Our nation has definitely seen the death – or at least the near-death – of common sense, of late.  We have also seen the death of self-control.  This is evident in a wide variety of areas.

Sexual “freedom” abounds.  Those of us who believe homosexual activity to be a sin are called “homophobes.”  Fornication and adultery are perceived as normal.  So normal, we generally don’t bat an eyelash.  The pornography industry is growing by leaps and bounds.  Even the vows taken to seal what should be the marriage covenant are viewed as more of a “suggestion.”  Those who have promised “’til death do us part” decide it’s just too hard and not worth the effort, give up, and move on.

This is apparent in less “serious” areas, as well, though.  Take food, for instance.  Americans are fat.  The diet industry is booming, and still, we’re fat.  The best diet supplements in the world cannot make up for eating junk, and lots of it.  (I do recognize that there are some people who are overweight because of medical issues, just as there are a few people out there who divorced their spouses because of serious issues like abuse.  But we’re talking about trends here, and the trends are caused by the “norms” of people who are “lazy at love,” or eat too much, and not the exceptions who have done their best and don’t know what else to do.)

The Lord told us that the one who is faithful with little will be given much, and it would behoove us to practice our self-control in the little things, so that we don’t have abused children and marriages falling apart, because when the big things come up, the proper response is less unnatural.  (I’m talking to myself here, too.  Self-control is hard, and I definitely don’t have it right!)  Let’s see if we can’t raise the next generation to believe in personal responsibility, like previous generations and unlike most of ours.

Filed under: Hard Topics, Politics/Current Events by Rachel
[Comments (10)]  [link]  [TB]

Yesterday, I wrote about the War Between the States (the “Civil War”), and I promised another post about slavery.  This is that post.

The problem with slavery in the mid-19th-century South was not slavery.  It could be readily argued that slavery, in and of itself, is not wrong.  Now, if I’ve ruffled your feathers, please hear me out.  I may not be saying what you think I’m saying, but the whole post is necessary to convey the whole thought.  Throughout history, throughout the world, nations have conquered other nations and taken their people as slaves.  Even the ancient Israelites did so, with God’s blessing!  Even today, the Constitution does not forbid slavery in certain circumstances.  (Bet you didn’t know that!)  It permits slavery in instances of debt (for purposes of “working off” the debt, essentially).  Slavery was not the problem.

But there was a problem!  So, if it wasn’t slavery, what was it?  Wrong attitudes/wrong thinking.  See, the institution of slavery in the American South was not like slavery in, for instance, ancient Israel.  We did not have slaves by conquest.  (It could possibly be argued that the slaves held here were conquered by other nations within the continent of Africa, so it’s “still the same thing,” but if we argued that, we would still be missing the real point.)  We had (as a whole, at least) slaves by ethnicity, based on an incorrect understanding of personhood.

The general belief at that time was that those with “negroid” features were somehow less human than their more European counterparts.  Let me state unequivocally that this is absolutely, completely false!  This incorrect belief was the real problem with the institution of slavery in the American South.

Now, it may seem like a minor distinction to say that this was the root problem, rather than slavery itself, but it’s not.  This distinction has tremendous bearing upon the failure to properly integrate all members of society when emancipation actually did take place.  How?  Because we fixed the symptom, not the problem. We did away with slavery (apart from that debt clause), but not with the incorrect beliefs and wrong attitudes.  As a result, dark-skinned Americans had a hard time finding people who were willing to employ them, befriend them, or even live near them.  In the 1960’s, we still had separate water fountains, schools, and seats on buses – all because we never fixed the underlying attitude.  (I would venture to say that most people in the 1960’s wouldn’t say that darker-skinned individuals are inhuman, but there were still – and, in a few instances, still are – vestiges of this idea in the mistaken belief that we are fundamentally different.)

We need to all recognize that people are people, period.  The difference between your dark skin and my light skin is no greater a difference than the difference between my hazel eyes and my daughters’ blue eyes.  God made us all of one blood. There is only one human race – the human race.  To believe otherwise is the very definition of “racist.”  (So, Uncle Sam, stop asking me for my “race” on all of your forms.  If I’m filling out the form, it’s “human.”  Any further distinction is racist.)

