On Planned Parenthood

It has been awhile since I've posted on here. Here is an article I wrote for SOAR(Students Organized for An American Revival). It can be viewed here at http://www.constitutionalteens.org/articles/our-articles/on-planned-parent%20/

Once upon a time there originated an idea. This idea started when people started believing that they are not made in the Image of God and started believing they are more like the animals, not being accountable to God for his actions. The intellectuals of the Enlightenment era worked to eliminate God and his redeeming work through Jesus Christ out of the story of man (or history). The ideas were that there was a need to get rid of weak and unwanted people. This is where Planned Parenthood came in. Because Planned Parenthood is the leading provider of abortions today, it is important that there is an examination of its origins.

To lay the foundation for the origins of Planned Parenthood, it would be a good idea to look at the historical background of what formed the founders’ ideas. From the 1600s-1800 was a time period known as the enlightenment. It was during this time that philosophies such as deism, empiricism (Belief that all knowledge comes by the senses), and the exaltation of reason over Scripture developed. A few ideas that arose from this era were Malthusian and social Darwinism. Malthusian was the concept that population was grown exponentially while food was grown arithmetically. Thus, poverty and hunger were just evidences of an overpopulation problem. What was the solution? Thomas Malthus wrote, “Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns, we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlement in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and restrain those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders.”1 What the followers of Malthus believed was that those deemed “unfit” were to be eliminated. On the other hand there was social Darwinism. In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote a book called Origin of Species which laid the foundation for the Darwinian Revolution. A man named Herbert Spencer applied Darwin’s principles to every area of life including politics and economics. It was he, not Darwin, who coined the term “Survival of the fittest.” It is by natural selection and survival of the fittest that the best species survive. All other species die. To pave the way for “proper evolution”, people were encouraged to not help the poor, eliminate charity, and take out the ‘human weeds’. Adolf Hitler applied this idea to Nazi Germany, the leaders of the Former Soviet Union did this, and the sterilization/eugenics movement was based on this.

How were ideas connected with Planned Parenthood? The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, clearly embraced the ideas of Darwinism and Malthusian. Author George Grant wrote, “She was thoroughly convinced that the ‘inferior races’ were in fact ‘human weeds’ and a ‘menace to civilization.’ She believed that ‘social regeneration’ would only be possible as the ‘sinister forces of the hoards of irresponsibility and imbecility’ were repulsed. She accepted the Malthusian notion that organized Christian charity to ethnic minorities and the poor were a ‘symptom of a malignant social disease’ because it encouraged the prolificacy of ‘defective, delinquents, and dependents.’” 2 David Noebel, a leading expert in Christian worldview, has stated that Sanger’s book, Pivots of Civilization, was one of the first to advocate Malthusian and eugenics.3 She called for the elimination of “human weeds” and the sterilization of those that are deemed “genetically inferior”. According to the Planned Parenthood site, Sanger’s organization “provides[d] contraceptive advice to poor, immigrant women, some of whom line up hours before the doors open.”4 Do you see who they were targeting? They were targeting poor immigrant minorities who were the source of humanity’s problems. It was the minorities such as ‘negroes’, the poor, the handicaps, and those with large families that were considered weeds. They were the ones who put an unnecessary burden on society. These people were an “inferior races”. Sanger appeared to be angry towards large families. She wrote in her book, Women and the New Race, that “Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”5 This was population control in its finest. This was central to her philosophy, this was central to Planned Parenthood.

How does Planned Parenthood play out in today’s world? In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the practice of abortion Constitutional under the 14th Amendment. How did this happen? Planned Parenthood has been involved in this from the very beginning. As the result of the rise of the feminist movement within the past century, many women have argued for “equal” social status with men. The feminists were the ones who argued for women wanting to be in the military. The feminists were the ones who gave up their life of being a stay-at-home wife and mother to climb the corporate ladder. It was they who were the ones who advocated for birth control and abortion. One feminist writer even said that “a housewife is an illegitimate profession…the choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family maker is a choice that shouldn’t be”6Margaret Sanger was one of the original feminists as shown with her advocacy of birth control. Planned Parenthood from the beginning was a champion for “Women’s rights”. Besides radical feminism, population control is in the works in the modern day world. In China, there is a brutal one-child only policy that is in affect there. This country has many problems including “massive forced abortions, sterilizations and other abuses coming as a result of its one-child policy.”7 Planned Parenthood has stated that China’s policy is a model of efficiency for the rest of the world. Planned Parenthood has from the beginning targeted minorities; a lot of them have been deemed “unfit” and needed to be eliminated. Recently a New York Times article has reported that the abortion rate in New York City for African-Americans is at an alarming sixty percent.8 What this means is that more babies from African-American families are being aborted than they are being born. In case you did not know, the majority of abortion clinics are located in minority communities.9 What does this have to say about Sanger and her intention to eliminate “human weeds” and the unfit? In the 1930s, Margaret Sanger started something called the “Negro Project” whose original purpose was to reduce the birth of African-American children.10 Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., has stated that “If the Dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is to live, our babies must live. Our mothers must choose life. If we refuse to answer the cry of mercy from the unborn, and ignore the suffering of the mothers, then we are signing our own death warrants.”11 The ideas that minorities are unwanted simply needs to stop. It has been demonstrated throughout history how this type of thinking has been carried out. Hitler carried it out and has killed over six million people doing so. Planned Parenthood carries it out today and kills tens of millions of babies every year doing so. The original intentions of Planned Parenthood have been the goals of this group since the very beginning and they continue to the present.

