife’s help should be, not the husband. But that doesn’t stop some husbands from trying!

Every husband has to determine what sort of husband he will be, and how he will discharge his God-given authority. Husbands have to make this decision: will my leadership of the home and family be authoritative, or authoritarian? The difference is of vital importance. It can make or destroy a marriage. Google tells us that

An authoritarian leadership style is being used when a leader dictates policies and procedures, decides what goals are to be achieved, and directs and controls all activities without any meaningful participation by the subordinates.

If God wanted husbands to be authoritarian, we’d see it in how God deals with people. But we don’t. In fact, we see just the opposite, in so many examples.

Numbers 11 tells us of one of the tougher times Moses was having leading the children of Israel. Moses wasn’t happy, and he complained to the Lord,

Why have You been so hard on Your servant? And why have I not found favour in your sight, that You have laid the burden of all this people on me? Was it I who conceived all this people? Was it I who brought them forth, that You should say to me, ‘Carry them in your bosom as a nurse carries a nursing infant, to the land which you swore to their fathers’? Where am I to get meat to give to all this people? For they weep before me, saying, ‘Give us meat that we may eat!’ I alone am not able to carry all this people, because it is too burdensome for me. So if You are going to deal thus with me, please kill me at once, if I have found favour in Your sight, and do not let me see my wretchedness (Nu.11:11-15).

What is God’s response? God doesn’t rebuke Moses for his complaint. God understands Moses’ situation perfectly. He cares for Moses, and His people.

Firstly, He commands Moses to gather seventy men from the elders of Israel, and promises to come down and take of the Spirit that is upon Moses, and put it on these men, so Moses will not have to bear the burden of two to three million people alone. Then, He tells Moses that He will come tomorrow, and send a meat supply that will be more than enough for the people.

Is this a mean authoritarian figure in heaven, angry with a struggling delegate? Hardly.

Secondly, we read in Numbers 27 that the five daughters of Zelophehad came to Moses with a complaint, relating to the law God had given concerning the distribution of inheritances. Their father had died and they had no brothers, and it was sons who normally received the inheritance. So they complained to Moses, “Why should the name of our father be withdrawn because he had no son? Give us a possession among our father’s brothers” (Nu.27:4).

Now it could be argued that these women were finding fault with God’s law. They were certainly drawing attention to an injustice that they would suffer, if the Mosaic law as it stood was followed inflexibly.

But observe God’s response to Moses’ query. God did not say,

Well, that’s the way it is girls. The law’s been decided now, don’t you know? Get with the plan. Life can be tough, and you’ll have to live with this. Don’t bring your legal anomaly problems to me, because I can’t be bothered.

No. He said to Moses,

The daughters of Zelophehad are right in their statements. You shall surely give them a hereditary possession among their father’s brothers, and you shall transfer the inheritance of their father to them (v.7).

God dealt with these women with perfect understanding of their situation, and perfect justice. Their legitimate complaint led to God instructing Moses to change His law (v.8-11).

Conclusion:

The Bible says,

Great are the works of the Lord; they are studied by all who delight in them (Ps.111:2).

The notion of authoritarian leadership is alien to God. It should be to all husbands and fathers. Is it alien to you?

Oh, the Games Parents Play

By Cyndy Shoemaker

Oh, the games people play now. Every night and every day now. Never meaning what they say now. Never saying what they mean.

1968 is probably ancient history to most of you, but I was nine when Joe South wrote this song about adult relationships, but this section of the lyrics holds true in the parent-child relationship, as well. Do we as parents really say what we mean and mean what we say when we engage in conversation with our children? What games are we playing to get our wishes met in parenting?

