Appreciating the First Lady (7)

Christians really ought to be authoritative people as they operate in their sphere in life. The Christian mother ought to be able to complete her tasks competently and quickly, and with her husband be able to train and oversee her children in the home, so that their necessary tasks are completed well, on time and happily. This is the woman Proverbs 31 describes. When this is something we’ve mastered, God can add more responsibility to us, and He probably will.

But being authoritative and being authoritarian are different things, and the difference always begins in attitude. You can be authoritative in your sphere without being the boss, but you may be! It’s always pleasant working with someone who knows what they are doing, and who can include others in the process in an enjoyable way. Whether it’s changing a wheel on the tractor or preparing a fruit-salad for twenty people to enjoy, it’s no problem.

But the authoritarian person wants to be in charge, and he (or she) really likes giving the orders. He has a problem with power: he loves it! And he’ll use it, but not with the best interests at heart of those around him, but with a self-centred, ulterior motive.

This always creates problems and ill-feeling. People know there is something wrong, even if they can’t quite put their finger on it.

The problem is not power, but how it’s used. Power can be used in a constructive, helpful way to assist and serve people, or it can be used to hurt and harm. This is the way that tyrants work. “Put me in charge, and I’ll fix everything!”

But their real focus is typified by Adonijah, who wanted to usurp the throne from his half-brother, Solomon. Adonijah was an upstart who exalted himself, saying “I will be king” (I Kings 1:5).

Around 700 BC, the Bible predicted through Isaiah concerning Jesus, that “…the government will rest upon His shoulders…” (Isa.9:6). Why is this not a threat or a problem to us? Because of the kind of man Jesus was and is. This is why the Bible commands us in relation to others, to

…have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus (Phil.2:5).

The Bible says that Jesus today has “all authority…” (Mat.28:18). Why is that?

He was more concerned to responsibly and faithfully serve His Heavenly Father on earth, than to grasp authority. He said “…I always do the things that are pleasing to Him” (Jn.8:29). So He is absolutely authoritative, but He was never authoritarian. Jesus’ treatment of women in the gospels especially exemplifies this.

Every Christian husband ought to be afraid to ever be authoritarian in his home. It is abusive, and utterly inconsistent with the kingdom of God. We should flee from it.

Does this mean that Christian men become a sanitised bunch of milk-sops, weak, indecisive and unwilling to fight and confront evil? Not at all. That’s what some foolish and irresponsible preachers have taught now for generations, but in doing so, they’ve rejected the Bible, which says

The wicked flee when no one is pursuing, but the righteous are as bold as a lion (Prov.28:1).

It also says,

Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong (I Cor.16:13).

Four hundred years ago, preachers didn’t teach that kind of unbiblical, feminised nonsense.

Sue and I had first-hand experience with an authoritarian leader. He was the pastor of our church for 17 years, till 1990. In that year, he was exposed as a serial adulterer, forced by the elders to resign, and died of a brain tumour a year later. We later discovered he’d been a misogynist; he thought men were superior to women, which the Bible nowhere teaches. His resignation gave us the opportunity to reflect on what constitutes true, godly leadership, as opposed to the false and ungodly.

The Bible shows us that the church is like a woman, as it is typified as the bride of Christ. She is the ultimate First Lady. And as such, it can easily be abused and taken advantage of, if its members do not stand up and reject the hirelings, thieves and wolves that frequently appear in its midst, that want to enslave and prey upon God’s people. Pharoah wanted Sarai for his wife (Gen.12:14-20), as did Abimelech (Gen.20:1-18), and Abimelech wanted Rebekah (Gen.26:6-11).

These Genesis accounts serve as forerunners to the Exodus, which is a glorious account of God dealing with and ultimately drowning an abusive, authoritarian tyrant who had stolen and enslaved God’s bride, Israel.[1] Scoundrels have been around since Cain, and nothing is going to change in that regard, anytime soon.


Jesus Christ shows us that power can be used in a God-honouring, responsible and constructive way, which is what Christians should always try to achieve. And in the context of the home, the family, the church and even civil government, this can and should have a satisfying and joyful result, which Jesus also indirectly predicted: “…You will find rest for your souls” (Mat.11:29).

Is that what you want, too?



[1] God’s deliverance of His bride from Egyptian “rape” is the theme of Exodus. (Ex.1:16, 22. Compare the previous exoduses of Abraham from Egypt and Philistia, and of Isaac from Philistia: in each case, the bride was under attack; Gen. 12, 20, 26.) James Jordan, “Covenant Sequence in Leviticus and Deuteronomy,” 1989, p.12.


Why the Lockdowns Are Vital to America’s Future: Closed Public Schools

Gary North – July 18, 2020

Across the nation, school districts are closing the public schools. We have never seen anything like this before. It is magnificent.

The most sacred church of America is being closed in city after city.

The public school system has been the established church of the United States for well over a century. To see the priests of the church confined to their living rooms by means of Zoom and Skype is a delight.

Nothing that any conservative group has ever planned will have the disruptive effects of the closure of the public schools. It is going to force the teachers to use online education. This is going to make it much easier for online schools that are not run by the government to find users.

