The challenge of the twentieth-century motherhood is as old as motherhood itself. Although the average American mother has advantages that pioneer women never knew—material advantages: education, culture, advances made by science and medicine; although the modern mother knows a great deal more about sterilization, diets, health, calories, germs, drugs, medicines and vitamins, than her mother did, there is one subject about which she does not know as much—and that is God.

The modern challenge to motherhood is the eternal challenge—that of being a godly woman. The very phrase sounds strange in our ears. We never hear it now. We hear about every other kind of women—beautiful women, smart women, sophisticated women, career woman, talented women, divorced women, but so seldom do we hear of a godly woman—or of a godly man either, for that matter.

I believe women come nearer to fulfilling their God-given function in the home than anywhere else. It is a much nobler thing to be a good wife than to be Miss America. It is a greater achievement to establish a Christian home than it is to produce a second-rate novel filled with filth. It is a far, far better thing in the realm of morals to be old-fashioned than to be ultramodern. The world has enough women who know how to hold their cocktails, who have lost all their illusions and their faith. The world has enough women who know how to be smart.

It needs women who are willing to be simple. The world has enough women who know how to be brilliant. It needs some who will be brave. The world has enough women who are popular. It needs more who are pure. We need woman, and men, too, who would rather be morally right that socially correct.

Posted by Doug Phillips on May 9, 2008 | Permalink

Lenin’s comrade Trotsky played a key role in communicating the Marxist vision of what he called the “new family.” Lenin and Trotsky believed in the overthrow of Christianity by destroying the biblical family. They sought to build a new state, free from historic Christian presuppositions concerning the family.

This meant denigrating the biblical notion of male headship and hierarchy within the family. It meant eliminating any sense that there should be a division of labor between man and wife. This required delivering women from the burdens of childbirth and childcare. It meant adopting tools like birth control as guarantors that women could be free to remain in the workforce.

The physical preparations for the conditions of the new life and the new family, again, cannot fundamentally be separated from the general work of socialist construction.The workers’ state must become wealthier in order that it may be possible seriously to tackle the public education of children and the releasing of the family from the burden of the kitchen and the laundry...

Socialization of family housekeeping and public education of children are unthinkable without a marked improvement in our economics as a whole. We need more socialist economic forms. Only under such conditions can we free the family from the functions and cares that now oppress and disintegrate it. Washing must be done by a public laundry, catering by a public restaurant, sewing by a public workshop. Children must be educated by good public teachers who have a real vocation for the work. Then the bond between husband and wife would be freed from everything external and accidental, and the one would cease to absorb the life of the other. Genuine equality would at last be established...

Trotsky, “From the Old Family to the New,” Pravda, July 13, 1923

Less than one hundred years later, and some of the Marxist principles of the “new family” are accepted in professing Evangelical churches. Note that many of the same objectives touted by the atheists of the young Soviet state, sound disturbingly similar to the mantra of Evangelical feminists today who share a hatred for biblical patriarchy and who take the language of liberation and sprinkle it with pseudo spiritual sentiments to belittle the doctrine that the most noble role of a woman is as wife, mother and keeper at home.

As we approach America’s national Mother’s Day celebration, lets remember that we are fighting for the Lord, and it is He who prioritizes motherhood and home as the highest calling and domain of womanhood—-“that the word of God be not blasphemed.” Titus 2

Posted by Doug Phillips on May 9, 2008 | Permalink

The following questions were asked of and answered by Soviet mastermind Leonin Trotsky in the year 1932:

Question: “Is Bolshevism deliberately destroying the family?”

Answer: “If one understands by ‘family’ a compulsory union based on marriage contract, the blessing of the church, property rights, and the single passport, then Bolshevism has destroyed this policed family from the roots up.

“If one understands by ‘family’ the unbounded domination of parents over children, and absence of legal rights for the wife, then Bolshevism has, unfortunately, not yet completely destroyed this carry over of society’s old barbarism.”

Question: “Is it true that Sovietism teaches children not to respect their parents?”