In closing, when God is eliminated from the hearts and minds of man, he will come up with many bizarre ideas that can devastate the lives of millions. Malthusian and Darwinian are perfect examples of such thinking. Abortion is part of that thinking. Instead of being fruitful and reproducing, the Darwinist mandate is “Be the strongest and kill the weakest.” Abortion is really just killing unwanted babies. May we pray that this massacre can be exposed and stopped at once. If man believes he is not made in the image of God, then he thinks he does not have to be accountable to God for his actions.

__________________

1. Cited in George Grant’s Third Time Around: A History of the Pro-Life Movement from the First Century to the Present. Brentwood, Tennessee: Wolgemuth & Wyatt, 1991. Print. 122

2. ibid.123

3. Noebel, David. “Margaret Sanger: Founder of Planned Parenthood and Heroine of the Secular Humanists.” Worldview Weekend. N.d. Web. 17 Jan 2011. http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/print.php?&ArticleID=939

4. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/history-and-successes.htm

5. Black, Edwin. War Against The Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign To Create A Master Race. New York: Thunder Mouth Press, 2004. Print. 127

6. quoted in David Kupelian’s The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell us Corruption Disguised As Freedom.Nashville: Cumberland House Publishing, 2005. Print. 112.

7.Ertelt, Steve. “President Hu Denies China has Forced Abortion Policy.” LifeNews.com. 20 Jan 2011. Web. http://www.lifenews.com/2011/01/20/president-hu-denies-china-has-forced-abortion-policy/

8. Vitello, George. “Religious Leaders Call for New Efforts to Lower the City’s Abortion Rate.” New York Times. 16 Jan 2011

9. http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race/

10. Piper, John. When Abortion is Racism. 21 Jan 2007. Web. http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/when-is-abortion-racism

11. ibid.