We all wish our children would obey like in the old days when they would say “yes, ma’am” and “yes, sir,” and then actually (most of the time) obey. When told by their parents to do something today, the typical American child does not display a willing, cooperative attitude. Instead, he ignores, whines argues, gets mad, or talks back. How did we get into this sorry state of affairs? Is it the child’s fault? No, it’s ours. We play the game of “here we go round the mulberry bush” by playing “beat around the obedience bush.” In this rendition of the game, we parents are afraid to disturb any of its supposedly delicate leaves lest we damage (according to psychology) the child’s supposedly delicate psyche. We truly don’t expect our children to obey, we just wish they would, so we bribe, bargain, threaten, give second chances, and try to reason with them. There are more physically active signs in this game, such as when we get red in the face, pound the table, and threaten a spanking. Ultimately, there are no winners in this game. The child has a momentary victory which leads to winning major battles that lead to a narcissistic child and a neurotic guilt-ridden parent. Let’s not play “beat around the obedience bush.”
Another game we play with our children is “Battleship.” What? I used to love that game. This Battleship game is played when we argue with our children. Here are the rules: We make a decision (player one). Player two, the child, hates that decision and verbally vomits. We pick up the verbal vomit, thinking we can clean it up with reasoning, and the battle begins. The usual outcome in this game is that everyone’s verbal battleship is sunk. There are no real winners. The best way to play this game is not to open the box. We only have arguments when we open the box by giving a reason for our decision, which by the way doesn’t comfort player two because he wants to change our mind not to hear our reasons. If we choose to open the box, our only safe move is to say, “Because I said so” or it will be a long-drawn-out Battleship game. Warning: Don’t open the box.

Let’s now play “Please?” or “Okay?”. This game is an epidemic today in parenting lingo. It involves the parent asking a child to do something not realizing by saying “Please?” and “Okay?” we have opened the door for the child to say “no.” Parents are hoping to avoid conflict when in fact this game swings the door wide open. Don’t ask your child to do something you expect them to do, tell them. Children need to be told what to do by parents who aren’t afraid or embarrassed by an occasional showdown, even in public. Children feel more secure and comfortable with parents who know where they stand.

The aforementioned games need to be avoided at all costs. The happiest children are those who have parents that don’t play these games. Why, because that type of disciplinary style (game playing) creates and perpetuates an atmosphere of uncertainty and tension in the parent-child relationship. Instead, mean what you say and say what you mean by being commanding, concise, and concrete.

Cyndy Shoemaker, Certified Leadership Parenting Coach

Married for forty years with three home-educated grown sons and eight grandchildren, Cyndy has had the privilege of ministering to families across the US and in a variety of venues for most of those forty years as a classical and Christian private school educator and marriage and family counselor. Adding John’s methods and philosophy has enhanced her capabilities with his practical no-nonsense approach to helping today’s families find parenting a joyful, though difficult at times, journey. The truths that she has had the privilege to share with others has truly transformed many families and helped them experience “joy in the journey.” She looks forward to ministering to your family and families in your community.

Whoever Defines the Family Controls It

email sharing button
print sharing button

Two articles appeared some time ago about monkeys and their supposed similarity to humans. In the first article, we learned that when monkeys were given keyboards and computers, they made a mess. Based on testing the Infinite Monkey Theorem, researchers at Plymouth University in England reported that monkeys left alone with a computer attacked it and failed to produce a single word. They seemed to like or dislike the letter “s.” [1]

Maybe it looked like a snake, which might explain the actions of the lead male. He showed quite a bit of tool-making ingenuity by using a rock for a hammer, possibly to pound the snake to death.

Eventually the six monkeys—named Elmo, Gum, Heather, Holly, Mistletoe, and Rowan—did produce five pages of “text.” However, that “text” was composed primarily of the letter S, with the letters A, J, L, and M added on rare occasions. Mike Phillips noted, “They pressed a lot of S’s.” He went on to state, “obviously, English isn’t their first language.” [2]

Monkeys and Typewriters | Sophismata
The Infinite Monkey Theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. 

Or maybe it was a display of humanness. How many of us have wanted to pound our computer with a rock after we got the “blue screen of death” or a message that told us we had just performed an “illegal operation”? A very human trait indeed.

It was the evolutionist Thomas Huxley is said to have believed, given enough time, monkeys would produce literature. But alas, the computer monkeys were just being monkeys. The scientists were most disappointed when our simian “relatives” viewed the computers as indoor toilets. It seems that they spent most of their time defecating and urinating all over the keyboards.

The scientists have not given up on the monkeys. One of the observing scientists said that the experiment showed that monkeys “are not random generators; they’re more complex than that. They were quite interested in the screen, and they saw that when they typed a letter, something happened. There was a level of intention there.” A scientific observation meant to imply that research dollars will continue to flow.

In the second article, we were told that “chimpanzees are closer to humans than gorillas and other apes—so close that scientists say they should be sharing space on the same branch of the family tree.” [3] The genetic similarities are said to be around 97 percent. Apparently, the scientists who came to this conclusion had not read about the defecating and urinating computer monkeys.

If Evolution is Right, Can Anything be Wrong?

Atheistic evolutionists express moral outrage against murder and rape, but if evolution is true, how can there be moral outrage since it was killing and rape that got us where we are today as a species?

