Anecdotal Thoughts and Observations About the 2018 Midterm Election

I am very thankful for the broad participation of voters in last night’s election. There was a record turnout in Iowa for a midterm election - over 1,300,000 voters - according to the Iowa Secretary of State. It is much easier to accept the results - whatever they are - when more people vote.

Beyond reporting results, which can be found elsewhere, here are a few anecdotal observations about the 2018 midterm election in my corner of Iowa:

1.   People do not vote because of the number of yard signs. (Thankfully, overall, but “my” candidate did have the vast majority of signs, and lost.) Yard signs tell you who is for a particular candidate, but do not in any way sway voters, it appears.

2.  People vote by party, either by values (more often Republicans or Libertarians) or identity (more often Democrats, who seem to vote for their party because of the party, not on moral principles, because they have drifted so far away from what they stood for in the past, and don’t even know it). The winner is whichever party mobilizes their voters. That's it. There is little convincing or changing of minds.

3.  Third party candidates help only when there are only two parties running. Otherwise, third-party candidates (who leaned conservative this round) have a negative impact on outcomes and may have made the difference in the Congressional 3^rd District Loss of David Young. Out of 346,518 votes cast, Young lost by only 5,230. “Other” votes cast included 11,976, of which 7,005 were for the conservative-leaning Libertarian candidate and 1,271 for the conservative, unaffiliated Joe Granadette. It does not take a great deal of math to consider this race would likely have turned out differently if those two candidates had not run, garnering 8,276 votes between them, enough to have changed the District 3 vote.

4.  The liberal population centers drag everything else with them. Of the 18 counties representing the Congressional District 3, 17 counties all voted overwhelmingly for the Republican candidate. Polk County gave the liberal candidate the slight edge and effectively overruled the 17 other counties.

5.  People are more excited about gender in elections than principles and morality. What gain is it if two women are sent to the US House from Iowa for the first time if the party they represent embraces the killing of unborn children and the abandonment of any real definition of marriage (both relatively recent developments for the Democrat party)? No one seems to notice or to care.

6.  Irony, not logic, rules. If reporting is correct, candidates ran and won by pushing health care, all while ignoring the most basic healthcare need of the unborn – life. 

Though nothing earth-shattering happened last night nationally or locally, our trend is away from our historical Constitutional and conservative moors. Most races were closely contested, which shows you just how far we have fallen, and how greatly we are divided as a nation.

The Perils of Policing Patriarchy in the Home Schooling Community

Michael Farris, Esq.
HSLDA Chairman

A fast-growing flame is spreading through the internet fueled by reactions to a recent article by Attorney Michael Farris (Chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association). Farris separates himself and his organization from disgraced leader Doug Phillips and another leader, Bill Gothard, whom he lumps together that has stepped down in the midst of different accusations. Articles are surfacing rapidly to affirm or reject the accusations Farris states about these two leaders (though he focuses the majority of his attention on Phillips).

My desire is not to evaluate each person’s actions to which they are accused. Though it needs to be done, it must be done by those with accurate firsthand information. I do not have direct access to information on either man. I also do not seek to evaluate either man’s teachings, though I personally have been exposed to some teachings of both men over the years. My foremost concern is how Farris approached this, and on his comments which supposedly drew a “line in the sand.” For the record, I hold Mr. Farris in very high regard, and my wife and I as home schooling parents have been members of HSLDA for many years.

Farris Shows Up in a Proverbial SWAT Uniform Claiming Not to Be the Police

To begin, Farris first says that the role of HSLDA is not too “be the police force of the homeschooling movement,” and it is not his place “to try to remove viewpoints from the homeschooling community just because the HSLDA board or I hold a different view.” He then proceeds to do exactly the opposite by seeking to purge the views of these two men (Phillips and Gothard) from the homeschooling movement by warning of the dangers of their teachings.

If Farris is honest when saying HSLDA’s role is “to defend the freedom of everyone to homeschool,” then he sure sets out to do so in a very strange and non-acrimonious way. He paints himself into what has become a proverbial corner that seems to already have divided the homeschooling movement right down the middle.