Danger in a Virtual World

In modern society, people have access to many things their parents and grandparents would have never been able to comprehend. With progress come many of its advantages and disadvantages. Today, the quality of healthcare has improved, computers have helped many do their jobs more efficiently and quickly, and people have access to mobile phones that can send a text message across the globe in seconds. Along with progress are many new evils such as identity thief, cyber warfare, and computer viruses. In this day and age, online security is of paramount importance. However, people do need to take responsibility for protecting their own private information on the internet. Because online privacy is an important right, the U.S. government should back away from unnecessary monitoring of the internet and let the people be responsible for their private, personal information.
To start off, what needs to be defined is what constitutes legitimate reasons why government must regulate the internet and why they should not. The first reason is to protect America’s databases that are important for national security. According to David Lambrecht, journalist with the St. Louis Dispatch-Post, the Pentagon databases are attacked at least 250,000 times an hour, which sums up to six million attacks a day. These attackers range from computer hackers to foreign intelligence agencies from around the globe (A1). This is a matter of national security. The government needs to regulate their own networks because countries such as Iran, North Korea, Russia, or China could be attempting to access classified information. This is the reason why the government must take down sites such as wikileaks. The hosts of that site have betrayed America by putting classified information out in the open where foreign intelligence agencies and terrorist groups can access that information within a few clicks of a mouse. The government has the right and responsibility to regulate the internet when it comes to classified documents.
Another reason to regulate the internet is to fight against internet crimes. These include computer hackers, cyber-terrorists, and those who sell child pornography. Jaak Aaviksoo, Minister of Defense in Estonia, said concerning a cyber-terrorist attack in Estonia, “Taking into account the tensions around the relocation of the monument and the street riots that broke out afterwards, the people who were news-thirsty could not get access to online news. At the same time, the bank transactions that in Estonia to more than 90 percent are carried out via Internet were not possible”(29). These are real threats to society. Aaviksoo stated that “Most of the attacks were carried out against Estonian governmental websites and servers, but also against Estonian news portals, against two biggest banks in Estonia, and later all of the other commercial banks as well as several Internet service providers and telecoms”(29). These are things that a society is dependent on. News is transmitted online in modern day society and banks now do their business on the internet. If the internet is attacked, it can have a major impact on governments and economies of across the globe. The government should have regulation over the internet to make sure things like this do not happen.
There are also legitimate concerns about the government controlling the internet. When a government is given a little more control over something, it only wants more control. This is the case of what happened in countries such as Iran, China, and the former Soviet Union. Farnaz Fassibi, writer for the Wall Street Journal, said concerning Iran, “Tracking internet crimes—from political dissent to pornography—has been a priority of the regime” (A1)In countries such as Iran, they just don’t track cyber-terrorists or computer hackers, they track down those who do not agree with their government officials. If the U.S. does the same thing, it would be a clear violation of freedom of speech in the United States. Daniel Calingaert, writer for the Policy Review, stated that "It is increasingly focused on impeding the spread of domestically generated content that authoritarian regimes find objectionable, such as news about government incompetence or online discussions about abuses of power, and obstructing the organization of political opposition,internet censorship and surveillance are used first and foremost by authoritarian regimes to silence their domestic critics and to prevent the emergence of political alternatives."(67) Iran and China are examples of those who censor content that criticizes their imperfect government and other viewpoints. There has never existed a perfect and, unless mankind learns to not disagree, there will never be one. That is just a fact of reality.
Another reason not to censor the internet is for the purpose of privacy. There is a lot more information out in the open then one thinks. For example, a major data broker, ChoicePoint, sold personal information of many people who used their services. According to USA Today reporters Jon Swartz and Byron Acohido, the company “sold sensitive information for at least 166,000 people to a Nigerian con artist posing as a debt collector”(par.2) What this means is that people need to be responsible where they put their private information. Choices have consequences. Scams are prevalence in American society and the American people need to be on the defensive end making sure they are not being cheated out of their money. Keeping the public educated on these issues and keeping people accountable concerning their personal information will be the only ways that true privacy will work. Reid Goldsborough, writer for Teacher Librarian, writes “One rule of thumb is that you should feel free to say what you think, but you should also think before you say it. No matter how careful you are, it is unavoidable that some degree of personal privacy must be compromised in our increasingly interconnected and digitized society” (par.8). We have freedom of speech. We must use it wisely. The internet would not need much regulation if people can regulate themselves and parents keep an eye out on what their children view on the internet. When it comes to regulating the internet, one needs to practice what is called “self-regulation.” Joe Cannataci and Jeanne Bonnici, who were involved in research at Law and Information Technology Research Unit at Malta University, defines it as that a person who enforces the rules and laws himself (3). America’s citizens need to follow a set of rules. Otherwise, the government will have to do it and it will be cumbersome. One of the ways that families can practice “self-regulation” is to monitor their children on the internet is using an online filter. If government chooses what is best for America’s children, they, not the parents, have become the ones raising them and becoming the ultimate teachers of children. Chris Hunter, a Ph.D candidate, wrote about an organization called the Bertelsmann Foundation who proposed a method ten years ago where parents could voluntarily rate content and filter a web site if they do not approve of a particular site (2). The benefit of having an online filter is that it gives parents control over what their children see on the internet. It takes the burden off the government from passing content regulation laws and giving that authority to the parents. Having one can also limit what one can view himself. If one does not like a website, then he can filter it or simply not view it. Why waste time and taxpayer money filing lawsuits on sites a few people find offensive? The money used in lawsuits like these needs to go off towards paying the national debt and building up America’s defenses, not to the emotional whim of a few people. If wants to see more freedom on the internet in America, it must be given to the people.
With a clear definition of what the government can and cannot regulate on the internet, how can the U.S. government deal with issues such as cyber terrorism and computer hackers? As anyone who has common sense knows, these are moral wrongs in society. Good people just do not do those things. The problem America has today is that it is not prepared to fight in a cyber war. Former national intelligence director Michael McConnell said, “’If the nation went to war today in a cyberwar, we would lose. We're the most vulnerable. We're the most connected. We have the most to lose’”(qtd. In Rockefeller and Snowe A15). What would happen if a virtual assault from a cyber-terrorist occurred? The United States would experience something similar to what happened in Estonia where business transactions will be down and no one can contact anyone else through e-mail or Facebook. The majority of Americans are dependent on computers and the internet. If the U.S. is attacked, we will not be prepared for it. U.S. Senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe said, “These adversaries target our identities, our money, our businesses, our intellectual property, and our national security secrets. They often succeed. What's more, they have the potential to disrupt or disable vital information networks, which could cause catastrophic economic loss and social havoc. We are not prepared” (A15). These are real threats the government cannot just ignore in the name of privacy. When there is sufficient evidence that a man is plotting an attack, federal agents should attain a warrant (required under the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) and arrest that individual. Then, agents are allowed to check his cell phone, computer, or anything relevant that can help them find any more information about the attack. If the government can develop a way to prevent cyber-terrorist attacks without compromising an innocent citizen’s privacy, that would be a step in the right direction.
What is the difference between fighting enemies based on the damage they can do economically and socially and those that simply want their voices to be heard? In 2009, the Islamic Republic of Iran held elections. After the results were announced, many citizens went to the streets and protested. How did the Iranian government respond to this? The government officials soon realized that social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter were circulating information that rallied citizens across Iran and around the world against the regime. In response to this, the government slowed down internet connection. For many Iranians, it took them a half-hour to simply access an e-mail inbox. Facebook, Twitter and Youtube were banned from the country (Fassihi A1). This is an example of how far leaders will get to silence their critics. On the other hand, securities measures are needed to defend America’s networks from cyber-terrorists who want to do damage to this country. The CIA and the NSA cannot censor critics of the nation’s government leaders. This would violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and would not solve the problem of criminal hackers and cyber-terrorists with an agenda. The government censorhip of the internet violates the free speech rights of its citizens. An article from Policy Review says, “Internet censorship, for example, infringes on the rights of a great many citizens as content producers, not only as consumers, and online survallience allows authorities to monitor personal communications as well as to track what citizens read”(Calingaert 15). The big difference is that the CIA and NSA need to spend their time tracking down people such as Osama Bin Laden and other wanted fugitives, not spying on a conservative news writer in Washington, DC. If someone has written a critique of the U.S. government, the government needs to let it go. Freedom of speech prevails in a truly democratic society like the United States.
In closing, providing freedom of speech and freedom of what people want to view can bring a greater amount of freedom to America. The government should regulate the internet to protect it from criminal hackers and cyber-terrorists. They should never regulate it against different political views, pornography, or material people find offensive. It is the job of the individual to determine what he wants to write and view. If he does not like a site, then he should not view it. Parents have the responsibility to monitor what their children view on the internet. The less regulation on the internet, the more freedom of expression and speech there will be in America.