 

No doubt there is some correspondence. But it is the three percent difference that makes all the difference. We should expect to find similarities among living things since they were designed by the same Designer.

But do chimpanzees act 97 percent like humans? Where are their houses, libraries, hospitals, charitable organizations, roads, various forms of locomotion, grocery stores, or Kwik-E-Marts? Where is chimpanzee art and music? The 97-percent homo sapiens have not even figured out indoor plumbing or the concept of an outhouse. For them, the world is their toilet.

It is not that chimpanzees have created some of what humans have created; they haven’t created anything that resembles civilization.

There are only two operating starting points on the origin and definition of what constitutes a family. Either the family is a God-ordained covenant between a man and woman and their children or it’s an ever-evolving social contract.

In terms of modern-day evolutionary science that predominates in our nation’s universities, the family is not a God-ordained covenant structure:

Early scholars of family history applied Darwin’s biological theory of evolution in their theory of the evolution of family systems. American anthropologist, Lewis H. Morgan, published Ancient Society in 1877, based on his theory of the three stages of human progress, from savagery through barbarism to civilization.

Given the operating assumptions of evolutionary theory, the family, like evolution in general, came into being via savage struggle: “when the young male grows up, a contest takes place for mastery, and the strongest, by killing and driving out the others, establishes himself as the head of the community.”

Of course, this is not the origin of the family. “In classic Christian social thought,” Nancy Pearcey writes, “it was God who established marriage, family, church, and state, and who defined their essential nature—their tasks, responsibilities, and moral norms.” [4]

With Darwinism, the classic biblical definition of the family has been discarded for a more “scientific” definition that is pure materialism. According to science, following Newtonian physics, “[c]ivil society was pictured as so many human ‘atoms’ who came together and ‘bond’ in various social relationships.” [5] There is no purposeful design in something from nothing evolutionary theory.

Atoms don’t care about such things. They just are. Plow deep in an atom’s structure and you will not find a moral code, love, compassion, hope, or any of the qualities that are attributed to human beings. German paleontologist Günter Bechly, former curator of the Stuttgart State Museum of Natural History, commented, “If humans originated from the animal realm by a purely unguided process, there is no real reason in nature to treat humans differently from stones. It’s just a different aggregate of atoms.” [6]

As a result, like matter, the family can be shaped into any form by those doing the manipulating. Because there is no fixed definition of something we call “family,” we are seeing its near-complete disintegration through redefinition. Traditional sexual roles based on creation norms no longer exist. Men are marrying men and women marrying women. Sex roles have become fluid. There are now more than 60 manufactured genders. We are seeing everything redefined and protected by the State to force compliance to every redefinition.

This is not a new development. There are, what Alvin Toffler in 1980 called, “a bewildering array of family forms: homosexual marriages, communes, groups of elderly people banding together to share expenses (and sometimes sex), tribal grouping among certain ethnic minorities, and many other forms coexist as never before.” [7]

These counterfeit families attempt to restructure the creational family around an evolving order rather than a biblical model. Whoever defines the family controls it. The State is in the definition business.

Transgenderism is growing. Parents are raising their children as “gender neutral theybies.” For example, Charlie Arrowood does not identify as male or female…. When a New York City law took effect in January of 2019, they plan to modify the sex recorded on their birth certificate to one that fits: “X,” a gender-neutral option.

You might be confused about the use of the pronouns “they” and “their.” You see, Charlie Arrowood, who is transgender, “uses the pronoun ‘they’ and the courtesy title ‘Mx.,’ a gender-neutral alternative to Ms. and Mr.” [8] This is all logical considering an atomistic understanding of reality. The conglomeration of atoms (an evolved human being) determine their own identity.

Instead of being in covenant with God, conglomerations of atoms randomly joined together in any way they please because that is their materialistic origin. “In the beginning was the atomistic individual. [Thomas] Hobbes even asks us to ‘look at men as if they had just emerged from the earth like mushrooms and grown up without any obligation to each other.’ Like Newton’s atoms, individuals come together and bond in various arrangements when they find that doing so advances their interest.” [9]

This is nihilism, as depicted in the second installment of Love, Death, and Robots, titled “Three Robots.” Three robots traverse a post-apocalyptic world trying to determine how humans ended it all. The first robot, an Xbot 4000 asks: “Who even designed them?”

Robot number two, “Little Bot,” responds, “It’s unclear. We checked their code … no creator serial number.”