What Farris should have done, in my opinion, was to stop there, and encourage people to study the views of these and other men deeply, compare them to Scripture (these are both Christian leaders), and to come to their own conclusions. Instead, Farris errors to the point of being dangerous about warning about the “dangerous teachings” of others. Here are a number of concerns that jumped right out at me when I read his article:

Farris Changes the Focus from the Sins of the Men to Their Teachings

If either of these men are guilty (and such will eventually come to light), the issue for these men is first and foremost their sinful actions. However, to simply condemn all that they teach in a general way because of these sins puts anyone in a serious dilemma. What movement has not had men fail in similar fashion? Does any such sinful failure discount the movement?

Further, as soon as the HSLDA begins examining the teachings of anyone that they had previously affiliated with or represented or sold ad space to (and it was all of the above), they must make a list of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to believe in the official view of the HSLDA. They immediately become the police they claim not to be. And what of those who hold to any portions of teaching that either of these men have taught over the years? What about other teachers not yet determined to have crossed the line, but will? What teachings will be ignored, and what teachings will be scrutinized?

Evaluating potentially sinful actions is a challenge in the courts, but there is at least a path to do so. Evaluating men’s teachings is an entirely different matter and infinitely more complex. Though Farris lists just a few such teachings “to keep this article at a reasonable length,” he paints with broad strokes that tell very little information and argue only by accusation. He does not present full examples of teachings from either man nor does he clearly refute them from Scripture. He simply cites a few general examples, argues from a bit of logic (not Scripture), rings the fire bell, and even does so while saying it is based upon his “personal opinion,” not argument. If Farris wants to argue against teachings, he needs to do so in a completely different way, being precise and thorough both in his accusations and his refutations.

Another point from my own observation is in order. When Farris says, “The personal failure of Doug Phillips in the area of marriage and his mistreatment of a young woman bears directly on the legitimacy of his teaching,” I cannot agree. I had heard Doug Phillips teach a few times in the past and I have read some articles by him. From what I gather, his teachings were not his downfall. From my vantage point, his sin did not come from his teachings, but instead came from him ignoring the very teachings that he taught from Scripture. I do not defend his teachings nor refute them (I am not familiar enough with them to do either). He simply did not practice what he so passionately preached. I believe that if we care to investigate the teachings of Phillips, whether you agree with them or not, it is clear that he did not sin because of his teachings, but sinned because he did not live by them.

Farris misses the point altogether. If Farris evaluated anyone (even himself) on such terms, not one group or movement would exist or should exist. Though not every group has a leader who sins by having an extra-marital affair, all groups or movements have leaders that fall or fail to some degree. I do not say that Phillips should continue teaching – I strongly believe that he should not. I simply suggest that a moral failure of a man does not itself indicate that the movement of which he was a part is illegitimate or false. His actions need to be evaluated as his own actions, and teachings of the patriarchal viewpoint need to be evaluated on their own merit, or lack thereof (as all teachings should be all along).

Farris Condemns Views that Have Been Held Long Before These Men Were Ever Born

Farris cites three brief examples of teaching (interestingly, not examples from either of these two men). In focusing on his main premise of rejecting patriarchal teaching, he lists three propositions which are “not universal commands of God”: (1) women should not vote; (2) women should not seek higher education; and (3) unmarried adult women are subject to their father’s authority until they are married.

What is mind-blowing is that all of these things have been beliefs present and often foundation in the USA since our founding. I’m not arguing for or against these views. What I would encourage people to do is first to understand why people in the past and why some people today believe there may be valid arguments for different views such as these. Whether you land on one side or another, do people have the freedom to come to their own conclusions without being labeled “dangerous” by anyone, including a key leader of the homeschooling movement, a movement built on the assumption of liberty and freedom?