Works Cited
Aaviksoo, Jaak.”Cyber-Terrorism.” Vital Speeches of the Day 74.1(2008): 28-32. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Oct. 2010.
Calingaert, Daniel. “Authoritarianism vs. the internet.”Policy Review. 160(2010):63-75. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Oct. 2010.
Cannataci, Joseph and Jeanne Bonnici. “Can Self-Regulation satisfy the transnational requisite of Successul Internet Regulation?” BILETA. British & Irish Law, Education, and technology Association. 5-6 April 2002. Web.29 Oct. 2010
Fassihi, Farnaz. "Iranian Crackdown Goes Global." Wall Street Journal 03 Dec. 2009: A1. SIRS Researcher. Web. 26 Oct. 2010.
Goldsborough, Reid. “Are you Protecting Your Online Privacy.” Teacher Librarian. 37.5 (2010): 72.Academic Search Complete. Web. 1 Nov. 2010.
Hunter, Christopher D. “Negotiating the Global Internet Rating and Filtering System: Opposing Views of the Bertelsmann Foundation’s Self-regulation of Internet Content Proposal.” CFP2000.Computers, Freedom, and Privacy 2000 Conference. n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2010.
Lambrecht, Bill. “Cyber Security Becomes Priority.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch 13 Jun. 2010: A1. SIRS Researcher. Web. 26 Oct. 2010.
Rockefeller, Jay, and Olmypia Snowe. “Now is the Time to Prepare for Cyber war”. Wall Street Journal 2 April 2010: A15.SIRS Researcher. Web. 03 Nov 2010.
Swartz, Jon, and Byron Acohido. “Who’s Guarding your Data in the Cybervault?” USA Today 1 April.2007: n.pag. SIRS Reseacher. Web. 26 Oct. 2010.

The Real Solution to America's Problems

If you are a Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh fan, this article may offend you. It will offend you because those three men have not offered the real solution to what is really going on in America. The solution is not voting out all the Democrats, organizing Tea Party rallies, or condemning President Obama and his policies all day long. The problem goes deeper then that. The thing is, most Conservative commentators do not even know what the problem is. It is not America's move towards Socialism, Facaism, and Communism. These are symptoms of the problem but they are not the problem itself. The problem is that people like you and me are sinners. The solution is found in the Cross of Jesus Christ. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can change America. Glenn Beck can't do it, Sarah Palin can't do it, nor can Michele Bachmann. We can vote out politicians all day long, but that will not deal with the issues of sin and the heart. You cannot change a country from the tops down. It must start with people like you and me, examining our own hearts and laying down our sins at the foot of the Cross. Then we must be diligent to proclaim the Gospel to others. The Church has substituted the Gospel for political activism. Oh Lord have mercy on us. We must pray that there will be laborers in the fields. When people began to realize their sinfulness before a holy God that will began to see change America. Barack Obama cannot bring that kind of change, it can only come by the Lord granting us His mercy. Let us pray that America will come to repentance and return to God this country was dedicated to.

The Family in America

Within the last century, there has been a drastic change. This change came not by revolution or civil unrest, but by a major shift from a Christian worldview to a humanistic one. One way this is evident is that Americans are embracing homosexuality and abortion. As a Christian can see, homosexual marriages and abortions are distortions to what the Bible calls the family. With that said, what does an ideal family look like according to Scripture? There will three areas that we will look at that will answer that question; marriage, parenting, and how a family impacts society.

