Wednesday, January 26, 2005

The Proverbs of Dominion

Proverbs 1:1-7 (NASB)

  1. The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel:
  2. To know wisdom and instruction,
    To discern the sayings of understanding,
  3. To receive instruction in wise behavior,
    Righteousness, justice and equity;
  4. To give prudence to the naive,
    To the youth knowledge and discretion,
  5. A wise man will hear and increase in learning,
    And a man of understanding will acquire wise counsel,
  6. To understand a proverb and a figure,
    The words of the wise and their riddles.
  7. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge;
    Fools despise wisdom and instruction.

These are the first seven verses of the Book of Proverbs. They are a "description of the writing and a recommendation of its importance and utility. Its object is partly moral and partly intellectual; it seeked to instruct in the way of wisdom, to edify those who have already made progress, and to discipline hearers to receive and assimilate the highest teaching." "It teaches what God requires of man, how God would have man behave in all circumstances of life; it teaches piety, duty, justice" (The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 9, p. iii, iv.). They are the foundation of the rest of the Book. They are the pillars which outline and support the Christian life.

So how do the Proverbs relate to dominion? According to Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar
the word which is translated "proverbs" in verse 1 is derived "from the verb mashal, signifying (1) 'to make like,' 'to assimilate,' and (2) 'to have dominion' " (The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 9, p. 1.). As is true for every are of life, being able to apply God's wisdom appropriately enables the believer to take dominion over the earth and the wicked alike.

Examples from the Book of Proverbs

  • 2:21-22 For the upright will dwell in the land, And the blameless will remain in it; 22 But the wicked will be cut off from the earth, And the unfaithful will be uprooted from it.
  • 12:24 The hand of the diligent will rule, But the slack {hand} will be put to forced labor.
  • 17:2 A wise servant will rule over a son who causes shame, And will share an inheritance among the brothers.

Christians would be wise to take the entire counsel of Scripture to heart, to shed the wicked inclinations and ideas of our own hearts and return to God's Word for direction and guidance. Use the Book of Proverbs to train yourself and your family to think God's thoughts after Him. Use them to discipline your children - lovingly take them to God's Word and show them what God has to say about their particular sin. Implore your children to "Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight" (Proverbs 3:5,6).


Saturday, January 22, 2005

New "Covenant Media Foundation" Link

I wanted everyone to know that I have just added a new resource link under the "Related Links" section on left-hand sidebar. The organization is called "Covenant Media Foundation." Here is an excerpt from their "Company" page:
Mission Statement
It is the purpose of Covenant Media Foundation to promote sound biblical education and training for Christians at all levels. We are committed to working with believers from a wide range of theological backgrounds and associations, in the Spirit of Christ, with the common goal of advancing the kingdom of God both in the lives of individual Christians and throughout the culture. We are represented by speakers from several denominations.

Friday, January 21, 2005

Gods Unto Themselves

On January the 11th, I posted a blog about Children's Television uniting to promote homosexuality (you can read it here). Well, tonight on ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, they "reported" on the Christian right's objection to the "tolerance" video that is being sent to 61,000 public schools. The "objective" report failed to mention that WAFF, the driving force behind the video, actively promotes sodomy through their alliances with the following:


At the end of the report, the self proclaimed conservative Christian, Michael Medved, had this to say about the Christian right's objection (rough quote):

My fellow conservative Christians should place a moratorium on attacking cartoons. It's kind of silly.

Are cartoons now above reproach? Have they been elevated to the status that education and government now enjoy in our society? Are they gods unto themselves, infallible in their teaching? No doubt someone will argue that we do not get our theology from cartoons. And they would be half right, they may not, but kids will. The humanists have long understood the importance of infiltrating the educational systems. If you can subvert the parents and gain direct access to the children, you have won the future. The same tactic worked for converting the churches. The liberals and humanists infiltrated the seminaries and thus produced like-minded pastors who then led entire generations away from Christ and from the Bible as their only standard. The humanists already own much of the public school system and children's television which means if your family is anything like the average American family, THEY ARE TEACHING YOUR CHILDREN AT SCHOOL AND AT HOME.

I suggest that Mr. Medved read the Scriptures: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1).

Please read the following excerpt from the "1.5 Uncovering Attitudes About Sexual Orientation" lesson which is a part of the "Writing for Change: Raising Awareness of Difference, Power, & Discrimination" curriculum:

Instructor directions
Ask your students to study the definitions of the terms "homophobia" and "compulsory heterosexuality" and identify ways in which these forces are at work in their lives.

Have them discuss ways in which they are affected by each.

Definitions
Homophobia: Thoughts, feelings, or actions based on fear, dislike, judgment, or hatred of gay men and lesbians/of those who love and sexually desire those of the same sex. Homophobia has roots in sexism and can include prejudice, discrimination, harassment, and acts of violence.

Compulsory heterosexuality: The assumption that women are "naturally" or innately drawn sexually and emotionally toward men, and men toward women; the view that heterosexuality is the "norm" for all sexual relationships. The institutionalization of heterosexuality in all aspects of society includes the idealization of heterosexual orientation, romance, and marriage. Compulsory heterosexuality leads to the notion of women as inherently "weak," and the institutionalized inequality of power: power of men to control women's sexuality, labor, childbirth and childrearing, physical movement, safety, creativity, and access to knowledge. It can also include legal and social discrimination against homosexuals and the invisibility of or intolerance toward lesbian and gay existence.

The facts are that God teaches that homosexuality is an abomination, "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them" (Lev. 20:13 - this is not the only verse, just the clearest).

Recommended Reading:


Wednesday, January 19, 2005

The Mantra of Humanism

I recently read one of the most irresponsible statements man has ever uttered:

“In a truly Free Country anybody could do what ever they damned well wanted to do with out any form of limitations whatsoever!”

This statement does nothing less than exalt man to the status of a god and then condemns him to the worse kind of bondage and misery – It is the mantra of Humanism.

I am currently working on an article entitled "Freedom and the Law" which will give those who subscribe to this idea no legs to stand on (which is what God's Word always does to those who are wise in their own eyes) by outlining the biblical idea that true freedom is only found under obedience to God's Law.

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

The Most Outrageous Legal Decision in American History

Every week our elders send an email to the congregation letting us know how we can prepare our families for Sunday. Below is this week's email by Scott T. Brown, teaching elder.

Today, January 18, 2005 Norma McCorvey, the original "Jane Roe", of Roe v. Wade filed a legal appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States with the hope of overturning the legal decision that made her famous. Several years ago, Norma came to faith in Christ and revealed that she was used by two young feminist lawyers as a pawn in a political scam, was never raped (as she testified under oath) and never had an abortion. She has become a radical pro life activist.

January 23 is Sanctity of Life Sunday which commemorates one of the most outrageous legal decisions in American history - Roe v. Wade. The cries of the murdered millions - 45 million US babies and the nearly one billion babies worldwide - are heard before the throne of God - and they must be heard by the common church member. We cannot forget the global slaughter that continues to roll daily in nearly every culture on earth. And we cannot turn our heads in good conscience and look the other way.

On Sunday we will be focusing our attentions upon the foundations of our resistance against this global holocaust.

Following are several flagship passages that form the scriptural case for the pro life position. My counsel to all the people of Trinity Baptist Church is two fold: First, engage in this fight and resist the comforts that ignoring it affords. Second, that you and your households be able to articulate the Christian position and that you are able quote verbatim the following passages of scripture so that you will be ready to defend babies in the image of God.

These passages of scripture answer the question: "Why do we defend babies and stand against abortion?"

Genesis 1:26-27 "Let us make man in our image, according to Our likeness" ...man is made in the image of God

Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill"

Psalm 139:13-16, "You knit me together in my mothers womb; you formed my inward parts...your eyes saw my substance before I was unformed" See also: Ephesians 1:4,

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you"

Luke 1:35,41 "and it happened when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the baby leaped in her womb"

Luke 1:15 "He will be filled with the spirit, even from his mother's womb"

Proverbs 24:11 Deliver those who are drawn toward death

Summary:
Abortion is an attack on the entire Bible. In the Law, the Prophets, the Poetic books, the Pauline Epistles and the Gospels we find evidence of the sacredness of life in the womb and the sovereignty of God at work in conception. There should be equal protection under the law for life in the womb.

The Dead Sea Scrolls in America


What is being hailed as the single greatest traveling exhibition touring America today will be on display in North Carolina. Some of the rarest artifacts and earliest Biblical manuscripts from around the world will visit North Carolina from Jan 14, 2005 thru February 27. The exhibit will present a display of the History of Scripture from Antiquity to Modern America, highlighting the importance Dead Sea Scrolls to the founding fathers.

