A Very Nearly Tea

The Omaha-World Herald led with a touching story last week that dominated the front page.

Mary Anaya fed the hungry and clothed the naked, all the while mothering 10 children, plus the one growing in her womb. But she died early Wednesday at age 42, leaving behind her family and a long record of loving her neighbor as herself.

Just think of that. To live such a life that the paper notes your passing so boldly, so prominently and with an emphasis that here passed a woman with "a long record of loving her neighbor as herself."

It made me think of all the column inches printed about Christians objecting to various policies or cultural practices, all the e-alerts I receive trying to rally support for boycotts of Pepsi or McDonald's or whoever has most recently offended our Christian moral standards as well as objections to holiday greetings.

I think sometimes we can be on the right side of a debate, but get so caught up in it that we forget the real issue. There are many conversations that are good and right and necessary to have within the church and amongst Christians. We are to encourage and correct one another as we journey toward the promised land.

But we forget that we are but sojourners here, strangers in a strange land. We are not supposed to be known by our adherence to a checklist of Christian behaviors and the eloquence with which we defend those behaviors. Christ gave us a mark, the mark of love.

By this all shall know that you are My disciples, if you have love among one another. ~John 13:35

Imagine if that really were synonymous with "Christian" in the hearts and minds of those we meet.

I have been thinking about this assignment all day and come to the conclusion that I can't quite answer it. I don't know. What would you do differently if you knew it was your last day in this world?

We only have today. Should God take you today, have you accomplished everything that you wanted to, needed to?

It is almost midnight, and I need to finish a lesson for AWANAs tomorrow. It is almost the 29th and I have an article due on the 31st. We didn't get to science or history today. I need to finish cleaning the oven but that isn't likely to happen tonight. Or even tomorrow.


These are the kinds of things which stack up on my to-do list, pushed aside in favor of more pressing tasks. But they are small, and while they occasionally create some stress, they really do not cause any regrets.

Thinking now, in this life, the kinds of things I would wish I had done differently if I realized that my life were ending very soon?

That I had a more long-term vision in my parenting rather than making decisions and issuing consequences out of the frustration of the moment.

That I had focused more on my writing, inculcated more of a habit and respected it more than as just a hobby.

That I had been more patient, more kind and more bold with respect to my faith. And that I had taken more time to just be.



But then shifting focus to the other side, to standing before God on the day of judgment?

Suddenly I see very clearly that these are my dreams, my plans and where I fall short in my own eyes. On that day, every knee shall bow, every tongue confess...and regardless of what I check off my to-do list or accomplish with my last hours, the distance between my best intentions and God's expectations will remain a gaping chasm.


And I think my greatest regret will not be that I didn't do more, but that I didn't trust more.


This post is part of the Blogger Friend School. You can visit more sites by following the links posted there.

In How it Should be Done, Rod Dreher (the Crunchy Con) shares his family's path to education, from homeschooling, to disappointing private schools to the Providence Christian School. It isn't just the academic rigor that attracted the Drehers, but its prohibition against...dare I call it socialization?

A small but telling example: Providence doesn't allow students to discuss TV, movies or popular culture on campus. When I tell parents this, half respond as if I'd disclosed that my child studied at Heinrich Himmler Elementary, and the other half can't believe our good fortune. Providence doesn't require abstinence from these things, but if you're training your child to love the good, the true and the beautiful instead of trash culture, this school is a powerful ally. Dallas Morning News

The main point I got from the editorial, however, has less to do with education and more to do with how conservative Christians should be handling the cultural decline we so often lament.

Social conservatives have placed far too much hope (and too many financial resources) in politics as an agent of cultural renewal, and far too little in the slow, steady work of building up institutions like Providence. As the agrarian essayist Wendell Berry has written, "our country is not being destroyed by bad politics; it is being destroyed by a bad way of life." Ibid.

It is a point I have made repeatedly. The government is not the solution to our problems. When we as conservatives seek governmental solutions to the issues in our culture, we are no different than the "social engineers" we seek to counteract. The only solution is to change the culture, one soul at a time. That begins with our own hearts, our children's and our neighbors'. It does not begin in Washington. It is our "bad way of life" which has brought about the bad politics we see at every level of government.

But some cannot get past God, even if He is in a private school. Or even in the home.