Let’s take a look at the first proposition that Farris lists: Women and voting. Do people recall that in the USA women were not given the right to vote until 1920 when the 19^th Amendment to the Constitution was approved? Did the majority of our nation’s early fathers (and mothers) illogically hold to such a view for no valid reason for 131 years? I am not seeking to present a side (I do encourage my wife and daughters to vote, and they do). What I am saying is that to assign such a view to these so-called “patriarchal teachers” and to further label it “dangerous” is both ignorant and divisive. There were reasons why originally only land owners could vote, or only those paying poll tax could vote, or those only 21 years and older could vote. Maybe they were poor reasons. Maybe they had some good logic. My only point is, “How will you know the reasons they believed what they believed until you investigate it yourself?” Discarding views before we understand them is pure folly.

You can wrestle further with this first issue with many observations from the Bible. Much depends upon how you approach the Old Testament and New Testament teachings. It will impact how you look at all three of the propositions Farris lists. Patriarchy by definition is men leading their families and husbands leading their wives. In the Bible men almost always led their wives and families, and often even lead their extended families. This is illustrated in the Old Testament and taught in the New Testament. Is it wrong since a now sinful Phillips cited the Bible when teaching it? If the Bible says it (in the view of some), is the Bible dangerous? Since there is no clear record of voting in the Bible (most cultures lived under a theocracy – God ruling, or under monarchy – king rule, neither of which allowed for voting), maybe it is dangerous for Farris to call any view regarding voting “dangerous.”

The second proposition is similar in that it is hard to argue from any direction. The Bible does not address college. If one views a woman’s primary role of marriage and motherhood as traditional Christianity has taught for two millennium, and as the Old Testament has taught for much longer, is spending lots of money on a college education a worthwhile investment? (Try looking up 1 Timothy 5:14 and Titus 2:3-5 to make your politically correct blood boil a bit.) I have married daughters that would say that attending college would have been a huge impediment and a financial burden. I also know young men who avoid college for other reasons. It is yet another realm to research, study, and come to your own informed conclusions while you allow others to do the same.

The third proposition about an unmarried daughter staying under her father until married still rings with the same tone. Whether you or I accept them or not, there are reasons why people come to such a conclusion. Doing so does not make them “dangerous” as Farris would say. It simply lets them exercise their freedom to be persuaded in their own minds. Read Numbers 30:1-15 from the Old Testament, and at least see why people could come to such conclusions. (There are other passages too, but this is a key one for that view.) Do people have the right to come to their own conclusions regarding the interpretation and application of the Bible? Is it not better, if we disagree with them, to seek to understand their interpretation, and then to calmly point out why we disagree rather than writing an internet posting calling them “dangerous?”

Farris Uses Poor Experiences of Some to Judge the Views Held by Many More

“What has changed our minds are the stories we are now hearing of families, children, women, and even fathers who have been harmed by these philosophies. While these stories represent a small minority of homeschoolers, we can see a discernible pattern of harm, and it must be addressed.”

Maybe I am biased or bent, but does anyone catch the irony of this? A small minority report undefined “harm” from these unclarified philosophies, and that is what caused the HSLDA and Farris to change their minds? What about the majority? Do they count? What are the specifics of this “harm?” Could this “harm” really be due to following the teachings of either man? Could it not come from following the teachings of either man incompletely? Could “harm” come from wrongly thinking that either man had a “golden ticket” to easy family life? Is there specifically identifiable “harm” that can be clearly traced to something specifically taught? Could this “harm” be due to personal failure looking for someone to pin the blame upon? (I know I have failed many times as a father and husband, but I have no one to blame in the end but myself.) We will never know, because Farris never shares one shred of information about this “harm.”

I do not claim to follow Phillips or Gothard. I follow neither. As I mentioned, I have been exposed to the teachings of both men. From what exposure I and my family have had, I would not and could not blame either man for any “harm” that could or would or did come to my family. I am responsible to study the Bible and come to my own conclusions, which I have and continue to do. These men can neither make nor break a family or an individual that is responsible for what they believe. To take the minority and make it the rule is to come to dangerous conclusions in a dangerous methodology (and it is practiced throughout our culture today). What about those who believe such things and who have stood in righteous behavior? If bad behavior is the basis for discounting one’s beliefs, does the good behavior of others justify those same beliefs?