This awe-inspiring collection of artifacts, manuscripts and Bibles comes together to tell the story of the complete history of the Bible.

MUSEUM HIGHLIGHTS
  • Biblical as well as historically important non-biblical Dead Sea Scroll Fragments
  • Four (4) fragments from a Greek Septuagint from the Book of Exodus on papyrus, circa 350A.D.Fragment 1: The New Stone TabletsFragment 2: The Tabernacle (a bifolium)Fragment 3: The PassoverFragment 4: The Plague of Locusts
  • The earliest witness to Paul's Epistle to the Colossians, on papyrus, in Coptic, circa 275 A.D.
  • The "Gospel of James" fragment in Coptic, colophon leaf, circa 4th Century A.D.
  • A "Gnostic" Creation Story in Coptic, on papyrus, circa 4th Century A.D.
  • An ornamental initial from a religious text, on papyrus, in Greek, circa 4th Century A.D.
  • An interlinear correction on a tiny (approx 32 x 20mm) Greek fragment from Exodus from a Septuagint on papyrus, circa 350AD.
  • Four (4) leaves from a 10th Century Greek Gospel Book.
  • Five (5) leaves from a 13th Century Parisian Bible.
  • Four (4) leaves from a 13th Century Psalter.• Medieval Yemenite Torah Scroll
  • Two Mesopotamian clay pictographs with images and numeration on both sides, circa 3000 B.C.; One with a Biblical reference to Erech, son of Nimrod (Genesis 10).
  • Other fine examples of Sumerian and Akkadian Cuneiform.
  • Examples of The Egyptian Book of the Dead (circa 1000-100 BC);
  • Two ancient Christian Letters on papyrus (one sealed) (circa 3rd/4th Century AD);
  • A fragment of Homer's Iliad on papyrus (3rd Century AD).
  • A 15th Century Ethiopian painting of Saint Mark writing his Gospel.
  • A gospel book parchment fragment in Coptic circa 4th-6th Century AD;
  • The Magna Carta, on vellum, circa 1300 A.D. (first two weeks only)

EARLY PRINTED BIBLES
  • Gutenberg Bible Leaf from Isaiah, 1455
  • The 1519 Erasmus Greek Latin New Testament
  • The Luther Bible of 1536
  • A Tyndale 1526 facsimile (1862) New Testament
  • Tyndale "Matthew's" Bible of 1549
  • The Coverdale "Great Bible" of 1539 with Second Edition of 1541
  • Tyndale New Testament 1553
  • Tyndale's Wicked Mammon
  • "Geneva" Bible of 1560
  • Cassiodoro de Reina First Spanish Bible of 1569
  • Douai-Rheims (Catholic English) Bible of 1582 & 1609-10
  • Queen Elizabeth's "Bishops' Bible" of 1568
  • The first edition King James Bible of 1611, grand pulpit folio
  • All five folio editions of the King James Bible (1611, 1613, 1617, 1634, 1640/39)
  • First Printed Edition of a Wyclif New Testament (1731)
  • A 16th Century folio of Foxe's Book of Martyrs

AMERICAN BIBLES & AMERICANA
  • The Eliot Indian Bible, 1663
  • The Christopher Saur Lutheran German Bible, 1743
  • The first English Bible in America: The "Bible of the Revolution" printed in 1782 by Robert Aitken
  • The first America Catholic Bible, 1790
  • The first American "Family Bibles" - Collins, Thomas, and Brown.
  • The first American Hebrew Bible, 1814
  • The first American Bible printed by a woman, 1808
Plus Much, Much More:-The 1777 "Dunlap" Broadside of the Declaration of Independence-The first pamphlet of the Constitution-The First Printing of the Bill of Rights

Go to http://www.deadseascrollstoamerica.com/ for more details - mabye I'll see you there!

Thursday, January 13, 2005

Health "Wise?"

Our federal government has just released a new set of dietary guidelines as it does every 5 years. Doesn't the fact that the government schedules the guidelines to be changed EVERY 5 years tell us something about how much faith we can place in their guidelines or in modern science? At some point in the not so distant past, I took one of my children to the Pediatrician. While we were waiting in an examination room, I looked at the "food pyramid" poster hanging on the wall. At the base of the pyramid, our most wise government has placed "breads, cereals, rice, and pasta - all foods from grains" signifying that we need more servings of these foods than any other (you know more than fish, fruit, vegetables, etc.). So what do you imagine was pictured at the base of the food pyramid poster? Cookies, white pasta, crackers and other apparently "healthy" items which could be classified in the "all foods from grains" category! It should come to no surprise that the government and food industry giants are not really concerned with the health of the people; their main interest is money and power. I don't remember anything about dietary guidelines in the U.S. Constitution. Even more importantly, I don't see God specifying this as a function of government anywhere in His Word.

To give you even "more" reason to trust our scientists and dietitians, I just heard about two health studies. The first study was conducted to discover the effect eating red meat had on cancer. The results indicated that men should once again stop eating meat and return to eating fiber (which we were told not too long ago to stop eating and eat red meat). The second was a study on the effects eating healthy amounts of fruits and vegetables had on preventing breast cancer. According to the study the effect was, well, they are embarrassed to say, NONE. So did the health officials react the same way as they did to the first study? Of course not, they gave some lame excuse, passed the study off as inconclusive and encouraged women to keep eating fruits and vegetables (which I applaud). So what are we to do? We are to emphatically trust the results of the first study and not trust the second study. Why? Because the the conclusions were already predetermined and if, as in the second study, the actual results to not match, we simply ignore them and go on. So much for the objectivity of science.


Placing your faith in modern science is a fools course!

Exodus 15:26
And He said, "If you will give earnest heed to the voice of the LORD your God, and do what is right in His sight, and give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have put on the Egyptians; for I, the LORD, am your healer."

Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Applying your faith to every area of life includes diet. When the Israelites followed God's food laws they were the healthiest people on the planet able to take dominion as He directed. Don't you think they will do the same for His people today? God created you and his Word provides us with a wealth of knowledge.

Recommended Reading on Diet:

Recommended Reading on Modern Science:


Tuesday, January 11, 2005

Titus 2 Women Invited to Wife-Swapping Show

by Doug Phillips of Vision Forum

Its a crazy world out there when the Christian vision of societal relevancy is to tell us that too many babies are bad, that mothers may be sent to war to die in Baghdad, and that Bono is the sina qua non of Christian culture. But every once in a while we get a zinger from the secular world sure to challenge even the most avant-garde, relevancy-drenched, pagan syncretistic, and libertine. Consider the following letter from the producers of the ABC show “Wife Swap” sent to the dear ladies who defend biblical patriarchy at the Ladies Against Feminism website:


Greetings!

I am writing in the hopes that someone who espouses the traditional values presented on your website, might be interested in appearing on a new ABC television series. The show, (entitled Wife Swap), has two mothers exchange families for 2 weeks, such that both can explore another family’s values and lifestyle, and share their perspective too. It’s a format that has won numerous awards in the UK, and been critically acclaimed on this side of the Atlantic as well.

We are always searching for families with a lifestyle that others could learn from. Currently, we are eager to feature a mother who embraces the concept of biblical womanhood, and develops her husband’s leadership role.

Is there anyway that your organization might be able to help us find some families? This could be as simple as a message about us in a mass email, a notice in a newsletter, or sharing the information with anyone you know personally that might be interested...Thanks for taking the time to read this, and please give me a call or write should you have any questions or concerns.

Kind regards,
Stacy Woods
Associate Producer

As Jennie Chancey observed to me: Where would I even begin to explain why a woman who “embraces the concept of biblical womanhood and develops her husband’s leadership role” would never swap husbands and children with someone else? (!!!) It [the request from the show’s producer] is just a testimony to the wacky, subverted culture we live in. [“What? You think there’s a problem with living with someone else’s husband for a TV show?”]”

Amen Jen.