Answer: “...It is true that rapid progress in the realms of technique, ideas, or manners generally diminishes the authority of the older generation, including that of parents. When professors lecture on the Darwinian theory, the authority of those parents who believe that Eve was made from Adam’s rib can only decline.”

”..To maintain his dignity, the father can no longer merely point with his hand to the icon and reinforce this gesture with a slap on the face. The parents must retort to spiritual weapons. The children who base themselves on the official authority of the school show themselves, however, to be the better armed. The injured amour propre of the parent often turns against the state. This usually happens in those families which are hostile to the new regime in its fundamental tasks. The majority of proletarian parents reconcile themselves to the loss of part of their parental authority the more readily as the state takes over the greater part of their parental cares. Still, there are conflicts of the generations even in these circles. Among the peasants they take on especial sharpness. Is this good or bad? I think it is good. Otherwise there would be no going forward.”

Posted by Doug Phillips on May 9, 2008 | Permalink

Revolutionaries and rebellious radicals always resort to caricature when describing the biblical family. They seek to hide their radicalism around emotional, hyperbolic appeals for liberation from oppression. Here, one of the key architects of the Soviet state mocks the “family hearth” and household duties by minimizing its significance and comparing it to slavery (“galley labor”) in order to advance government education and socialism.

“The October revolution honestly fulfilled its obligations in relation to woman. The young government not only gave her all political and legal rights in equality with man, but, what is more important, did all that it could, and in any case incomparably more than any other government ever did, actually to secure her access to all forms of economic and cultural work....

The revolution made a heroic effort to destroy the so-called “family hearth” - that archaic, stuffy and stagnant institution in which the woman of the toiling classes performs galley labor from childhood to death. The place of the family as a shut-in petty enterprise was to be occupied, according to the plans, by a finished system of social care and accommodation: maternity houses, creches, kindergartens, schools, social dining rooms, social laundries, first-aid stations, hospitals, sanatoria, athletic organizations, moving-picture theaters, etc. The complete absorption of the housekeeping functions of the family by institutions of the socialist society, uniting all generations in solidarity and mutual aid, was to bring to woman, and thereby to the loving couple, a real liberation from the thousand-year-old fetters.”

Trotsky

Posted by Doug Phillips on May 9, 2008 | Permalink

Perhaps the greatest legacy of the 20th century has been the war on motherhood and biblical patriarchy. Radical feminists, Marxists, and liberal theologians have made it their aim to target the institution of the family and divest it from its biblical structure and priorities. The results are androgyny, a radical decline in birthrate, abortion, fatherless families, and social confusion. The next time you hear professing Christians rail against those who defend the historical and biblical doctrine of motherhood, fatherhood, and the family, consider the similarity of verbiage and sentiments they share with the architect of Soviet communism.

“We must now say proudly and without any exaggeration that apart from Soviet Russia, there is not a country in the world where women enjoy full equality and where women are not placed in the humiliating position felt particularly in day-to-day family life. This is one of our first and most important tasks...”

“Housework is the most unproductive, the most barbarous and the most arduous work a woman can do. It is exceptionally petty and does not include anything that would in any way promote the development of the woman...The building of socialism will begin only when we have achieved the complete equality of women and when we undertake the new work together with women who have been emancipated from that petty stultifying, unproductive work...We are setting up model institutions, dining-rooms and nurseries, that will emancipate women from housework...These institutions that liberate women from their position as household slaves are springing up where it is in any way possible...Our task is to make politics available to every working woman.”

The Task of the Working Women’s Movement in the Soviet Republic, Lenin, 1919

Posted by Doug Phillips on May 8, 2008 | Permalink

Here, Lenin explains that getting women out of the kitchen and the nursery by changing social morality is key to the triumph of communism.

“The chief thing is to get women to take part in socially productive labor, to liberate them from ‘domestic slavery,’ to free them from their stupefying [idiotic] and humiliating subjugation to the eternal drudgery of the kitchen and the nursery. This struggle will be a long one, and it demands a radical reconstruction, both of social technique and of morale. But it will end in the complete triumph of Communism.”