This [inculcating children with ancient myths] leads rather casually to being able to justify depriving fellow citizens of basic rights in the name of saving marriage and, not very much further down the road of faith over reason, to a willingness to sacrifice themselves in order to kill non-believers, thus assuring themselves a place in heaven. Letters on Points

Actually, I would say that Dreher's piece does the opposite. But we have to be able to read past stereotypes of Christians and read what he actually wrote. That part about placing too much hope in the government for cultural renewal is important. This blind adherence to scientism is a greater threat. It is seeking to deny humans the basic, fundamental right of worship and religious expression because such things do not fit into their view of the world.

"I am against religion," wrote Richard Dawkins, "because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." The damage of the Abrahamic religions is more perverse than that, however, for they deny not only our rightful place within, but also our essential responsibility to all of humankind. Ibid.

Actually, that is not at all true. As Christians, we are taught "Love thy neighbor." And even more:

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. Matthew 544

What does scientism teach us about morality? Nothing. It is silent on the issue, because no morality can be empirically proven. It does not belong in the realm of natural science and thus has no place in the philosophy. Interestingly, the whole philosophy has already been tried.

The Russian Pisarev in the 1860's wanted a disappearance of culture and the emergence of a "non-cultural" scientific culture, whose ideal was neither invented nor abstracted but found and left where it alone could be represented--in actual and living phenomena. In the beginning of the next century constructivism in Russia in its early utopian phase was also inspired by scientism. Scientism, Romanticism, and Social Realist Images of Science

The philosophy upheld by Mr. Shuey leads rather casually to being able to justify depriving fellow citizens of basic rights in the name of science and, not very much further down the road of scientism over reason, to a willingness to silence non-believers. Perhaps heaven isn't the goal, but the furthering of a sort of cold rationality is.

scientism, Crunchy Con, Dawkins,Dreher, socialization

I must confess I have a bizarre fascination with Richard Dawkins. If it weren't for that, I might not have been interested in the fact that 25% of the British have some sort of belief in astrology. Or even in the fact that this constitutes more believers than any other single established religion. I could guess what Dawkins would have to say on the matter, but this entry by Wired Science took me completely off guard. After summarizing Dawkins' stance on the issue and giving us a lesson on the history of philosophy comes this gem:

But in both cases [Girard and Nietzsche], a nuanced analysis of religion led to examination of that fundamental human characteristic, resentment--a characteristic that swelled to monstrous proportions during the 20th century genocides of Hitler and Lenin and Mao and Pol Pot, all of which were decidedly secular, and more recently during wars in Eastern Europe and Central America and assorted parts of Africa.

Studying religion in a sophisticated way could help us understand the human dynamics underlying such tragedies. It was a task worthy of many of the 20th century's greatest intellects, and could also be worthy of Dawkins. Too bad he's wasting his time making dowsers cry. Wired Science

It is so refreshing to not have religious beliefs looked upon as the root of all evil. And this is about the closest to the real roots of the world's conflict I have seen a secular source come: resentment. Indignation or ill will as the result of some perceived grievance. The belief that you deserve something that someone else has. Self-centeredness. Sin.

Dawkins, on the other hand, believes otherwise.

As a scientist, I don't think our indulgence of irrational superstition is harmless. I believe it profoundly undermines civilization. Reason and a respect for evidence are the source of our progress, our safeguard against fundamentalists and those who profit from obscuring the truth. The Enemies of Reason (YouTube)

Irrational superstition, be it astrology or Christianity, profoundly undermines civilization. Elsewhere, he has compared religion to a malignant virus of the mind, complete with an imaginary medical textbook to discuss the symptoms. While I don't believe he has ever made any statements remotely close to, "the infidel must die," he has laid the groundwork. The mind, the seat of reason and the source of our thoughts and feelings, cannot be so easily controlled. If the virus is to be treated so that civilization may be spared its debilitating effects, an adequate vaccine and treatment must be discovered.

I wonder what acts this philosophy's "resentment" is capable of. For me, it calls to mind images of reeducation camps. But maybe the public schools will suffice.

Dawkins, science vs faith, education, religion, atheism

Between the excitement of "Back to School" and the pressure of No Child Left Behind, the topic of standards seems to be a popular one at the moment. Standards are important. Without them, we really do not know what we are trying to do or why. But in this era of standardization, I think standards are beginning to get a bad reputation.

What is a standard? The word most likely comes from an Old Frankish word *standhard, which means essentially what it seems to say: "to stand fast or firm." Its first recorded usage was in 1138, in reference to a flag. According to Webster's 1828, a standard is:

An ensign of war; a staff with a flag or colors. The troops repair to their standard. the royal standard of Great Britain is a flag, in which the imperial ensigns of England, Scotland and Ireland are quartered with the armorial bearings of Hanover.

