Closer Than a Sister, by Christina Fox

I seem to be on a major non-fiction kick these days. I've been doing quite a bit of thinking and processing lately as to what God might be asking of me in life. And honestly I hesitate even to confess this because it inevitably results in someone, (who thinks they know me), coming up to me while gleefully clapping their hands and taking the opportunity to tell me how they are "so happy" that God is changing me in some manner which they are a.) assuming and b.) feeling that I ought to change. Truly, I am always delighted to talk about the way that God is at work in my life and the life of my family but I do quickly become disgruntled in the conversation when a person hearing my story assumes that now I'll become the person they've always hoped I would be so as to suit them better. And I don't believe that's how God works. I think He delights in progress and delights when we delight in the process. Furthermore, I also think He delights in the fact that He has made such a splendid variety of people to live in fellowship with one another and to worship Him in unity. He doesn't expect us to all be the same. We expect it of each other but He has no intention of us looking anything alike. The beauty is in the differences and, really, that's what I'm taking note of more and more frequently.

Enter: Closer Than a Sister.

One of the great challenges of life is in fellowshipping with other believers. Can I get an 'amen'?! There are a wide variety of reasons for this, of course, and we could speculate as to what causes the greatest barrier to real relationships. The simple answer is that sin is the culprit but how that sin manifests itself varies by person and by congregations. I can know in my head that I'm designed to know and love my fellow Christian sisters but living out that love feels like a complete impossibility more often than not. The older I get and the more disagreements I "suffer" my way through, the more I find myself valuing true fellowship. But true fellowship isn't what I thought it had to be either. In fact, it's pretty much the total opposite of what I hoped it was. True fellowship isn't always being "like-minded" with those I worship alongside but it is being challenged by the differences and learning to extend both love and grace despite of that. Together we make up the Body of Christ. Alone we are arguably not a part of the Body at all. I don't know about you but when my time comes to meet the Lord face-to-face, I want to hear "well done" and I do strongly believe that that means being a part of The Body, or, The Bride of Christ. If He cares much about His bride than we probably should also. All difficulties aside, we really ought to strive to work and live together instead of apart.

The question is how to get along. Fun question, indeed.

My bloggy friend Melissa listed Closer Than a Sister as one of her upcoming reads for 2018 and seeing as how I've also been rethinking what it means to be a part of the church (local) and the Body (universal) I thought this title worth a read. And it is! In Closer Than a Sister, Christina Fox takes a pretty close look at what scriptures have to say about what the church local is called to be to one another. She touches on all topics such as rejoicing with one another, grieving with one another, exhorting, growing, learning, sharing and helping. She also talks a great deal about the challenges we face within our local community of believers. I might have found that section the most poignant for myself, personally.

Fox takes a truly Biblical approach to the topic and is constantly taking the reader to scriptures in order to understand what our calling is in Christ towards our sisters within the church. This is a role which modern believers seem to approach rather casually and even callously. Again, the reasons for this are many and she lists a big obvious such as the role of social media (i.e., Facebook, Instagram, etc.) in our modern lives. Fox goes back to the basics (Genesis!) in discussing how we were made for community with one another. One of my favorite verses which she focuses on right from the get-go is 1 Peter 2:9-10 which I will type up for you here:

"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy but now you have received mercy."

Fox asks her readers to focus on the words in this verse which declare us having standing before the Lord not as individuals, (although that does exist too, obviously), but as a people designed to live and work together. Note the words race, priesthood, people. We've been called out to be together. We're designed for community. Not that that is always a fun thing, mind you, but it is the thing to be, like it or no.

So if we're called to live together then how do we do that when this sister over here works outside the home, and that one is sarcastic to beat the band, and that one is a perfectionists, and that one is controlling, and that one can't stand conflict of any sort, etc., etc.? There are lots of reasons why we shouldn't get along. But God. Incredibly, He makes us TO get along. It really doesn't make any sense sometimes, does it? Hey, I agree, it's bizarre! But we're called to it. And if God calls and bids you 'come and die' then you better get your last Will and Testament written and done with because He has a reason to call you out and use you in ways which you probably cannot even begin to fathom. He's good for that.

I'm here to say I struggle with this myself. I needed to read this book because I need my own understanding of how God uses people to stretch, challenge, and strengthen His church. In the past few weeks I've been challenged to lay aside prideful thoughts and feelings which operate more as a barrier to fellowship than a boon. It's hard! There are some people that I just flat out don't like and some people out there in this world who flat out don't like me! (It's true, if you can believe it!) Again, this is not an excuse so much as it is a challenge. If God called us to be united in Him, then we'd better work hard to figure out how to be united. How that looks will also vary from friendship to friendship and church to church. But the hard work must still be done.

What I've been learning is that the very people who I thought I didn't "mix well" with are the very people from whom I have already received some of the greatest blessings. I've been discovering that God has been "setting me up" to fail at my own expectations so that He can broaden my horizons and give me a new set of expectations. Godly ones. Lately everything I thought I knew to be true has proved false and everything I've doubted has proved a huge blessing. What I thought Christian fellowship needed to be has been turned on its head. I would argue it's being turned into a position where my relationships are facing THE Head of the Church (which is Christ) and that's what should have been happening all along. Is it pleasant? Not always, no. Does it feel nice in the end? Ohhhh my word! The freedom and the peace which comes when you deign to listen to God's plan instead of  your own are immeasurable.

I want to be honest about my own struggles because I think that honesty is more healing than not. Will some people misinterpret my words and my expressions? Yes, undoubtedly. And that'll have to be their problem which I won't be at liberty to fix. But I do trust what Fox also affirms: that after the struggles on earth we will find ourselves truly One with the Lord in Heaven. One day we will be united in spirit and in truth. Even if we do not experience this in our lifetime, the time is coming. That will be a glorious thing.

Would I recommend Closer Than A Sister? I think it's a good challenging read for pretty much every woman I know. Regular readers know that I don't normally go the devotional book route but at the conclusion of each chapter Fox includes 3-4 questions for the reader to consider. This probably goes down in history as my first book where I'd say the questions are thoughtful and poignant and worth spending a little extra time considering. All in all, I think this book is top notch and I'd happily recommend it.

The Pursuit of Holiness, by Jerry Bridges

**I first drafted this post over a week ago. Since then there have been some explosive political news stories in the U.S. I'm thinking of one in particular. So I re-wrote my post just a little to include a very brief note on this subject matter.**

"The only safe evidence that we are in Christ is a holy life."

- Jerry Bridges, The Pursuit of Holiness

My yearly reading list is largely influenced by the previous year's reading list. When I look back over my reading lists, I am looking for holes. I'm looking for lack. I'm looking to see what I favored and what I largely ignored. When I look over my 2017 reading list I find myself sadly lacking in the Christian non-fiction department. Now, did I consistently attend church and listen faithfully to my pastor's sermons? Yes, I did. Did I read scripture consistently? Yes. But did I seek God out in other ways and forms to further education and/or encourage myself in my spiritual life? No. I did not. So this is an area of personal concern that I feel the need to rectify this year.

There is also a pressing need to spend time educating our children as to what it means to be a Christian as well. If we their parents don't do it, the world stands at the ready. The world is not the only one who begs for opportunity to influence though. Oh no! Other Christians do as well which is not always a bad thing but one thing I noticed about 2017 was how many Christians in my generation were more influenced by the political winds of the day than scripture. Sure it was a hot political year and there are many issues which are currently on fire in the political pit. Should we pay attention to the issues of our time? We'd be foolish not to. However, I've noticed that younger Christians feel like it's either God or politics but it can't be both. Babies are flying out of windows along with the proverbial bathwater. I have been completely amazed by the absolutely stubbornness of some in their declarations that if you stay in the church then you are sticking your head in the sand at best or are a war-like criminal at worst. The rhetoric of middle aged and younger Christians has gotten ridiculously out-of-hand. I know of some who have even left the church with loud declarations that politics are more important. They can't see or hear what they are doing. Sheer stubbornness and pride gets in the way of both ability to converse and the ability to pursue holiness together instead of apart.*

Experiencing a few friends fall away from the church for the sake of taking "a good political stance" has had an effect on many people, myself included. If anything, it makes me to know that God will have to work on them and that I must also pray without ceasing that God will hold my family fast -- closer to Him than a political position. However, mark this: if you leave the church over politics then you are leaving the church to follow after a political god of your own making. Jesus Christ is quite, quite abundantly clear that the church is His bride and that He died to redeem her of her sins and that we ought never to think that we are more holy than Christ by leaving her.

