Research Notes on Creation, Theology, and Science

Institute for Creation Research

Principles of Scientific Creationism https://www.icr.org/tenets

Master of Christian Education (M.C.Ed.) https://icr.edu/mced

One Tough Question This Week; The Other Frustrating

Some people ask tough "questions of the week" in my Introduction to the New Testament class (online through Trinity School for Ministry). It's fun, but sometimes I have too many thoughts or ways of approach. Some of them might not be conducive to the structured learning environment, which is why I have been putting them here, in an unstructured (hopefully) learning environment!

Paul’s writings this week have covered many issues, many of which deal with our horizontal relationships.

1. So in my first question, I’m throwing you a bone. It’s been a launching pad for countless discussions. I’m referring to Ephesians 5:22-33 (wives submit to your husbands; husbands love your wives). COMMENT: Listening to various discussions over the years, I’ve heard an entire range of definitions for the word “submit” as it applies to this passage. I’ve also heard discussions on how balanced the mandate is or is not for husbands and wives. I KNOW some of you want to comment on this. What’s your take?
2. In 2 Timothy 4, Paul tells Timothy “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” I infer here that Timothy’s audience would not necessarily be inclined peaceably to receive the reproving, the rebuking, or the exhorting. In Matthew 7, Jesus says, “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.” How do you thread this needle? When, in your thinking, is it better to stop evangelizing, if ever? It’s rather like conducting CPR, isn’t it? You do it as long as you can to save a life, but once you’re completely exhausted, it serves no purpose to continue… but when is that? (Not that I wish to associate people who need CPR with pigs!) Additionally, when is it appropriate to stop LISTENING to people? These days, a lot of people talk trash. When is it appropriate to finally say as graciously as you can to the other person, “Okay, my ears aren’t garbage cans! This conversation is over!”

My First Attempt:
1. I am naturally inclined to egalitarianism. However when I've tried to follow my egalitarian leanings to its conclusion, it has failed miserably. Is it because my wife adopted a weird patriarchal vision (IBLP) right before we got married? Is it because the people in my circles were vehemently against egalitarianism? I think not. The people weren't against it as much as they were for following their nature. "If momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy," is just a restated version of "and her desire shall be for your head." I've talked to many men and their wives "rule the roost." This is acceptable to most men as long as they can "check out" when it comes to training the children.

I've learned experientially, aka the hard way, that Paul really meant what he said. My failure to lead self-sacrificially nearly ended my marriage. I say this as if I learned this right away. In fact, this could not be further from the truth. I have been wrestling with the idea of male headship ever since then (2009). After what happened, I was angry, embittered. I became a tyrant. This did not help me to learn Paul at all. I still doubted.

When I was released from the anger/forgave/was forgiven, my marriage was set on the road to recovery (2013). I joined an Anglican church where the pastor was a proponent of women's ordination. This may seem out of place in the discussion of submission, but I believe it's central to the discussion. I was swayed, or at least I wanted to consider it. After all, I leaned egalitarian by nature. I read up on the arguments in favor and saw Paul in a new light.

Then I started to see cracks in the arguments. I would switch sides multiple times over the last several years. I even considered going to college to get a philosophy degree from the University of Washington (they specialize in feminist philosophy). There were many proto-feminist things I found myself supporting, and still do (proto- means original). Every time I thought I was settled comfortably on one side, I would see a crack on that side.

So I kept strengthening (in my mind) the argument for each side (as I bounced between them). The argument which I believe to be the strongest in support of women's ordination is what I refer to as the eschatological argument. It is an inductive argument and can hardly be found to be at fault. In fact, it's true in so many parts. It's only weakness (as is the case for every inductive argument) is it's inductive jump. Once I realized that and fully embraced a robust covenant theology as regards the family, I ceased to be in support of women's ordination.

Interestingly enough, I am not against it. I don't "know" that it's wrong. I think the effort to force the issue is misplaced. I found Alastair Roberts (through his blog) to expound most closely what I believe. In this mindset, I read through Paul this week. I must say, he presents a unified vision (though sparse), which dovetails with my experiences. This class has solidified my approach to scriptural interpretation (leaving a full explanation of it out, at this point). Part of that is a direct reading with little-to-no nullification due to "cultural" contexts. A close reading can show that the intention is made to contextualize "submission" outside of the culture to the church in all times.

I have come to this conclusion after a decade of hemming and hawing. I don't really want to take this position. For the past year I have "returned" so to speak, to the complementary position, whatever that means. I believe that the man is the "alef" and the woman the "bet" (I learned this from a Jewish Rabbi a couple of years ago). The man is to receive the vision from God, and the woman is to "flesh" it out (most notably, child birth, but Proverbs 31 envisions other ways this is done).