His armies, in the following day, on those fair plains their standards proud display. Fairfax

The image I have is the standard-bearer holding his colors high so that all on the battlefield can see it, despite the smoke, dust and general confusion of war. It comforts the troops, lets them know the battle is not lost and tells them which way to go. The standard-bearer has a most important task, for if his standard falls, the troops will disperse. He also has a most dangerous task, for he has marked himself and made himself a visible and desirable target for the enemy.

Standards for our children should serve the same purpose: provide comfort and direction.

When we desire to raise the standards for our children, we must first be sure of what that standard is, or it will not be clear through the confusion. For us, that standard is Christ, but we must be sure we are communicating that effectively and that we, too, are remaining focused. It is easy to inadvertently change standards in the middle of the battle, focusing on the minutia rather than the end goal. This can become frustrating for both the parent and the child, since the direction and goal has changed without clear direction.

Once our standard is clear, we can look at some of the specific challenges. A child who is interested and engaged in learning typically puts forth his best work without prompting. They see the work as interesting, relevant and applicable to life. This motivation may come extrinsically through rewards, punishments or the infectious enthusiasm of a good teacher. Be careful with this, however. Too much extrinsic motivation has been shown to actually have a detrimental effect on long term goals. Motivation is greatest when it is intrinsic and the child connects privately with the information. From an old post:

This reminds me of the verse, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and he will not depart from it." Each child is created with unique talents and abilities. We as parents have the difficult task of "learning to know" our children, discovering their God-given talents and interests and guiding them to see God's plan for their lives. But if we are truly seeking the path that he should go and not the path that we would have him go, I think we might find that the issue of motivation becomes secondary.

Instead, we must take on the much greater challenge of "standing fast" and maintaining the standard.

homeschooling, home school

Why did we choose to homeschool? My husband says it was "impressed upon him that homeschooling was God's model for the family."

I said,

Homeschooling? You are nuts. Homeschooling is for over-controlling parents attempting to live their lives through their children. It is for people who place greater importance on spelling bees and academic success than the needs of their children as they force-feed them knowledge at the expense of childhood.

So you might say we both had strong opinions on the matter. With me being the way I am, it is actually rather surprising that the discussion did not end there.

I am not quite sure exactly what brought me from my initial reaction to my dubious agreement to "try it out" for a year. For kindergarten. Because it isn't required in Nebraska, anyway. But I can say that it was the most frightening decision of my life. Much more went into it than simply figuring out what curriculum to purchase and setting a schedule. I taught pre-K and first grade in the past and had little doubt of my ability to teach my daughter. Turning in my resignation, however, made me physically ill. I was scared...terrified. It was a tremendous leap of faith, and I was not sure that it was one my marriage would survive.

I had been raised more or less "in the system." I went to daycare, public school and was a latch key kid from the third grade. My mom was a career mom, clawing her way into management at a time when there was no such thing as a "glass ceiling." "Brick wall" would have been more apt a description. She eventually gave it up...for us...but I won't pretend that latent, feminist notions did not have something to do with my fears. The real story, however, goes much deeper.

When I graduated, I was going to have a career. My children, I thought, were better off in a good school and a good daycare with a mother who was satisfied and challenged in her work to come home to. I had the degree and the earning potential. Why should children hold me back? Because I had not yet met my daughter. I hadn't held her, smelled her, marveled at the tiny miracle in my arms. I had never known a love like that, never dreamed it even possible.

But at three weeks old, that tiny miracle captivated me and I realized how silly I had been. I did not care what it meant, what kind of house we would end up living in or what kind of car we would drive. I wanted to be her mother, and my heart ached at the thought of moving into the career world where I would have to leave her behind. I was ready to make the sacrifice and it did not even seem to be such a sacrifice. More like a burden lifted.

While mulling over these thoughts, my husband came in. He had quit. Walked out. Left our sole source of income while I was on maternity leave. And did I mention we were living at my parents' house? It wasn't the first time he had done this. He suffered from depression and employment seemed to be a particular issue. But it was the first time it mattered.

In the past, I had attempted to be the supportive wife, understanding of his difficulties, taking his side, trying to make him feel better. But that day, as my dreams vanished, something snapped in me. I will spare you the details of what was said, what was threatened and just how much I really meant it. And although he went back and repaired the situation at work, I knew that I could not depend on him. I would never be able to put myself in that situation again. No, I could do it to myself. But this tiny miracle was dependent on me to give her stability. I wasn't looking as high on the career ladder anymore, but I was going to do everything in my power to ensure that she never had to worry about basic necessities.