Farris Gives Pragmatism as a Key Reason for His Speaking Out

“…their teachings continue to threaten the freedom and integrity of the homeschooling movement. That is why HSLDA needs to stand up and speak up.”

“The philosophies of Gothard and Phillips damage people in multiple ways. To keep this article at a reasonable length, I will focus on the threats to our liberty caused by these philosophies.”

“If public policy makers understand that there are only a few homeschooling families who mistreat their children, our freedom is not likely to suffer.”

This is a losing premise. Attack one part of the group in hopes that by doing so it saves the larger group. I would suggest that we are past pragmatic responses. What of Christian teachings that are already a threat to our liberties? Shall we cease teaching the 10 commandments which are seen by many to be harmful or dangerous? Is the belief in a literal creation held by some and mocked by atheistic scientists to be curbed to protect our freedoms? Is the belief of a Bible-defined marriage between one man and one woman to be jettisoned to save face? By defining “mistreat” as someone who espouses patriarchy, who does Farris hope to fend off from his own organization, the same organization who sided with the patriarchal people for so long? He has avoided nothing but to throw bloody meat to the hungry sharks around his own boat which will only be further tantalized by the taste and become hungrier.

Farris Provides Public Policy Makers the Very Information He Sought to Avoid

 “What has changed our minds are the stories we are now hearing of families, children, women, and even fathers who have been harmed by these philosophies.”

It would be nice if Farris, a lawyer, would define his terms. Harm in what way? Vagueness only causes fear rather than clarity and calm.

When you read his article, it is not hard to see that Mr. Farris is guilty of labeling anyone who might believe in patriarchy in any flavor, or any form of what some would view as traditional teaching on marriage and the family, as “harmful.” Whether he sees it or not, Farris with his homeschooling platform has done many a great disservice, and he himself has endangered many by his comments. He might literally have begun the process to limit the freedoms of those he disagrees with by categorizing them as dangerous (in the name of preserving liberty!). His “line in the sand” has done a big favor to the liberty takers by publicly identifying many as being on the wrong side of the line. He has labeled many as harmul, abusive, or extremist who are none such, whether he meant for it to happen or not.

Farris Opens Dangerous Doors Rather than Closing Them

“It is not sinful to hold a very conservative view of gender roles or child rearing. If people believe such ideas are wise, then our legal system should protect their choices, provided those choices do not result in abuse.” [Emphasis added.]

Farris cannot win. The more he writes the more he hurts the greater cause of all who love freedom. He of all people should know that many see homeschooling as a form of child abuse. Others see teaching kids Biblical morality as child abuse. One cannot talk “abuse” without defining very clearly what one means by that term.

“What I should not do is claim that my personal views are universal commands of God. Those more conservative or more liberal than I am should not claim that their personal views are universal commands of God. God speaks for Himself, and He does it in the Bible.” [Emphasis added.]

“We have a really easy way to know God’s universal commands. They are written in the Bible.”

Just how do people who study the Bible and come to different conclusions survive under this type of view that Farris espouses? Do they write to Farris and have him screen their interpretations of Scripture? Good Christian teachers teach what they teach because they are convinced that it is what God is teaching based upon their own study of the Bible. Phillips and Gothard both did so. Others come to different conclusions and teach those conclusions as teachings of God. Every teacher and resultant teaching still is as faulty as the people that study the Bible. Do we give up all Bible teachers and teaching unless blessed by Farris or the HSLDA? All Bible teaching needs to be wrestled with and discussed in depth by those that study in depth, not by lawyers who are fearful of being found in wrong associations. It is simply improper to hold a trial via a short article and find people guilty in such a flaccid fashion. It is not helpful, scholarly, or fair to do so, and it has only resulted in hurting the very cause Farris has fought so hard to defend. Is freedom only allowed if others approve of our conclusions, whatever they may be? Will the HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association) become the AHSLDA (Approved Home School Legal Defense Association)?