To get to the point of The Pursuit of Holiness though, I picked it up because I read a lot of Bridges when I was a teen and I wanted to review it before handing it over to my own pre-teen. I have explained before that my memory with books is sketchy which leads to the need to re-read! Of course, I also read the book with myself in mind because of my 2017 reading failings. There was a dual purpose in this!

I launched in and read the entirety of this book, walking away with one chief thought that I had not expected. Bridges drives home the point at the very beginning of this book that it is not against ourselves that we sin, but against Christ. Therefore there is a driving need to always be pursuing holiness so that we can approach the throne of grace.

Bridges quotes David from the Psalms 51 who declares:

"Against You, You only, have I sinned and done what is evil in Your sight, so that You may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment."

Bridges admonishes (in his friendly way!) that we should not make ourselves out to be more righteous than God by being upset over sins we perceive being committed against us and/or to berate ourselves for failing ourselves. We are not more holy than God. It is His holiness that cannot tolerate sin in the least. It is our humanity that loves to produce it.

To turn personal here as explanation, you should be aware of the fact that I have five young children. Working with them as a group and individually can prove very exhausting at times. I want them to grow up to be God-fearing, hard-working, exceptional souls, of course. However, the journey of getting there is a massive work in progress. And getting there means that I have to change and grow spiritually as well and I don't like it. Every morning I wake up and rehearse to myself how the day is going to go and how I'm going to be the world's most awesome mother that day. Within 5 minutes (more or less but usually less) I've failed and am internally kicking and chaffing against myself for my downfall. I say things like this to myself: "How could you?! You're ROTTEN as a parent! They are probably going to hate you when they grow up and I, for one, wouldn't blame them." Or this one: "I will never be a good parent." Oh woe is me. I have sinned against myself. I have 'let myself down.' I never bother to look up and say, "Against You and You only have I sinned. Forgive me." I haven't sinned against me and my best intentions. I've sinned against a Holy God. And this realization struck a chord with me and caused me to stop in my tracks and re-program the ol' brain a bit. The rest of the book was reprogramming.

Bridges counsels with scripture that we serve a Holy God who cannot abide sin in any form or fashion. Once this fact is established in the reader's mind, Bridges moves on to the importance of pursuing holiness so that we will not continue on in our sin but will pursue holiness so that we might be more like Christ. And the reason to be more like Christ? It is to please Christ and not anyone else. It is to please Christ and not anyone else. It is to please Christ and not anyone else. (No, that's not a typo. Say it again if you need to.) Take heart though because lots of people in your life will be more pleased when you are more like Christ so the win-win situation becomes quickly and readily apparent! (It's probably important to also note that lots of people will also be less pleased when you are more like Christ but that's not your problem to solve.)

There were several quotes I copied out of this book and I'll share them below but the crux of the argument I took away from this book is this:

I needed to hear and to know that I am not failing me. I am failing my Holy God. And therefore I have a job to do and that is to absolutely stay in scriptures so that I can learn to be more like my God. This in turn will affect the changes I am so desperate for - both for myself and also for my children.

To bring this all back around to my opening remarks, I think it's incredibly important as Christians that we do not make ourselves out to be more righteous than God as individuals or as global citizens. I think this is a super important point that modern Christians (especially those my age and younger) really need to grasp hold of. I certainly needed to come to a better understanding of this so feel free to lump me into that mix and keep reminding me that I am only holy because He is holy. My holiness follows His, it does not lead it. I must follow where He says He is and will be. I must believe who He says He is and who He will be forever. And if I should stumble (and I will) then someone please pick me back up and remind me that He is a great God who loves His children and will forgive them of their sins and heal their land.

Did I ultimately think that this is a book worth passing along to my pre-teen? Yes, mostly. I think Bridges is perfect from the age of 13 on. Our oldest is currently 11 and we decided against having him read the entirety of the book for the simple fact that Bridges goes into some subject matters that our 11 year old isn't quite ready for. In a few years he will be, but for now there's a couple of chapters we've asked him to read for the moment. Bridges is easy to understand but he doesn't lose the meat of his message. He might occasionally cut your meat for you, but it's still meat and it's a good starting point to learn the lesson that we serve a Holy God who invites us into His presence daily. So come. Believe. Believe like it's your job to believe. Because it is. (John 3:18; John 6:29; Acts 16:31; Hebrews 11:6)

"Frequent contemplation on the holiness of God and His consequent hatred of sin is a strong deterrent against trifling with sin." (Chapter 2)

"As we read and study the scriptures or hear them taught, we are captivated by the moral beauty of God's standard of holiness. Even though His standard may seem far beyond us, we recognize and respond to that which is "holy, righteous, and good" (Romans 7:12). Even though we fail so often, in our inner being we "delight in God's law" (Romans 7:22)." (Failed to write down the reference point on this one.)

"Faith enables us to obey when obedience is costly or seems unreasonable to the natural mind." (Chapter 15)

*Whether there is agreement on this point or not, it is my observation that people are leaving the church because they insist that Christians behave like Christians and that politicians behave like Christians. I agree that Christians must pursue holiness and that it is a process. It is a life process. It is a slow and steady commitment to pursue love justice, mercy and to pursue peace. I do not agree that we can hold politicians to a Christian standard because we are a nation that has collectively rejected God and His standards of holiness. When a leader acts in a manner which is less than Christ-like I find myself with very little to say because we have long "agreed" as a nation to shut God out. If I feel annoyance or anger about the political situation we are experiencing here in America, my sole motivation is to dig into scriptures and to teach my kids truth and to encourage my fellow believers to cling HARD to the Gospel of Christ. For if you are clinging to the Gospel and if you are fully focused on pursuing holiness then the Gospel shall be lived out in your life and you will be Christ to others, just as God designed. Just as He designed. The world will not like God. They will hate and despise Him. If you follow after Him, they will hate and despise you also. Do not be surprised by this. It should not come as a shock. The world's hatred of Christ and His standards should not incite panic. Stay the course. Run the race. Pursue holiness. Love justice. Be merciful. Walk humbly.

The Goblin's Puzzle, by Andrew S. Chilton

First, an aside: You're going to see a lot more reviews of recently released middle grade fiction around these parts for a bit. I'm involved in a little project and middle grade fiction is what it's all about me for at the present. Head's up!

I "discovered" The Goblin's Puzzle by Andrew S. Chilton when looking through a list of new titles and thought I'd give it a go. To my way of thinking, this book had a lot of things going for it at first glance:

1. It's middle grade fiction which is one of my favorite genres. Why do I like it? Because it's typically clean fiction (i.e., short on foul language and sex scenes or innuendos) and therefore a book you can relax with a bit.

2. The typical length of a middle grade fiction book is around 250-300 pages which gives enough time for the author to provide a meaty tale of some sort.

3. Middle grade fiction is also much more imaginative than most modern day fiction. The readers aren't assumed to have grown too old for fairy tales. (And truly, who among us is really too old for fairy tales? I imagine that "being a realist" is somehow more romantic to some but I'm not buying the exceptions.) Do note that I'm not saying real life doesn't involve hard subjects with which we have to deal, but I also think there is still a bit of magic left in this world and that a great deal can be learned from fairy tales in order to help us overcome life's difficulties. At any rate, The Goblin's Puzzle looked like fun.

As we proceed, I think it's important to note that this is the debut novel of Andrew S. Chilton. It's an interesting and unique storyline which I would be happy to describe in my own words except that I'm feeling lazy. Instead, let's just read the description from Amazon, shall we?