To me, to submit is to help me achieve my vision. I will make the call; I will bear the responsibility. I need help, boy do I need help! She needs to support me, even if that means holding me accountable, which is humble support, though it does not feel good to either. I must love her. I do not do what she wants as much as I do what she needs. I listen to her, but if I do exactly what she says, I tend to miss the mark. But if I listen to her and understand what is driving her feelings, I can dwell with her with understanding.

Honestly, I (we) hardly know what submission is "supposed" to look like. She was exposed to a distorted view of it and we are still, to some extent, dealing with the effects of it in our marriage. She was so stuck on "submission" meaning "not influencing your husband" that she would not talk to me early in our marriage. It was disastrous. This was the effect of false teachings. Yeah, maybe I was a bit too egalitarian for her liking, but come on, talk to me!

The problem with defining "submission" is that most people cannot take the principle and extrapolate it based on the situation. I hope none of you are "most people" that I've dealt with, but chances are good. I believe that the woman was created to be the helper. I don't think this is an inferior position, not do I believe it means that women are to "lose themselves."

Insofar that I have "lost myself" in Christ by dying to self, Yes, women and men alike are to lose themselves. But no one is to give up their humanity.

2. I believe the first chapter of the Epistle to Titus (NIV) has the short answer to your question(s) #2.

9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. 10 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” 13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

In my longer answer (immediately following), I synthesize many more passages of scripture, hence the length.

I think there are different groups of people being referred to by these passages ("preach the word" and "don't cast pearls before swine"). It may be that people can be viewed along a continuum (spectrum) by degree of repentance. I draw a line in the sand between evangelism and discipleship. I believe we should call all people (believer and unbeliever) to repentance in every area of thought and life. When someone initially repents, we refer to this as conversion and the preaching that got them there as evangelism. As they continue to repent, we find more areas in which they can repent. This is called discipleship.

In my mind, the difference is only by degree. Because we cannot know who is elect, to a person (save Jesus, "The Elect" one), we must call everyone to repentance (but not necessarily in the same way) and treat everyone as sincere if they say they believe (for none can say Jesus is Lord unless it is given to them). So, can we ever stop calling people to repentance? I say, No. Even if they apostatize, I must still call them to repentance, but there is a nuance which must be achieved in each of these cases.

For evangelism specifically, here are the patterns I see. Jesus sent out his disciples in pairs. (Compare with this, "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the truth be established," as well as, "where two or three are gathered in my name I shall be in the midst of them.") Take no money. Go to a city. Say peace be on this house. If they accept you, remain in that house and don't move from house to house (a laborer is worthy of his hire). If they reject you, the peace of God will return to you. Shake the dust from your feet and move on.

The fields are white to harvest. We should not over exert ourselves with those who are not interested (maybe we're only meant to plant the seed there and someone else will come along and water and another reap the harvest!). Maybe we are to reap where we have not sown. There are hearts which God has prepared to receive his word, they are the ones we should scour the earth to find. In a way, we should be canvassing people "are you ready?" That's how white to harvest people really are. Think: dragnet (the dictionary definition, but also the parable!).

If they are not ready to hear and repent (i.e., the swine), the only thing we'll be doing by "calling people out" is to invite violence upon ourselves. The kingdom of heaven suffers violence and the violent take it by force. Essentially, we are told that we don't need to go and make ourselves martyrs, it will happen soon enough! So, instead, live at peace with your neighbors. Love the brethren. Some (not all) are called to be evangelists, by the way. But everyone should be ready to give an answer, again when the people white-to-harvest ask you about the hope within you! Walk circumspectly; be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.

On the question of discipleship, we should not weary with doing well. You who are spiritual should restore such a one, taking heed lest ye fall. This task is not given to the immature in the faith (and we cannot count the years as a Christian, because some are still drinking milk, when they should be eating meat!), but to the mature, who will gently work with the wayward, foolish, and immature. The minister of God must have endurance.

If one is called to such an office, one should never stop (70x7) having faith, loving the brethren, rebuking the wayward, teaching pure doctrine, opposing the proud, suffering for righteousness, speaking with authority, and taking up ones cross daily (and so much more). The ability to teach well, is curiously included in the list of qualifications for overseers. Those who intend to lead, need to cultivate the critical leadership skills to do so. Where does one do this? Did God provide us with a "leadership factory" of a sorts? This goes back to your first question on what a godly ordered home looks like. This is the most fitting place for leadership to be learned.

If there are swines in the church, it would be easy to drive them away in my estimation. Use the stench of death to do it! Church discipline (excommunication) does not have to be daunting. Hold the line on accountability. "If you want access to the table, you need to repent of ... "

I don't know what context you intend to "stop listening" to people. I'd recommend you never start listening to fools (who say in their heart there is no God) anyways. If it's fruitless conversation, we need to avoid it (I need to repent in this area), such as quarrels and arguments over theology where it's clear that people don't need to be convinced by arguments when they really just don't want to obey the clear teachings.