Filed under: Deep Thinking, Hard Topics, History and Geography, Politics/Current Events, Theology & Spiritual Growth by Rachel
[Comments (4)]  [link]  [TB]

There has been some discussion on one of my message boards this week about the teaching of high school science in our homeschools.  The general consensus seems to be that at least three, preferably four, upper-level science courses should be required of every student, regardless of need.  (For instance, if the student has no intention of attending college, or if the college only requires two science credits, three or four are still required.)  I disagree.  Apparently I’m the only one (well, my husband, my parents – who educated/graduated me – and I), but the real issue, to me, is not “science,” and I believe it’s an important one.

There is a radical difference in philosophy between the two perspectives.  The science requirements are merely an application of the perspective.  (By the way, just to be completely clear, I am by no means opposed to teaching science – or even lots of it.  I am opposed to requiring every student to study the same thing to the same degree, regardless of aptitude or interest.)

With the possible rare exception of a radical unschooler here or there, by the time a student is in high school, all basic skills will have already been covered.  Anything necessary, at a fundamental level, to function in society, is done.  Our students can read and write, they know how to figure, etc.  Even informal logic, which I consider essential for everyone, can readily be taught to most students well before high school.  Where our basics probably looked very much alike, high school should be a time of specialization. There are a limited number of hours in a day, and any time spent studying “A” is necessarily time not spent studying “B” (unless, of course, “A” and “B” are closely associated).  These facts provide the background for the philosophical differences I’m going to present.

The first philosophy says (whether by verbal acknowledgment or simply through action) that every student (or at least every student except those with severe mental disabilities) should have a cookie cutter education.  The sprinkles on those cookies might be different colors, but the cookies are essentially the same.  In other words, every student should study the same things.  While I appreciate that most of these parents are striving for excellence, and I understand that pushing our children to study things they don’t enjoy is sometimes necessary and can be a good opportunity to teach them to pour their full effort even into things they don’t like, I believe that it communicates several undesirable things.

1. It communicates that they should do things just because they can, that a “good thing” should always be done when an opportunity is present.  At first glance, this is a good thing, but it’s actually a major downfall for many adults.  How many people do you know who can’t say “no” to anything?  These individuals have never been taught to be selective, to differentiate between “a good thing” and “the best thing” for them.

2. It communicates that we should all invest our time, energy, and efforts in the same things.  This denies the uniqueness with which God has made us, and assumes that the preparation which will best serve one person is the preparation which will best serve every other person.

3. It often communicates that the standard of measurement we should be using is the same one the world is using.  Do you have a degree?  Did you take “A,” “B,” and “C” classes?  Can you check the right boxes?  That’s not the standard God uses.  God wants to know what we did with what we had.  He tells us to develop our gifts, not to get the best college-prep education available.  (For some people, an excellent college-prep education may be part of developing their gifts.  But what if it isn’t?)

I prefer an alternate philosophy, one that may not be visible as different for a science-minded student, but which would become readily apparent with a non-science-minded student.  See, I believe that God has beautifully created us to each be unique.  He has a specific plan for each one of us, that uses each one’s particular combination of gifts, strengths, abilities, aptitudes, and interests.  He has given us passion for different things.  If we are to fully develop these unique gifts, then each student’s education must necessarily be different.  I’m not talking about “the sprinkles on the cookie are a different color” different.  I’m talking about “the difference between a Fig Newton, a ginger snap, or a chocolate-chip cookie” different.  When I asked why my friends require so much science, part of the answer many of them gave was, “The time is now.” I agree – the time is now.  To help that young man or young woman blossom into exactly who God created him or her to be.  Not to force him to pour hundreds of hours in something that he has no aptitude for or interest in.  Those are hours that can never be regained for things he does have interest in or aptitude for.  Tailoring a student’s education – by what it includes as well as by what it omits – to the unique abilities and passions planted in him by God, communicates several things.