The third bot offers an explanation that’s typical of where we are academically and philosophically:

That’s because they were made by an “unfathomable” deity that created them for no apparent reason out of dust. Just kidding. They came from a very warm soup.

By “warm soup,” it means the impossibility of unguided chemical evolution. This is not science; it’s science wishful-thinking fiction.

The late R.C. Sproul (1939–2017) wrote, “God’s existence is the chief element in constructing any worldview. To deny this chief premise is to set one’s sails for the island of nihilism. This is the darkest continent of the darkened mind — the ultimate paradise of the fool.” [10]

The determiner of new family relationships is civil government (the State), that is becoming less civil as it attacks the biblical family. Richard Page, formerly a magistrate in the United Kingdom, was blocked from returning to a non-executive director role at a National Health Service because he “expressed his view that, wherever possible, children do best with a mother and a father.”

Despite having served as a magistrate in Kent for 15 years with an exemplary record, Richard was reported for his comments, and, following an investigation, was disciplined by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice. He was told that his views about family life were “discriminatory against same-sex couples” and was barred from sitting as a magistrate until he had received “equality training.” [11]

David Brooks,  a New York Times Op-Ed columnist who writes about politics, culture and the social sciences, declared in The Atlantic that the “nuclear family was a mistake.” [12] Not to be outdone, there’s Sophie Lewis’ book Full Surrogacy Now: Feminist Against Family, “a polemic that calls for abolishing the family” [13] and “open-sourced, fully collaborative gestation.” How would this be accomplished? Reproduction would be controlled by the State.

  1. “Monkeys Don’t Write Shakespeare,” Associated Press at WIRED (May 9, 2003).[]
  2. Brad Harrub, “Monkeys, Typewriters, and Shakespeare,” Apologetics Press (2003): https://bit.ly/2Tc1HNl[]
  3. Mike Toner, “Welcome Chimps into the Family of Man,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (May 2003).[]
  4. Nancy R. Pearcey, Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions About Life and Sexuality (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2018), 233.[]
  5. Pearcey, Love Thy Body, 233.[]
  6. Quoted in Jenny Lind Schmitt, “If Rocks Could Talk,” World Magazine (March 2, 2019), 29.[]
  7. Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave (New York: William Morrow, 1980), 212.[]
  8. Andy Newman, “Male, Female or ‘X’: The Push for a Third Choice on Official Forms,’ The New York Times (September 27, 2018): https://nyti.ms/2CdMKSx[]
  9. Pearcey, Love Thy Body, 234.[]
  10. R. C. Sproul, The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts That Shaped Our World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), 171.[]
  11. “Judge appeals punishment for saying children do best with mom and dad,” WND (March 10, 2019): http://bit.ly/2TteJIw[]
  12. David, Brooks “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake,” The Atlantic (March 2020): https://bit.ly/3cICHVx []
  13. Marie Solis, “We Can’t Have a Feminist Future Without Abolishing the Family,” Vice.com (February 21, 2020): https://bit.ly/2yZF0VT[]

Come Out of Her, My People (Part 3)

The intensely powerful religious force of humanism, with all its hatred of God and God’s world of law and order, can never be defeated by people whose ground of operation is vaguely Christian and largely humanistic… Christians are too often trying to defend their realm on humanistic grounds, with Saul’s armour, and as a result, they are steadily in retreat. Often, they are actually fighting for the enemy without knowing it.[1]

By 1880, Archbishop Vaughn saw exactly what was happening in Australia. He predicted  that government education would be

lawless education” and “plots of immorality, infidelity and lawlessness, being calculated to debase the standard of human excellence, and to corrupt the political, social and individual life of future citizens.[2]

He was right. Parental wishes and standards today are more or less pushed aside, and the State-employed teacher becomes the paramount authority in the life of the child. That means that Darwinistic evolution is taught as fact (“forget that stupid creation fairy-story,”) there is to be no discrimination in “sexual preferences,” and there is drug abuse, bullying and a thousand other perversions, in the name of “a good education.”

And then a well-meaning chaplain is supposed to come along at taxpayer’s expense to that State school to try and help. Where does he start, and what does he do? He tries to put lip-stick on a grubby, muddy pig.

This is why the Bible commands us to “not be bound together with unbelievers” (II Cor.6:14). Whenever we believers try to work alongside unbelievers, they quickly recognise our religious differences, and they want to call the shots. That was what Lot found in Sodom. The Sodomites said of him, “this one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge…” (Gen.19:9). The sooner he departed, the better.