THE BOY is a nameless slave on a mission to uncover his true destiny.
THE GOBLIN holds all the answers, but he’s too tricky to be trusted.
PLAIN ALICE is a bookish peasant girl carried off by a confused dragon.
And PRINCESS ALICE is the lucky girl who wasn’t kidnapped.

All four are tangled up in a sinister plot to take over the kingdom, and together they must face kind monsters, a cruel magician, and dozens of deathly boring palace bureaucrats. They’re a ragtag bunch, but with strength, courage, and plenty of deductive reasoning, they just might outwit the villains and crack the goblin’s puzzle.

I ended up reading this book in one sitting, partly because I was enjoying it well enough and mostly because I had the time to do so (a rarity these days). If I were to summarize my thoughts on this one I'd tell you that it was a book that had great potential but flopped a little for me. Obviously I know that's not what any author wants to hear and I'm sorry to disappoint but perhaps I can explain a bit? While I didn't prefer it, I can completely see how another reader could enjoy it quite well. It has its highlights, I just wasn't completely won over.

Where to start? I'll go by numbers and try to stay organized!

1. Chilton's writing style has a heavy dose of humor attached to it with asides that reminded me a great deal of Gail Carson Levine. Perhaps it reminded me of Ms. Levine's work because I recently read Ella Enchanted and even more recently watched the movie (which I found kinda cheesy). The Goblin's Puzzle isn't a fairy tale story told in a classic manner, so I don't know that it'll have any sticking power over the decades, but it is very much suited for the modern audience for which it is written. It's Shrek-like and Levine-like and I might even go so far as to say a bit Princess Bride-like (my best compliment for Chilton!). If you don't care for those styles, you won't care for this title. It would be remiss of me not to note for you that some of the humor in this book involved nudity and references to affairs (which, frankly, I didn't appreciate it a bit).

2. Regular readers around here know that I always want to get at what the author of any book ultimately wishes to communicate to his readers. I felt that Chilton had three main arguments to make. I agreed with two of his arguments, but not the third. I'll use the alphabet to continue subdividing my points. Heh. 

a.) Chilton is a former attorney and wanted to use this book to explain the basic concept of logic. At the conclusion of the book, he explains the study of logic and its purpose (i.e., premises, fallacy, conclusions, etc.). This is both a positive and a negative aspect of the book, depending on your world view. It is good to use logic, (obviously), and understand how to think. Actually I find it imperative that children be taught how to think for themselves. We, as a society, do not spend enough time learning how to learn/think/process and this is a huge problem that needs to be rectified. I'm all for thinking! If Chilton's desire is to promote logical thought, we're in tune with one another.

b.) That said, my worldview does not quite match Chilton's and part of his desire to use logic is to rationalize away any belief system that would exist outside of one's person. One of the major ideas which Chilton is promoting in this book is that we as individuals are not bound to a predetermined fate or design of the "universe" (or, if you will indulge, Providence). The unnamed boy in this book is questioning who he is and what his role is in life and the question posed is whether or not he is free to make his own choices or if he is bound to a belief in gods who would dictate who and what he is on his behalf. The idea set forth by Chilton is that an individual is truly free when he or she does as he or she pleases without being "shackled" by a (presumed) faulty belief system.

"While he searched for what he thought was his fate, he had been forced to act as though he had none. He had made his own choices without regard for who he was supposed to be. For the first time, he had lived with doubt and uncertainty. Not knowing meant exploring and discovering. Yes, it was frightening, but it was also fun. Some of his choices were wise, and some were foolish, but all were his and his alone. Once he had thought fate was an anchor, holding him steady, giving him a place in the world. Now he saw that it was a shackle, binding him in place. Except that he was held prisoner not by iron bonds but by his own belief. When he let that go, the shackle simply vanished." (Chapter 15, page 220)

Chilton seems to begin with the premise that faith in something is a prison whereas I begin with the idea that faith - specifically in a Creator God - is the most freeing and liberating position from which to tackle life head on. I am not bound in chains by my belief in God, but instead know my liberties to explore the world and delight in it. My faith is an anchor which gives me the ability (and even the right) to live life to the fullest. Within the bounds of my faith I am exhorted to use my gifts and talents well, to test the limits, and am even authorized to enjoy the ride! You might say that Mr. Chilton and I start on different pages and so I found myself disagreeing with some of his seemingly forgone conclusions.

b.) Chilton desires to make a strong argument against slavery in this book - something with which I have no objection whatsoever. (I agree with both his premise and his conclusion on this point!) My only qualm is with the way he decided to argue his points. We understand throughout the book that the boy with no name is a slave and he is wrestling with his position in life as a result. Perhaps Chilton is setting the stage for his closing arguments but he really went off on his "jury" (i.e., the reader) within just the last few chapters about the evil which is slavery. Again, his arguments are fair, fine, and right but tossing it at the readers at the end of the book made me feel as if the thing I was supposed to remember best about the book was his stance against slavery instead of a carefully crafted and beautiful tale. In a courtroom setting you do want to hammer home the vital points of your arguments at the conclusion of the trial in hopes that the jurors will remember what you deem most important. In a book, you want the reader to be internally arguing with you over the course of the entire read and then to leave the story with a compelling conclusion which subtly wraps up your point in a way which drives said point home. Instead I felt like we sort of tiptoed around the issue of slavery throughout the book only to be walloped on the head before saying goodbye to this particular cast of characters. In short, his argument was abrupt. Given Mr. Chilton's background, I completely understand why this is and maybe this will ultimately prove his style of writing. A second and third book over a period of time will be telling! Other readers might not nitpick on this aspect of the book and might not even notice it. I can only tell you of my own personal reading experience.

On the whole I'd say I appreciated The Goblin's Puzzle for its unique storyline. It's incredibly interesting to me to read someone's first work and I do feel like Chilton shows great promise as an author. From the book jacket I'd say he plans to write more stories and if he did write another, I'd read it. Next time I would just know that we're coming at life from two differing perspectives and so that's going to cause some friction. It's not the sort of friction that would make me avoid his books necessarily, but I would offer a caution to other readers to pay attention to his main points and style of humor. Beyond that, you've got to think it through for yourself and form your own conclusion!

Sterilization Issues

I remember the "news flash" when North Carolina, California and then Oregon offered apologies for the sterilization programs which they ran in their states from the early 1920's through World War II. North Carolina, however, ran their program as late as the 1970's and in 2002, the Winston-Salem Journal began investigating the state's Eugenics Board and sterilization program. They ran a series of articles on their findings in the Journal which have been collected and reprinted into this book, Against Their Will.

I believe it goes without saying that this book isn't an easy read. It isn't exactly the time of book you pick up for the pleasure of the read. It's dark, depressing and frustrating. (I was glad to finish it.)

To give a little history - (which this book does not do, by the way) - back in the late 1800's a man by the name of Francis Galton pioneered the idea of eugenics, which is defined as follows:

"The study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."

Francis Galton was the cousin of Charles Darwin and was influenced and inspired by Darwin's work, particularly Darwin's notes on the breeding of domestic animals. Galton began his research and released a book entitled Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development in which he coined the phrase "eugenics" (although he had been writing about it much earlier than the publication of this work). From what I understand, Galton promoted the idea of positive eugenics - suggesting that the elite and prominent figures in society marry early and be given monetary incentives to reproduce. His ideas formed the base-work for the eugenics movement which was built upon and embraced as a very good idea.

One of the earliest proponents of the science of eugenics in the United States was Alexander Graham Bell, who studied the rate of deafness in Martha's Vineyard, MA. Apparently he believed that two people who were deaf were likely to produce a deaf child and so they ought not to marry and reproduce after all. One of the most prominent and well-known supporters of the idea of eugenics in this country was Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. There is not enough time or words available in this post to do more than touch on the fact that Sanger was a huge proponent of sterilization and other birth control methods in order to decrease the number of offspring from those she felt unfit. (Most of the people she found to be unfit were members of the African American race, by the way.)