To start off with, we are going to take a look at what a marriage is suppose to look like. Marriage is what keeps a family together. It is the foundation on which a family is built upon. Sadly, marriage is under attack from various sides including the homosexual movement to the modern feminist movement. Groups such as the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) are on the front lines “to eliminate laws governing divorce, fornication, and adultery” and are involved in “lawsuits seeking to legalize same-sex marriage, gay adoption, and even polygamy”1.For the last forty years feminism has been on the rise. They say things such as “We have to abolish and reform the institution of marriage…By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God… We must understand what we are attempting is a revolution, not a public relations movement.”2 Just recently, a Judge in California declared Proposition 8, an amendment which defines marriage between one man and one woman in California, unconstitutional. Cultural commentator and Southern Baptist Seminary President Albert Mohler comments, “Judge Walker’s decision, bearing the full force of a Federal court, adds to the sense of inevitability that the proponents of same-sex marriage have been so carefully constructing in recent years. Defenders of marriage as a heterosexual institution should resist the temptation to minimize the significance of this decision, even as the verdict is vigorously appealed. Yesterday’s ruling is a huge win for the homosexual community, and a significant step toward the full normalization of homosexuality within the culture.3 These are real threats that, if successful, can bring a fatal blow to marriage. If marriage is destroyed and redefined, then the family is going to be redefined which will drive society farther from its founding principles.

What does an ideal marriage look like? First, it is meant to be between only a man and a woman. One verse in Scripture that teaches this is Genesis 2:24, which states that “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” Also, for a man to become an elder in the local church, one of the qualifications is that he must be “the husband of but one wife.”(1 Timothy 3:2) This clearly refutes the notion that homosexuality is consistent with Biblical Christianity and is a natural trait. This even shows he can’t have two or more wives. God intended marriage to be a picture of the relationship between Christ and His people (the church). Ephesians 5:25-33 shows us that picture by telling husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her. It is all a part of the wonderful design God place for humanity. Marriage is also a covenantal relationship. Just as it is a picture of the covenant between Christ and his church, it also involves a covenantal commitment between a man and a woman. One problem in many relationships in America is that there is no covenantal marriage and there is no commitment to each other. There are couples that are living together without being married. On top of that, if someone else shows up that one likes better, he can terminate that relationship and move in with his new girlfriend. It is a mess the way our culture values marriage. Marriage is a commitment both parties keep until “death do us part.”

The Bible gives instructions on how a man and a woman are to work a marriage. The man is supposed to represent Christ as the head of his household. 1 Corinthian 11:3 says that “Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” Pastor John Piper helps us define Biblical masculinity. He said “At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships.”4 One characteristic of biblical manhood is that a man is supposed to lead. Adam in the Garden of Eden was given leadership roles by naming Eve and the animals (Genesis 2:19-23). This is a sign of authority. Husbands are commanded to lead their wives and be the head of their homes. Another role of a biblical man is that he is the main provider for the home. Unless he is hindered otherwise by illness or injury, the man should be the one feeling the pressure of putting “food on the table”, paying the bills, and caring for his wife and children. Thirdly, a man is to be the protector of his wife and kids. We’re not saying women are weak, but men need to make sure that they protect women. If anything ever happens, a woman will know that her husband will protect her and will not be off somewhere else. John Piper said, “A mature man senses instinctively that as a man he is called to take lead in guarding the woman he is with.” 5 These are the characteristics that need to be found in men throughout our society.

For a woman, she is called to represent her husband to her children and to the world.In a marriage relationship, she is suppose to summit to her husband. (Ephesians 5:22, 1 Peter 3:1) One might ask if this makes women inferior to men. No, it does not. The reason a woman submits is that she was designed by God to be a helpmate to her husband. Genesis 2:18 says “And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a helper comparable to him'” Eve completes Adam. Presbyterian pastor and theologian Brian Schwertly said “When Adam saw Eve, he knew that she was perfectly suitable to answer his needs and desires. The wife is to be a helper suitable for her husband. She is to compliment him and make up what is lacking in him. Together in marriage God makes them a complete whole and together they are perfectly suited to carry out the dominion mandate. They submission of the wife is rooted in the very fabric of creation. Eve was made for Adam to help him and complete him. Therefore, the only way that a woman can find true fulfillment and meaning as God created her is to become a loving submissive wife to a man who is under the loving lordship of Christ.”6 Other roles of Biblical womanhood is to bear children (Genesis 1:28) and to provide companionship to man (Genesis 2:18). America is in dire need of women who follow God’s Word.