Farris Does Not Accurately Represent What He Does Cite

“Gothard and Phillips are entitled to share their personal opinions if they label them correctly. When it is claimed, for example, that God never wants any daughter to leave home until she is married, the patriarchy movement goes too far. That is human opinion wrapped in a false claim that God has announced a universal truth.” [Emphasis added.]

I would have to read or listen to more of either Phillips or Gothard to be sure, but the idea of Farris calling the view of Gothard and Phillips “human opinion” is itself human opinion about other’s views of what God has said or established. Farris is setting himself up as the one that is the authority on the views of all others. I am not suggesting he desires this, but there is no way around it. For me to call someone else’s conviction of truth an “opinion” is a very lousy way to prove that it is indeed an opinion. Proving a view is only an opinion takes articulated, reasoned arguments, as any lawyer should know.

“This particular example is a good way to demonstrate a common error in both men’s theologies. Phillips has stated that daughters should remain in their fathers’ homes until married. His principal biblical citation for this argument is the story of Rachel and Leah in the home of their father, Laban.” [Emphasis added.]

Wanting to be as informed as possible, and thinking I was slightly more informed about what Phillips taught than what Farris was presenting Phillips view to be, I followed the citation after “Laban” to actually look at the Vision Forum article that Farris cited. The Vision Forum article did not, as Farris suggest, present the account of Laban as the “principal citation.” It was listed as the first of five Bible references listed in Biblical order. The nature of the article was supportive, not explanatory. It listed all relevant references at the end of summarizing statement, and didn’t explain how the references related to that statement. This is just plain shoddy research, or dishonest representation, both of which are wrong anytime, and especially when making such accusations.

To properly use the Vision Forum article, one would have to know what the verses were and how they would tie into the statement. It really was not a good document to try to convey the viewpoint of Vision Forum or Phillips. Farris grabs the first reference in the list, assumes it is the “principal biblical citation” and then proceeds to attack it “primary citation” with an argument all the while not knowing that the claim he makes about the reference is invalid.

Farris Ignites the Offended, the “Hurt,” the Rebellious, and the Media

What is clear to see is that many are happy for what Farris has written. Comments on the HSLDA Facebook page are full of affirmations such as “It’s about time someone wrote this!” As with any Christian ministry, movement, or leader, you will find a large audience of the mutually offended or hurt to help you stone it to death (if possible). By referring to the “harmed” without defining the “harm,” Farris also calls out (and calls in) all who might remotely hate the movements mentioned. Such is a great way to engage the non-critical thinkers of our day, glad to see death of something they do not understand. Further, a simple internet search will show anyone how quickly the media forest fire is spreading on this topic. People love to see the one conservative Titanic – homeschooling – going down in pieces after this Farris iceberg. The sin of Phillips was a bad crash for all homeschoolers; Farris throws gasoline on it for the media to enjoy.

Farris has also shocked many conservative homeschoolers beyond words. They feel wholly betrayed by this very poorly researched, pragmatically written article that reaches beyond Phillips and Gothard to people who care about neither. They believe what they understand the Bible to teach as truth only now to be classified as “dangerous,” “harmful,” “abusive” and “extremist” by the loosely applied generalizations of Farris himself. He has drawn a line in the sand, and many of those who respect him greatly for his work have found themselves on the wrong side of this line, bewildered and wondering what the impact will be from the labels Farris has so carelessly slapped upon them.

A Final Personal Note

I still hold Michael Farris in high regard because of all that he has done to strengthen the freedoms of home schooling families. He is a hero in his own right. I do not doubt that Michael’s intentions in writing this article were good. However, from my own vantage point, the article reads as though he wrote it pressed by fears and maybe even threats brought about by past affiliations with Phillips and Gothard; affiliations that the HSLDA by its very mission cannot wholly separate itself from, but yet is still trying to do so. I do not believe Farris has accomplished anything beneficial through this article, but on the contrary he has managed to shatter the strong support of many that now find themselves on the wrong side of the very sloppy and harmful line he has drawn.

Why Have a Wedding Ceremony? - Part 2

Here I give just a few brief additional thoughts about weddings. I would hope to whet the appetites of those reading to investigate this further. ~ CT (picture is of my own wedding day with me and my still very beautiful bride - we have celebrated this occasion 30 years already!)