Humanly speaking, I would rather attempt to prove my theological point than call people to repentance in light of the argument they're trying to have. We must stop with the debate over theology and simply follow the clear teachings. I know as far as epistemology is concerned, that last statement can be torn apart. Don't misunderstand me. I realize that even "clear" teachings come laden with interpretation. But most don't require interpreting beyond basic comprehension (itself an interpretive function). The parts that are more difficult can be interpreted in light of the ones which are more easily apprehended, especially, I believe, in a life which conforms to them.

My Second Attempt:
1. After much reflection, I take the straight forward reading of it. I don't believe it's only culturally relevant or only written to deal with some particulars of their situation. That being said, I also take the straight forward reading of the husband and father's responsibilities.

I have erred more in my role as a father and husband than my wife in her roles of mother and wife. In fact I think her submission (or lack of it), is more a reflection on my suitability to be followed (or lack of it). Granted, like Eve, she doesn't get to excuse it, but, like Adam, I bear the greater sin in the failings of our marriage due to my poor leadership.

I am naturally more egalitarian and I think this is part of the reason (another reason was immaturity) why I have failed to lead as I tried to implement my views of marriage. My wife brings a more complementarian perspective to the marriage.

What I don't believe in is dominance, from either party. Both must serve sacrificially; both must submit mutually. But men have certain roles in the family and women have certain roles. It may sound like I side with every complementarian out there, I don't. I probably agree with the egalitarians in most things except for the view of the biblical doctrine of authority. They are close to a good explanation of it, except that they reject hierarchy (rightly understood).

In other words, I'm a complementarian who has never heard a single complementarian actually explain the biblical views, merely worldly views superimposed on marriage. "Well, the man leads so..." conjuring up images of 'lording it over,' "it looks like [this]." They have the "right words," except that they accept a distorted view of hierarchy. *sigh*

I want both: right words and right concepts. Adam was created first, then Eve, to help him. Man is to serve the Lord by tending to creation ("the garden"), Eve included, but also Eve is to help him. That's the basic principle. If it's not based there, it's foundation is made of sand.

We can try to get more sophisticated in our reasoning, but to me, it's always a game of obscurantism and obfuscation. That's why I try to keep things simple. Truth should be spoken of with accessible language, it takes more work by the scholars to do it, but they have the responsibility to do so.

They (as a group, and I have been party to this) suffer from laziness and intellectual pride. These concepts and debates are accessible to all spirit-filled Christian, but they are not being included in the discussions leading to theological 'ink to paper.'

2. If at all possible live at peace with everyone. If you cannot speak peaceably, then don't. If you are an elder/overseer, part of your role is to deal with these things. If you cannot, you should not be an elder/overseer.

It's easy to preach at people; it's difficult to speak with people. Open up to the vulnerability of learning why people are in their sins and you will gain compassion and learn how to cure their souls. It may take a lifetime to cure them, one must be patient.

I have offered advice to people (including unbelievers) and have not had many people "turn and rend me." For those who have approached that level of vehemence, I learned that they will not accept what I have to say, so I could stop being pushy. I had to stop preaching at/to my brothers. They were all raised in the church, but have walked away/apart.

It was straining my relationship. I stopped preaching and started listening. But, like you, I can only spend so much time with unbelievers. I try to stay on good terms with them (live at peace). But there is really not much of a relationship. Part of that is my fault. I'm terrible with long distance relationships (but that's also just a human thing).

I was starting to ramble ... so I went for a short answer and left my long, incomplete answers for the blog.

My Third (Final) Attempt:
Short answer:
1. I take the straight reading to be the correct one.

2. I find it remarkable that Paul calls Timothy to endurance. I would base my discernment on how people respond. If they turn and rend me, then I will stop casting, but not until then.

"Listening" is another thing entirely. I agree with John Bunyan's characters Christian and Faithful, "We only buy the truth!"

Long answer:
I posted lots of thoughts, though it's not as coherent as I like:
https://michaelsei.blogspot.com/2019/08/one-tough-question-this-week-other.html

If you are in my class, I disable the comments to prevent robots/spam comments. Feel free to comment in Google Classroom.

Revisiting Writing as a Career

What has gone on that you want to know about?  Well, I haven't blogged as you know.  I have participated in music a lot more this year than any other year of my life.  I am getting comfortable with singing into a microphone (it was weird the first dozen times, or so).  I made the decision to attend seminary.  Really, it was a decision 16 years in the making, but the plan is for the fall of 2019.  Trinity School for Ministry (TSM, aka "Trinity")(near Pittsburgh), here we come!  I have learned to type, finally!  I am getting up at 4 am, reading a bit of scripture, then reading a book on homiletics (in preparation for seminary).  How did we get here?