Secondly, another aspect of the family is the reproduction and bearing of children. Genesis 1, God commanded man to “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” As the verse indicates, mankind needs to reproduce so that humanity can continue. More importantly, Adam as the head and Eve as his helpmate were given a mandate of dominion, which includes the task of rising up a God glorifying civilization. Due to the fall in Genesis 3, this mandate has been perverted. Today as America strays further away from its Christian roots, the family must start being the family or society will start deteriorating. Parents are required to raise their children in fear of the lord. The family is foundational to stable societies and thriving churches. R.J. Rushdoony writes “The family is man's first state, church, and school. It is the institution which provides the basic structure of his existence and most governs his activities. Man is reared in a family and then establishes a family, passing from the governed to the governing in a framework which extensively and profoundly shapes his concept of himself and of life in general.”7 You might be surprised to know that the family is a form of government. One school textbook written in 1903 said “The family…is a form of government, established for the good of children themselves, and the first government we all must obey.”8 Throughout American history, the family has been an important element of society. People who founded our country such as George Washington, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson have actually been given their education at home. Because public schools did not exist, the only alternatives were either homeschooling or a charter school if there was one. Most of the founders were taught by tutors with parents closely involved. Former education secretary William Bennett at the 1992 Republican National Convention said “Not all teachers are parents but all parents are teachers – children’s first teachers, children’s all but indispensable teachers.”9 This is why parents need to take their responsibilities seriously. If they do not instill a love of God in their children and teach them Biblical Christianity, we will have people running our government who will not respect Christianity or the U.S. Constitution. This is one of the reasons why we are having the problems in our society. The reason why there is drug abuse, premarital sex, and corrupt politicians is because parents for the last 40-50 years stopped disciplining their children and allowed the State (Through Our wonderful public school system) to takeover in place of the parents.

What can we do to help restore the family in America? First, Christians in America need to wake up to the fact that their freedoms are gradually being taken from them by humanist and anti-Christian groups. Humanists know the power of public education for the propagation of their worldview. Charles Francis Potter, a signer of the first Humanist Manifesto in 1930, said “Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday-school, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?”10If most Christian parents start taking responsibility for their children’s’ education and not leave it to the State or even the church, this could change the battle of the culture war were in. Secondly, fathers need to start being fathers. Daniel Amneus writes “Fatherless families . . . generate far more delinquency and personality disorders than do normal or motherless families…The ratio of delinquent children living with the mother only compared to those living with the father only is about three to one.”11According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI), in the year 1983, people under the age of 18 have committed the following; 218,00 burglaries, 45,000 motor vehicle thief, and 10,000 arsons . Can you guess who contributed to at least 78% of these crimes? Boys which the majority of them don’t have a father in their lives.12 (Statistical abstract p.173,183) Thirdly, there needs to be a proper understanding of Biblical manhood and womanhood in our culture. America has adopted false ideas on what men and women are suppose to be. Even gender identity is blurred from the culture. A couple of years ago in the city of Gainesville, FL, the city commission passed an ordinance that allow men that “feel like a woman” to use a woman’s restroom and vice visa in any public bathroom within the city limits. This is how far Americans have gone from what God intended in His design of a man and a woman. It is time we boldly cry out for a return to reality and what God designed us to be. These are steps we can use to bring the Biblical family back to America.

Finally, what can the families that are being Biblical families do to how change America? We as Christians are called to be salt and light to the world. Jesus declared “let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.”(Matthew 5:16) If people see a Christian family where the husband and wife have a strong marriage and children that are kind and well behaved, they might be likely to notice something different with that family than from a worldly one. Christian couples with strong marriages need to go and help those whose marriages are crumbling and point those people to the Gospel. Parents can help non-Christian parents and show them the Gospel. It is the Gospel that will save America, not politicians or voting corrupt ones out of office. What we as young folks can do now is to show respect to our parents by submitting to their authority, learning what it means to be a Biblical man or woman, and doing hard things such as helping a Godly candidate running for office get elected or going out evangelizing.

In closing, as it was shown, we have a lot of work to do. In order to reclaim our country and culture, we need to have a Biblical idea of what the family is suppose to look like. Let us be the generation that will set an example to those that are yet to be. We must be bold and speak out against the dangers that homosexuality and abortion bring to our country, families, and to ourselves. Meditate on these words from Yale president Timothy Dwight, “You should by no means consider yourself as members of a small neighborhood, town, or colony only, but as beings concerned in laying the foundations of ‘American greatness.’ Your wishes, your designs, your labors, are not to be confined by the narrow bound of the present age, but are to comprehend succeeding generations, and be pointed to immortality.”13` We are a generation that we determine the fate of future generations. We will either fight for Biblical values or we will sit on the sideline watching our freedom go down the drain. It is time for a new reformation and our generation is the one called to bring it out. May the Lord’s will be done for future generations to see.