Let's bring this to the 1920's where the idea of prohibiting the lower classes and those deemed mentally incompetent from having children became the popular belief. All across America states were sterilizing people deemed "unfit" to bear children with North Carolina alone sterilizing and even castrating over 7,600 individuals. (This would be negative eugenics as opposed to the positive.)

In these articles, authored by Kevin Begos, Danielle Deaver, John Railey and Scott Sexton, the Journal had access to documents which are still, in some cases, being held under lock and key. These four individuals traveled the country conducting interviews with people who had been sterilized during the period between 1929 and 1974 when the Eugenics Board was dissolved. The stories which they tell in Against Their Will are amazing, heart wrenching and absolutely infuriating.

Sadly, the Eugenics Board would make their lofty decisions over whether or not to have an individual sterilized based on a paltry paragraph of information which had been condensed from social workers' reports. People - mostly women and African American, although that was not always the case - could be sterilized for any variety of reasons included: lack of income, an illegitimate birth, or for having a low IQ. In one case a young girl was sterilized as a young teen simply because her mother had had almost a dozen children which she could not afford. Not feeling as if her daughter ought to have the right to bear children also, this same mother naively gave a social worker permission to sterilize her daughter. At the time, the young girl was told that she was going to have her appendix removed. It was not until years later, in her child bearing years, that she discovered that she had, in fact, been sterilized.

This book is truly full of horrible and gut-wrenching stories like the one I've mentioned above. Here is one quote which the reports found within the documents they had access to when writing their articles on the subject:

"I don't want it. I don't approve of it, sir. I don't want a sterilize operation . . . Let me go home, see if I get along all right. Have mercy on me and let me do that." - A woman pleading with the eugenics board, 1945

It is so difficult to conceive of a government who forces sterilization upon its citizens without their consent. Un-remarkably, the idea of eugenics fell out of favor with the general public after World War II when Nazi horrors were being revealed. States all across the Union began shutting down their eugenics programs except for North Carolina who persisted in this madness.

The investigation and exposure of North Carolina's decisions revealed in the Winston-Salem Journal caused the governor, Jim Hodges, to issue an apology for the state's program. California got in line behind Hodges and issued a similar apology as did the State of Oregon.

Lives were ruined. Women tell of getting married after they were sterilized, only to discover that they could not have children. Some were divorced as a result of this. Many say they feel violated and less like a woman as they no longer have the ability to bear children. This decision, which was made on their behalf, without proper education or support, has left them crippled to a degree. And it is sad.

Yet because we do not pay attention and know our history, it would seem we are doomed to repeat it.

Just this past August 1, 2012, thanks to provisions in Obamacare, girls in Oregon of the age of 15 (and in some cases 12) are able to be sterilized without parental consent.

Now you might argue that there is a difference between the state forcing a sterilization and a state offering the procedure for free. Grant it, there is difference in the manner which the procedure is being presented as an alternative to other means of birth control. However, neither forcing or offering sterilization is the right thing to do. There is certainly valid arguments to be made against the idea of allowing a 12 to 15 to 18 year old boy or girl make a life-altering decision which will effect the entire course of their future. If we think there will not be ramifications to this new law then we are gravely mistaken and we should be very afraid of the consequences. Reading the emotions of the people who were sterilized against their will will shake you up a bit as you realize that a great many people do not think through consequences to their actions. (It's hard to understand sometimes, but it's true.) A 15 or 16 year old who is making the decision is likely going to be swayed by his or her emotions of the present moment as well as by fear.

It is unlikely that a girl of 15 (or younger?) has any idea of how her life will turn out; she will not know if her future spouse will want children. She may decide she wants them herself. And then what? The future is so great and so unknown that to sterilize them is a cruelty! Furthermore, to sterilize them without seeking counsel of their parental figures - those who likely love them best and can advise them property - is a complete outrage! Logically, it does not make sense to offer a child who does not have the right to drive, drink or vote to sterilize herself for life. The consequences are perhaps greater than she can comprehend at this exact moment in time.

We will repeat history here, folks. The children today who decide to be sterilized will be emotionally distraught in another fifteen years or so, when they come to fully realize the consequences of their actions. The pimps who want to use young girls without threat of a pregnancy will be delighted at this opportunity. Furthermore, the threat against parenthood is outrageous. We must learn our history. We don't even have to look back that far to realize that sterilizations leave a permanent mark on the person that they can never completely heal from. It changes who they are as God designed and made them and this issue should warrant our attention.

I know this isn't a fun book to read, but in light of our present day society and the choices those in authority are making on our behalf, I think it's a necessary book and topic to be aware of (and read). As I said, it wasn't pleasant a pleasant read. But it will make you think. And we need people to think very carefully right now.


Thank you, PR by the Book, for shooting a copy of this title my way in exchange for my honest opinion.

unPlanned, by Abby Johnson

Unplanned: The Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader's Eye-Opening Journey across the Life Line is simply this: A Must Read.

I was vaguely aware of her story when I picked up the book to read it, but not incredibly so. Abby Johnson was the director of one of the leading Planned Parenthood centers in the Houston area in 2009 when she was called in to witness an abortion. She was not usually in the room when an abortion was performed, but on this particular day she was called in to assist with an ultrasound-guided one. She watched as the baby's spine crumpled and its life was sucked away into a tube. This moment changed her life and this book tells of the dramatic change.

What I found interesting about Abby Johnson is that she consistently labeled herself a Christian and was following Christ. (I believe she was, by the way. I'm not doubting it.) Despite her Christian upbringing and leaning, she still felt as if abortions were a necessity for the health and safety of women. She explains in great detail how she began compromising her position on the value of life in college and how she ultimately became the director of this particular Planned Parenthood site. It is interesting to read her reflections on encounters with the pro-life movement during this time. I took her story for a warning to other Christians who are willing to compromise and say that abortions are ok in select situations.

To take even one step away from the position that God is the creator and sustainer of life is to begin walking down a slippery slope. Once you start making exceptions, going so far as to argue about when, exactly, life begins, it's hard to stop. We need to catch ourselves in the Word of God and find out what He has to say about such things and abide by His decree. He forms life inside the womb and it is His and His alone to take away. For a human to enter the womb and remove the life of another is murder. To call it less is to compromise and there can be no two ways about it. Either God is or God is not sovereign. Either God is or God is not Creator. Either God is or God is not to be trusted to be working for our good and for His glory. Yes, some lives are formed "accidentally" from a human's perspective - but never God's. That is something that I think Christians need to own post-haste and defend as truth forever after. No, we don't understand why certain things come to be (unplanned pregnancies included) but just because they happen doesn't mean that God fell off His throne or that there is suddenly no value in the life being formed. I think Abby Johson's story screams about the slippery slope of compromise and the costs associated with turning away from scripture.

The great thing about Unplanned is how Abby walks through her years as the Director, working in a place that performed abortions, while taking note of the pro-lifers who stood on the opposite side of her fence. She paints a wonderful picture of the pro-life movement on the whole, as particular members of it in her community reached out to her and let her know that they cared about her. She takes special care to encourage pro-lifers to approach the subject of abortion with calm humility and honest truth. Johnson never has been a fan of what she calls the "extremist" in the pro-life camp who yell, threaten abortionists and generally make a nuisance of themselves. The pro-lifers who spoke to the hearts of Abby and others in her Planned Parenthood center, were the ones who calmly stood outside the gate, praying and extending friendship. Her insight into the pro-life movement is particularly valuable as there is great passion within the ranks. (There is great passion on both sides.) Passion is good but it needs to be properly directed. I think Abby's point of view gives the pro-life movement something to consider. I appreciated hearing her take on things. Reading this book made me stop and think about how pro-lifers have come across as being more brash and in-your-face than I think they realized or even meant to be. Promoting thoughtful discussion on the topic of abortion is necessary while also being kind and loving. Still, we must take a stand for life and speak truth. A delicate balance is, I think, being achieved these days and that's in some part due to Johnson's experience which she is willing to share with others.

