If your average American had been brought up in Nazi Germany, wouldn’t he have approved of the Holocaust? If he were brought up in Iran, wouldn’t he be itching to nuke Israel? We’d all like to think there’s something inherently good about us, and that we would choose right over wrong in whatever situation we were put into, but ultimately we’re all products of our culture. We generally approve of the things that our neighbors approve of, and disapprove of those they disapprove of.

And history shows us that very often those around us can be misled. We think of Nazi Germany, or Southern slavery, or radical Islam and we see that incredibly evil ideas can get ingrained in a culture. So ingrained, in fact, that those involved can see them as a positive good. It’s easy for us to condemn those outside our culture, but obviously it’s not easy for people on the inside to see things any differently.

We marvel that the German people could be sold on genocide, but is it really that surprising? Isn’t it more likely that we ourselves are sold on some different evil? Other cultures in the world certainly see us that way. We in turn point our fingers at their flaws. Given the multitude of ethical standards out there, it doesn’t look like humans can discern right and wrong with much accuracy.

I am always amazed when I see people around me participating in, and approving of things that they would have condemned twenty years ago, especially when those things are expressly against the tenets of the religion they espouse. It makes me wonder if they think at all or just roll along with the culture. I think that’s a dangerous thing to do.

In “The Marketing of Evil” David Kupelian takes a look at how certain ideas are being sold to the American people. Ideas that destroy lives are portrayed as right, and outright lies are used to promote them. Yet the lies were never effectively challenged and the general public was sold on them. Especially interesting are the admissions of the founders of the abortion movement that they used lies to market their cause.

Unfortunately, “The Marketing of Evil” is just too short. Each chapter in it could be its own book.

I think we all want the best for our children. That, of course, explains why we homeschoolers choose to educate our children at home. But the reasons why we think home education is the best choice for our children vary widely. Some react against the secular curriculum of the government schools, others against the bad habits their children pick up from their peers. For me, the attraction to home education began mostly with the children I met, who impressed me with their academic and social maturity. That, combined with a vague dissatisfaction with my own education, led me to refine my ideas about what education is, and why the home is the preferred location for it. None of my ideas are original, of course, and I owe a great debt to the works of Charlotte Mason for many insights.

The educational methods used in a government school represent a factory-like mentality. They are the fastest way to disseminate the most information in the least time and guarantee the most uniform outcome. But teacher-led instruction does not guarantee learning. I don't want my children to be dependent on a teacher of questionable quality for their education. (And the average government school teacher graduated in the bottom third of her class.) I want them to be able to depend on themselves.

So, one of the main goals of our homeschool is self-education. I am striving to give my children the tools to be lifelong learners with a good foundation in the 3Rs and exposure to a wide array of what Charlotte Mason calls "living books." I want my children to love learning and pursue knowledge and to learn self-discipline in setting and achieving goals. No education can completely prepare a person for every eventuality, but by training my children to be independent learners, I can give them the tools to face the challenges that come their way.

Although the government schools do not generally prepare their students in this way, Montessori schools, Charlotte Mason schools and other private institutions do. But even if I didn't have to deal with the monetary considerations of sending six children to private school, I would probably still educate them at home, because I believe that family life is the best place for a child.

I believe that families were designed by God to be the perfect society for a growing child. Up until the modern era, almost everyone was socialized by parents, siblings and other adult members of the household. But for some reason our society now believes that transient relationships with distant adults and the constant companionship of agemates in an institutional setting constitutes a better preparation for adulthood than the constant companionship of a loving family in the home. It seems odd to me that a situation that is never replicated in one's adult life should be preferred to one that is and that relationships that do not endure should be preferred over lifelong relationships. I believe that a loving home is a far better place to learn how to deal with others than an institution, and that the primary relationships in one's life should be strengthened, not attenuated.

With my children at home I know not only how their academics are progressing, but how their character is developing as well. And I have more time to work on character issues and to encourage love, kindness, patience, self control and the other fruit of the Spirit to grow in their lives. I get to see all the little things which can go undetected and help them to learn how to flee temptation. And I remove the influence of the peer group, which generally tends to weaken the importance of the family in a child's life.