Quoted in Dr. Francis Nigel Lee’s Communist Eschatology: A Christian Philosophical Analysis of the Post-Capitalistic Views of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Chapter XI: The Family in Communist Eschatology, pg. 332, The Craig Press.

Posted by Doug Phillips on May 8, 2008 | Permalink

Posted by Doug Phillips on May 8, 2008 | Permalink

To learn more about the Memorial Day Celebration at Scott Brown’s farm on May 26th visit www.scottbrownonline.com.

Posted by Doug Phillips on May 8, 2008 | Permalink

Posted by Doug Phillips on May 7, 2008 | Permalink

Washington Post—Japan celebrated a national holiday on Monday in honor of its children. But Children’s Day might just as easily have been a national day of mourning. For this is the land of disappearing children and a slow-motion demographic catastrophe that is without precedent in the developed world. The number of children has declined for 27 consecutive years, a government report said over the weekend. Japan now has fewer children who are 14 or younger than at any time since 1908.

Posted by Doug Phillips on May 7, 2008 | Permalink

Posted by Doug Phillips on May 7, 2008 | Permalink

During the 1980s and early 1990s, one of the most popular campus and “Christian worldview” speakers in America was the Rev. Tony Campolo. His message and communication style was attractive to a broad diversity of groups from the Marxist-leaning Sojourners for whom he wrote, to conservative organizations like Campus Crusade for Christ, who once invited him to address a national conference.

I was first exposed to Mr. Campolo through his book Partly Right: Christianity Responds to Its Critics, published in 1985. The mission of Partly Right was to present readers with the proposition that Christians have much practical and philosophical wisdom they could gain from worldviews like Evolutionism and Marxism. As implied by the title of his book, he believed that these worldviews should be considered for the alleged good they can offer to Christians who hope to bring a compassionate, informed Christianity to our social agenda.

I respectfully believe that Mr. Campolo’s position is not “Partly Right,” but wholly wrong. Philosophies like Marxism and Darwinism are systemically bankrupt. They derive from presuppositions about man, government, and authority that are wholly at war with biblical Christianity. They have nothing to offer the Christ-loving, biblical Christian other than as a tool for understanding some of the greatest Satanically-inspired confusion deceptions of the last 150 years. Every attempt to reconcile these worldviews with that of Christianity is an exercise in compromise which carries with it the potential consequence of enslaving the adherent to practices and policies inimical to and violative of the doctrines of Holy Scripture.

As time progressed, the implications of Mr. Campolo’s worldview became clear, most notably with his tolerant view of homosexuality. Both Mr. Campolo and his wife Peggy, herself a sodomite rights advocate, have engaged in public debates and discussions on the future of homosexuality and the church. Mr. Campolo has argued that homosexuality as an orientation is not a sin. Furthermore, while he believes that the formal act of homosexuality is wrong, he nonetheless argues that monogamous sodomite relationships are preferable to non-monogamous sodomite relationships.

This week, Mr. Campolo and his “Partly Right” philosophy are again in the news. Steve Ertelt of Lifenews.com writes:

The Democratic Party has the strongest pro-abortion stance possible, but Reverend Tony Campolo, an evangelical author, has been appointed to the committee that will review the platform. Campolo has vowed to represent pro-lifers “to the highest members of the Democratic Party.” He says he has received assurances from Democratic officials that the platform committee will hear his pro-life views and that the platform will contain language that addresses the pro-life community’s concerns. He hopes to tone down the language calling abortion a woman’s right and he hopes to get members of the party to view abortion as a human rights issue that abrogates the rights of the powerless, namely unborn children.

Stop for a moment and just imagine what would happen if Mr. Campolo was actually successful. You would have a party platform offering just enough mealy-mouthed and conflicted sentiments to confuse the uninformed on the murderous policies of the party they were about to support. And this platform would be matched with a national candidate for the President of the United States who was deeply committed to the legal and economic support of the rights of doctors and mothers to vivisect or burn alive millions of unborn babies.

But before we walk away in a self-righteous huff from the latest revelation of Mr. Campolo’s attempt to purify the candidacy of Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton by making the Democratic platform just a little less genocidal, it would be good to consider whether we are guilty of the same schizophrenia.