I heartily recommend and encourage you to read this book. Whether you are or are not pro-life, it's an interesting take on someone who "crossed over" the line and changed their position. Her change took place after a rather dramatic and horrifying incident which makes the book spell-binding to the very end. Her story made me think about abortion. It also made me think about the beauty that is adoption. What if my son's birth mother had decided to "take care of her problem" and had an abortion? He would never be. And our family would not look as it does. We would be different people. But his life was precious and she gave him the gift of it. How thankful I am!

Lastly, this book made me grateful for the grace of God who doesn't see fit to leave us as we are, but is always working on us and drawing us closer to Him.

If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

Just a Minute, by Wess Stafford

Just a Minute: In the Heart of a Child, One Moment ... Can Last Forever was sent to me by Moody Publishers. This book is written by the President and CEO of Compassion International, Wess Stafford. The book is made up of a string of short stories which all give an example of how giving "just a minute" of time to a child can be hugely influential in their little lives.

Stafford has traveled the globe and in this book he shares stories that he has heard at Compassion International events, as well as personal stories. All combined, the goal is to encourage the reader to take time out of their busy day and schedule to effect positive change in the life of a child. The stories are compassionately short and heart warming, just as you might expect them to be. The whole time I was reading it, I wondered if Stafford was a father who had to spend a consecutive 24-hours of time with his own children, because reading these stories made me feel exhausted as a mother. They really can make you feel a sense of Mommy Guilt if you aren't careful. I started wondering if I was being creative enough and spending enough time investing in my children. But I am and I do and there's no need for me to take on more guilt than I already naturally have in not being able to give each child my undivided attention. Some days go by and I discover I have not said even one brilliant thing to a single one of my kids.

I rather felt like Just a Minute had a Chicken Soup for the Soul feel to it. The stories were endearing and they make you feel all warm and fuzzy. I like Compassion International and have no problems with it. (We are sponsors to a little girl in the Dominican Republic.) Stafford's personality which eeked into and out of his writing didn't turn me off in any way. I just found it to be more of a "bathroom reading material" sort of book which didn't impress me with any strong emotions in any direction. It is certainly not a bad book. It's just a fluffy Love a Child sort of affair.

Ok, perhaps this is not a glowing recommendation and a way to start out a bloggy week but there 'tis. This book claims to be a set of "68 Stories That Will Inspire You to Bless a Child's Life." Right now I think my children will feel blessed if we play a game of Uno and I make lunch and feed it to them. Some days it's not about being brilliant. It's just about living life together. And that takes more than just a minute.

This book was provided to me by Moody Publishers in exchange for my honest opinion. Please do not assume from what I've said that Stafford is devaluing motherhood or parenting in general. He isn't and he doesn't. I just wasn't thoroughly impressed or inspired by the book because motherhood leaves me feeling less than clever some days and a bunch of stories in a row about how great someone's interaction with one child is made me want to stick my tongue out at them. (Because yes, sometimes I really can be that mature.) If there was a book about how you can bless a mother in Just a Minute of your time, I'd probably be way more moved.

The Nature Principle, by Richard Louv

Honestly, I wasn't sure how to label The Nature Principle: Human Restoration and the End of Nature-Deficit Disorder. It is a memoir of one man's personal feelings about being outside? Is it an adventure book, encouraging you to step outside and take one? Is it fantasy? Relevant to history? I finally decided to label this one as being a book about "social issues." I think it's that more than anything else.

I was interested to read The Nature Principle mostly because I've heard a lot of hype about Louv's first book,
Last Child in the Woods in which Louv coined the phrase, "Nature Deficit Disorder." His first book focused on the need for children to spend more time out in nature and this book is written to encourage adults to do the same thing. In this new release from Algonquin Books, Louv attempts to argue the adult reader into allowing life to slow down enough so that they can spend quality time out of doors. Whether or not his argument succeeds, I think, is entirely dependent on your personality. If you want a lot of scientific proof to back up what he is saying, you won't find it here and therefore his argument has failed. If you love being outdoors and have an active outdoor lifestyle, then you are fit to behold the wonder which is The Nature Principle and you may even now begin to enjoy telling all of your friends about why they should read this. If you are somewhere in between, like myself, then you'll be curious about this book, emotionally swayed when and where you want to be, and can likely glean a thing or two (while leaving a thing or four behind.)

Generally speaking, I liked the book with great reservations. (That's as clear as natural organic mud, isn't it?) The only reason that I was able to like it though was because Louv was honest right at the start about having written this book based on his own ideas of how and why humans need to spend more time connected to the natural world. He says:

"In these pages, which offer a sampling of the emerging research, I have not knowingly excluded any studies that would dispute my central thesis. But I do hope this book will raise useful questions for future inquiry. I should add: my view is not based solely on science, but also on the long human experience of nature, on the stories of everyday people, and on my own reflection." (Introduction, page 6)

I really am not a big fan of writing books simply to ask questions. There is something that seems dangerously wrong to me in that, mostly because we live in a time when society thinks it good to question everything. You have questions, I have questions and so does the neighbor next door and three doors down. Instead of spending time finding solid answers to our questions, we have this extremely bad habit of just asking them for the sake of asking them! We're like three year olds who never grow up and stop asking, "Why?" as if life cannot begin until we're mentally satisfied by the authorities around us bashing their brains out trying to satisfy our lofty superiority complexes which tell us we "need" to know everything there is to know. NOW. (I have no idea where I came up with that example. Thin air!) Instead of facts and principles to live by, we just walk around dazed and confused spending way too much time asking, asking, asking. Life is not a huge question mark and I resent people who go around telling the masses that it is. It only adds to our present dilemma of having teenagers who never grow up because they don't know what it is that they want to do and adults who can't seem to formulate a cohesive set of beliefs, convictions and morals.

So I appreciate him stating up front that this book is basically a question (in the ever increasing line of questions.) That helped me to keep reading it, knowing that nothing conclusive was going to be stated. And nothing really was. This book is full of personal stories strung together to help argue the point Louv isn't making (in exact terms) that we need to spend time outdoors. There are feel-good stories that make you want to take the roof off your house so that your family is exposed to the outdoors at all times and in all kinds of weather. You can almost feel incomplete at times when pressed as to whether or not you have ever personally been chased down by a bear. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to admit that the deer that wander through our yard don't exactly scare me. At the same time, he shared a story about a guy who was attacked by a buck and now I'm wondering if I should ever let my children play outside with deer in the vicinity. I jest. Sort of. See? An example of being emotionally persuaded to do something without scientific fact applied. This book is full of such examples.

The one question/argument that he poses that I think is interesting to think about is the idea that the most "complete" and "successful" human beings are the kind which are tech savvy and nature savvy. (He refers to this idea as having a "Hybrid Mind.") Louv argues and gives a few examples of why he thinks that the most well-rounded, healthy and happy individual is extremely competent with modern technology and who also can smell a wolf five miles away. (I made that last part up.)

Most of the book does seem to focus on the idea that we need to find a healthy balance and since I'm good with the idea of balance, I'm good with the idea of this book. He says:

"There's no denying the benefits of the Internet. But electronic immersion, without a force to balance it, creates the hole in the boat - draining our ability to pay attention, to think clearly, to be productive and creative. The best antidote to negative electronic information immersion will be an increase in the amount of natural information we receive. The more high-tech we become, the more nature we need." (Chapter 2, Nature Neurons, page 24)

I agree with his theory, generally speaking. I miss the days I've never lived in which people worked their own land, ate foods that were in season and played with pig bladders while recognizing the dangers of running into a bear in the woods and the need for a good guard dog. (I simply do not appreciate dogs the way I'm sure I should.) A friend suggested her personal theory to me the other day in which she said that she reckoned people had less time to fight with one another "back in the day" because they were just plain too busy. When they had a chance to get together and enjoy fellowship - they probably really enjoyed it! That's an interesting idea to think on. As are the ideas in this book.