Of course, there are many, many other benefits to home education. And there are also some challenges that we face that are not present for those who delegate the education of their children to others. (I try not to think of those challenges as negatives, but as opportunities for personal growth.) But my belief in self-education and the superiority of the family as a social institution are my main reasons for educating my children at home and not in a Christian school. (My objections to government school will have to wait for another blog.)

Too funny. I found this test while browsing through Becky's site today and here are my results.

You are a Social Moderate (43% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (28% permissive) You are best described as a: Democrat Link: The Politics Test  on OkCupid Free Online Dating Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

There is a lot to be said for Harold Camping. As founder of
Family Radio he has helped spread the gospel throughout the world. And not any
watered down “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life,” gospel,
but a true to the Bible, judgment and sin preaching gospel. He has also
correctly criticized the church for its failure to proclaim the full counsel of
God and for its worldly and emotional focus. On the radio he has not only
preached, but publicly taken questions from listeners, which is more than any
pastor I ever saw. He has taken a strong stance against divorce and birth
control, both of which the modern church tends to be soft on. But everyone has
his faults, and Harold Camping’s warrant public discussion.

Back in the late 80’s or early 90’s Harold Camping predicted
that the Lord would return in 1994. He, and his followers, believed very
strongly that the calendar he had derived from the Bible indicated that the
year 1994 was exactly 2000 years from Christ’s birth and a hugely significant date.
When his prediction proved false, Mr. Camping did not relinquish his
convictions about the importance of the year. Sure that it must have signaled
some momentous event in church history, he eventually announced that 1994 had
been the date of the beginning of the “latter rain.”

In his book “The End of the Church Age, and After” Mr.
Camping sets forth his argument that the church age is over, the church as an
institution is now defunct and that all Christians are obliged to abandon their
local congregations. Satan, he says, now controls them all, despite the fact
that they may seem faithful externally. Though outside the churches innumerable
people will be saved, none will be saved within them.

As in his previous writings, Mr. Camping sets forth a great deal
of truth and sound Bible teaching with his dramatic prophecies. However,
looking closely at them I find that he makes a lot of assumptions and
presumptions in order to make things fit his theories. A good example of this
is his development of Joel 2:23, which is a bedrock verse for his theology.

“Be glad then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in the Lord
your God: for he hath given you the former rain moderately, and he will cause
to come down for you the rain, the former rain, and the latter rain in the
first month.”

From this verse Mr. Camping builds his case for the church
age ending and for our being in the time of the “latter rain.” The rains
pictured in this verse symbolize three times in history. The first rain
symbolizes the Old Testament period, the “former rain” symbolizes the New
Testament age and the “latter rain” is the time in which we now live, when the
church age has ended. These are also times of a great harvest of souls, which
Mr. Camping ties to three feasts of ingathering. Interspersed between these
seasons of rain/harvest are three seasons of “famine of hearing the Word of
God” in which few people are saved.

One verse is a rather shaky foundation for an entire
theology, but though the former and latter rains are elsewhere mentioned in the
Bible, I did not find any other place where three rains are mentioned.
Similarly, in order to make three harvest feasts where the Hebrew calendar has
only two, Mr. Camping has to use a one-time first fruits offering, which was
made when the Israelites first entered the land. In a Bible that is filled with
symbolism, surely there ought to be more instances that would illustrate such
an important point, but Mr. Camping produces none.

Since this picture of three rains is not repeated elsewhere
in the Bible, we might want to examine whether or not Mr. Camping’s
interpretation of three rains in Joel 2:23 is really accurate. Perhaps instead
of reading: “the (first) rain, the (second) former rain, and the (third) latter
rain…” we should read: “the rain (which comes in two seasons,) the former rain,
and the latter rain…” At least, that is how the translators must have read it,
since the adjectives “former” and “latter” inherently imply duality in the
English language. The Hebrew words for “former rain” and “latter rain” do not
include the adjectives “former” and “latter,” but seem to refer to two separate
seasons of rain. Furthermore, from what I can find on the Internet, there are
indeed two rainy seasons in Israel, not three. These evidences make it most apparent
that Mr. Camping is reading three rains where the Holy Spirit only spoke of
two.