Fast forward six years. And you understand the trepidation with which I handed in my resignation.

That was three years ago and this blog is a testament to the passion I have for homeschooling. Like my conviction to motherhood, my conviction to homeschooling came late. I had to hold it in my arms and feel it in my heart before I realized the difference between my perceptions of the task and the reality of it. But I learned, and have not looked back.

This post is part of Back to Homeschool Week hosted by Randi at I have to say..., where you can find more posts from homeschoolers discussing what led them to homeschool.

Photo credits: that beautiful little bundle of joy is actually my youngest (of four). The artwork is My Hobby by Gustav Bjorck available at powellhistory.com.

homeschooling, parenting

Over at the Catoosa County News, homeschooler Jeannie Babb Taylor has a bone to pick with the "exit strategy" put forth by some Southern Baptists. It is actually an interesting article, with a few characterizations of conservative Christians which I personally would contest. I'm not "running from evolution, homosexuality or even drugs," but she provides enough quotes for her stance that she does not appear to be working solely from stereotypes. This, however, I found quite interesting, since it so closely adheres to my personal beliefs about the Church in America today:

If the souls of children were number one on the Baptist agenda, the churches would be focused on adding more educational options, not sabotaging the options we have now. Just imagine if church activists took the millions spent opposing abortion, homosexuality and public school, and simply funneled it into free Christian schools. Imagine if any child who wanted a Christian education could walk into the church and — at no cost — receive 12 years in math, history, science, language studies and Bible. Provide a superior education at no cost, and students will flock to the church in droves. Catoosa County News

I disagree with the apparent focus on daycares and schools. And I do believe it is entirely appropriate for church leaders to encourage their members to investigate what is being taught at their local public and private schools. But education is one of the central purposes of the church. And we should be taking it more seriously.

When the church sets up overseas missions, some of the first things we do is set up schools and hospitals. We care for the physical and spiritual needs of the community, becoming a light of hope in a dark world. What do we do in the United States? Set up a grassroots lobbying organization to make sure that homosexual marriage is made unconstitutional? Does that really save anyone?

It seems to me that the church has become reactionary. We respond to threats (real or perceived) rather than really confronting them at their roots.

There is no governmental solution which will make this a more virtuous nation. On the contrary, becoming a virtuous nation will solve our governmental problems. We should be focused on solving the very real needs in our communities more than imposing governmental restrictions based on Christian values. Submission to the law of God is voluntary. Codifying it into federal law helps no one.

After Peter's confession, Christ says,

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. --Matthew 16:18

Unfortunately, I think many Christian organizations spend to much energy attempting to control movements within society through governmental regulations rather than focusing on the roots of the problem: personal sin. If we are on His side, we cannot lose. But we are fighting a spiritual battle, not a physical one.

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. John 18:36

We judge our victories by the hearts of man, not legal precedent. It is all about education. The goal isn't (or shouldn't be) to "bankrupt the American educational establishment" but to edify the body. From Websters 1812:

ED''IFY, v.t. [L. oedifico; oedes, a house, and facio, to make.]

1. To build, in a literal sense. [Not now used.]

2. To instruct and improve the mind in knowledge generally,and particularly in moral and religious knowledge, in faith and holiness.

Edify one another. 1 Thess.5.

3. To teach or persuade. [Not used.]

homeschooling, Exodus mandate, Christianity

homeschooling

Just hours before the European Council sat for its week long meetings, the document "The Dangers of Creationism in the School" was removed from the agenda. In it, the French EU politician, Guy Lengagne describes creationism as an "attack against democracy." It is a problem that needs to be dealt with "before it is too late." And further:

If we do not remain watchful, values which form the core of the European Council are in danger of being threatened by creationist fundamentalists. pro (in German, the quotes are my translation)

Exactly what those values are, I'm not sure. I'm interested in reading all 100 points he presents in this paper. If I can track it down, I'll let you know!

Here it is. Happy reading!

On June 6, 2007, the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief held a meeting of religious leaders at the House of Lords in the UK. The purpose was to look at the challenges presented to various faiths in the implementation of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states,

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Suraj Sehgal, the director of Hindu Council UK had some interesting remarks.