President Trump has threatened to withhold federal money from any district that does not reopen. I do not think he has the power to do this. If he does, I hope he does it. We would then have closed districts with no federal money. They would really be in crisis mode.

The great thing about all this is that it is not necessary to closing the schools. School-aged children are virtually immune to the coronavirus. So, being virtually immune, they are now going to be virtually educated. This is the best of both possible worlds. The shutdowns are unnecessary from the point of view of epidemiology, yet they are taking place.

I wish this could be attributed to a conspiracy by the conservatives. What a great thing it would be if conservatives had enough coordination, long-term planning, and courage to find a way to bamboozle the school boards of America to lock the doors. But there is no conspiracy here. There is simply the coronavirus.

In any case, conservatives are great supporters of the public school system. They think it’s a bad thing that the public schools are being closed.

Most school districts at this point are ready to reopen. So, this is not a total victory. But it is a great symbolic victory. The school districts that are not going to reopen are proving, day by day, that it is not necessary for students to be hauled by school buses into distant buildings, to be confined there for eight hours a day.

We are also seeing that it is not necessary for teachers to spend time dealing with disciplinary problems. Disciplinary problems are the parents’ responsibility, not the teacher’s responsibility. Thugs, bullies, and classroom troublemakers are being kept at home, where they belong. Teachers can then devote their time to teaching. What a concept!

If there is a resurgence of the coronavirus in the fall, schools across the nation will be closed again. I don’t know if the school districts are afraid of the coronavirus, but they are certainly afraid of lawyers and class-action suits against the districts for keeping schools open when juries will decide that they should have been closed.

Every school district that refuses to reopen is affirming the legitimacy of online education. That is a tremendous benefit to me as a seller of online education. But it’s also a great benefit to parents. They are finding out just how bad the public school teachers are at conveying information to their children. Some parents don’t like online education. But the problem is not online education. The problem is the inefficiency of the public school system and the poor quality of the teachers. Any teacher should be able to do a great job with online education. I speak from experience. The teachers I hired for the Ron Paul Curriculum did a great job. They are doing great jobs daily, except they aren’t there. They did their work years ago, and their work remains online.

With new online platforms, it’s possible for teachers to interact with students, give consultation, and benefit the educational progress of their students. This is all cheap. It is effective. It doesn’t take a school building.

The parents are upset because they want free babysitting. I understand this. People like to have free services supplied by the government. Babysitting is a big one. But it’s only good for eight months of the year. In the other four months, the parents have to do something with the children. That’s why we have latchkey children.

With online teaching, parents could legally hire retired couples to set up half a dozen desks and inexpensive Chromebook computers. The couples can monitor the children. The children can be educated effectively in their homes. The retired couples could charge $500 a month per child and thereby gain an extra $36,000 a year, but parents would have to pay for this. They don’t want to pay for it.

Parents in Los Angeles, San Diego, and Atlanta are now learning about the responsibilities of parenthood. This is a good thing.

I hope other school districts will panic in August and September and refuse to reopen. This is the greatest news for the conservative movement in my lifetime. The public schools are being undermined, day by day. Faith in the public schools is being undermined, day by day.

Suicidal Conservatives: “Open the Public Schools!”

Gary North – July 16, 2020

The American political system is a Punch and Judy show. It’s there for entertainment. If you don’t enjoy a laugh, you won’t enjoy politics.

President Trump keeps yelling about the need to open the public schools this fall. Yet the public schools are where the worldview of the Democrats is taught. They are leftist. They are collectivist. They are in favor of Roosevelt’s New Deal. They are Keynesian. If there is any institution that conservatives should be in favor of shutting down permanently tomorrow, it is the public school system. But, no, conservatives love it. They’re making a political issue out of it.

On the other side of the fence are the Democrats who insist that the public schools should not be reopened until the coronavirus is gone. That would be a case for the coronavirus never going away. “Hooray for the coronavirus. Let’s hear it for the coronavirus. Coronavirus forever!”

The Republicans are suicidal. The Democrats are suicidal. Neither side recognizes the centrality of the public school system in extending the rule of the messianic American state, both domestically and internationally.

The public schools are the established church of the United States, and they have been for over a century and a half. They promote salvation by politics. They promote salvation by government spending. That’s what keeps them going. That’s what keeps the doors open. The bureaucrats who teach in the schools have come up through a system of constant regulation, subsidies, and propaganda through textbooks.

The conservative movement worships in the church of compulsory education. It has done so for at least a century. Conservatives believe that Americanism is taught in the public schools. They believe that the state has a moral obligation to extract wealth from people who don’t believe in the ideas taught in the public school in order to indoctrinate the children of these people with the New Deal’s worldview. They think this is patriotic. They think this is what state power is all about. It’s about badges and guns and confessions of faith, and the confession of faith in the public schools is that religion — especially Christianity — has no place in the public schools.

Conservatives can’t figure out why they keep losing the war even when they win the elections. They can’t figure out why “their” Supreme Court nominees vote with the Left. They really are dumber than dirt. It starts with their own educations. They were sent for 12 years into the propaganda machine created by the Left. Then they went off to college, where the indoctrination gets really self-conscious.