Hey wait a second. Maybe, I am just being a legalist to think that my wife should not participate in Wife-Swap. After all, God did not explicitly condemn Abraham for sharing his wife with pharaoh. But more to the point, nowhere does the Bible explicitly forbid our wives to be on the “Wife-Swap” television show. In fact, I can not even find the name of this show in my Strong’s Concordance (a fact which ipso facto proves the Bible is silent on such issues and, consequently, the Scriptures are not sufficient to equip the believer for making wise decisions about every conceivable subject as the Reformers argued). Wife-Swap is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments or any of the six hundred-plus explicit commands of the Old Testament. In fact, no matter how hard one looks nowhere does the Bible say that my wife can not care for another man’s family as part of a TV show. Since being on wife-swapping shows is not explicitly forbidden by the Bible, it is therefore un-condemnable. Right? Isn’t that the clear teaching of the Westminster Confession? After all, only God can define sin, and nowhere in the Bible is participation in a wife-swapping show explicitly labeled as sin.

Hold on further! I have another revelation. If Bono (the standard of virtuous cultural relevancy) can represent Christ by supporting sodomites, praying to Mary and screaming lyrics on MTV, then surely our wives can do the same through their comparatively tame appearance on Wife-Swap. (Let's not forget that the Bible is silent on Wife-Swap, and thus no one has the right to question such a decision.)In fact, maybe if we let our wives participate in this show we are really advancing the kingdom of God. Maybe we are reclaiming the “Wife-Swap” show for Christ. Maybe we can incrementally work our way through the halls of ABC, and ever-so-gradually capture the show for Christ. Maybe we can rename it “Christian Wife Swap” to let people know of this amazingly relevant victory. Maybe home school moms can be “Amish in the City” after all?

Postscript:

Jennie Chancey of LAF writes: “This is the second time the producers of “Wife Swap” have contacted LAF, asking us to find women who believe in biblical womanhood and are willing to participate in the show. I’m sure you know the show’s premise: get two moms to swap places with each other for two weeks, each one living as the wife of another man (no physical adultery involved, of course) and playing mommy to someone else’s children. The first time I got the letter, I thought it was someone playing a joke on LAF. Then I got another letter with a phone number and contact information that checked out. Ditto this third letter from ABC. I still find myself shaking my head in disbelief.

Children's TV Unites to Launch Pro-Homosexual Campaign of 'Tolerance'

What do Arthur, Barney, Blue's Clues, Bob the Builder, The Book of Pooh, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Dora the Explorer, Jimmy Neutron, Kim Possible, Lilo & Stitch: The Series, Little Mermaid, Madeline, The Magic School Bus, The Muppet Show, Rugrats, Sesame Street and SpongeBob SquarePants have in common? They all want to encourage your children to accept and embrace homosexuality as a normal and valid way of life. Should your children be watching programs that actively promote what God calls an "abomination?"

Lev 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

Please read the following article by Ed Vitagliano of Agape Press:

It is as unprecedented as it is cunning, using all the right words and happiest faces in an attempt to speak directly to the nation's children about "tolerance and diversity." Once again, of course, those ideas include homosexual advocacy.

On November 10, 2004, a video remake of the song, "We Are Family," was created using the voices and images of over 100 beloved children's TV characters. On March 11, 2005, the video performance will air simultaneously on the Disney Channel, Nickelodeon and PBS.

...

Also in March, the DVD of the song will be distributed to 61,000 public and private elementary schools across the country. It will be accompanied by a teacher's guide, designed by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a group that, among other things, promotes the normalization of homosexuality.

Driving the project is the We Are Family Foundation (WAFF), which states on its website that the song was remixed "to speak the message of diversity and tolerance to elementary school children nationwide."

...

One of the teacher's guides available online at the WAFF website is called "Writing for Change: Raising Awareness of Difference, Power, & Discrimination." Full of politically correct lessons on feminism, it is also a primer for teachers who want to indoctrinate children regarding sexual orientation issues.

Lessons include such topics as "Talking About Being 'Out'" and "Uncovering Attitudes About Sexual Orientation." In these lesson plans, teachers are taught how to introduce students to "the concepts of homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality."

According to the teacher's guide, children should be taught to reject the idea "that women are 'naturally' or innately drawn sexually and emotionally toward men, and men toward women," or that heterosexuality is normal and should be the only model for marriage.
...

Click below to read the entire article:
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/102005a.asp

Monday, January 10, 2005

Fading Freedom

Birthdays are special days in my household. The day starts off with me taking the birthday boy or girl out to an early breakfast at the restaurant of their choosing. We then spend a little time talking and walking hoping to stretch the morning out as long as possible before I have to take them back home and then head off to work. These are always special times for me and my children.

As I was thinking about having breakfast with my oldest son today, on his special morning, I began to reminisce about my own boyhood and some of the exciting adventures my brother and I went on (well, they were exciting to us anyway). We lived south of Houston, TX, a short bikes ride to the Gulf of Mexico. In the long, hot, sunny days of summer, my brother and I would hop on our Husky bikes with "mag" wheels and ride down to Kemah, the next city a few miles to the south. We would fish a little or, in many cases, our fishing poles would lay dormant while we just explored. We never caught much (actually, I'm not sure I ever caught anything, but I am sure my brother did - he always was and still is a better fisherman than I am), but I remember wading along the shore line and looking at rocks or shells or even picking up the occasional "baby" (non-stinging) jellyfish and marveling at how something that looked and felt like that could actually be alive. We also lived near a large field where my brother and I would spend the entire day chasing grasshoppers, playing army, making dirt bike trails, or when we were older, launching model rockets. Occationally, our parents would give us some lunch money and we would ride our bikes to the nearest Dairy Queen (again a mile or two away from home) and grab a "Hunger Buster Meal" and play a few video games while eating an ice cream sunday. Those were some of the best times of my childhood.

As I was thinking on these things, my joy quickly turned sorrowful as I realized that my children would not be able to explore their world with the same freedom. Why not? Because I would never allow them to travel several miles from home without supervision. Our country has changed a good deal since those days and even though it was not perfectly safe for a child to be out on his own, things have become much worse. Occurrences of all manner of violent crime has risen drastically, as have child abductions and exploitations. This past Sunday I spoke with a man who lived in California during his Junior High years. He told me that he and several of his friends would often hop the buss to the beach, explore the beach and the surf most of the day (again unsupervised) and then hop the buss back home. After telling me this with a smile on his face, the joy also left his eyes as he said he would never let his three boys do the same.

So what has happened to our country? That, I'm sure, is a question that would elicit a multitude of responses. But in reality it comes down to one simple thing: people in mass have rejected God and His Word. God is being systematically removed from the public and private sector whether that be government, business, school, the medical field, or whatever; people are being submerged in humanism, socialism and evolutionary thought. Our state schools are pumping these lies into our children, our modern media programs are building upon this foundation, and our American mega church mentality with their family dividing programs cannot combat it. As long as parents leave the raising and educating of their children to others (especially pagans), society will be lost (Don't believe me? Read this post!).

The "state of the Union"
Romans 1:25
"For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."

2 Timothy 4:3,4
"3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables."

The above two verses briefly outline the current "state of the Union." Mankind has turned away from God and worships himself. Thereby trusting in himself to save himself - which he can not do. Then can government save us? The answer of course is an emphatic "NO." Not even a godly form of government will save us. Even though I voted for Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party (and will continue to do so as long as the CP names the name of Jesus as King), his winning the election would not have solved America's problems. The change in our country (and every other country) has to come from the bottom up, not the top down. Righteousness can not be created through legislation. The hearts of the people must be changed.

When our country was founded, we had a godly form of government because we had a godly minded people who where, for the most part, self-governed. True self-government can only be accomplished through the work of the Holy Spirit in a life which is totally surrendered to Jesus, the Christ. When this happens, fathers will turn their hearts to their children, children's hearts will turn to their fathers, wives will submit to their husbands, husbands will love their wives as Christ loved the church and churches will be filled with families who have a heart for God, for each other and for the lost. Those families will then, of their own accord, act as the fingers of their local church body, doing the work of evangelism and ministry "as they go" about their daily work:

Matt. 28:18-20a
"18 Then Jesus came up and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore, as you go, disciple all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you" (The ISV translation brings out the true meaning of the Greek here. Instead of "go" as most translations have it, it is "as you go").

These families can then affect their communities and then godly local governments can be formed - and then it spreads upward from there. But it all starts with surrendering your entire life to Jesus. Man has only on Savior and King, Jesus the Son of God. "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).

Thursday, January 06, 2005

South Carolina's pro-life bill to end "legalized" abortion.

by Steve Lefemine

One of the great misconceptions that has paralyzed pro-lifers over the years is that only theUS supreme Court can bring an end to abortion in the United States. This is a great mistake, and one that "history future" may well reveal to us has cost literally millions of lives becauseof the unnecessary and tragic delay in mobilizing pro-life advocates to persist in advancingprincipled pro-life legislation to end America's 32-year abortion holocaust, which has nowmurdered approximately 45 million unborn human beings by surgical abortion alone (andprobably multiple times that number by chemical abortion through Norplant, Depo-Provera,the birth control pill, RU-486, etc.).