Wedding ceremonies are a big deal in the Bible. The Bible pretty much begins and ends with wedding ceremonies. Wedding ceremonies also have a prominent place in Jesus' ministry and teaching.

1. The very first human to human interaction was a wedding, conducted by God Himself. It was His main point of the moment, and it set in motion the entire idea of marriage for the human race for all of history. God established marriage with a wedding ceremony that remains the pattern for all humanity today as evidenced throughout the Bible. (Gen 2)
   
2. Jesus performed his first recorded miracle at a wedding ceremony. Jesus’ attendance affirms the importance of such a ceremony. Jesus was invited along with the disciples to attend this wedding. He apparently considered it worthy of His time to witness and celebrate this God-designed union. (John 2:1-10)
   
3. The parable of the ten virgins indicates the “big deal” that weddings held in Jesus’ day. The uniting of a husband and wife was a huge, important event that took several days. Jesus explains the kingdom of God using wedding ceremony terminology. (Matt 25:1-12)
   
4. The key celebratory culminating event that the church looks forward to is a wedding ceremony! Although not much is said about the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, it is obvious that it is something prophesied with the intent of yielding great anticipation by the Church. God pictures the formal uniting of the Church with her Savior by nothing less than an elaborate marriage ceremony, which included preparations throughout this age. It is the formal beginning of an eternity of blessing. God is into formality! The last two chapters of Revelation also highlight this event by continuing to refer to the Bride. (Rev 19:7-9; 21:9; 22:17)

I could further discuss the importance of marriage as expressed throughout the Bible as a key indicator of the importance of a wedding, and the marriage relationship being a huge responsibility as the primary picture of the relationship between Christ and the Church, but that will have to be reserved for another time.

I just wanted to scratch some brief Bible thoughts that seem to elevate a wedding ceremony above personal preference or cultural disregard. Have a wedding ceremony, and let it reflect the importance God Himself places upon this most wonderful occasion!

Why Have a Wedding Ceremony? - Part 1

I recently shared this with an engaged couple that was considering not having a wedding ceremony because of the trouble and difficulty that planning and carrying out such an event always brings. I haven't attempted to document this - I have simply shared my heart as a one-time groom, as a husband, as a father of several adult married children (with 9 more "unmarrieds" to go!), and as a pastor (who has performed enough weddings to learn). I will add to this with an additional post in the near future, with more thoughts that have come to my mind since I wrote this. ~ CT (picture is of my parents' wedding)

*********************

I do believe that a ceremony before other believers is a very good idea.

1. Since God ordained marriage, it is a God-thing, not just a man-thing.
2. A marriage ceremony is intended to affirm Christian beliefs as two come together. The couple is publicly affirming their belief in God's creation of, purpose for, and design in marriage. (The ceremony may also serve to teach those that are unaware of these truths.)
3. A marriage ceremony is a public declaration of the covenant of marriage before others. The couple is surrounded by those that witness their vows, and therefore can attest to and hold the couple accountable for their vows.
4. A marriage ceremony often (usually?) precipitates preparations of heart and mind through required counseling. Trust me - You know less about marriage than you think you do. (I would say that to anyone.) You need to talk through Biblical teachings (that you may be fully aware of) and get common agreement and understanding before entering into marriage. I would suggest (and if I had the power, require) all engaged couples to have pre-marital counseling with a seasoned couple (i.e. married for many years) before entering into marriage. I could not in good conscience perform a marriage ceremony for a couple that has not done so. I'm not sure what pastor would do so.
5. A marriage ceremony allows an initial bonding with extended family. Though brief, it does allow for the couple to meet the family/extended family of the spouse.
6. It blesses the parents to experience the wedding of their child. It is a formality, but a nice one.
7. It is something (usually) that a young lady dreams about growing up.
8. It is a tradition affirmed by history of the church to encourage (often require) couples to present themselves before God's people to be joined together.
9. It lets others rejoice in the union.
10. A ceremony of some type is required by Iowa law.