Finally, Mr. Camping creates a very mixed metaphor with this
interpretation of the verse. Seasons of rain do not coincide with seasons of
harvest, followed by seasons of famine. Seasons of rain are followed by seasons
of harvest. Famines are caused, not by the mere absence of rain, but the
absence of rain in its season. The Bible is a very correct book when it comes
to scientific principles and it seems highly unlikely that the Lord would
create such an inaccurate picture in order to illustrate an important point.

This is just a brief critique of one of the most important
points Mr. Camping lays out in his book, but I think it serves as an example of
why his conclusions about the end of the church age cannot be valid and why his
call to abandon the church or perish need not be heeded. He has always,
throughout this book as well as his previous works, shown a tendency to make
Scripture fit with his own preconceived ideas. Whether or not the church age
will end, whether or not we are very near the end of time, it is evident that
the Lord is not granting Harold Camping any special understanding of
eschatology.

Finally, I think this verse, Deuteronomy 18:22, applies to
him: “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not,
nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the
prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.”

There is no need to be afraid of Harold Camping or his
predictions.

My Testimony-

I thought I would try to write out just how
I became a Christian.

I was brought up in a small, independant, non-denominational,
charismatic church. At times when I was a child I would join in the
worship because I wanted people to think I was spiritual. At times I
would sit there with my arms crossed, hating God for no reason.

I was always a pretty good kid. Didn't disobey  much. Got
reasonable grades. But when I was in 7th grade I decided to try being
rebellious. Not like doing drugs, sleeping around rebellious, just
cutting class and not doing my homework rebellious. "Going with" guys
my mom didn't like rebellious. (She  had good reason not to like
them, mind you.) Of course, rebellion didn't make me happy. It made me
pretty depressed.

Then one night I had a dream, a nightmare, really. This was in the
early 80's and the press was always trying to frighten us into
believing that Reagan was going to start a nuclear war. In my dream,
there actually was a nuclear war and I died. I woke up scared to death
and with the conviction that were I to die, I would go to hell. I cried
and prayed that night and it was hours before I could get back to
sleep, but though I was under the conviction of sin, I was still
unsaved.

A couple of months later the church youth group went to one of those
big, outdoor festivals. I don't remember a whole lot about what anyone
said. There was a guy who spoke a bit, and sang a bit. Then Debbie
Boone came out and sang "You Light up My Life." I cried and cried over
my sin and rebellion. Then, at some point it was as if everything was
golden. I mean, I just knew there was a change, that I had crossed from
darkness into light. It was an incredible experience. And that was it,
I was saved and God did it all. I never made a "decision" or anything
like that. It was all His work from beginning to end.

A couple of times now I have posted on other people’s blogs that I don’t believe in quiet time. I thought I would clarify what I mean by that.

It is not that I think that it is wrong to have a quiet time. It is just that my experience has not led me to believe that it is quite as necessary to spiritual growth as I was told. A lot of people have said things to the effect that you will never grow as a Christian if you do not have a quiet time. Well, the Bible never says “Thou shalt have a quiet time,” now does it? In fact the closest thing I can think of in the Bible to a quiet time is Daniel’s habit of praying three times a day.

Granted, the elements that usually make up a quiet time, that is, prayer and Bible reading are pretty necessary to Christian growth. But who says you need to do those all by your lonesome all the time? I thought so for many years. I kept trying to find a time for one. But with many kids and being pregnant or nursing, or both, all the time, it was pretty difficult. I was particularly prone to falling asleep any time I could find a quiet minute to spare, that is, if I didn't get interrupted first.

Then, in January of 2001 my husband decided to institute family worship. That year we read through the entire Bible aloud as a family and we have continued to do so every year since. We use the KJV One Year Bible and just go straight through it. We occasionally sing the psalms or read portions in French. Sometimes we get a little bit behind (right now we are about a week behind) and sometimes we even get a little bit ahead, but we have made it through the Bible four times so far and we plan to continue this as long as possible because it has been such a great blessing.