There are in fact numerous ways that decriminalized abortion can be ended in America.US supreme Court decisions are not the final, unalterable "Law of the Land." They are not even Legislative decisions!! See Article VI. of the United States Constitution for whatthe U.S. Constitution says are the three things which are the supreme "Law of the Land."You will be surprised to see that noticeably absent, is any mention of decisions by theU.S. supreme Court!

Please call, write, or e-mail your SC State House of Repesentative member today toask him or her to co-sponsor H. 3213 (you can also write/email to Rep. Davenport andRep. Vaughn to thank them for doing the right thing in re-introducing this bill).

Also, Please call, write, or e-mail your SC State Senator today to ask him or her to co-sponsor S. 111 (you can also write/email to Senator Mike Fair to thank him for doing the right thing in re-introducing this bill).

January 3, 2005
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
Dir., Columbia Christians for Life
CCL lobbyist
www.ChristianLifeandLiberty.net
Columbia, SC

__________________________________________________________

The "Right to Life Act of South Carolina" - H. 3213 - www.scstatehouse.net

South Carolina's pro-life bill to end "legalized" abortion.

Please contact your SC State House of Representatives member to sign on as a co-sponsor of H. 3212, the Right to Life Act of South Carolina to end "legalized" abortion in South Carolina. At present there are only two co-sponsorsof the pre-filed bill (the SC Legislature comes back into session on Tuesday,January 11, 2005). If your SC State House of Representatives member signsonto the bill, you will be able to see their name listed as a co-sponsor at:http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3213.htm

The SC Republicans have controlled the SC House of Representatives since1995 (and have been led by Rep. David Wilkins (R-Greenville) since 1995 asthe Speaker of the House), and have only passed the Right to Life Act of SCout of Subcommittee in 2004. The Right to Life Act was first introduced in the SC State House of Representatives in 1998, and has been an active billevery year since (1998 through 2005). The current primary sponsors of theRight to Life Act of SC are Rep. Ralph Davenport (R-Spartanburg) andRep. Lewis Vaughn (R-Greenville). There are 74 Republicans and 50 Democrats, in the 124-member SC House of Representatives for the 2005-2006 session.

If you need the name, addresses, e-mail, or telephone number of your SC State House of Representatives member, go to:

http://www.scstatehouse.net/html-pages/house2.html

http://www.scstatehouse.net/members/bios/0020454543.html


HOUSE MEMBER MAILING ADDRESS
You may also write any Member of the House at:


Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, S.C. 29211-1867
__________________________________________________________

Note: Identical companion bill S. 111 has been introduced in the SC State Senate
by SC State Senator Mike Fair (R-Greenville).
Please contact your SC State Senator to sign on as a co-sponsor of S. 111, the Right to Life Act of South Carolina, to end "legalized" abortion in South Carolina. At present there is only one sponsor of the pre-filed bill (the SC Legislature comes back into session on Tuesday, January 11, 2005). If your SC State Senator signsonto the bill, you will be able to see his name listed as a co-sponsor at: http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/111.htm
The SC Republicans are the majority in the SC Senate. There are 26 Republicans and 46 Democrats in the 46-member SC State Senate for the 2005-2006 session.
If you need the name, address, e-mail, or telephone number of your SC State Senator, go to:
SENATE MAILING ADDRESS
You may also write any Member of the Senate at:
Post Office Box 142
Columbia, S.C. 29202-0142
__________________________________________________________
Please help add co-sponsors to the Right to Life Act of South Carolina.Make a copy of the SC House bill, H. 3213, from the internet: http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3213.htm and send by regular mail or e-mail to your SC State House of Representativesmember, and ask him or her to sign on as a co-sponsor of H. 3213.
Likewise, please help add co-sponsors to the SC Senate version of theRight to Life Act of SC. Make a copy of SC Senate bill, S. 111, from theinternet: http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/111.htm and send by regular mail or e-mail to your SC Senator, and ask him orher to sign in as a co-sponsor of S. 111.

Tuesday, January 04, 2005

The "Chalcedon Report" is now "Faith For All of Life"

If you're interested in knowing more, here is an article explaining the reason for the name change written by my good friend Chris Ortiz, Director of Communications, Chalcedon Foundation.

Monday, January 03, 2005

Another Reason God Hates Divorce

In the Book of Malachi, God refuses to heed the offerings that are brought before Him on the altar. Why? Because the men of Israel have dealt treacherously with the wives of their youth.


Malachi 2:13-16 (NASB)
13"This is another thing you do: you cover the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping and with groaning, because He no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. 14 "Yet you say, 'For what reason?' Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 "But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. 16 "For I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel, "and him who covers his garment with wrong," says the LORD of hosts. "So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously."

As the divorce rate climbs, the surrounding culture will continue to decay. It is a curse brought on by those who deal treacherously with their wives, their wives BY COVENANT (Mal. 2:14). Divorce tears apart all lives involved, husband, wife, children, extended family, etc. God says in Genesis chapter 2 verse 24, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." When a man and a woman divorce they are ripping the "one flesh" that God has created into two bleeding halves; they are not simply "separating" into two, whole, independent beings. This fact is completely ignored even by many professing Christians (the divorce rate among Christians is the same OR HIGHER than those among non-Christians [1]). What the vast number of divorcees who are also parents do not understand is the damage they are doing to their children. They are creating a generation of extremely angry, bitter children who have no honor or respect for any authority what-so-ever let alone their parents.

God desires godly offspring (Mal. 2:15), but divorce is driving many children away from their parents, away from His church, and away from God Himself. Consider the very words of Jesus in Matthew 18:5-6, "5 'And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.'" What implication does this verse have on our divorce laden culture? It is not to hard to make the connection.

Mary Eberstadt, author of Home-Alone America: The Hidden Toll of Day Care, Behavioral Drugs, and Other Parent Substitutes, writes a very long, but insightful article connecting the incredible grief children are suffering due to divorce to the vulgar and violent nature of today's alternative, metal, punk, and rap music. Take the time to read it. It will open your eyes.

I have included her article entitled Eminem Is Right in its entirety below for posterity (you never know how long links on the internet will last), but you can also link directly to it at Policy Review Online.

Note: Her article contains some graphic language.

----Start of Article ----
Eminem Is Right
By Mary Eberstadt
Mary Eberstadt is a fellow at the Hoover Institution, consulting editor to Policy Review, and author of Home-Alone America, from which this essay is drawn. Reprinted by arrangement with Sentinel, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. from Home-Alone America by Mary Eberstadt. Copyright © 2004 by Mary Eberstadt.

If there is one subject on which the parents of America passionately agree, it is that contemporary adolescent popular music, especially the subgenres of heavy metal and hip-hop/rap, is uniquely degraded -- and degrading -- by the standards of previous generations. At first blush this seems slightly ironic. After all, most of today's baby-boom parents were themselves molded by rock and roll, bumping and grinding their way through adolescence and adulthood with legendary abandon. Even so, the parents are correct: Much of today's music is darker and coarser than yesterday's rock. Misogyny, violence, suicide, sexual exploitation, child abuse -- these and other themes, formerly rare and illicit, are now as common as the surfboards, drive-ins, and sock hops of yesteryear.

In a nutshell, the ongoing adult preoccupation with current music goes something like this: What is the overall influence of this deafening, foul, and often vicious-sounding stuff on children and teenagers? This is a genuinely important question, and serious studies and articles, some concerned particularly with current music's possible link to violence, have lately been devoted to it. In 2000, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry all weighed in against contemporary lyrics and other forms of violent entertainment before Congress with a first-ever "Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children."

Nonetheless, this is not my focus here. Instead, I would like to turn that logic about influence upside down and ask this question: What is it about today's music, violent and disgusting though it may be, that resonates with so many American kids?

As the reader can see, this is a very different way of inquiring about the relationship between today's teenagers and their music. The first question asks what the music does to adolescents; the second asks what it tells us about them. To answer that second question is necessarily to enter the roiling emotional waters in which that music is created and consumed -- in other words, actually to listen to some of it and read the lyrics.