The example he gave that I found the most interesting to the argument that we need balance between technology and nature was the following, which I encourage you to read because it's just interesting:

"Army Sgt. Maj. Todd Burnett, who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan, conducted the research. The eighteen month-long study of eight hundred military personnel at several bases found that the best bomb-spotters were rural people, familiar with hunting, who signed on with the South Carolina National Guard. According to Burnett, "They just seemed to pick up things much better . . . They know how to look at the entire environment." And the other young soldiers, the ones who were raised with Game Boys and spent weekends at the mall? By and large, these enlistees lacked the ability to see nuances that might enable a soldier to spot a hidden bomb. Even with perfect vision, they lacked the special ability, that combination of depth perception, peripheral vision, and instinct, if you will, to see what was out of place in the environment. Their focus was narrow, as if they were seeing the world in a set format, "as if the windshield of their Humvee [was] a computer screen," Perry wrote. Sgt. Maj. Burnett put it this way: The gamers were "focused on the screen rather than the whole surrounding." (Chapter Two, Nature Neurons, page 17)

I think it common sense that we need to spend time outdoors. We need Vitamin D, we need exercise, fresh air and to see the beauty which God created. I do not believe that we were created to live life in cubicles or to spend most of our days indoors. It's hard and tricky sometimes to find the ways and means of being able to go outside and truly enjoy it but there is a benefit in doing so. I like doing so simply because it's pretty. I love our family hikes which we take in the evenings during the summertime and I can't wait to get back out doors and start exploring the local area. Hiking has proven to be a great way for our family to spend time with one another and it gives the kids a chance to stretch and build muscles while seeing where and how wild mushrooms grow, oddly shaped trees, wild flowers and, yes, poison oak. (I'm as happy to avoid poison oak as the bear, pretty much. Ok.... I'd really rather not meet the bear at. all.)

Louv discusses many ways that being in nature improves creativity, health and a general sense of happiness within individuals. He seems to have traveled the country talking to people from all corners, covering cities and suburbs as well. Louv has a rather passionate desire to see us rebuild and protect natural habitats and to bring nature into our communities - through growing backyard gardens or protecting areas where birds are nesting so that people might enjoy the sights and sounds of them. He likes nature. A lot. (He probably is fascinated by slugs and would argue that they are a useful part of nature as well. This is a general fault shared by many Nature People.)

I think, generally speaking, you'd be hard pressed to find a person who didn't like nature (unless they have massive allergies and it's allergy season.) Mostly I think what Louv is hoping to do is to convince us not to forget about the outdoors in this fast-paced world. He is encouraging a slowness to life and would like his readers to make time to "get away from the noise" and take a walk in their local habitats to see what things grow and how beautiful life outdoors really can be. I agree with that. (I have to. God created the world and said it was good. This is what I believe and therefore I think it a generally good idea to get to know the world He created.) I just think Louv's arguments favor emotionalism and so I hesitate in being really enthusiastic about them. I wouldn't change my life based on this book, but it did provide some interesting food for thought.

Ok, I'm pretty sure I've spent enough time talking and typing. I'm now going to go out and run ten miles and see how many birds I can spot while I'm doing so. With any luck, the neighbor's cat will see me as a violent threat and will attack me viciously, allowing me the opportunity to hone my nature skills!

Just kidding. About the cat.

Despite what it may sound like, I'm really glad that Algonquin shot a copy of this book my way. The opinions expressed above are entirely my own, as always.

Captured U.S. Soldier

U.S. Army PFC Bowe Bergdahl was captured by the Taliban in Paktika Province, Afghanistan on 30 June, 2009. He was moved into the Tribal Region of Pakistan soon after. In this video his father addresses the Pakistani Military and the people of Pakistan.

Bowe's sister is a dear friend of mine and I've been praying alongside her for her brother's release since the day of his captivity.



I know the family would appreciate your prayers as well. And please - do spread the word!

Thank you.

(Back to books next week.)

Harold Camping and The End of the World

Come, come now. You didn't expect me to NOT have an opinion about this, did you?!

I've seen other bloggers (and Facebook-ers) throw their hat into the ring and now I feel compelled. The general theme I've been sensing from people is that we need to express compassion towards Camping and those who believed his prediction that the end of the world was this past Saturday. I've been hearing that Christians should respond in love, without sarcasm or mockery ("like the world".) I've seen nothing about Christians being called to take a stand for truth, however, and address this issue head-on. This linked article suggests that "it's ok to be wrong" about this and we Christians should be forgiving towards Camping, but definitely not direct in our disapproval of his teachings. We don't want to further hurt anyone's feelings.

Actually, this is an issue I wasn't going to bother to address because I think that the Bible makes it pretty obvious that no man can know the time or the hour when the world is going to end. God the Father alone knows when the end is going to happen and He's never given any indication that He intends to share His secret with any of the rest of us. We'll find out eventually. (Read Matthew 24)

The verse that we're all, of course, familiar with (or are we?) that the world is focused on at the moment is Matthew 24:36:

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

In other words, Harold Camping does not know when the end of the world would be and it would behoove him to stop predicting it. He has now been wrong enough times that you think he would stop. However, despite the fact that the world didn't end when he said it would on May 21, 2011, he's at it again. Instead of repenting for his false teaching and confessing his sin his mistake in mis-reading (and mis-teaching!?) the scriptures he is now saying that he made a little mistake. He is now saying that he was off by a couple of months and that - actually - the world is going to end in October 2011. Because you know that if at first you don't succeed you try, try again!

Now, we might be tempted to say that we should graciously ignore his little "oopsie" and comfort him in his time of insanity confusion. (Remember the professor in The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe said that Lucy was either lying about having gone to Narnia, or she was mad, or she was telling the truth. Those were the options.) After all, Camping has managed to hurt a lot of people by speaking untruths. And we all do that from time to time, right? (Well, actually, yes we do.) We Christians are indeed all sinners, saved by grace. We make mistakes. We are not perfect. We were created in the image of God but we are not God (which is why we cannot know the date of the world's ending, by the way.) We might be tempted to rather graciously sweep Campings little mistake under the rug and move on. With some degree of false hope we might hope that the rest of the world didn't notice the billboards dotting the roadside, providing a Biblical guar-an-tee (!) that this past Saturday was the end. How sorry should we feel for Camping? For his followers?

I recognize the temptation.

However.

If you are a Christian then you are compelled to believe that the Bible is the unerring word of God. It is perfect and complete, lacking nothing. It is God-breathed, suitable for teaching, correcting, rebuking, correcting, training in righteousness and correcting. (2 Timothy 3:16) The word of God is living and active and will expose fools from time to time. When it does, should we be embarrassed? Should we run about apologizing that God's word deals so sternly with false teaching and sets about correcting it? "You know, God hates a lying tongue and one that would lead others into a deception but that's God. I'm a little more compassionate than all that fire and brimstone stuff. Ignore the man behind the curtain. What we really need to do right now is love each other."

Is love looking away from a lie? Is is failing to point out the error of false teaching? Is it sitting silently by watching friends and loved ones believe a lie that will cause them to stumble away from truth? Perhaps love is silence.

So then let's look at 2 Peter 3 in which Peter is discussing people who speak untruths and people who are looking for the end of the age:

¹⁴ So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. ¹⁵ Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. ¹⁶ He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

¹⁷ Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position. ¹⁸ But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.

We Christians should be secure in the truths of scripture, studying and making every effort to understand them as accurately as possible. When we are presented with such a blatant untruth which flies in the face of what God has spoken (to the point where most of us can quote Matthew 34:36 without even thinking about it!) then should we sit idly by? Or make sure that those around us understand the fact that no man knows the day, time or hour? No one should have feared or anticipated May 21, 2011 as the day the world was going to end. It couldn't have happened as Harold Camping predicted because God will not be mocked or played the fool. God is always honest with us. It is we who are dishonest. Therefore we are exhorted to remain as blameless as possible before God and an easy truth (in my mind) to grasp hold of is that the world is not going to end when Camping (or anyone else) says. We cannot know and it is very much ok to say so.