1. It communicates that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, that God has a plan for each of us, and that He has gifted us perfectly to complete those plans.  We are to seek to identify those gifts and develop them.  Just as the exercises that will best develop the lungs are not the exercises that will best develop the biceps, the education that will best develop one set of gifts is not the education that will best develop another.  (As with exercise, there may be some that are “okay” for both, but we don’t want “okay,” we want “best.”  That is, we don’t want to settle for mediocrity; we want excellence!)

2. It communicates that we each have a limited amount of time available and we cannot do everything.  Just because something is a “good” thing, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the “right” thing for a certain person at a certain time.  We should be seeking to invest the majority of our time into things that fall into our area(s) of strength (as well as those things that are purely needful).

3. It communicates to our children that we see them as individuals.  (I don’t believe that those educating by the first philosophy are communicating the opposite of this, necessarily, but I do believe that educating by this second philosophy communicates it more effectively.)

The beauty of homeschooling is that we can tailor the course of study to be a perfect fit for each child.  What a shame to fail to take advantage of that!  May we all be counted faithful at training up each child in the way he should go, so that we might ultimately have a fully-functioning Body and not be missing arms or legs or have weak lungs.  (1 Cor. 12:14-22)

Filed under: Babies & Parenting, Hard Topics, Homeschooling by Rachel
[Comments (2)]  [link]  [TB]

I was really upset – I mean really, REALLY upset – to learn that the so-called “health care” bill had passed.  This is more because the American people overwhelmingly didn’t want it (even those I know who are in favor of national “health care” did not want this bill) and our “representatives” passed it anyway.  That they would so blatantly disregard our wishes really, really angers me.  But I do happen to also be opposed to the concept of socialized medical care in general.  I believe that its very foundations are in opposition to Biblical principles.

There are two sides to the perceived need for this sort of medical care plan.  (I really have a hard time with calling any medical insurance a “health care” plan.  They generally cover little-to-nothing by way of preventive care, so they’re really sickness plans.)  First is our perceived need to have our own care covered.  That is, we believe we have needs that this will address.  Second is the perceived need to ensure that others who are needy are taken care of.  I believe that the Bible addresses both of these points, and God’s solution is not the government, on either count.

God did institute government.  But the purpose of civil government is to maintain law – that is, to punish evildoers and to protect us from infringement upon our persons or property by others (either others within our society, or an attack from an outside nation).  That’s it.  The role of government is not to educate, or to provide jobs, or to offer child care, or even to make sure we eat.  It is to protect us from each other and/or outsiders.

It is not within the realm of appropriate governmental authority to provide medical care.  For us as believers to expect this demonstrates a grievous departure from the Biblical worldview.  The Bible makes it very, very clear which Source we are to look to for the meeting of our needs.

“But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.” (Matt. 6:33)

God is the one who is to meet our needs.  But that’s not all.  God communicated great displeasure at Israel’s depending on a human government to fill this role.

“‘Woe to the rebellious children,’ says the LORD…’who walk to go down to Egypt, and have not asked My advice, to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt!  Therefore the strength of Pharaoh shall be your shame, and trust in the shadow of Egypt shall be your humiliation.’” (Is. 30:1-3)

“Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many, and in horsemen because they are very strong, but who do not look to the Holy One of Israel, nor seek the LORD!” (Is. 31:1)

The second side of the medical care issue is one that can readily be made to be super-spiritual, because it’s centered in concern for others.  This is the question of caring for those who are needy.  As the Church, this is our problem, too!  Biblically, who is supposed to take care of the needy?  Not the civil government.  God’s people!

“For the poor will never cease from the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land.” (Deut. 15:11)

Even in the planting of their crops, the Israelites were to leave some for the poor to come and glean and eat.

“And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I am the LORD your God.” (Lev. 19:10)

“…the seventh year you shall let [the land] rest and lie fallow, that the poor of your people may eat…” (Ex. 23:11)

If God’s people are to feed the poor and clothe the poor (as seen elsewhere), I think it is not a stretch to think that it is also our responsibility to make sure any other needs of the poor are met.