As it turns out, such an exercise yields a fascinating and little understood fact about today's adolescent scene. If yesterday's rock was the music of abandon, today's is that of abandonment. The odd truth about contemporary teenage music -- the characteristic that most separates it from what has gone before -- is its compulsive insistence on the damage wrought by broken homes, family dysfunction, checked-out parents, and (especially) absent fathers. Papa Roach, Everclear, Blink-182, Good Charlotte, Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam, Kurt Cobain and Nirvana, Tupac Shakur, Snoop Doggy Dogg, Eminem -- these and other singers and bands, all of them award-winning top-40 performers who either are or were among the most popular icons in America, have their own generational answer to what ails the modern teenager. Surprising though it may be to some, that answer is: dysfunctional childhood. Moreover, and just as interesting, many bands and singers explicitly link the most deplored themes in music today -- suicide, misogyny, and drugs -- with that lack of a quasi-normal, intact-home personal past.

To put this perhaps unexpected point more broadly, during the same years in which progressive-minded and politically correct adults have been excoriating Ozzie and Harriet as an artifact of 1950s-style oppression, many millions of American teenagers have enshrined a new generation of music idols whose shared generational signature in song after song is to rage about what not having had a nuclear family has done to them. This is quite a fascinating puzzle of the times. The self-perceived emotional damage scrawled large across contemporary music may not be statistically quantifiable, but it is nonetheless among the most striking of all the unanticipated consequences of our home-alone world.

Demigods of Dysfunction
To begin with music particularly popular among white teenage boys, one best-selling example of broken-home angst is that of the "nu-metal" band known as Papa Roach and led by singer/songwriter "Cody Dick"Shaddix (dubbed by one reviewer the "prince of dysfunction"). Three members of that group, Coby Dick included, are self-identified children of divorce. In 2000, as critics noted at the time, their album Infest explored the themes of broken homes and child and teenage rage. The result was stunning commercial success: Infest sold more than 3 million copies. mtv.com explained why: "The pained, confessional songs struck a nerve with disenfranchised listeners who were tired of the waves of directionless aggression spewing from the mouths of other rap-rockers. They found kinship in Papa Roach songs like 'Broken Home' and 'Last Resort.'"

In fact, even their songs about other subjects hark back to that same primal disruption. One particularly violent offering called "Revenge," about a girl hurting herself and being abused by her boyfriend, reflects on "destruction of the family design." Of all the songs on the album, however, it is the singularly direct "Broken Home" that hit its fans the hardest, which summarizes the sad domestic story it elaborates in a pair of lines: "I know my mother loves me / But does my father even care."

Another band that climbed to the top of the charts recently is Everclear, led by singer Art Alexakis (also a child of divorce, as he has explained to interviewers). Like Papa Roach, Everclear/Alexakis explores the fallout of parental breakup not from the perspective of newly liberated adults, but from that of the child left behind who feels abandoned and betrayed. Several of Everclear's songs map this emotional ground in detail -- from not wanting to meet mother's "new friends," to wondering how the father who walked out can sleep at night, to dreaming of that father coming back. In the song "Father of Mine," the narrator implores, "take me back to the day / when I was still your golden boy." Another song, "Sick and Tired," explicitly links the anger-depression-suicide teen matrix to broken homes (as indeed do numerous other contemporary groups): "I blame my family / their damage is living in me."

Everclear's single best-known song, a top-40 hit in 2000 that ruled the airwaves for months, is a family breakup ballad ironically titled "Wonderful" -- to some fans, the best rock song about divorce ever written. Though the catchy melody cannot be captured here, the childlike simplicity of the words brings the message home loudly enough. Among them: "I want the things that I had before / Like a Star Wars poster on my bedroom door."

Another group successfully working this tough emotional turf is chart-topping and multiple award-winning Blink-182, which grew out of the skateboard and snowboard scene to become one of the most popular bands in the country. As with Papa Roach and Everclear, the group's in­terest in the family breakdown theme is partly autobiographical: At least two members of the band say that their personal experiences as children of divorce have informed their lyrics. Blink-182's top-40 hit in 2001, "Stay Together for the Kids," is perhaps their best-known song (though not the only one) about broken homes. "What stupid poem could fix this home," the narrator wonders, adding, "I'd read it every day."

Reflecting on the particular passion with which that song was embraced by fans, Blink-182's Tom DeLonge told an interviewer, "We get e-mails about 'Stay Together,' kid after kid after kid saying, 'I know exactly what you're talking about! That song is about my life!' And you know what? That sucks. You look at statistics that 50 percent of parents get divorced, and you're going to get a pretty large group of kids who are pissed off and who don't agree with what their parents have done."1 Similarly, singer/bassist Mark Hoppus remarked to another interviewer curious about the band's emotional resonance, "Divorce is such a normal thing today and hardly anybody ever thinks how the kids feel about it or how they are taking it, but in the U.S. about half of all the kids go through it. They witness how their parents drift apart and all that."2

Then there is the phenomenon known as Pink, whose album Missundaztood was one of the top-10 albums of 2002, selling more than 3 million copies. Pink (dubbed by one writer the "anti-Britney") is extremely popular among young girls. Any teenager with a secular cd collection will likely own some of her songs. Pink mines the same troubled emotional territory as Blink-182 and numerous other bands, but even more exclusively: Missundaztood revolves entirely around the emotional wreckage and behavioral consequences of Pink's parents breaking up. A review of the album on abcnews.com noted, "Missundaztood is full of painful tales of childhood -- divorce, rebellion, disaffection and drugs. It's the stuff that may make parents shake their heads, but causes millions of alienated kids to nod in approval."3 In Pink's especially mournful (and perhaps best-known) song, "Family Portrait," the narrator repeatedly begs her father not to leave, offering even the pitiful childish enticement, "I won't spill the milk at dinner."

Yet another popular group generating anthem after anthem about bro­ken homes and their consequences is Washington, D.C.-area-based Good Charlotte, profiled on the cover of Rolling Stone in May 2003 as the "Polite Punks." Their first album went gold in 2002. Led by twins Benji and Joel Madden, whose father walked out one Christmas Eve and never returned, Good Charlotte is one band that would not even exist except for the broken homes in which three of its four members (guitarist Billy Martin being the third) grew up. The twins have repeatedly told interviewers it was that trauma that caused them to take up music in the first place, and family breakup figures repeatedly in Good Charlotte's songs and regularly shapes its stage appearances and publicity. (In a particular act of symbolic protest, the twins recently made the legal changeover to their mother's maiden name.)

For Good Charlotte, as for many other newly successful singers and groups, the commercial results of putting personal trauma to music have proved dramatic. Their first and eponymous album sailed up the charts partly on account of a teenage angst ballad ironically entitled "Little Things." The song opens with a dedication to every teenager wrestling with the issues of adolescence -- all those "little things," including Mom's stint in a mental institution and Dad's abandonment of the kids ("We checked his room his things were gone we didn't see him no more"). Another song on the album is "Thank You Mom." Rather anomalously by the standards of yesterday's rock and punk, but not at all anomalously in the worlds of their descendants today, this song is devoted wholly, and without irony, to the mother who raises children after their father walks out ("You were my mom, You were my dad / The only thing I ever had was you, It's true").

Rolling Stone groused about this band: "What the hell happened to punk?" Now that's a fair point. But whatever happened, the result has literally turned to gold; Good Charlotte's second album, called The Young and the Hopeless, sold more than a million copies. Two of its thirteen songs are apotheosized lyrics for an absent father. One is "My Old Man" ("Last I heard he was at the bar / Doing himself in"). Another song, "Emotionless," reads much like the related narrations of Everclear, Papa Roach, and many more. The narrator here reminds his missing father of his sons and little girl, wondering, "How do you sleep at night?"

Like numerous other groups, Good Charlotte weaves another prevailing theme -- teenage suicide -- in and out of the larger theme of parental abandonment. Perhaps the best known is the antisuicide clarion "Hold On," in which the singer implores a desperate teenager to remember that although your "mother's gone and your father hits you . . . we all bleed the same way you do."

Papa Roach, Everclear, Blink-182, Pink, Good Charlotte: These bands are only some of the top-40 groups now supplying the teenage demand for songs about dysfunctional and adult abandoned homes. In a remarkable 2002 article published in the pop music magazine Blender (remarkable because it lays out in detail what is really happening in today's metal/grunge/punk/rock music), an award-winning music journalist named William Shaw listed several other bands, observing, "If there's a theme running through rock at the beginning of the twenty-first century, it's a pervasive sense of hurt. For the past few years, bands like Korn, Linkin Park, Slip-knot, Papa Roach, and Disturbed have been thrusting forward their dark accounts of dysfunctional upbringings. . . . As the clichéd elder might mutter, what's wrong with kids today?" Shaw answers his own question this way: "[T]hese songs reflect the zeitgeist of an age group coping with the highest marital-breakdown rate ever recorded in America. If this era's music says anything, it's that this generation sees itself as uniquely fractured."