Singing
The volunteers for serving at the altar have increased in number.  The amount of times I am on the schedule for each quarter has dropped, freeing me up to join with the musicians in leading congregational worship.  Some days I fare better than others.  No, it's not a "performance."  Yes, the word "perform" still applies to how a person 'does' music.  In that way, my performance isn't always where I would like it to be.  I want to aid in the worship, not distract.  Enough on that.  Morning singing?  Yuck!  Who knew?  Not I.  I don't have enough time to warm up my voice and then give it time to recuperate following the inevitable over use/straining/whatever I am doing.  I am left on the horns of a dilemma.  Do I warm up or do I risk losing my voice (due to fatigue, yeah, I think that's what it is)?  Any morning singers out there who could help me on this one?!  (Maybe I should ask my voice coach.  I just stopped going after 5 sessions in 2017 partly due to time and partly due to money.  But if your'e ever in Seattle and want a good coach, check out Chris McCafferty, he really helped me on my journey of getting to the next level.)

Seminary
It started back when I was 18 years old.  I have never lost that desire to attend seminary and become a pastor.  Is it the INFP in me?  More on that later.  Anyways, I attended the Diocese of Cascadia 2018 Spring Men's Retreat and was confronted with many thoughts.  What is God trying to tell me?  Will I leave this weekend with answers?  If I get quiet enough, maybe.  My Bishop poked me about attending Trinity for something like the third time in as many years.  God, do you really want me to uproot my family and leave all of the connections we have been making here in the Pacific Northwest?!  I was brought up in Evangelical circles.  If there is anything that we want to hold onto more than God, let that be ANATHEMA!  I put my growing attachment to this area on the "altar" and it became abundantly clear to me that it was time to pack my bags.  Three years prior, when I was leaving active military service, we counted the cost and realized that we would not be able to afford going to seminary at that time (we are on track to be debt free as we embark on this journey, God willing).  Then I threw a proverbial dart at the dartboard, aiming for the Fall of 2019.  And here we are!  Time will tell if God is with us.  I have a sneaking suspicion, He is.

INFP
Speaking of typing, er, I mean type; I love my 'impossible' segues, sometimes they're all you've got.  I slowed down my typing a year ago.  I was henpecking with the best of them, but I wanted change.  Now I'm typing about as fast (maybe faster, at times) than when I was a full time 'chicken.'  That has no relation to this paragraph's title "INFP" to which, we will now turn!  I have always tested as an ISTJ when taking those fun, online MBTI tests.  I have never been fully satisfied with it however.  Or I cannot just leave well enough alone.  Unfortunately people (read: I) take these things in a predictive manner (think: astrology).  I didn't intend to, it just came too easy in self-analysis to use what I learned and in verbally presenting myself to others.  In 2014 I learned about cognitive functions and I realized that my earlier assignment may have been wrong and I could likely determine what my personality type really was and is.  After a bit of reading and analysis, I determined that I could not be a J type and was clearly a P type.  So, I did the second worst thing you can do with personality typing (my created list of worsts, of course; the first of which I mentioned above) and I changed one letter of the four in ISTJ.  I now identified myself as an ISTP.  This I have learned is totally NOT legit'.  My brother, in one of his prescient moments over the years, said that he thought I was more intuitive than I gave myself credit for (uh! ending with a preposition, I know; hence the parenthetical, oh yeah!).  Reading more about cognitive functions, I came across this website:  Type in Mind (that's a link to my type, BTW).  I knew enough to figure out my type, finally!  I knew my cognitive functions and I could only be one of two types:  ISTJ or INFP.  Well now, doesn't that give you pause for reflection?  Maybe I am an ISTJ.  Really drilling down on my personal history (all in my head, so you cannot validate this, you'll have to trust me, or not), bending my powers of thought to the task, and trying my best to be frank with myself, I have concluded that I have always been an INFP and that I will probably test as an ISTJ for the foreseeable future given my upbringing and the first 30 years of my life spent in a "Te grip."  Look it up.  It took talking to a psychologist to break me out of this grip (none of this was discussed then and there, BTW.  This is all hindsight analysis).  It is all kind of a "laugh."  I should not have put so much stock into this stuff and yet I could not ignore it either.  If you suffer from what I do, I'm sorry for your plight.  Talk to me, maybe I can help.  After all, I'm a "healer" type (INFP), at least I think I am ;)