The right to freedom to change religion and to freely practice it both in teaching and observance has been grossly abused by aggressive proselytisation through fraud, force and deception. Article 18 should be amended to ban such conversions and the government should legislate against. it. The predatory religions seek the destruction of others faiths and cultures, others way of life, by sending missionaries whose religious freedom is enshrined in their mission to convert other God loving people into their own religious clubs, thereby seeking the destruction of other religions. Everyone has the right to convert through their own heart's persuasion but MISSIONARY CONVERSION activity is a form of violence on the society it converts as it seeks to destroy their original way of life. History bears witness to it; when will the UN protect religions like the Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs? (emphasis in original) Hindu Council UK

These thoughts are not new. In 1997, psychologist Nicholas Humphrey compared religious education of children to female circumcision and, among other things, cited the pervasive disbelief in evolution as evidence.

We do live--even in our advanced, democratic, Western nations--in an environment of spiritual oppression, where many little children--our neighbours' children if not actually ours--are daily exposed to the attempts of adults to annex their minds. The Edge

And he goes on to argue that in order to protect the children from the violence of wrong beliefs about evolution, the existence of God, astrology, etc., we should do away with the idea of parental rights all together. Instead, we should look at the relationship as one of privilege, to be revoked by society in the event of wrong teaching.

Because sharing religious belief is a violent act.

I think I prefer the age of relativism to what appears to be looming on the horizon.

religion, proselytizing, UN, human rights

This morning during worship, we began singing "Shout to the Lord." Somewhere in the refrain, I felt tears welling up in my eyes and I started to get choked. I don't usually cry. Not even during those "chick flicks" my husband teases me about. And it had nothing to do with the song really. I like that one, but it is not usually one that evokes much emotion for me. But I had just changed Baby Bear's messy diaper and returned him to the two year old room. The teacher mentioned what a sweet boy he was and commended him on his manners. I smiled, praised him and went to service.

And that's where this past year kind of hit me. One year ago, he was kicked out of the nursery for biting. I don't fault them. He did bite. Anyone littler than him. And completely without warning. In fact, he seemed so friendly, like he was going to give a hug and then he'd leave a nasty mark. I grew tired of all the advice. "Biting is unacceptable. You have to stop that kind of behavior." OK, in principle, I agree with that. But how does that work out practically in someone who is one? There wasn't much point in punishing someone that young twenty minutes after the behavior occurred. And it never happened around me. Some told me that was because he really did know better. I needed to stop "babying" him. I figured it was because I never gave him the opportunity. On the rare occasion we were around younger children, I always stayed between him and that child. But what does mom know? So I walked the halls with him so that my daughter could attend Sunday School and we sat, isolated, in the crying room because there was no way I would dream of trying to sit through service with him.

Then I started hearing all this stuff about family worship and how he should be with me in service anyway. I know this isn't how it was meant, but all I heard was, "what kind of parent are you?" My son bit. My son would prefer to run than sit still. I obviously had no ability to control him. I kept thinking, "But he's one!" Just beginning to learn proper behavior. Those toddlers who sit through service are aliens.

Then the YMCA staff called me down to remove him from Childwatch (I was upstairs watching my daughter's karate class). They warned that if the behavior was repeated, he would be suspended.

I almost broke down in tears right then. My husband is gone a lot. It is just me and the kids most of the week. The only adult interaction I get is Sunday School, it seems. My husband works for the railroad so his schedule is not very predictable. And the one hour per week I had to sit and do something special with my daughter was about to be taken. I felt painfully isolated and all anyone had to say sounded to me like I was a horrible parent to have a one year old who bit. And wouldn't sit still for service. (That did not come from the church. In fact, when I finally asked for prayer on the matter, I got offers from people to help with him so that I could atttend a Sunday School class or enjoy an uninterrupted service.)

And now, one year later, his Sunday School teacher is saying what a pleasure he is. He listens. He shares (kind of...as well as anyone his age). He says please. He loves to help clean up and pass out snack. What did I do? Nothing really. I prayed. I cried. And I loved him and let him grow out of it.

The other day, he stuck the baby's hand in his mouth and I jumped. He looked at me confused and said, in his cute little toddler-speak, "Mommy, I no bit no mo'."

(This was originally written two years ago on my old blog, and at least in theory was published in Jane Bullivant's book, Juggling With Hamsters.)

parenting, faith, motherhood, toddlers

Three years ago, our family made the decision for me to leave the workplace to stay home. The beginning was very tough. I struggled with boredom, lack of direction and lack of purpose. I truly believed my children to be more important than all I gave up, and struggled with a sense of guilt when I realized that I really wanted to return to work. I began feeling like I was only serving everyone around me and had no real sense of my own worth. I told myself it was just a matter of time and it would take care of itself as I got used to the transition.