As he further observes, so powerful are the emotions roused in fans by these songs that stars and groups themselves are often surprised by it. Shaw relates the following about "Coby Dick" Shaddix of Papa Roach, who wrote the aforementioned song "Broken Home": "He's become used to [fans] coming up and telling him, over and over: 'You know that song "Broken Home?" That's my f- life, right there.' 'It's a bit sad that that's true, you know?" [Shaddix] says.' Similarly, singer Chad Kroeger of Nickelback reports of a hit song he wrote on his own abandonment by his father at age two: "You should see some people who I meet after shows . . . . They break down weeping, and they're like, `I went through the exact same thing!' Sometimes it's terrifying how much they relate to it." That Nickel­back hit song, titled "Too Bad," laments that calling "from time to time / To make sure we're alive" just isn't enough.

Shaw's ultimate conclusion is an interesting one: that this emphasis in current music on abandoned children represents an unusually loaded form of teenage rebellion. "This is the sound of one generation reproaching another -- only this time, it's the scorned, world-weary children telling off their narcissistic, irresponsible parents," he writes. "[Divorce] could be rock's ideal subject matter. These are songs about the chasm in understanding between parents -- who routinely don't comprehend the grief their children are feeling -- and children who don't know why their parents have torn up their world."

That is a sharp observation. Also worth noting is this historical point: The same themes of adult absence and child abandonment have been infiltrating hard rock even longer than these current bands have been around -- probably for as long as family breakup rates began accelerating.

Both musically and emotionally, many of today's groups owe much to the example of the late grunge-rock idol Kurt Cobain, who prefigured today's prominent themes both autobiographically and otherwise. A star whose personal life has legendary status for his fans, Cobain was a self-described happy child until his parents' divorce when he was seven. The years following were a miserable blur of being shuffled around to grandparents and other caretakers, including a spate of homelessness. The rage and frustration of that experience appear in some of Cobain's famously nihilistic lyrics, including the early song "Sliver," about a boy kicking and screaming upon being dropped off elsewhere by Mom and Dad yet again. The later, markedly cynical "Serve the Servants" reflects on how his traumatic childhood became exploited for personal gain. As with Cobain, so, too, with his friend Pearl Jam singer Eddie Vedder. For more than a decade Pearl Jam has reigned as one of the best-known bands in current rock, and Vedder as one of the most adulated singers; indeed, the band's distinctive sound commands instant recognition among almost every American under the age of 30 with working ears. And Pearl Jam, like the aforementioned groups, has achieved that success, according to Vedder, partly because of the group's frankness about the costs of fractured families and about related themes of alienation and suicide.

In a 1994 interview that focused on the death of Kurt Cobain, Vedder noted with particular insight:


"We [that is, Vedder and Cobain] had similar backgrounds, yeah, things that happened with our families and shit. . . . I think that's something that comes out in what we wrote in our songs, definitely. . . . But what makes it more similar is the way people re­sponded to what we wrote and sang about, the intense identification. . . .

"And I think it was maybe a shock to both of us that so many people were going through the same things. I mean, they understood so completely what we were talking about . . . . Then all of a sudden, there's all these other people who connect with them and you're suddenly the spokesman for a f- generation. Can you imagine that! . . . when our first record came out, I was shocked how many people related to some of that stuff . . . . The kind of letters that got through to me about those songs, some of them were just frightening

"Think about it, man," he says. "Any generation that would pick Kurt or me as its spokesman -- that must be a pretty f- up generation, don't you think?"4

Well put. And as it turned out, Cobain and Vedder were only the beginning.

Where's Daddy?
Even less recognized than the white music emphasis on broken homes and the rest of the dysfunctional themes is that the popular black-dominated genres, particularly hip-hop/rap, also reflect themes of abandonment, anger, and longing for parents. Interestingly enough, this is true of particular figures whose work is among the most adult deplored.

Once again, when it comes to the deploring part, critics have a point. It is hard to imagine a more unwanted role model (from the parental point of view) than the late Tupac Shakur. A best-selling gangsta rapper who died in a shoot-out in 1996 at age 25 (and the object of a 2003 a documentary called Tupac: Resurrection), Shakur was a kind of polymath of criminality. In the words of a Denver Post review of the movie, "In a perfect circle of life imitating art originally meant to imitate life, Shakur in 1991 began a string of crimes that he alternately denied and reveled in. He claimed Oakland police beat him up in a jaywalking arrest, later shot two off-duty cops, assaulted a limo driver and video directors, and was shot five times in a robbery." Further, "At the time of his drive-by murder in Law Vegas, he was out on bail pending appeal of his conviction for sexual abuse of a woman who charged him with sodomy in New York."

Perhaps not surprising, Shakur's songs are riddled with just about every unwholesome trend that a nervous parent can name; above all they contain incitements to crime and violence (particularly against the police) and a misogyny so pronounced that his own mother, executive producer of the movie, let stand in the film a statement of protesting C. DeLores Tucker that "African-American women are tired of being called ho's, bitches and sluts by our children"

Yet Shakur -- who never knew his father and whose mother, a long time drug addict, was arrested for possession of crack when he was a child -- is provocative in another, quite overlooked way: He is the author of some of the saddest lyrics in the hip-hop/gangsta-rap pantheon, which is saying quite a lot. To sophisticated readers familiar with the observations about the breakup of black families recorded several decades ago in the Moynihan Report and elsewhere, the fact that so many young black men grow up without fathers may seem so well established as to defy further comment. But evidently some young black men -- Shakur being one -- see things differently. In fact, it is hard to find a rapper who does not sooner or later invoke a dead or otherwise long-absent father, typically followed by the hope that he will not become such a man himself. Or there is the flip side of that unintended bow to the nuclear family, which is the hagiography in some rappers' lyrics of their mothers.

In a song called "Papa'z Song Lyrics," Shakur opens with the narrator imagining his father showing up after a long absence, resulting in an expletive-laden tirade. The song then moves to a lacerating description of growing up fatherless that might help to explain why Shakur is an icon not only to many worse-off teenagers from the ghetto, but also to many better-off suburban ones. Here is a boy who "had to play catch by myself," who prays: "Please send me a pops before puberty."

The themes woven together in this song -- anger, bitterness, longing for family, misogyny as the consequence of a world without fathers -- make regular appearances in some other rappers' lyrics, too. One is Snoop Doggy Dogg, perhaps the preeminent rapper of the 1990s. Like Shakur and numerous other rappers, his personal details cause many a parent to shudder; since his childhood he has been arrested for a variety of crimes, including cocaine possession (which resulted in three years of jail service), accomplice to murder (for which he was acquitted), and, most recently, marijuana possession. ("It's not my job to stop kids doing the wrong thing, it's their parents' job," he once explained to a reporter.) In a song called "Mama Raised Me," sung with Soulja Slim, Snoop Doggy Dogg offers this explanation of how troubled pasts come to be: "It's probably pop's fault how I ended up / Gangbangin' ; crack slangin' ; not givin' a f-."

Another black rapper who returned repeatedly to the theme of father abandonment is Jay-Z, also known as Shawn Carter, whose third and breakthrough album, Hard Knock Life, sold more than 500,000 copies. He also has a criminal history (he says he had been a cocaine dealer) and a troubled family history, which is reflected in his music. In an interview with mtv.com about his latest album, the reporter explained: "Jay and his father had been estranged until earlier this year. [His father] left the household and his family's life (Jay has an older brother and two sisters) when Shawn was just 12 years old. The separation had served as a major "block" for Jay over the years . . . . His most vocal tongue lashing toward his dad was on the Dynasty: Roc la Familia cut "Where Have You Been," where he rapped 'F-- you very much / You showed me the worst kind of pain.'"5

The fact that child abandonment is also a theme in hip-hop might help explain what otherwise appears as a commercial puzzle -- namely, how this particular music moved from the fringes of black entertainment to the very center of the Everyteenager mainstream. There can be no doubt about the current social preeminence of these black- and ghetto-dominated genres in the lives of many better-off adolescents, black and white. As Donna Britt wrote in a Washington Post column noting hip-hop's ascendancy, "In modern America, where urban based hip hop culture dominates music, fashion, dance and, increasingly, movies and tv, these kids are trendset­ters. What they feel, think and do could soon play out in a middle school -- or a Pottery Barn-decorated bedroom -- near you."6

Eminem: Reasons for Rage
A final example of the rage in contemporary music against irresponsible adults -- perhaps the most interesting -- is that of genre-crossing bad-boy rap superstar Marshall Mathers or Eminem (sometime stage persona "Slim Shady"). Of all the names guaranteed to send a shudder down the parental spine, his is probably the most effective. In fact, Eminem has single-handedly, if inadvertently, achieved the otherwise ideologically impossible: He is the object of a vehemently disapproving public consensus shared by the National Organization for Women the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, William J. Bennett, Lynne Cheney, Bill O'Reilly, and a large number of other social conservatives as well as feminists and gay activists. In sum, this rapper -- "as harmful to America as any al Qaeda fanatic," in O'Reilly's opinion -- unites adult polar opposites as perhaps no other single popular entertainer has done.