Homiletics
I have a suggested reading list for seminary preparation.  On that list is a book on exegesis and hermeneutics.  But as I was reading that book, I was starting to get "that" feeling.  You know what I'm talking about.  "We are probably going to argue, a lot."  My ink started to spill into the margins of the page as I progressed through a book which promised to be as helpful as a bowl of warm soup to an empty stomach (my metaphor, not the publishers).  Alas, I was disheartened.  Am I such a contrarian that I can't get along?  Does this foreshadow my seminary experience?  But before I could succumb to the "just deal with it," I remembered that I had a book in my library which pertained (if you are serious, you have a library full of books which you have not read and may never read, yeah, that serious, now you know).  As I started reading it, my fears and anxieties transformed into an excruciating intellectual "suck."  By that, I mean that it feels like I'm having to vacuum my mind of cobwebs and other junk which may be clouding my ability to put what I am learning from this book into practice.  Backstory - I read Days of Vengeance when I was 17/18 years old and became hooked on the way of thinking presented in the pages of that volume.  Fifteen years later, I finally read the book outlining a thesis which helped that former book to take shape.  This book is titled That You May Prosper.  In the bibliography, a seminal book was identified Sola Scriptura.  It is this book, the author intimated, which should be read by everyone who desires to preach the Word of God.  It is here, in the pages of this doctoral thesis, where my mind has been of late.  It is here where I grieve through the process of purifying my thinking, blundering about, trying to understand the author.  If I have cracked out any meat from the husk thus far, it has left me sore grieved to think about how badly we have preached the Word of God to the people of God.  I'm not talking about a "we've all been doing it wrong until now" kind of mentality.  I'm talking about an open discussion/debate which took place in the 20's and 30's in reformed churches in the Netherlands and was never settled, to the detriment of the reformed theology preaching community.  I haven't finished the book, so I really cannot say more without (probably) misrepresenting the issues at play.  Suffice it to say that, if Sidney Greidanus is right, I have a lot of work to add to the "a lot of work" I already knew I had to do in getting into this particular vocation.

Writing
Now to be more definitive (in line with the title of this post).  If you google the careers for an INFP, I have done the ones that are "bad" for my type.  Don't I know it!  I am revisiting the old ideas which have never quite left me alone.  Writing is one of them.  In a writing career I can tap into my strengths as long as I develop my career along those lines:  independent, creative, and innovative (not the qualities that the military is looking for, despite recent initiatives to the contrary).  It is scary to say the least, to contemplate another career change.  But I know that I have the support of my family and that a happier me (not that happiness is everything, but it is something) will alter our family life for the better.  I don't know if the "pulpit" of writing is what I have been called to or a pulpit in a parish setting or neither.  All I know is that I have thoughts, healing thoughts and they are burning in my chest.  The time to share them with the world has come (prompts like this help too!).  Stay tuned for more.

Best Advice: Stay Out of Debt

$1 trillion student loan debt widens US wealth gap

I have written about this before. There is a problem. Let's take a look at the data.

According to the statistics from BLS.gov on median earnings, you will earn $23,764 a year more if you have a Bachelor's degree compared to your high school graduate counterpart. (Don't take this to be prescriptive though.)

According to this CNNMoney article, the average school-related debt by 2013 graduates is around $35,200. Just read some of the comments..."12% of graduates, regretted their decisions entirely, saying their college education didn't justify the debt burden." That's awful. How were they duped into this (rhetorical)?

CNNMoney isn't trying to scare monger, they offer pretty good advice here.

Why am I pointing this out? There's a problem. Mainstream media says there's a problem. Now what is the root? I say the idea that "you have to go to college" is one of the problems. I think we should replace it with the idea that "you have to count the cost of going to college" which includes the idea of adequate preparation and the possibility of a 'no build' option. (If you are bristling about the idea of a 'no build' option right now, you are making my point.)

The idea that everyone has to go to college leads to high demand...hence rising tuition costs. It leads to the thinking "if statistics show people whom have higher levels of education make more on average, I should seek the highest levels of education"...which brings us to the original article to which I've linked. The number of jobs for PhD's isn't going to change simply based on more people getting PhD's, so all it will result in is that more people have a PhD level of college debt without the PhD level of pay that they were counting on having with which to pay it off. These people are debtor-slaves.

How do you take the people with the greatest potential and marginalize them? Enslave them to college debt. That's the most sinister thing about the issue. Is it driven from that viewpoint? It doesn't have to be. It may be an unintended consequence of poor policies, but that doesn't make it any less heinous.

Oh, and we've only talked about the college graduates. What about those who do not graduate?

Should you vote for the lesser of two evils?

It depends on the reason why.

I will not, because I will vote my conscience. I cannot in good conscience vote evil into office and thereby be a part of perpetuating evil in our elected leadership.

But I have colleagues who I deeply respect voting for the candidate whom I would call "the lesser of two evils." Are they wrong in taking this course of action? I think not, if their actions are well reasoned. By this I mean that they actually have valid reasons for voting for a major party candidate. Their "good" reasons alone I cannot take issue with...So why do two people who hold such similar beliefs take actions so dissimilar?

I have concluded that we are approaching this particular issue from different perspectives. I am a conscience voter. I believe my friends are approaching the issue from a practical/pragmatic viewpoint. The next question is: How ought one to presuppose this issue? I don't think this question is valid however. I don't think that it is wrong to decide to vote by conscience or vote by what is practical, so long as the issues are clearly understood.