So if we’re doing what we’re supposed to be doing – trusting in God for provision and meeting the needs of those around us – we should not need the government to play nursemaid to us.  But when they do, as with this “health care” bill, it is done by way of theft.  The very principle on which anything taxpayer-funded like this, that’s supposed to “equalize” the population, is designed to work, is by taking money from certain individuals (generally, some of our hardest workers) by compulsion, and giving it instead to others of the population (which includes those who have simply fallen on hard times, but will also generally include those who are just plain lazy – what motivation is there to work if you don’t have to?).  There is a big difference between my deciding to give $100 of my own money to help Joe Schmoe because I see he has a need, and someone else taking $100 out of my pocket and giving it Joe Schmoe, because he thinks it’s a good idea.  (For one thing, there just is not the same accountability when it’s a huge government program and not a person-to-person thing.  Chances are, I can tell whether Joe is having a tough time of it, or whether he’s a lazy bum who would rather take a handout than work.  The government cannot say the same.)

Please renew your mind to God’s Word.  As a people, let’s get back to trusting God and taking responsibility for our own lives.  And please, please, please, come November, fire your so-called representatives if they betrayed you by voting for this bill.

Filed under: Hard Topics, Health & Safety, Politics/Current Events, Uncategorized by Rachel
[Comments (0)]  [link]  [TB]

My poor husband.  He had to deal with me having a major breakdown yesterday, over something I’ve struggled with for a while.  I have debated whether to post about this in the past, and have, until now, decided not to – not because I am too embarrassed or proud to admit that I struggle with it, but because its nature is such that I have been concerned about giving the world an easy opening to say, “See, I told you God’s way doesn’t work.”  But, you know, maybe somebody just needs to say it, because surely I can’t be the only one.  So, here goes…

I don’t like my job.  I want to, but I don’t.  When the world says that being a homemaker is “not fulfilling,” they’re right – at least partially.  (See, this is the part that makes me nervous to post.)  It is not fulfilling to do something one is not good at.  So, while homemaking can be very fulfilling for those who are well-fitted to the role, it is not fulfilling for all of us – at least not for a while.  But that really isn’t the point.

I’m not a homemaker because it’s “fulfilling”; I’m a homemaker because it’s right. I absolutely, positively, believe 100% that this is what God has called me to do.  Titus 2 says that older women are to teach younger women to be homemakers, so that God’s Word is not blasphemed.  We are not just to do some homemaking, we are to be homemakers.  That is, our homes and our formation of them should define us.  That does not exclude ever doing anything outside of the four walls of our house, but it does exclude making our primary role something else.  (Please consider as you read this that I do not have to work.  My husband pays our bills.  If you are the breadwinner because you’re all there is in your house, then obviously you do what you need to do to feed yourself and your little ones!)

Paul’s instructions for what criteria to use to determine who is a “widow indeed” gives us a pretty clear picture of what a godly woman is expected to do with her life.  In summary, we should run our homes, raise our children, and provide the hospitality and service that only a home/household can effectively provide.

I feel like we as women are limited.  Men are to provide for their families, but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of different ways to do that.  Women – all of us – are to keep our homes, raise their children, and provide hospitality.

And I’m not good at those things.  I can clean, and I can cook.  But on the same day?  That’s a struggle.  Then you throw my children into the mix and I’m a real mess.  Apparently, I’m not capable of training my children and… (Go ahead and fill in the blank with any other household task.  …and cleaning.   …and keeping a tidy house.  …and cooking.  Whatever.  Any of them fit.)

Anyway, my point here is not a pity party.  The point is honesty.  I cannot be the only one who struggles.  But as Christians, we can’t encourage and help one another if we don’t know what the struggles are.  And we sure can’t help other women to do the right thing if we’re pretending it’s the easy thing.  For me, this is not the easy thing; it’s the hard thing.  But it’s the right thing.  How many Christian women are holding outside jobs at least in part because, as the Church, we don’t have any kind of support network for those who are “not cut out for” homemaking, so they’re either scared to try or have given up?  We need to take care of each other: to appreciate one another, to help each other, to encourage each other, and we can only do that if we’re really honest.

So there you go.  Here’s me, in all my ugly transparency.
And with much trepidation I will hit “post.”

Filed under: Family and Femininity, Hard Topics, Personal and Blog News by Rachel
[Comments (7)]  [link]  [TB]