Works cite
1. Kastensmidt, Sam. Indefensible; 10 Ways the ACLU is Destroying America p. 138
2. Steinmen, Gloria. Saturday Review of Education March 1973
3 Mohler, Albert. http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/08/05/the-gavel-falls-on-marriage-the-proposition-8-decision/ August 5, 2010
4. Piper, John. What is the Difference
5. ibid
6. Schwertly, Brian. http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/family.html
7. Rushdoony, R.J. Politics of Guilt and Pity. P. 331
8. Elements of Civil Government. P.18, 1903 edition
9. Bennett, William. http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0407_Remarks_by_William_B.html
10. Potter, Charles Francis. Humanism: a new Religion. P. 138
11. Amneus, Daniel. Back to Patriarchy. P. 26,64.
12. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Statistical Abstracts. P. 173,183
13. Hawkinson, Don. Character for Life: An American Heritage. P. 166.

Is our Focus on the Cross?

In our fast paced lives, we can easily forget about the things that are the most important. Many times in our relationship with God, we tend to lose grasp of one thing; the life, death, and resurrection of our savior Jesus Christ. Many times Christians can get caught up in the latest end-times book released or caught up in the politics of the day that our focus is not on Jesus. Because the Gospel is the nucleus that holds biblical Christianity together, it is important that we have a strong grasp of it.

To start off with, we need, time and time again, to be reminded of what the Gospel is. It starts with that fact that we are totally depraved sinners that need a savior. Psalm 53 says, “God looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. Everyone has turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.” No one does good and no one is able to save himself. We have broken God’s law and we have to pay a penalty for it.That is why God the Father send his son, Jesus, to take the penalty we deserved by dying the most gruesome form of death imaginable. It was not just the most horrible form of death because he had been whipped, had his hands and feet nailed to a piece of wood, and was severely beaten, but He forebeared the wrath of God. The wrath you and I deserved was placed upon that cross. John Newton in his hymn said, “I saw my sins His blood had spilt and helped to nail Him there. But with a second look He said ‘I freely all forgive. This blood is for your ransom paid. I died that you might live.’” Jesus died so that we can live. We were dead in our transgressions and sins, but through Christ we were made alive. Not only did Jesus die, but he rose again from the dead. If Jesus did not rise, The Bible and the Gospel would be meaningless. He rose again and ascended into heaven and is reigning at the right hand of the father. One day, Jesus will return to judge the world. Oh let us not show our filthy hearts on that day. If you are not a believer, I would encourage you to repent of your sins and get things right with God. You do not want God saying to you on that day “Depart from me, for I never knew you.”(Matthew 7) This is the Gospel in a nutshell. Never lose grasp of it.

Pastor C.J. Mahaney once said, “Never be content with your grasp of the gospel. The gospel is life-permeating, world-altering, universe-changing truth. It has more facets than any diamond. Its depths man will never exhaust." Not only do we need to understand the Gospel, we need to apply into every area of our lives. Even though the questions of what constitutes biblical economics or government will not be addressed in this article, but the Gospel must be applied in those areas. We must place every area of our lives under the lordship of Jesus Christ. It is not enough to just go to church on Sunday, we must be out there preaching the Gospel, taking back the universities and educational institutes for Christ, and ministering to others. Why do we do this? It is because of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ is so wonderful that we need to live it and show others that. We need to proclaim that true not only to ourselves, but to the whole world.

How do we apply this glorious gospel to our lives? First, we must preach it to ourselves every day. Read the scriptures and learn more about Christ and his work on the Cross. All other Christian doctrines have their foundation on the Gospel. Can you not think of any doctrine that is not connected to the Gospel? In Eschatology, it is more concerned about the return of Christ than about what is going to happen. One scholar put it this way, “eschatology is thoroughly Christological. It’s about Jesus. Christ’s return is like the hub of a wheel, and all the other stuff is like spokes coming off that wheel. And they only have meaning relative to the hub, relative to Christ’s return.”1 It is consummation of the whole of redemptive history. In one part, Christ came down and died for the sins of those he loved. In the next, He will return to put an end to wickedness and bring home the people He redeemed. Concerning the doctrine of total depravity, we are sinners, unable to do any good, and we need a savior. That is simple enough. How about the church? If Christ did not die, there will be no need for a church because the blood of the lamb was never poured out. We would most likely be sacrificing animals prescribed by the levitical laws rather than enjoying the Lord’s supper or embracing baptism. I am sure you get the point by now. The main theme of the Scriptures is the redemptive work of Christ. It has been predicted and hidden in the Old Testament and reveled and fulfilled in the New Testament. Another way to apply the Gospel is to go out and tell it to others. This is a must for all Christians. If you do not have resources to teach you how to evangelize, look up “Way of the Master” (Led by Kirk Cameron, also known as Buck Williams in the Left Behind series, and Ray Comfort) or take a look at “Proclaim” (An evangelism program developed by pastors within Sovereign Grace Ministries). So now you do not have any excuses for not evangelizing! You need to get over your fear of man. People around the world get killed for proclaiming the Gospel. Here in America, the worst thing that can happen is a person rejecting the Gospel. People rarely get killed for evangelizing in the United States. Thirdly, we as Christians need to take back all social institutions for Christ. Rather than withdrawing from the culture and forming a Christian subculture, we need to reach out and take the Universities, our government, the press, and the culture for Christ. If we do not do this, there can be severe consequences. This mission will not be easy and it may be accomplished within a couple hundred years. These things are what Christians are called to do.