Not one of us believes in salvation by state. This is fundamental. This must never be lost on those who like to debate politics from a distinctively Christian perspective. Another issue which may cause some division is that; that which is pure cannot be elicited from that which is impure. Politicians with faulty views will fix nothing. I hope my friends are keeping this in mind. A vote for a major party candidate will at best slow the descent into chaos. There will be no reversal in policy. If they understand this then I fully support them in their vote; in fact I could almost join them...But I think we need people like me as well as them.

One faction votes to slow the descent into chaos while working for restoration; the other faction votes only for the candidate which "would" bring political restoration while working to bring this country to a point where they would actually vote for him (i.e. "restoration," s.a.a.).

Conclusion: Note that both factions must work for restoration. To ignore this critical element is truly casting a wasted vote (even if the vote is an abstention; God bless the political dissenters). Ultimately salvation is by the cross. Preaching Christ crucified is what will bring restoration. Preaching Christ's Lordship over every area of life will bring restoration. Obedience to the preaching is what will bring restoration.

New Home Business!

Maybe.

I just purchased covenanthearts.com. (Next task: read a lot.)

I plan on moving this blog to that site if I can; probably to something like covenanthearts.com/blog. It'll be powered by WordPress.org I think. It may be built with Weebly, or Google Sites but everything has to be compatible...So, we'll see.

Soon I hope to start selling some of my favorite books and my favorite publishers' books. Publishers will include Institute for Christian Economics, Dominion Press, and Christian Liberty Press (CLP). CLP offers a distributorship program making this possible. We will also sell a few books put out by No Greater Joy Ministries on child training and marriage. This will also be made possible by a similar program. American Vision also sells materials wholesale.

In the long run I hope to be able to start a Christian Daycare in the Charleston area with the namesake of the newly acquired domain.

Update (9/7/08): I don't think the book-selling is going to happen. Honestly, it will be a lot of time spent for little reward. Frankly I need to redeem the time and this is not the way to do it right now. I still hope to do this thing though. And I will still keep the site because I do want to name a Christian Daycare ministry/local Christian educational ministry by the same name.

Homeschooling: Classical Education and Curricula

Here are homeschooling curricula to consider:

Robinson Curriculum

Cost: $195, or $275 w/G.A. Henty collection on CD. Saxon math textbooks ordered separately (avg $61 eaX9).

Focus: Christian Worldview. Math and Science to develop reason.

The ultimate "teach-yourself" and "all-in-one" system (except for the Saxon math textbooks which must be ordered separately). Five Stars (*****).

Principle Approach - FACE

Cost: $217.50/$229.70(?) for Noah Plan Curriculum Guide Package. $199.95 for Principle Approach Foundational Set. Note that additional books would more than likely need to be purchased. See the Product Guide for more info.

Focus: Christian Character and Christian Political Involvement.

The method the founding fathers used. That is how it is advertised. They sell a book that teaches the Christian History of the Constitution, but this is at odds with the idea that the "ratification of the United States Constitution in 1787–88 was not an act of covenant renewal. It was an act of covenant-breaking: the substitution of a new covenant in the name of a new god." (source: Dr Gary North, part 3 of Political Polytheism). You be the judge. Three Stars (***).

Christian Liberty Academy School System

Cost: Tuition varies from $200-$545 depending on type of enrollment and grade. Electives cost extra and would probably be desired by most. Additional resources are offered through Christian Liberty Press.

Focus: Christian Worldview and Academics.

For those who want to homeschool and have the prestige of a private school (with CLASS administration enrollment) the CLASS system is for you. Two Stars (**).

Veritas Press

Cost:~$1000 a year (my estimate)

Focus: Classical Christian Education

This is the traditional Greek/Roman styled system of learning. One Star (*).

Old Fashioned Education

Cost: Mostly free; some materials must be purchased.

Focus: Christian Worldview. Free online books/textbooks and primary source documents.

Similar sites: Simply Charlotte Mason and Ambleside Online

Provides many free resources/links for a homeschool curriculum for "students" of all ages (beneficial and cheap for adults to brush up on some learnin'). Will most likely have to be supplemented with purchased materials. Three Stars (***).

Then of course there is the "'Shelly-esque' (as in Mary Shelley) hybrid of multiple curriculums (sic)." I plan on using the Robinson Curriculum supplemented with books I already own and resources from some of these other educational organizations. Five Stars (*****).

Quaestiones and Rhetoric

What is it that drives a man to seek the truth? What causes him to hunger and yearn for that which he does not know?

At what point does this go away? Why does a man think he has found the ultimate truth? What makes him spew forth bile in defense of his [probably] erroneous views?