The serious error of Camping is that he is attempting to be God-like. Just like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, Camping is reaching for knowledge that is not his to own. God says, "I'm not telling you when the world is going to end." Camping says, "This knowledge is mine to have." Worse still, he goes around convincing others that it is his to have. He has made a grab for the forbidden fruit and is telling us how good it tastes. Is it better for us to say to him, "Well, at least that fruit tasted good for a little while"? Or is it kinder to say, "Um, you picked the apple, bud. You need to repent because you weren't supposed to do that!"

Now, is a bit of sarcasm ok to express when dealing with this? I think so. It's kind of like answering a fool according to his folly. (Except, of course, when you are not supposed to answer the fool.) In this case, I believe that the Bible exposed Camping as a fool and not much more is required of us in the way of jesting to point out this fact. May 21st has come and gone and nothing happened. The proof exists that Camping was wrong. Now he is predicting that the world will actually end in October, 2011. He is a proven fool who goes on spouting off lies. And yeah, I think he deserves to be poked fun at. We snicker at Chicken Little and we use the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf to make a point. It just so happens that Camping is a living example (who refuses to acknowledge the error of his ways - again, claiming knowledge that God claimed for Himself.)

I would suggest that loving your brother or your sister doesn't mean buying into lies and/or implying that you believe them through your silence in order to maintain a relationship with them. It wouldn't be a truthful relationship if that were the case! Much better to speak the truth - in love - than say that because of love we will not speak truth.

Who did Jesus deal harshest with? Those that went about claiming to possess knowledge of the Most High that they had no business to speak of? Or the repentant sinner? Jesus came down to earth to make the ultimate sacrifice for our sins, allowing us to approach the Father. When a sinner came to him and humbly confessed his sins, Jesus was quick to forgive. But when teachers stood up in front of the people teaching a false doctrine, Jesus was quick to call them on the carpet for their attitudes, behaviors and words. He made fun of them. He exposed them for what they were- hypocrites and heretics. Jesus was always, consistently, very emphatic about speaking truth and truth alone so that no one would be falsely led astray. He didn't die on the cross to save people from experiencing awkward moments and embarrassing situations. He came so that we might be holy and His.

I have come across a few statements indicating that Christians are embarrassed that the world is laughing at us. The world would laugh, and even should laugh, at Camping's predictions. I laugh at the world when they say stupid things. Besides that, "the world" doesn't really need a specific reason to question, mock or laugh at Christians. If any one of us were living a perfect Christian life, there would still be those who did not understand it. Best not to dwell on the fact that the world is laughing. If you fixate on that you are fixated on the wrong thing. You cannot change the world's reaction to Christianity. It will be what it will be. Your job as a Christian is to work out your salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12) - not to go around making apologies for other people's stupidity or hiding out in your house hoping that no one will ever notice a thing you ever say or do.

The bottom line is this: if you are a Christian, that involves believing in the inerrancy of scriptures. If you believe that the scriptures are accurate, perfect and complete then you will not fall prey to the lies of Camping and/or other false prophets.

Yes, we all make mistakes and we all sin. Thankfully we Christians serve a gracious and merciful God who will forgive us of our sins. But we must confess them. Harold Camping would do well to start confessing right about now. It would prove a far better use of his time.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9

Justin Bieber - the next hero of the faith?

To be honest, I had no idea who he was until just recently. I still have to ask Jonathan how to pronounce his last name. I keep forgetting. I normally do not give two hoots about the "lifestyles of the rich and famous" (other than occasional morbid curiosity.)

However, I feel compelled to sit up and take notice when any given pop star suddenly is being promoted in the "faith scene." And when Christianity Today decides to publish an affirmation of the star's Christian faith, then I have to notice it because suddenly some popular singer is being held up as an example. You can argue against the necessity of examination, but that won't change the truth. If I stood up on the world stage and said I was a Christian then people should start to examine my faith and life to see if it added up -and rightly so. (Just like my readers here would have a good reason to examine my posts to see if I'm consistent.)

After finding that Christianity Today article on Bieber, I started hunting around. I discovered things like: Bieber has a new movie out called Never Say Never (not linked on purpose) telling the world more about his sixteen year old life. (Because there is, of course, so much of it.) I discovered that Paramount decided to push the movie as a "Faith-Based" film. I followed links and came across this article from USA Today in which they state that Paramount "screened the movie for faith leaders across the country and distributed spiritual discussion guides" to aid and assist pastors and youth group leaders as they present this film to their congregations and youth. In the article, Bieber's manager (and one of the film's producers) makes the following statement:

"People will walk away (from the movie) knowing faith is very important to him . . . as a Christian, he's someone to look up to."

He said it, not me.

It would seem that the main reason that Paramount wants Christians to view this film as a nice faith-based one is because of a new single out by Bieber entitled, "Pray" in which the lyrics state, "I close my eyes and pray/ I close my eyes and I can see a better day." I looked up the song on Youtube and that's about as spiritual as it gets. It doesn't say who Bieber is praying to or how he specifically prays. He just has a lot of hope that when he opens up his eyes in the morning, world peace will abound. (Good luck with that!)

So will Christians buy this "faith based" message and use it to promote faith to their youth?

The USA Today article on Bieber goes on to state:

David Tai, one of the pastors at the Christian Assembly of Suburban Chicago in Carol Stream, Ill., said after a recent screening that while the film's faith message is subtle, he might use the movie as an illustration to discuss "how authority and responsibility go hand in hand."

The article goes on to quote Diane Winston, "a scholar in media and religion at the University of Southern California" who says:

"Many (Christians) might not have known Justin Bieber was one of them," she said. "(This campaign) reminds them (the movie) is a wholesome product they can take a child to see."

So now we have something to address! Paramount is peddling this film to we Christians as a Faith-based film worthy of our time and attention and wants us to feel all cuddly cozy with Bieber. They've placed him on our doorstep and said, "Behold the child." We can either sit back and let it go, or we can examine the evidence and see if we feel that Bieber's faith is sincere and if he is, indeed, a good role model for our youth. I'm not one to say that a sixteen year old can't have a reasonable faith that should be commended and looked up to. I can think of quite a few teens that I have or do admire and respect for their way of standing up for truth and walking out their faith. I do think that they are rare and few and far between, mostly thanks to the culture which they are surrounded by. This culture convinces them that they do not have enough or are not enough to be worthy of a faith life they were called to. But age does not make it impossible to admire someone.

There is little, beyond Justin's music and lyrics, with which he can be examined by. If I just look at his lyrics, I find little by which I can discern the sincerity of his faith. I watched a handful of videos on Youtube and looked up the lyrics. I think the majority of his lyrics can be summed up as follows (my total paraphrase):

"I am the young man savior, come to relieve the loneliness of the prettiest girl I've ever seen. In a fit of teenage angst and passion, I can promise to be everything you could ever want or need. We will never be apart. And ohhh baby baby baby."

But wait, don't make me stop here! The most hilarious lyrics are taken from his hit "Baby":

When I was 13, I had my first love,
There was nobody that compared to my baby,
And nobody came between us or could ever come above
She had me goin' crazy,
Oh I was starstruck,
She woke me up daily,
Don't need no Starbucks.
She made my heart pound,
And skip a beat when I see her in the street and,
At school on the playground,
But I really wanna see her on the weekend,
She know she got me gazin',
Cuz she was so amazin',
And now my heart is breakin',
But I just keep on sayin'...

I can't stop laughing about the fact that he saw his first girlfriend on the school playground. And I'm supposed to take their, er, relationship seriously!!? (Although any relationship that does not require Starbucks is to be envied, indeed!) (* Technically a guest rapper sings this in the middle of Bieber's song. But it's Bieber's song and in the video he's hoppin' around right next to the one singing the verses so I give him full responsibility and musical credit for the lyrics.)

The music videos consistently portray Bieber as being a teenage boy, attracting teenage girls (who are always taller than he!) into his arms, smiling in a completely goofy manner. I can't say that I'm terribly impressed, nor am I drawn to his music.