In closing, the Gospel is what our focus is on. Without it, all that we do will be meaningless. If Christ did not die, we will be lost and running as far as we can from God. Rather than getting focused on end-time charts and predictions, we must put our focus on the One who has the end in His hands. He is the reason for our existence. We should be thankful for the One who died for the sins of His people.

Footnotes
1. Purswell, Jeff. “The Last One”. Sovereign Grace Ministries. http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/blogs/cj-mahaney/post/2010/07/16/The-Last-One-Jeff-Purswell-Eschatology.aspx

Failure of socialism/communism/welfarism

Here are some finer points discussion the issue of socialism vs. capitalism.

1. People think that a socialistic society will bring happiness and joy because everyone can be lazy. Well.... In Jamestown back in the Colonial days, this was put into pratice and the entire town was about to collaspe. In countries like China, North Korea, the former Soviet Union, people are forced to work in order to make the system work. In China, prisoners are forced to make products or be faced with a beating. People are forced to work or they will be killed. Period.

2. Many communists are dependent upon capitalistic nations for their survival. The Soviet Union would not have survived seventy years if it wasn't for the U.S. supplying it with technology and other products of a capitalistic economy.

3. I make can make the argument that the communist government officials are the Bourgeois that Marx strongly opposes and the proletriat are the citizens in the former Soviet Union, North Korea, and China being oppressed by the government officials.

Since this is brief, I will expand on this at a future time.

Homeschooling and the PCA

Recently, a PCA pastor wrote an article concerning the issue of homeschooling(You can view here http://www.pal-item.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=201010010314). What is so unusual about this is that a pastor from a usually calvinistic, conservative, evangelical
denomination is agruing for statism and government control. He strongly believes that the government should regulate homeschooling. Because government control destorys the family, this is not a good idea.

Tom Stein, the PCA pastor who wrote the article, argues that school administrators in the state of Indiana are cutting corners about their dropout rates by having failing students sign homeschool forms. Rather than blaming the officials, Stein puts blame on the homeschoolers. So the solution? Regulate homeschooling!

So, if government school is working so well becuase it is run by the government, why regulate homeschooling? Let us make one thing clear, the state should never be involved in education. Education belongs to the parents and the communities. Stein thinks seems to think that if failing students sign a form to homeschool, they will be unproductive and lazy people who will not make any contributions to soceity. According to a study called Progress Report 2009, the "results support the large existing body of research on homeschool academic achievement and show homeschoolers, on average, scoring 37 percentile points above public school students on standardized achievement tests."(http://www.hslda.org/docs/study/ray2009/default.asp)
You think that a "a curriculum of potato chips and ESPN" is really what homeschoolers do? Think again. If the public school system continues to be a disaster as it has been, then the homeschoolers are the ones that are going to make the differences in our society.

But, you may argue, are homeschoolers social whimps? According to the study Homeschooling Grows Up, alot os homeschoolers are shown to be active in society more than the average U.S. Adult. It states "Seventy-one percent participate in an ongoing community service activity (e.g.,coaching a sports team, volunteering at a school, or working with a church or neighborhood association), compared to 37% of U.S. adults of similar ages." and "homeschool graduates work for candidates, contribute to
campaigns, and vote in much higher percentages than the general population of the United States." (Read this for yourself, don't just take my word for it http://www.hslda.org/research/ray2003/homeschoolinggrowsup.pdf) As you can see, my prediction will that if America returns to its traditional values, it will be the homeschoolers that will be the determining factor. This year, a homeschool youth political activist group, Generation Joshua, is assembling a thousand man army to help get pro-life, pro-homeschooling, pro-traditional values condidates to get elected. This group has set up camps such as igovern to teach homeschooled students about how our government works. The leaders of this group(William Estrada, Joel Grewe, Jeremiah Lorrig, Michael Zeller) are the people with a passion and a vision for the next generation. So, if America comes back to the values it was founded upon, it will be decided upon by the homeschoolers of this country.

What really is the solution to Stein's problem of school admistrators having to classify drop-out students as homeschoolers? We should go after the administrators, not the homeschoolers! The problem is with the public school system! It is broken. I believe that federally run education should be abolished. The Department of Education must be abolished! No more government intrusion into every aspect of our lives!

In closing, the solution is not to have government control homeschooling. We need to solve the issues of what is going in the public school system. A Presbyterian pastors goes against Covenant theology and family government that most PCAers I know embrace.