It’s one thing to befriend an individual. It’s another to be implicitly committed to a demonically empowered, pagan institution that is committed to eradicating the knowledge of God. The Bible says,

You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself to be an enemy of God (James 4:4).

Public education is itself an implicit violation of at least the first four commandments. Why? Because it implicitly and practically eliminates God from the child’s curriculum, substituting something else.

Isn’t that a recipe for idolatry for that child? Nature abhors a vacuum.

Why would Christian parents put their children in a State school? Because they are ignorant, blind or misguided. Or worse: they don’t really care about their children’s education, and like drowning people, they grasp at public education because it’s “free.”

But the Bible tells us that “children are a gift of the Lord…” (Ps.127:3a). God will require accountability for those He has given to us. Can we afford to give them anything but our best?

The Bible says,

How long, O naive ones, will you love being simple-minded? And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing and fools hate knowledge? Turn to my reproof, behold, I will pour out my spirit on you, I will make my words known to you (Prov.1:22-23).

I suppose all of these dear people pressing for a continuation of Commonwealth funding for chaplains would want to disown me, and call me extreme; a radical, with views “not in the main stream.” Well, they are right. I’m certainly not in the main stream. But then, Jesus did say,

enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it (Mat.7:13).

We Christians have been the original dumb bunnies. We haven’t really thought through the decisions we were making when we sent our children to a State school: the school of the Canaanites. We haven’t submitted those decisions to the Word of God.

U.S. statistics indicate that over 80% of Christian children that attend a public school will have denied the faith by age twenty five. Has the institution they have attended, where they’ve had a complete indoctrination in humanism for twelve years, contributed to their denial of the faith?

Now someone will point out: “Andrew, correlation is not causation.” That’s true. But do  parents really have the right to play a perverse form of Russian roulette with their children’s lives?

The people spending a lot of money fighting to ensure their chaplains can continue to be employed at taxpayers’ expense, have been poorly taught in church for over one hundred years since the Church progressively gave in, rolled over and accepted State control of education in Australia around 1870. To some degree, you can’t blame them.

But all they are doing is perpetuating the same old evil system, throwing a thimble-full of Christianity into the back of the humanist’s semi-trailer. That semi-trailer just goes on its evil, destructive destination, regardless of them. They would do well to listen to another radical, John the Baptist, who said

the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear fruit is cut down and throne into the fire (Mat.3:10).

Now the parents who desperately want the chaplains to be able to continue may be saying in protest, “but Andrew, we can’t take our kids out of the system, because it needs them there to evangelise. It would collapse without them.”

They should bear in mind this fact:

It is of critical importance that we equip our children to be Christian before we demand of them that they change the world. It is a violation of both Deuteronomy 6:1-6 and Ephesians 6:4 to commit children to an ungodly structure.[3]

Getting the children out would be the best thing. Like Lot getting out of Sodom with his family, Christians would be finally waking up to themselves and ending their evil compromise with public schooling, those synagogues of Satan which Christians in their ignorance and naivete have foolishly supported in this country for six generations. It’s time to stop.

Mark Twain was correct when he said, “don’t let schooling get in the way of a good education.”

Conclusion:                                                                                                                                         Any Christian parent serious about obeying God’s commandments, and seeing that their child receives a godly education should consider the State school in this light:

will twelve years of humanistic indoctrination in this deliberately godless institution which denies the commands of God and the knowledge of Jesus Christ, in the company of an evil peer-group that is hostile to God, really prepare my child for a life of godly service and dominion in the Name of Jesus Christ?

You don’t need a university degree to know the answer to that.

 

 

[1] Rousas Rushdoony, “Roots of Reconstruction,” 1991, p.596.

[2] Quoted in Alan Roberts, “Australia’s First Hundred Years: the Era of Christian Schools,” 1984, p.16.

[3] L. Oswalt, in “The Theory of Resistance,” Gary North, (Ed), 1983, p.339.

The Greatest Rollback of Statism in American History Has Just Occurred.

Gary North – May 14, 2020

I am here to remind you about what should be obvious to every conservative and every libertarian in the United States.

The greatest enemy of freedom in American history has been the public school system. From the middle of the 19th century, beginning in Massachusetts, the public schools have been used to remove the authority of education from parents. This project was begun at taxpayer’s expense. By the end of the 19th century, it was beginning to be made compulsory across America. This was social control on a level never seen before in America. The model was Prussian education, which was statist to the core.