I viewed this decision as an act of obedience to God to benefit our family. I set my children as a priority above myself and reminded myself that they were worth the sacrifice when I struggled. That is not such a bad line of thinking, but it wasn't working for me, and it really is not scriptural.

God created Adam in the garden for work. He tended the garden, took dominion of the animals and subdued his environment. Eve was created from his side to be a help-meet for him. In other words, Eve was also created for useful labor. The dominion mandate is given before the command to be fruitful and multiply. Since God created woman for this purpose, woman can only feel truly complete fulfilling this purpose.

I think too often those women who make the decision to leave the workplace fill their time with entertainment and child-rearing duties. Soaps, luncheons, study groups, play dates and a plethora of activities fill each day. Unfortunately, these are only pastimes and do just that: pass the time. They do no minister to the soul, giving purpose to each day. Take a look at the Proverbs 31 woman. Her day was not focused on entertainment, nor her children, nor yet fellowship with other believers. Her day was filled with useful labor, and through her godly example, her entire family grew spiritually.

I've never considered the price of a vineyard, nor sold my fine weaving down at the market, but I have found purpose in useful work. I have taught myself to crochet, knit, sew and can. I have made things for the children and for presents. I have tried to find ways to save money while maintaining a nutritious diet for our family. We have virtually eliminated convenience foods from the menu and I have been making our own fresh bread and recently began making pasta as well. I have taken time to work on my writing since it has always been a dream of mine to some day author a book someone would actually want to purchase. As of yet, none of this has actually resulted in an increase in our family's income, although some of it has definitely saved us some money. I'm working on that part next.

I think the feminist movement has denied a good deal of what it is to be a woman by denying the innate desire to be home, raising children. But I also think the church has done the same by denying her desire to work. In reality, the desire to labor productively and to rear children are two halves to the same person. I think this plays out differently for each person, but I truly believe the key for battling some of the depression and anxiety that frequently accompanies the decision to stay home with children is found in recognizing God's plan. We are created by Him, for Him and to Him. Our children are the heritage of the Lord, and we certainly have a great responsibility teaching and leading them, but when they become the focus of our day, we step outside what we were created for. It is not good for us and it really is not good for our children, either. Useful, constructive labor (not just hobbies) will help give purpose to each day. And when a woman is successful in ordering her days according to this God-given purpose, "Her children arise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her." (Proverbs 31:28)

feminism, women, mommy wars, family, motherhood

Thanks to a question on an e-list, I've actually spent the evening researching dominionism, a movement I long ago relegated to the fringes of Christianity with Phelps and his friends. But the term will not die. And everyone, it seems, is a dominionist. Even Abeka users. I'm not terribly familiar with Abeka, so I don't know. Maybe they do have a hidden plot to take over the world and return to Old Testament law, stonings and all. But that isn't my impression.

I think my little curriculum choice (Principle Approach) has remained safely out of the limelight on this issue because it is small. And it takes a great deal of research to figure out exactly what it is we believe since we don't have a curriculum, per se. We have more of an idea and unifying set of principles.

But any Christian ministry which seeks to "restore" the nation and promote its Christian heritage seems to beg for the accusation of dominionist theology. There are people listed in the "like-minded" ministries section of FACE's website who are identified as or who identify themselves as "reconstructionists." Some of them even have interesting articles about theocracy, or government by God. But I'll stick directly with what FACE says on the topic, and what I personally believe. You could call it a theocracy of sorts, but this forms the basis of our homeschool and our beliefs about government:

In order to have true liberty, man must be governed internally by the Spirit of God rather than by external forces. Government is first individual, then extends to the home, church, and the community. This principle of self-government is God ruling internally from the heart of the individual. FACE.net

It is actually a pretty libertarian view of government, just that we believe that in the ideal, each individual is governed by God. It really is not much different than what John Adams wrote in a letter to Zabdiel Adams:

The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty.

Virtue is inspired, not legislated. It is necessary to maintain the degree of liberty envisioned by our founders, but cannot be codified into law. More laws will not make the nation virtuous.

For anyone with lingering doubts, I do not believe that dominionism is well-supported by scripture (emphasis mine):

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. John 18:36

Related Tags: dominionism, homeschooling, Christianity