The truth be told, Mr. Campolo is fairly consistent in his inconsistencies. He is a faithful syncretist. And his approach to syncretism has historical precedent in some of the worst ideas and trends in history. The “partly right” philosophy is not new to the history of the Church. There has long been a debate between those who want to mix Christianity and paganism. It was this debate that spurred Tertullian to raise his famous question about Jerusalem and Athens. And this debate was certainly present before the Reformers who strove to purify the Church of traditions and practices rooted in compromise with pagan idolatry.

My present concern is this: Though conservative evangelicals may not yet be prepared to accept some of the more distasteful conclusions of Mr. Campolo, they fundamentally accept his premises. To put it another way, the philosophical and theological problems of the “partly right” belief system is not merely prevalent within “conservative” Christian circles—it is the unspoken, and perhaps unwitting, but nevertheless unmistakable driving force.

In short, I fear that the difference between Mr. Campolo and most Evangelicals who fashion themselves “conservative” is one of degrees, not basic assumptions.

Here is why: Though many Christians would reject some of the more grievous conclusions of Mr. Campolo (tolerance of monogamous sodomite relationships, sympathies with Marxism, support of radical liberal presidential candidates, etc.), I fear they nonetheless embrace his hermeneutic for life. Rather than building their worldview presuppositionally from the all-sufficient Scripture that speaks to every area of life (economics, science, theology, education, culture, orthopraxy, etc.), they pick and choose elements they find appealing from a host of religiously inspired belief systems. Next, they mix these ideas into a worldview stew thick with confusion.

They do this for several reasons. First, they wrongly assume the non-sufficiency of Scripture. Believing the Bible to be silent on most things, they reduce the potency of the Word to internal spiritual matters and general feel-good ideas. Second, they have accepted the myth of neutrality—that ideas and policies are essentially free of theological implications. Neutrality leads them to assume that because God does not speak definitively or with authority to such issues, man is free to look to both the prevailing culture and the philosophers of the world for wisdom. Third, they wrongly distinguish between sacred matters, to which God speaks, and secular matters, which they do not believe to be the proper domain of religion. This dichotomous view of reality inevitably results in a weak, anemic Christianity incapable of producing a coherent world and life view, and impotent to speak to the practical issues of life.

And there is a fourth reason—they don’t want God to be the lawgiver. They prefer deriving truth from philosophers, rock musicians or “nature.” Anything but the Bible. After all, claiming that God is the lawgiver seems so—well, legalistic.

This is most apparent when it comes to orthopraxy—the practical issues of life: How shall I vote? How shall I be educated? Who controls the womb? What does it mean to live as a woman? How shall we then dress? What type of movies and music should I introduce to my children? Etc., etc., etc.

Of course, it is one thing for Christians to disagree about how the all-sufficient Bible applies, but it is quite another to relegate the Bible to obscurity by claiming it is “silent” on these issues, and thus Christians may not invoke the Word of God to discern the proper ethical code of conduct. The former position is a reasonable in-house debate. The latter is heresy. And it is an error that serves as the foundation of the “partly right” worldview.

The Bible has the answer to the partly right philosophy. It is this:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto good works.” II Timothy 3:16

It says this to the syncretists of the Church:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 2 Corinthians 6:14

The Bible says this of the opinions of autonomous man:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 2 Corinthians 2:14

And it says this of the philosophies of the world:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

Pogo once said: “We have met the enemy, and it is us.”

This will remain true until we reject the “partly right” error and presuppose Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Lord, and King over every area of life and thought. This means returning to the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.

Posted by Doug Phillips on May 6, 2008 | Permalink

The next time you are pondering whether or not to use your income to encourage and advance the kingdom work of God by supporting Christian ministries, consider all the money that is going to enemy organizations engaged in the murder of unborn children and the destabilization of Christian family culture. The prime example: Planned Parenthood. Today American Family Association offered this important story about Planned Parenthood’s record income:

Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, made over $1 billion in income during the 2006-2007 fiscal year, according to its annual report. The non-profit group went from an income of $972 million in 2005-2006 to $1.017 billion this past year. Planned Parenthood said the increase “highlights our advancements in providing and protecting trusted healthcare services and medically accurate sexuality education.”