There is small need to wonder why. Like other rappers, Eminem mines the shock value and gutter language of rage, casual sex, and violence. Unlike the rest, however, he appears to be a particularly attractive target of opprobrium for two distinct reasons. One, he is white and therefore politically easier to attack. (It is interesting to note that black rappers have not been targeted by name anything like Eminem has.) Perhaps even more important, Eminem is one of the largest commercially visible targets for parental wrath. Wildly popular among teenagers these last several years, he is also enormously successful in commercial terms. Winner of numerous Grammys and other music awards and a perpetual nominee for many more, he has also been critically (albeit reluctantly) acclaimed for his acting performance in the autobiographical 2003 movie 8 Mile. For all these reasons, he is probably the preeminent rock/rap star of the last several years, one whose singles, albums, and videos routinely top every chart. His 2002 album, The Eminem Show, for example, was easily the most successful of the year, selling more than 7.6 million copies.

This remarkable market success, combined with the intense public criticism that his songs have generated, makes the phenomenon of Eminem particularly intriguing. Perhaps more than any other current musical icon, he returns repeatedly to the same themes that fuel other success stories in contemporary music: parental loss, abandonment, abuse, and subsequent child and adolescent anger, dysfunction, and violence (including self-violence). Both in his raunchy lyrics as well as in 8 Mile, Mathers's own personal story has been parlayed many times over: the absent father, the troubled mother living in a trailer park, the series of unwanted maternal boyfriends, the protective if impotent feelings toward a younger sibling (in the movie, a baby sister; in real life, a younger brother), and the fine line that a poor, ambitious, and unguided young man might walk between catastrophe and success. Mathers plumbs these and related themes with a verbal savagery that leaves most adults aghast.

Yet Eminem also repeatedly centers his songs on the crypto-traditional notion that children need parents and that not having them has made all hell break loose. In the song "8 Mile" from the movie soundtrack, for example, the narrator studies his little sister as she colors one picture after another of an imagined nuclear family, failing to understand that "mommas got a new man." "Wish I could be the daddy that neither one of us had," he comments. Such wistful lyrics juxtapose oddly and regularly with Eminem's violent other lines. Even in one of his most infamous songs, "Cleaning Out My Closet (Mama, I'm Sorry)," what drives the vulgar narrative is the insistence on seeing abandonment from a child's point of view. "My faggot father must have had his panties up in a bunch / 'Cause he split. I wonder if he even kissed me good-bye."

As with other rappers, the vicious narrative treatment of women in some of Eminem's songs is part of this self-conception as a child victim. Contrary to what critics have intimated, the misogyny in current music does not spring from nowhere; it is often linked to the larger theme of having been abandoned several times -- left behind by father, not nurtured by mother, and betrayed again by faithless womankind. One of the most violent and sexually aggressive songs in the last few years is "Kill You" by the popular metal band known as Korn. Its violence is not directed toward just any woman or even toward the narrator's girlfriend; it is instead a song about an abusive stepmother whom the singer imagines going back to rape and murder.

Similarly, Eminem's most shocking lyrics about women are not randomly dispersed; they are largely reserved for his mother and ex-wife, and the narrative pose is one of despising them for not being better women -- in particular, better mothers. The worst rap directed at his own mother is indeed gut-wrenching: "But how dare you try to take what you didn't help me to get? / You selfish bitch, I hope you f- burn in hell for this shit!" It is no defense of the gutter to observe the obvious: This is not the expression of random misogyny but, rather, of primal rage over alleged maternal abdication and abuse.

Another refrain in these songs runs like this: Today's teenagers are a mess, and the parents who made them that way refuse to get it. In one of Eminem's early hits, for example, a song called "Who Knew," the rapper pointedly takes on his many middle- and upper-middle-class critics to observe the contradiction between their reviling him and the parental inattention that feeds his commercial success. "What about the make-up you allow your 12 year-old daughter to wear?" he taunts.

This same theme of awol parenting is rapped at greater length in another award-nominated 2003 song called "Sing for the Moment," whose lyrics and video would be recognized in an instant by most teenagers in America. That song spells out Eminem's own idea of what connects him to his millions of fans -- a connection that parents, in his view, just don't (or is that won't?) understand. It details the case of one more "problem child" created by "His f- dad walkin' out." "Sing for the Moment," like many other songs of Eminem's, is also a popular video. The "visuals" show clearly what the lyrics depict -- hordes of disaffected kids, with flashbacks to bad home lives, screaming for the singer who feels their pain. It concludes by rhetorically turning away from the music itself and toward the emotionally desperate teenagers who turn out for this music by the millions. If the demand of all those empty kids wasn't out there, the narrator says pointedly, then rappers wouldn't be supplying it the way they do.

If some parents still don't get it -- even as their teenagers elbow up for every new Eminem cd and memorize his lyrics with psalmist devotion -- at least some critics observing the music scene have thought to comment on the ironies of all this. In discussing The Marshall Mathers lp in 2001 for Music Box, a daily online newsletter about music, reviewer John Metzger argued, "Instead of spewing the hate that he is so often criticized of doing, Eminem offers a cautionary tale that speaks to our civilization's growing depravity. Ironically, it's his teenage fans who understand this, and their all-knowing parents that miss the point." Metzger further specified "the utter lack of parenting due to the spendthrift necessity of the two-income family."7

That insight raises the overlooked fact that in one important sense Eminem and most of the other entertainers quoted here would agree with many of today's adults about one thing: The kids aren't all right out there after all. Recall, for just one example, Eddie Vedder's rueful observation about what kind of generation would make him or Kurt Cobain its leader. Where parents and entertainers disagree is over who exactly bears responsibility for this moral chaos. Many adults want to blame the people who create and market today's music and videos. Entertainers, Eminem most prominently, blame the absent, absentee, and generally inattentive adults whose deprived and furious children (as they see it) have catapulted today's singers to fame. (As he puts the point in one more in-your-face response to parents: "Don't blame me when lil' Eric jumps off of the terrace / You shoulda been watchin him -- apparently you ain't parents.")

The spectacle of a foul-mouthed bad-example rock icon instructing the hardworking parents of America in the art of child-rearing is indeed a peculiar one, not to say ridiculous. The single mother who is working frantically because she must and worrying all the while about what her 14-year-old is listening to in the headphones is entitled to a certain fury over lyrics like those. In fact, to read through most rap lyrics is to wonder which adults or political constituencies wouldn't take offense. Even so, the music idols who point the finger away from themselves and toward the emptied-out homes of America are telling a truth that some adults would rather not hear. In this limited sense at least, Eminem is right.

Sex, drugs, rock and roll, broken homes
To say that today's popular music is uniquely concerned with broken homes, abandoned children, and distracted or incapable parents is not to say that this is what all of it is about. Other themes remain a constant, too, although somewhat more brutally than in the alleged golden era recalled by some baby boomers.

Much of today's metal and hip-hop, like certain music of yesterday, romanticizes illicit drug use and alcohol abuse, and much of current hip-hop sounds certain radical political themes, such as racial separationism and violence against the police. And, of course, the most elementally appealing feature of all, the sexually suggestive beat itself, continues to lure teenagers and young adults in its own right -- including those from happy homes. Today as yesterday, plenty of teenagers who don't know or care what the stars are raving about find enough satisfaction in swaying to the sexy music. As professor and intellectual Allan Bloom observed about rock in his bestseller, The Closing of the American Mind (Simon & Schuster, 1987), the music "gives children, on a silver platter, with all the public authority of the entertaining industry, everything their parents always used to tell them they had to wait for until they grew up and would understand later."