It is much easier for me to keep my mind from wandering when the Bible is read aloud. I don’t have to worry about interruptions since all the kids are there paying attention. We have the benefit of sharing our insights with each other and asking each other questions. In fact, I was astounded the first year how much more clear certain themes became than when I had read the Bible to myself. It was as if I had been able to gloss over them when I read to myself, but when they were read aloud I could really see them. I have received much more benefit from family worship than any quiet times I tried to have after I had children.

Now, I don’t mean to say that we have arrived at the perfect, one size fits all, approach to Bible study. Obviously, there are many situations in which other methods would be more appropriate. But that’s really my point. Quiet time is a very good thing for some people. There may even come a day when I will be able to have a quiet time again (though if I do, I probably won’t use that term to refer to it,) but it is never commanded in the Bible and it is not a magic bullet to a victorious Christian walk. I don’t think that people should be burdened with the obligation to have a quiet time when they could incorporate regular prayer and Bible study in their lives in many other ways.

Pretty in Pink

There was a time when I was uncomfortable wearing pink. My tastes have always run to black & other dark colors. When I was four I asked my mother for a black dress. And though she complied, she often chose lighter, prettier colors for me to wear. I dutifully wore these outfits, but secretly felt that I just was not a “pink person.”

Now however, my closet is full of pink. I have skirts, shirts, sweaters, tee-shirts and even two pairs of pink pajamas. Furthermore, there are no more t-shirts with writing on them, no shorts and no jeans. So what caused the revolution?

Well, it wasn’t a conviction that wearing trousers is wrong. I still have a pair that I occasionally wear. Partly it has to do with concerns about modesty, but mostly it has to do with femininity.

I am not sure how the whole thing started. I used to go out with my mother & grandparents every week. My grandmother was always a lady, beautifully dressed, and I only remember her wearing trousers once. It was snowing at the time. My mother also always wore a skirt or dress when we went out. And there I was, dressing like I was still in high school in jeans and tee shirts. Bleah. I decided it was time for me to grow up and started dressing up when we went out.

Now, I had always liked wearing dresses. I used to wear a dress at least once a week in high school, sometimes more often. But after I started staying home with my children, with nobody to see me, I had reverted to junky casual clothes. Then along came an Elisabeth Elliot article about feminine dressing. I don’t remember most of it, but I think it was about the fact that God had made men and women different and we should express that femininity. Then it made the point that it was no more difficult to do most tasks in a skirt than it is in jeans. In fact, women have been doing things in skirts for millennia with no trouble.

Oh, yeah. A light bulb went on in my head. Wearing dresses doesn’t have to be only for dress up. So I started wearing skirts more often. This, my husband noticed, and he’s not exactly the kind of guy who notices things. Whenever I wore a skirt he said, “I like it when you wear skirts.” So I started wearing them more often. Then, on the days I was not wearing a skirt he started saying “I like it when you wear skirts.” Well, that settled that. I wanted to be attractive to my husband, so wearing a dress became the default.

But I still wasn’t wearing pink. I wore just about any other color, but not pink, unless my mother bought it for me.

I read a lot on the internet about modest, feminine dressing. There are a lot of opinions out there. There are people who think Christians should imitate Mohammedans and wear burkhas. There are those who take one word, which appears nowhere else in the Bible and translate it such that women are supposed to only wear “long, flowing garments.” A lot of these are interesting, but not clear enough for me to become “dresses only” in my theology.

However, other articles pointed out that God, having made men and women different, expects their dress to reflect those differences. Since we are warned in Leviticus that a man should not wear that which pertains unto a woman, it follows that there should be some difference in women’s and men’s clothing. Furthermore, our femininity is a gift from God and is something to be, not only embraced, but in this day on androgyny, proclaimed. One of the ways we can tell the world that we are happy the way God made us is by being overtly feminine in our dress.

These ideas resonated with me, so the next time I went shopping I was looking for overtly feminine things. I found a tee-shirt that I would never have picked before. It was pink with large cabbage roses all over it. I bought it and I felt so pretty whenever I wore it that it soon became the favorite item in my wardrobe.

I guess my reserve about wearing pink was related to a sense of discomfort about being too overtly feminine. Once I started really being thankful for being a girl, and started wanting to show that conviction openly, I found out that I really am a “pink person” after all.