To be sure, we as Christians ought to be valiant for truth. We should know what we believe and why we believe it. If you are being questioned then you ought to be sure in what you believe. But when you debate, not being any less sure, you ought to present yourself in such a way as to have a winning spirit/attitude.

I guess this spirit of animosity between people who like to debate their beliefs is due in great part to lack of study of rhetoric. Rhetoric is the use of forms and methods in speech or writing that serve to convince the listener or reader of what you are saying. Obviously it should not be used for spreading lies, but has been and can be abused this way. If you believe that you hold to the truth, then win people to your belief.

Take the time to study rhetoric. Learn about logos, ethos, and pathos. Learn rhetorical forms such as alliteration, several variants of repetition, and so many others. This is assuming that you have also studied logic or will simultaneously study logic; it is also necessary.

It is shameful that we as Christians do not follow our Lord. He was gentle and winning to the lost...He was scathing and accusing to those who knew better...He was true and righteous altogether.

The Truth Shall Set You Free; Secular Education Enslaves

The truth shall set you free, not lies. Where is truth to be found? In Scripture to be sure. Is Scripture accredited? Not by any secular agency. The Bible however has been accredited. It is self-accredited, accredited by the Holy Spirit and the spirit which is man and in man.

So the Bible tells us everything? No. You will need extra-Biblical education if you want to know more. So then, I should go to a secularly accredited institution of un-truth? No. To suggest that that is your only option for education versus non-education is a false dilemma.

Here are the options:

1. You choose to attend a secular school.

There are many reasons for this choice. The premier reason is usually lack of knowing a better way. For shame, it is too bad that many Christians send their children to be indoctrinated in institutions that hate God and will remove God from every area of life. The children may not lose their faith but that is all they will be left with when the school gets through with them. They will lose a God-centered perspective of history. They will forget why God created the heavens and the earth. They will accede far too much territory to the enemy to stay below the radar and get good grades. This is not a criticism. They have no choice; the teacher "knows" more than the student.

If they resist intellectually they will live and work in turmoil knowing that lies are being spewed forth daily and few of them will ever be contested in class; there is simply no time for debate. Memorize the "facts" (deny Him once), write it all down on the test (deny Him twice) and pass the course (deny Him thrice); get a good grade and move on to the next course in humanism. Make no mistake they will be influenced. Even for those who resist the lies will be influenced.
The only way to counteract the intellectual atheism of "higher" education is to train your mind in the opposing arguments.

If you are in chemistry or biology, in addition to your course load, read "Darwin's Black Box" or similar books. If you are taking history you may want to get books/audio by Rushdoony or Wilkins or the like. Math is fairly "neutral," just don't listen to what your teacher says about things other than math. Science; know that the modern science is man's present day mythology. Science is savior. Secular humanism is the religion. Modern science is based not on absolutes but on relativity. Quantum theory has stood rational science on its head.

The pitfalls are many and the benefits are few. Think about why you choose this path. There are many wrong reasons for choosing this kind of school.

Get Informed (Required Reading):
Must Your Children Run the Collegiate Gauntlet?
The Dorm-Key Ritual
Running the Collegiate Gauntlet at Age 17
Thought Reform 101

2. You choose to attend a "Christian" school.

This school, while apparently the safe alternative, far too often proves the more dangerous option. Many "Christian" schools simply teach a "baptized" secularism. They concede the point to the secularists removing God from education everywhere it would be important to keep Him. They acknowledge His existence merely as an unproven and crudely held belief. Losing one's faith in a Bible College is no uncommon tragedy. As with anything, evaluate the school yourself. There are good "Christian" schools but they are few. Christ College is one example of a school I would trust to send my children. No others really come to mind (they may be out there though...Geneva College?).

3. You decide not to go to school.

This is a safe decision. You may not be educated to the world's standards, but that is a good thing. Education in America means giving up God and becoming "enlightened." For those who are educated and Christians, they are often stigmatized as being biased and not a respectable authority/source. A Ph.D. is a waste of time and money.

True education doesn't need to be expensive. It will cost something though; motivation. There are public libraries, school libraries, internet, and educational organizations. There are conferences, lectures and simple networking that can be done to garner an above average education. It is there if you want it.

4. You decide to get an education the cheapest way you know how.

Not going to school for the first two years is the first suggestion. CLEP's or AP credits are highly recommended. You may be able to get life experience credit. If you know a lot about the subject from high school or your own studies you may be able to test out of the class. Minor fees are involved in getting college credit for any of these but you will save some money and a lot of time.

Then "attend" class by taking online courses. Behold the power of the internet. You can work from home in your pajamas. You do school work around your own schedule. Again motivation is needed in order to save time and money. With less motivation you will at least save some money. Young people can pay for their own education this way, thereby taking ownership of it. There are hundreds of accredited online schools. The secular learning without the secular influence and pressure of conformity.