The philosophy of the statists who designed America’s public schools was messianic. R. J. Rushdoony’s 1963 book, The Messianic Character of American Education, goes through the primary sources of three dozen of these social experimenters. The footnotes are detailed. These men were open about what they were attempting to do: reform the American people and American society through tax-funded education. They disagreed with each other on the proper pedagogical methods, but they were unified in their agreement that the state, not parents, should be in charge of the education of all children. The state would then become the redeeming agent of society. It would replace churches and families as agents of redemption.

THE GREAT REVERSAL

We have seen a shutdown of the public schools since mid-March. Nothing in American history can compare with this as a direct assault on the messianic statism of American humanism. The parents have accepted it. The teachers have moved to online education. There has been no protest.

What hard-core libertarians and hard-core conservatives and hard-core Christian parents have been calling for ever since the early 1960’s has been achieved by fiat executive orders by governors. They did it. We didn’t do it. They have received voter support for this. We were laughed at.

The teachers still control the content and pedagogy of education. What they have lost is social control. But the heart of the public schools has always been social control.

The yellow school buses no longer cruise in the mornings and afternoons through American towns and cities. Back in 2004, I wrote about the yellow school bus as a symbol of social control. You can read my article here.

The school bells no longer ring. Students are not forced to go from class to class in high schools.

The teachers are no longer disciplinarians. Students are not forced to line up in an orderly fashion. The students are not forced to play together outside.

For the first time, parents can see exactly what is being taught to their children. They can see the quality of the teachers. They can learn about the content of the educational materials. This has never happened before.

They have another option. They can substitute homeschooling. This can be online homeschooling free of charge. They can switch to the Khan Academy. Overnight, the quality of the educational program will rise. At that point, they don’t need the teachers anymore. Khan’s program rests on structured testing. Students can be taught all year round, so they can graduate at age 16 or 17 if they start young enough in the program.

Parents could switch to the Ron Paul Curriculum, but not many parents are aware of this. Also, the parents would have to pay. That eliminates most of them.

It doesn’t matter. The parents are now in full control. The schools cannot send out truant officers, if truant officers even exist anymore. There are no means of judicial control over what parents allow to be taught in their own homes.

This has transferred more power to the people than any single event in American history.

This is historically unprecedented. It could not have been foreseen on February 29. Yet here it is.

I don’t think that the educators recognize what is taking place. They don’t recognize the degree of authority over education that they have lost in the last eight weeks.

What amazes me is that libertarians, conservatives, and Christians also do not perceive the extent of the setback that has been suffered by the entire public school system, including its underlying ideology. Social control over education has now shifted from the state to parents. Some of these parents are never going to surrender it back to the state.

Nobody is talking about this in the mainstream media. Everybody thinks it’s temporary. But, for millions of students, it is not going to be temporary. The parents are going to switch. There are about 55 million students enrolled in K-12 schools in America, and only about 2 million of them are homeschooled. That figure is going to go up faster in the next 12 months than it has ever gone up before.

Classroom-based education is based on state-regulated social controls, but online education isn’t.

ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMESCHOOLING

The public’s attitude towards homeschooling has switched dramatically. A recent poll indicates that over half of Americans are now favorable towards homeschooling.

Parents who had never considered the possibility of homeschooling have been forced to adopt it. Parents who thought it was radical or inefficient have been forced to adopt it. The teachers are now proving in full public view that online education is as good as classroom-based education.

From this point on, the educrats will not seriously be able to argue that online education is inferior to classroom-based education. Parents will know better.

The governors did it. That is the magnificent fact. They closed the most important institutional system of long-term social control in America. They didn’t ask permission of the legislatures. They just did it.

If things go really well, the governors will not reopen the public schools in fall. They will reopen everything else, but not the public schools.

I can dream, can’t I?

But even if they do reopen the schools, the schools will never be the same. The governors will not reopen the schools in such a way that they will ever get back to what they were in February. Post-February 2020 will go down in American history as the era in which the public schools were finally reformed. If the projected reforms are carried out, we will see either the bankrupting of school districts across America or the defeat of the teachers’ union.

I can dream, can’t I?

Come Out of Her, My People (Part 2)

…Do not learn the ways of the nations… (Jer.10:2).

A truly Christian education must include an understanding of what Jesus identified as the “great and foremost commandment:” “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Mat.22:38).