It gets worse. When they make a lot of money, they send their children off to private schools that are just as liberal as the public schools, and sometimes even worse. Trump doesn’t have his son in a public school. He sends him to a $45,000 a year enclave of rich kids. His wife wants her child educated by Trump’s enemies. The Trumps don’t have common sense. They ought to have signed up Barron for the Ron Paul Curriculum. There would be a problem, since I favour low tariffs. But they should still have done it. Their son would be safer ideologically. He would not be rubbing shoulders with the children of the superrich. He would not be taught by politically liberal teachers. But Trump and his wife are big on social positioning. Sending their son to a liberal school is their idea of family inheritance.

Conservatives want free babysitting. They figure that if their grade school children are required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, which was written by a socialist, this will preserve their children from the big bad wolf of the Keynesian New Deal. No, it won’t.

Christian schools force children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. If they don’t, conservative Christian parents will send their kids into the public schools. I have seen this for years. This starts in Christian day cares. It’s that bad.

Conservatives are amazed and astounded that Billy Bob and Jenny Sue turn out to be liberals after 16 years of indoctrination in public schools. “How could this have happened? I just don’t understand it. If only we could have done something.” Well, they could have done something. But they would have had to pay for their kids’ education. They sure were not going to do that.

Badges and guns, pledges of allegiance, compulsory education, tax-funded indoctrination: that’s what conservatives love.

I prefer the coronavirus.



Appreciating the First Lady (5)

In chapter 7 of Luke’s Gospel, beginning at verse 36, Luke records a set of events that took place at the home of Simon the Pharisee, whom Jesus visited and dined with.

And there was a woman in the city who was a sinner; and when she learned that He was reclining at the table in the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster vial of perfume, and standing behind Him at His feet, weeping, she began to wet His feet with her tears, and kept wiping them with the hair of her head, and kissing His feet and anointing them with the perfume (v.37-38).

The Bible doesn’t record anything this lady said during her visit to Simon’s home. Clearly, she is deeply appreciative of Jesus, as a result of some previous contact they’ve had. Near the end of the account Jesus said of her, that her actions showed that “…she loved much…” (v.47).

The Bible describes the woman as “a sinner” (v.37), and that is Simon’s inner opinion about her, too (v.39). It appears that she’d previously been a prostitute, but through an earlier conversation with Jesus, she became one of the few people in the gospels of whom Jesus said, “Your sins have been forgiven” (v.48). Her actions in Simon’s home were an outcome of this.

Why should this Gospel account be particularly important to husbands? Paul explains:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing… (Eph.5:25-27).

Let’s be perfectly clear: there can only ever be one Saviour of the world-Jesus Christ. But husbands are to follow His example, in treating their wife in the same way that our Lord did this woman. In relation to His church, Christ “gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her…” He concluded it was better to do this, than to leave her in her present state of sin. And in relation to this woman, Jesus’ care for her had changed her life.

A husband’s first responsibility towards his wife therefore, is to put her protection, welfare and care before his own desires. This requires that husbands submit themselves to God’s will. They are to effectively say to God concerning their wife, “Not my will but Your’s be done” (Luke 22:42).

Paul expands on this thought in another passage:

Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not just please ourselves. Each of us is to please his neighbour for his good, to his edification. For even Christ did not please Himself… (Ro.15:1-3).

For a husband to “not please himself,” means that he must treat his wife as though she is more important than himself. His wishes in life are to be secondary to what is right and best for her. If this is what Jesus has done for His bride, shouldn’t we do the same?

Taking a lead from Jesus’ example, a very big part of a husband’s care and love for his wife, is centred around his use of words. Paul, speaking of Christ’s example, refers to “…the washing of water by the word…”

Apart from His death on the cross, Jesus’ ministry was primarily through His use of words. Therefore, in order to minister to their wife, husbands must:

  1. Become familiar with the Word of God.
  2. Lovingly teach and instruct their wife in that Word.

Peter encourages us that “Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God…” (I Pet.4:11).

After ministering to the Samaritan woman, Jesus was invited by the Samaritans to visit them. He stayed there two days, and

many more believed because of His word, and they were saying to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Saviour of the world” (Jn.4:41-42).

The Bible tells us that husbands are to “live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker…” (I Pet.3:7). Being weak is not sinful, but it shows that a person is vulnerable, and it is always Christian to strengthen the weak.

The Lord God has given me the tongue of disciples, that I may know how to sustain the weary one with a word. He awakens my ear to listen as a disciple (Isa.50:4).


We husbands are to strengthen and encourage our wives, from scripture. That requires our time, our patience and love, just as it did with Jesus, with the woman who visited Him at Simon’s house.

Her life had been turned around, through a conversation. Could your wife’s life be turned around too through her relationship with you, as a faithful servant of Jesus Christ?


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).


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.


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.


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).


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):[]
  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):[]
  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):[]
  12. David, Brooks “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake,” The Atlantic (March 2020): []
  13. Marie Solis, “We Can’t Have a Feminist Future Without Abolishing the Family,” (February 21, 2020):[]