I would also suggest Whitefield College. It is non-accredited. You can go at your own pace or you can follow the semester time-line. I am currently registering for my first class at Whitefield. (Note: This is a small educational ministry with few people involved in administration. It took two months for me to get accepted and to begin the process. Don't get impatient if you decide on this school. If you do decide on this school, email me for a phone number you may want. michaelsei@hotmail.com)

Conclusion: I have mentioned nothing about financial aid. That is something you must work out with the school you choose. There are many options. Working to pay your way through college is one of them. In addition there may be other schooling options than those I have mentioned...If so, then they help make my case. You do not have to send your children to a godless institution. If you want them to learn something, have them read a good book. If you want them to learn the arts of the enemy they could even buy a textbook out of a school's bookstore. Do they know how to read and write? Good. Can they write a college level paper? There are books that teach it. Can they write an objective research paper? It is not that difficult to learn. Seriously if you have questions on education email me. michaelsei@hotmail.com I am in school and dealing with all of the humanist propaganda passing for education. I take this issue personal. Don't do it to your children without a clear understanding of what it is that you're trying to accomplish.

More links on education:
Timely Advice to College Students
America's Textbooks and America's Wars
The Self-Serving System of Peer Review
Why the Job Market is Slanted in Favor of College Graduates

College

Is college necessary?

Growing up as a child in suburbia in the late '80's through the '90's, college was never a question. It was presupposed that everyone would go to college. In this presupposition it was assumed that higher education was the answer to a high paying job. It was also assumed that if you did not go to college that you had very low aspirations and that you were not normal (end result=peer pressure to send your child to college). But why am I using the past tense, for this is still true today.

Did you know about half of all college students fail to graduate with a degree? I wonder how they survive. What are they doing now? I for one am in the US Navy. I went to school at the behest of my parents, but for only three semesters. I did not have enough savings to pay for college, did not want to take out a loan for college, and was not interested in college at the time. I should not have been there without clear direction of what I intended to accomplish by going to college. Without clear direction it is a waste of time. I tried to redeem some of the time by holding Bible studies on campus to some avail. I also debated and was exposed to several types of individuals: "christian" cultists, cult-like Christians, atheists, pagans, wiccans, and new agers. I in turn exposed them to Biblical Christianity. May God's Word not return void. Now that I am in the Navy I am getting my degree paid for by the Navy. Through Thomas Edison State College I will get many credits for my Military training as well as transfer credits for my time in college. It is a distance learning degree and will cost me only the price of the books. For me college is not necessary to have a productive career. I am only one example of the proof that college is not necessary. I will summarize some more examples:

My brother-in-law started working full-time when he was 16 yrs. He is now a traveling campus preacher. He gets support from churches to spread the gospel on campuses across the nation and works during "off" times to supplement the gifts. He has no lack or "want" for which God does not provide. He is not a college graduate. His current vocation is what he wants to do. Not many in the private sector can say the same about their employment.

An acquaintance of mine owns his own construction business. As I told a young friend of mine: "Start working while you are young. Pick up a trade, learn it. Spend those "four years" learning your job while making contacts in the field you are working in. By the time college graduates are looking for a job, you will be applying for a business loan to support starting your own business. When the graduates are promoted to floor manager in some corporate entity, you will promote yourself to "CEO" of your own small business." That is what this acquaintance of mine did.

I know of a young man who straight out of high school started a franchise Subway. At 19 yrs old he owned his own business...If i am not mistaken, he is now attending college and is able to afford it.

Have you ever considered not going to college?

Now break the shackles of "common" persuasion and make up your own mind. If you want to go to college and you have a purpose to go there (id est to be a lawyer, doctor, engineer, et cetera), then by all means go to college. I must ask, however "What do you expect out college?". Do you think it is healthy for young, developing minds to be intellectually and morally assaulted? In our day and age education has been replaced by indoctrination into secular humanism (see also Thought Reform 101). And morality...Send young people hundreds of miles away from their God given guides: parents and you can imagine the results (see The Dorm-Key Ritual).

Also remember to stay out of debt and owe no man anything (Ro. 13:8). "Impossible," you say. Not impossible if you know where to look: cheap education. Seriously check out this link. If you are interested in this manual Dr. Gary North wrote, I can sell copies for $97.00 to anyone interested (it is in the purchase agreement that you can resell but it must be for $97). Email me at msdavis1984@gmail.com

Are there any alternatives to college?

College alternatives to traditional styles are online degrees or correspondence course degrees from fully accredited universities. There are also apprenticeship programs for trades (carpentry, plumbing, etc). Additionally you can start working right away for a job that trains their employees and offers degree programs (paying for a degree in their employees' field of work). That is sort of what I am doing. I went to college for three semesters but stopped because I ran out of money and I joined the Navy; the Navy is paying for my degree and my degree is related to my job field.

Draft edited, post in its 'finished' form.