Even so, and putting aside such obvious continuities with previous generations, there is no escaping the fact that today's songs are musically and lyrically unlike any before. What distinguishes them most clearly is a the fixation on having been abandoned personally by the adults supposedly in charge, with consequences ranging from bitterness to rage to bad, sick, and violent behavior.

And therein lies a painful truth about an advantage that many teenagers of yesterday enjoyed but their own children often do not. Baby boomers and their music rebelled against parents because they were parents -- nurturing, attentive, and overly present (as those teenagers often saw it) authority figures. Today's teenagers and their music rebel against parents because they are not parents -- not nurturing, not attentive, and often not even there. This difference in generational experience may not lend itself to statistical measure, but it is as real as the platinum and gold records that continue to capture it. What those records show compared to yesteryear's rock is emotional downward mobility. Surely if some of the current generation of teenagers and young adults had been better taken care of, then the likes of Kurt Cobain, Eminem, Tupac Shakur, and cer­tain other parental nightmares would have been mere footnotes to recent music history rather than rulers of it.

To step back from the emotional immediacy of those lyrics and to juxtapose the ascendance of such music alongside the long-standing sophisticated assaults on what is sardonically called "family values" is to meditate on a larger irony. As today's music stars and their raving fans likely do not know, many commentators and analysts have been rationalizing every aspect of the adult exodus from home -- sometimes celebrating it full throttle, as in the example of working motherhood -- longer than most of today's singers and bands have been alive.

Nor do they show much sign of second thoughts. Representative sociologist Stephanie Coontz greeted the year 2004 with one more op-ed piece aimed at burying poor metaphorical Ozzie and Harriet for good. She reminded America again that "changes in marriage and family life" are here to stay and aren't "necessarily a problem"; that what is euphemistically called "family diversity" is or ought to be cause for celebration. Many other scholars and observers -- to say nothing of much of polite adult society -- agree with Coontz. Throughout the contemporary nonfiction literature written of, by, and for educated adults, a thousand similar rationalizations about family "changes" bloom on.

Meanwhile, a small number of emotionally damaged former children, embraced and adored by millions of teenagers like them, rage on in every commercial medium available about the multiple damages of the disappearance of loving, protective, attentive adults -- and they reap a fortune for it. If this spectacle alone doesn't tell us something about the ongoing emotional costs of parent-child separation on today's outsize scale, it's hard to see what could.

Notes
1 William Shaw, "Why Are America's Rock Bands So Goddamned Angry?" Blender (August 2002).
2 Gabriella, "Interview with Mark Hoppus of Blink 182," NY Rock (August 2001).
3 "Miss Pink: This Pop Star Speaks the Universal Language of Teenage Rebellion," ABCnews.com (November 6, 2003).
4 Allan Jones, interview with Eddie Vedder, Melody Maker (May 21, 1994).
5 Shaheem Reid, with reporting by Sway Galloway, "Jay-Z: What More Can I Say," MTV.com (November 12, 2003).
6 Donna Britt, "Stats on Teens Don't Tell the Whole Story," Washington Post (January 23, 2004).
7 John Metzger, review of "Eminem: the Marshall Mathers lp," Music Box 8:6 (June 2001).
----End of Article ----

[1] http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=170

Making Christmas about Christ

I originally was going to title this post as "Putting Christ Back in Christmas," but after a moments thought, I changed it. As many people know Christmas was originally an attempt to "Christianize" pagan celebrations that already existed around this time of year and as such some Christians decide not to celebrate Christmas at all. However, my family and I choose to make Christmas about Christ. This is an ongoing process, as I continually review how we celebrate Christmas (and really this is what Christians need to do about every facet of their lives).

Here are some of the ways we make Christmas about Christ:

  • Our children know that Santa, Rudolph and such are not real. We've also talked to them about the various Saint Nicholas legends (which may or may not be true) to give them a historical context of where the idea of Santa comes from. The older ones already knew this, but didn't like officially letting go of the idea.
  • The children also know that Christmas is a day chosen to have a focused celebration of the birth of Jesus, and not the actual day on which He was born.
  • We talked to our children about the fact that none of us deserve gifts. If we are given anything, if is because someone has chosen to give it to us from the generosity of their heart. Therefore we never have the right to complain about a gift.
  • All gift giving at Christmas is a reflection of the gift of eternal life that God has given to us through his Son (Eph. 2:8,9).
  • We reduced the number of presents they get from us to one. We then have the children swap names so that they think about someone other than themselves (they REALLY enjoyed this).
  • Our church gets together and acts out the Christmas story - the whole church is involved. All the children dress up as either sheep (the littlest ones), angels (the girls), shepherds (boys), or wise men (older boys). One father, mother and new baby (we have lots of those) are Joseph, Mary and baby Jesus. The others follow the grand procession around as the Scripture is read and the story is acted out by all.
  • Leading up to Christmas, we read "The Best Christmas Pageant Ever." It is a great short story (seven chapters) which confronts legalism and should get everyone thinking about how they view the well known Christmas story. We always work it so that we finish the story on Christmas Eve.
  • Also on Christmas Eve we have a Happy Birthday Jesus cake for the kids (Mom really out did herself this year!).
  • This year for our Christmas dinner, we had leg of lamb instead of the usual turkey, ham, or roast beef. We used the dinner to talk to our children about the Passover story and shared with them that Christ is the final Passover Lamb -- He is "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).

There are many other was that you can make Christmas about Christ. What are some other ideas that you have?


Finding God in the 2004 Asian Earthquake and Tsunami

The world is still reeling from the recent earthquake and resultant tsunami in southern Asia. The current stats predict that over 150,000 are dead and that number will rise with disease and starvation. Just as with the 9/11 terrorist attack in the USA, there is much discussion about finding God’s hand in this tragedy. Some Christians will say it is a fulfillment of this or that prophesy proving that the end of the world is at hand. Some will say that it is punishment and condemnation for a largely Christ-less people. In a December 31st Washington Post article Shlomo Amar, Israel's Sephardi chief rabbi, is quoted to have said, "This is an expression of God's great ire with the world. The world is being punished for wrongdoing -- be it people's needless hatred of each other, lack of charity, moral turpitude." The article also notes that “Some organizations in India say the tsunami is ‘divine retribution’ for the arrest of … a Hindu religious leader.” But what does God’s Word say about such things?

In the Book of Job, Job and his friends are severely reprimanded by God for thinking that they know His mind and His will. In chapter 38 verses 1 through 24 we read:


1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,
2"Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge?
3"Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!
4"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding,
5Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it?
6"On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone,
7When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8"Or who enclosed the sea with doors When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb;
9When I made a cloud its garment And thick darkness its swaddling band,
10And I placed boundaries on it And set a bolt and doors,
11And I said, 'Thus far you shall come, but no farther; And here shall your proud waves stop'
?
(Click here to read more)

This goes on for several chapters. We are not able to accurately discern the mind of God and Job answers God’s charge correctly in Job chapter 40 verses 3-5, “3 Then Job answered the LORD and said, 4 ‘Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You? I lay my hand on my mouth. 5 ‘Once I have spoken, and I will not answer; Even twice, and I will add nothing more.” And again Job answers God in chapter 42:1-6:

1 Then Job answered the LORD and said, 2 "I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted. 3 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' "Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know." 4 'Hear, now, and I will speak; I will ask You, and You instruct me.' 5 "I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; But now my eye sees You; 6 Therefore I retract, And I repent in dust and ashes."
It is inappropriate and shameful for us to make a pretence at knowing the mind and will of God in such things. So what is the Christians response? I think John Piper gives an appropriate response:

The heart that Christ gives to his people feels compassion for those who suffer, no matter what their faith. When the Bible says, “Weep with those who weep” (Romans 12:15), it does not add, “unless God caused the weeping.” … It is right to weep with those who suffer. Pain is pain, no matter who causes it. We are all sinners. Empathy flows not from the causes of pain, but the company of pain. And we are all in it together.

… Christ calls us to show mercy to those who suffer, even if they do not deserve it. That is the meaning of mercy—undeserved help. “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you” (Luke 6:27). (Desiring God Ministries: Tsunami, Sovereignty, and Mercy. Dec. 29, 2004)
God is sovereign over all and nothing happens without God allowing it to happen – even when we can not comprehend any goodness coming from it. It is God who allowed this to happen. Why? We will most likely never now, but we can know that it is also God who stopped the waves from going any further than He wished (see Job 38:11 above).