The report reveals that Planned Parenthood is performing more abortions now than ever. In 2005, Planned Parenthood provided 264,943 abortions, and in 2006, it was up to 289,650. In addition, the organization’s “excess of revenue over expenses” funds doubled from $55.7 million in 2005 to $112 million the following year.

Planned Parenthood also admits receiving more than $336 million in government grants and contracts from the state and federal levels.

“A majority of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion - however, still Planned Parenthood receives more than $300 million in taxpayer funding each year for ‘family planning’ projects that help bolster their abortion trade,” said Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council.

Yet, according to Perkins, the ultimate slap in the face to pro-lifers is the fact that Planned Parenthood still receives money from the government while spending $10 million in this year’s election to support pro-abortion candidates.

Posted by Doug Phillips on May 5, 2008 | Permalink

J.I. Packer has said that the Puritans were the godliest generation since the first century church, for something amazing happened in the Puritan era. But when that generation passed from the scene, something of great importance was quickly lost from the consciousness of the church — the biblical doctrine of the family. Now, it is time to study it, recover it, expand upon it, and move forward for the glory of God.

We need a reformation of biblical family life, and there will be no reformation without setting the doctrinal foundation and having the courage for a radical turning.

Today, God is raising up a new generation of believers who are recovering this important doctrine. Historian Dan Ford, Pastor Jeff Pollard of Mount Zion Ministries, and Hope Baptist Church elders Jason Dohm, Steve Breagy and Dan Horn, join Scott Brown, director of the National Center for Family Integrated Churches, this weekend, May 9th and 10th, to host a unique and timely conference on the Puritan Family Reformation. This conference will work to remember what the Puritans knew and build upon it as a foundation for the future. They will go back to where we lost our way, and pick up the trail and move forward.

It’s time to be about the business of recovering the Biblical doctrine of the family in our generation. The church in each generation is in need of reformation and renewal on several fronts. Family reformation is not the only area, but it is one of the key areas. This can only happen when the church has a high view of God, as evidenced by a high view of the Word of God. Reformation will break out when we take seriously what He has said, instead of taking Him lightly.

To attend the Puritan Family Reformation Conference click HERE to register online.

Posted by Doug Phillips on May 5, 2008 | Permalink

“Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.” (1 Corinthians 9:24)

This week marks the six-month anniversary of the death of our beloved brother and friend Michael Billings. Recently, a private gathering of several hundred family and friends met at San Antonio’s historic Menger Hotel for a special tribute to the life of our fallen comrade, who was called home to glory on November 4 of last year. Hosted by The Loyal Friends of Michael Billings and sponsored by Boerne Christian Assembly, this special commemoration was dedicated to Dr. Michael and Mary Billings and explored their son Michael’s San Antonio sojourn, highlighting notable traits that he exemplified.

Among the facets of Michael’s life which were illustrated through personal testimonies were: Michael as Intern, Michael as Roommate, Michael as Fencer, Michael as Churchman, Michael as Teacher, and Michael as Prophet. One of the most touching moments came when Dillon and Dakota Grady, Michael’s nephews, shared how “Michael as Uncle” had been an inspiration to them.

This afternoon of remembrance also featured special music and poetry that was written in honor of Michael’s life. Benjamin Botkin composed a beautiful musical tribute to Michael, and his orchestral piece was played for the very first time for this occasion. Matthew Chancey, a noted poet and friend of Michael’s, penned the “The Ballad of Michael,” which I was privileged to deliver in Matt’s absence.

Toward the close of this tribute, Wesley Strackbein (who took the lead in spearheading this event) presented Dr. and Mrs. Billings with a special gift—an heirloom, leatherbound book that he edited, entitled, Life is But a Vapor: The Life & Legacy of Michael G. Billings. This volume that Wesley compiled presents the testimony of those who knew Michael as well as Michael in his own words, including his powerful orations, trenchant essays, beautiful letters, and heartfelt prayers to his Maker.

Posted by Doug Phillips on May 5, 2008 | Permalink