The very notion of holiness means separation. We are not only to be holy, but to be wholly separated to the Lord. Why?

Covenant always requires separation from others. With my wife, it’s me and her, not me, her and another man. The ways of the nations may be fine for the nations, but God’s people are to be set apart for Him. A bride’s white dress is not merely symbolic; it speaks of her faithfulness.

This becomes clear when we examine God’s plan for the conquest of Canaan. In relation to the inhabitants, God told His people

you shall make no covenant with them and show no favour to them. Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them… but thus you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire. For you are a holy people to the Lord your God… (Deut.7:2-3, 6).

Why would separation be important? Because without it, God’s people have always been quickly corrupted. God said that without separation to the Lord, the Canaanites would “turn your sons away from Me to serve other gods” (Deut.7:4).

This was the recurring pattern of the Book of Judges:

  1. Israel forsook the Lord and fell into idolatry.
  2. God’s anger burned against His people.
  3. He sent judgment in the form of plunderers against Israel.
  4. The people were distressed and returned to the Lord (generally under the leadership of a God-ordained judge).
  5. The judge died, they fell into idolatry again, and the cycle continued.

Speaking of the children of Israel, the Bible tells us that “these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (I Cor.10:11). My question is, what have we learned from the book of Judges?

No man wants a wife who sleeps around. Neither does God. Paul explained that “…I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin” (II Cor.11:2). Thus a truly Christian education requires the separation of God’s people unto the Lord.

God separated His people from the surrounding cultures in the Old Testament era. He separated Noah from the pre-flood world. He separated Abram from both Ur of the Chaldees and Haran. He separated Israel from Canaan during Israel’s sojourn in Egypt. He separated Israel from Egypt’s masses by putting them in Goshen. He separated Israel from Egypt completely at the time of the Exodus. But separations from do not imply retreat and impotence…To fulfil the terms of the dominion covenant, God’s redeemed people must separate themselves ethically from Satan’s unredeemed people…Covenantal separation therefore implies covenantal dominion…God’s separation[s]…all required action by His covenanted people, in time and on earth…Men’s separation from Satan and his works is to bring them dominion over Satan and his works: in politics, economics, military affairs, art, medicine, science, and every other area of human action.[1]

When the State assumes the responsibility to educate, it has to do a number of things. Because people are generally consistent, humanistic educators apply their humanistic, anti-God worldview to the process. It is what they have always done. It’s the Satanic form of holiness.

That means almost the total elimination from education of the notion of God, the Bible, Jesus Christ, and anything else that might remotely suggest that there is a higher authority beyond man.

You like me, probably received a public education. Can you remember ANYTHING concerning God or Jesus Christ in the curriculum? If the answer is “No,” it was not an accident. The ultimate point of reference for humanistic man is man himself, and the thought of an absolute God laying down things as definitive as the Ten Commandments, and sending His Son to be the Saviour of the world, is abhorrent to him. Thus humanistic man makes every possible attempt to eliminate every thought of God from a curriculum, for man in his eyes, must be “the sum of all things.”

Like all people, socialists are deeply religious people, but since Plato in Greece (around 375 B.C.), socialism has always been about the expansion of government power at the expense of the individual, the family and (since Christ) the Church. All of the totalitarian governments (think of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao) have gladly employed socialist education as a means of furthering their evil agendas; it suited them perfectly, and we know what they managed to perpetuate.

Public education is a socialist and a Marxist concept, and there is nothing remotely Biblical about socialism. The humanists love it, because it gives them the power to politically indoctrinate children. The Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, when she was the Federal Minister for Education, indicated in Parliament (25/8/2008) that “parents of school-aged children are obligated to send them to school.” She was utterly indifferent to the wishes of the parents.

(To be continued).

 

 

[1] Gary North, “Moses and Pharoah,” 1986, p.135-136.

Come out of Her, My People (Part I)

I heard another voice from heaven, saying, “Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues” (Rev.18:4).

It is always a challenge for any individual, to hold to a set of beliefs that are completely contrary to the views of the majority of the community. When over 90% of the community does not wish to identify with Jesus Christ in anything other than a sentimental way, to publicly express a bold Christian position takes a good level of confidence.

But there is something more challenging. To identify oneself as a Christian, and find that over 90% of those who do so, are indoctrinated with a washed out, anaemic, compromised and emasculated interpretation of how Christianity should impact the world. This is where we are today, and our situation won’t go away quickly.

Why has this happened?