However, conveniently, he recently gave an interview to Rolling Stones magazine which "clarified" his position on various "political" matters - including abortion. His interview has caused quite a stir in the media. I particularly enjoyed CNN's dissection of the meaning and interpretation of the interview. I deduce the following from my own reading of his Rolling Stone interview:

• Bieber wasn't prepped.
• Bieber wasn't appreciative of how much money he has earned off of the obsession of American teenagers.
• Bieber has a faith - but he doesn't altogether know exactly what that means or how his faith is going to carry him through life.
• Bieber is against the idea of abortion.

It is the final point that riles the media. CNN pundits decided that Bieber "is too young to be talking about the issue of abortion." How can a 16 year old be expected to understand the issue of abortion, they ask. "He is too young to be talking about it." That is what they said. And I found myself asking, "Aren't you WANTING 16 year olds to HAVE abortions? If you are encouraging 16 year olds to have abortions, then they MUST be required to have an opinion on it and certainly should be allowed to talk about it! CNN is typically the height of hypocrisy though and I don't know why I bother to listen to them (except that bit about morbid curiosity.) All that said, I thought Bieber's remarks on the issue of abortion were rather weak as it was. CNN is worried that he'll influence teens against the idea of an abortion so they are hoping he'll shut up and/or retract. I'm sorry his statement about abortion isn't quoted as a statement but as a question. I'm concerned that remarks like that are too weak to be presented to Christian teens who DO need a good role model and a strong statement about the value and sanctity of life.

Because Biebers "statements" are questions (because he really hasn't applied his faith to a good many life issues) and because his lyrics suggest that his head and heart are full of romance, I cannot see how we Christians should accept him as a role model of any sort for our youth. Surely, surely we can do better than this! Surely we would say, "Thanks. But no thanks." Looking to popular culture to provide us a solid, sure foundation by which we can direct our children towards scripture and the God of the Bible is going to get us into trouble. It already has. Justin Bieber as a "hero of the faith" is a compromise of a most dangerous magnitude. I see little to rely on in his brief life. I see little to show that he is very sincere in his faith. I see little to suggest that he is pursuing a deeper walk with God. I do see him delighting in new haircuts, having to cancel shows due to hyper crowd control issues and drawing 13 and 14 year old girls into his arms. None of this suggests to me that I should bring him into my home to point my children to the cross.

If you want to enjoy him as a bee-bopping teen with his heart literally on his sleeve, be my guest. If you can take his playground romances seriously, enjoy them just for that. But as a "person of faith" who has strong character and a heart that is clearly on fire for the Lord? I would yank that pedestal out from under him and deny him the right to stand on it. I do not have to accept him just because Paramount studios would suggest that I do so. They are not my guide. Scripture is. I do not hear or see Bieber actively upholding the scriptures as truth or proclaiming the message of the cross and so, I'm afraid, I must dismiss him as a "faith hero." And I would hope and pray that the Christian church at large would not "use" him to instruct their young just because he's "popular." Popularity has never been a good reason - or a good standard - on which to base a person's faith.

Motherhood and the Cross

Being pregnant and (quite) sick has definitely provided me with a lot of time to think about children and what they do to you. Ha! The more I see in the news and hear online and experience in the world around me, the sadder I become at the idea that children are not as valued in today's society. They are seen more as an inconvenience than a blessing. We think more about ourselves, our jobs, our likes and dislikes than we do about the statement that God makes that children are a heritage from Him. (Ps. 127:3)

But even we as Christians who say we believe that children are a treasure rather fail to act like it at times. We find ourselves wanting to apologize for having more than others think we ought to have. We refer to them in less than flattering terms. We let them have their own way just so we don't have to work at correcting them and exhausting ourselves in the process. (And we complain when they make us sick for weeks upon endless weeks while working on developing those 10 cute little fingers and 10 cute little toes!)

Jonathan and I were talking about what it was like when we were expecting our first. (Cue the cooing.) "Ooooh, we're going to have a baby." And that's where our thoughts stopped. We were going to have a baby. We would hold it and think it was cute. Our vision, you might say, was limited.

This time it's a bit different. We have four years of parenting under our belts and added Bookworm2. Now we're more like, you know, parents. (Less so than some, more so than others. I can't win in any kind of comparison games, so I'm not here to try, k?) Sure, they start out cute. But they don't really stay that way without a huge amount of WORK! We've been impressed over the past four years that we didn't just "have a baby" - we were given a life to steward. That, my friends, is a whole 'nother ball game!

Parenting is work. (Did I mention this?) Hard work. Lots of work. It's a daily, exhausting task of correcting, encouraging, maintaining and developing a little person's worldview. That's tough stuff! Having children isn't about adding to your collection of possessions - it's about giving your life away. When you get married, you readjust your thinking and start having to work with someone else's opinions to cause life to continue running smoothly. When you have children, you give away what's left of your life. Forever.

This time, as I'm pregnant and confined to my bed or the couch, I'm much more content to be sick (most of the time. I may have had one or two less charitable moments.) I do recognize that it's a worthy use of my time to lay in bed and let this little one grow. The possibilities that this little LIFE within me possess are unfathomable. I believe God has a great plan in mind for this person and I have the benefit and blessing of carrying and tending to the life. That's a huge deal! It's not an inconvenience.

So when I'm sitting in the bathroom, wondering when I'll be released from this small and now ever-so-unpleasant room, I realize something. The only reason I think children are a blessing is because they come at such a price. It's not just pregnancy or an adoption process that makes them a blessing. It's the constant struggle to die to self and submit to the cross and accept the responsibility that we, as parents, have been given. It's a painful sacrifice at times. It's tiring. But sometimes the only way we can recognize what it truly good is to have it rise up in conflict with something that isn't. When we see good and evil compared, we can make declarations of truth such as the fact that children are indeed a treasure from the Lord.

It's the agony of the acquisition that makes us say, "Oh wow. This is worth it." And then it's the daily grind that causes you to intentionally and forcefully (and daily!) say (outloud whenever possible), "My child, you are a blessing!"

Of course, the cross itself is the picture of the worst agony. But when we see the cross in conflict with death, finally conquering it, we can say of the truth of the resurrection that it is a blessing beyond our wildest imagination. In the pain, we find our freedom.

That's how I feel about morning sickness. In the pain, I find the joy. I know it means less "me" time than ever before. I know my responsibility to my family is growing. I know I will need to learn how to steward my time even more effectively. I will continue to be stretched (pardon the pun), to learn and to grow. But in all of that, I find freedom in become the person that God has designed me to be. How could I be anything but grateful for that?

And so there is another day of dying to self as fighting an uphill battle against food. I'm not always successful in keeping a positive attitude and so I write this to remind myself that the Refiner's Fire is to be welcomed, not avoided. Things that are worth being a part of - like the life of another - are worth some discomfort. It is a faith that ends up costing me something. Motherhood and the cross. The former needs the latter. Without it - I know I wouldn't make it!

Parenting isn't what I used to think it was. It's a great deal of hard work, as I've spelled out above. And the world isn't very helpful in encouraging motherhood. Stay at home moms in particular are constantly being called upon to justify their sacrificial decision to stay home and nurture a family. The world offers temporary praise in the form of corporate success and perhaps larger bank accounts. But that's temporary and I can't just look at the momentary distractions - the potential jobs, friends and social opportunities. I have to look at the end. And so I won't be moved away from the truth and the fact that the greatest thing I could ever do with my life is to be married to Jonathan and raise a family with him. Hands down, bar none, this is it folks. I will never work harder. I will never be more challenged. I will never receive a greater reward than stewarding the lives of my children and then releasing them to pursue the things that God has for them. Home is where my blessing is to be found. The world can offer me nothing so beautiful as the faces of my three children and the life partnership with Jonathan. The world, quite simply, cannot offer me the victory of the cross and all that that entails as a person, as a woman, as a mother, as a parent. It's a HARD road. But it's the best choice I could ever make.