Christians have ignored the Dominion Mandate, God’s original commands to Adam and Eve: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Gen.1:28).

A proper understanding of the Dominion Mandate is critical for Christians. It tells us what we are here for, and gives our lives meaning, purpose and definition. North has written that

Covenant theology is inescapably dominion theology. God has placed on His people the moral requirement of transforming the world through the preaching of the gospel. He has also given mankind the tools of dominion, His laws.1

We have ignored the fact that this was God’s plan for Israel, too. He said through Moses, that

“if you diligently obey the Lord your God, being careful to do all His commandments which I command you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth” (Deut.28:1).

The modern church has said, “No, that’s all Old Testament. It doesn’t apply today.” But when you ignore the first part of the instruction manual, how will you make sense of the rest of it? And so we behave as inferior underlings who ignore God’s commands concerning ruling and reigning in the Name of the One Who has “all authority.”

What’s an example of this?

Some years ago, a group of Australian Christians fought a High Court challenge to maintain the right of public school chaplains to be paid by the Commonwealth. Their attitude was,

there is a lot wrong with the public system. We want our children (when we send them to public schools) to be entitled to be able to get religious instruction or encouragement from a chaplain when they need it. After all, the chaplains are doing so much good.

Why would I be opposed to chaplains in public schools receiving tax-payers’ funding? It all comes back to applying the scriptures to government and to education.

Samuel made it clear that when governments take 10% or more in taxation, they are taking a tithe; they are making themselves out to be greater than God. God makes it clear (see I Sam.8) that when governments do this, they become an instrument of His judgment on a nation that has rejected Him. So in an era of government expansion, Christians should always be seeking reductions in the size of government.

Most movements seek to get government subsidies. The subsidies take the form of direct funding, or subsidies may come in the form of protection against new competitors. But, however subsidies come, they initially strengthen the hand of the recipients, and then weaken it. The recipients become dependent upon the subsidies, and if the subsidies end, the recipients find themselves unable to compete in a highly competitive world.2

This was the U.S. story in the nineteenth century:

Massachusetts was the last state to abandon tax support of churches. That was in 1832. Within five years, it had begun state funding of education. A new established church replaced the old one. This established church spread in popularity.3

In what way is it obedient to God, to send children to an educational institution that has a curriculum hostile to God, teachers that are indifferent or hostile to God, and a peer-group that is also indifferent or hostile to God? It is not much of an exaggeration to say that we may as well stand on the side on a highway and when a bus comes past, ask our children to jump in front of it.

In order for there to be “free public education” (which is a lie), there must be tax confiscation on a massive, unbiblical scale to feed the monstrosity. For socialists, nothing ever comes cheap. You’ve got to have property, buildings (used for about eight hours a day, and closed at night, on weekends and for ten weeks a year), teachers (absent for those ten weeks), along with an army of bureaucrats to run everything.

Inefficient? Economic madness is more appropriate. It costs around $15,000 per child annually, to educate children in Australia’s public schools. There’s nothing remotely Christian about it.

According to the Bible, education is a parental responsibility (see Deut. 6; Prov.22:6; Eph.6:4). Education is at root a religious issue, because education is fundamentally about values. The question is, “whose values-God’s or man’s?”

Parents are responsible to prepare their children for lives of service and dominion in the Name of Jesus Christ, because God’s original mandate to Adam and Eve was that they should “rule and have dominion” (Gen.1:26-28).

But State schools are not the place to educate Christian children. Why? To place children under the consistent influence of godless people is a violation of God’s commands, because “bad company corrupts good morals” (I Cor.15:33). The Bible (which we Christians believe is the Word of God) NEVER gives the State any responsibility to educate children, for where responsibility rests, authority lies.

In general terms, the State is responsible Biblically for the maintenance of law and order. Everything else is an individual, a family or a church responsibility. By authorising their children to be subjected for thirty hours a week, forty weeks a year, for twelve years (that’s a total of fourteen thousand hours) to an education which is implicitly atheistic, Christians are really teaching their children that a Christian worldview is irrelevant. This is because “atheism is not merely an intellectual position relegated to one discipline of study; it is a worldview.”4
(To be Continued)

1. Gary North, “The Dominion Covenant,” 1987, p.xiii.

2. Gary North, “Reasons for Optimism,” 30/4/2011.

3.  Gary North, “College: Why it is Not a Bubble,” 29/4/2011.

4. Joel McDurmon, “Manifested in the Flesh,” 2007, p.xv.