With that said, there is no particular mandate about the size or elaborateness of the ceremony.

1. I encourage spending less on the wedding, and more on the honeymoon. Simple is good. (We practiced this by having our men wear dark suits, and I just bought them matching ties. Sounds dumb, but it worked for us.)
2. Inviting many or few is fine. I would recommend at least including close family (see #6 above).
3. I would encourage the groom to let this be the bride's day (see #7 above). It may not mean as much to us as men, but it does mean more to the gals. It's not just an event, but a key transition. Make it a special day for her.

Book Review: Doing Things Right in Matters of the Heart

This is my review of Doing Things Right in Matters of the Heart by John Ensor, Crossway Books (2007), 160 pp. Paperback, 9781581348422. The review was done for www.sharperirong.org, and was published there first (http://sharperiron.org/article/book-review-doing-things-right-matters-of-heart).

You truly cannot judge a book by its cover or its title. In John Ensor’s book, Doing Things Right in Matters of the Heart, I would suggest that neither the cover nor the title do justice to this outstanding book. Neither does the title fully relay its critical contents. Based upon the title, I assumed that this book was another nouthetic counseling book about the heart. Instead, I found a profoundly well-written “heart surgery” book on the roles of men and women as it relates to real life, both before marriage and in marriage. In his book, Ensor declares that his objective “is to provide a winsomely radical alternative to the prevailing ideas, almost absolute doctrines, that guide our current thinking about manhood and womanhood and define our actions and expectations when pursuing matters of the heart.” (p. 15). In a footnote, he likens his book to a user-friendly, basic version of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by Piper and Grudem (p. 20).

Ensor approaches this with a somewhat unique background of twenty five years of pastoral counseling, including twelve years as a pastor, and fifteen helping to establish pregnancy help centers in the Boston area, and at the time of publishing, he was helping to start five pregnancy centers in the neediest neighborhoods in Miami. Repeatedly he has seen the results of lives pursuing what the world demanded they pursue, only to come up empty-handed, hurt, diseased, ashamed, broken, and unfulfilled. He is not writing from theory. Ensor’s approach examines Scripture as it clashes with the heart of culture today from a firsthand experience.

In the first section of the book, Ensor attempts “to get to the heart of manhood and womanhood according to the Bible. What does it mean to be a man and not a woman? What is distinctively meaningful about being a woman and not a man? What marks the mature man? What does it mean to be, dare I say, a godly man? What marks the mature and godly woman and makes her attractive and fulfilled? How do we complement and fit together?” (p. 20-21) He offers that culture’s “forced upon” solution to its underlying thirst is precisely opposite to what the Creator actually designed. Further, what the Creator designed is ultimately what the world craves after its solutions leave it broken and shattered.

In the second section, Ensor presents “direct and clear lines of approach,” illustrating what a Biblical (albeit imperfect) two-gender relationship looks like from many different angles in both its pursuit and in marriage itself. His pointed chapter headings in this section give a great idea of his approach:

• He Initiates…She Responds
• He Leads…She Guides
• He Works…She Waits
• He Protects…She Welcomes Protection
• He Abstains to Protect…She, to Test
• His Unmet Desire Drives Him toward Marriage…Hers Is Rewarded with Marriage
• He Displays Integrity…She, Inner Beauty
• He Loves by Sacrificing…She, by Submitting
• He Seeks His Happiness in Hers…She Seeks Hers in His
• He Is the Primary Provider for the Family…She, the Primary Nurturer

Ensor compares the overwhelming but false views of the world with reality – the Biblical world. He contrasts the crushed lives of men and women who follow these lies with his profusely repeated declaration that God’s design, order, and intention by His revelation is to lead a man and a woman “to form a healthy, tender, passionate, enduring, mutually satisfying relationship.” This relationship only comes to fruition when men function as men, and women as women, as God defines and describes in Scripture.

The author addresses both men and women throughout the book, and he does so with directness that is indicative of one who has had much experience doing so. Ensor’s writing is very direct, almost edgy (but never over the edge), but also smothered with love and understanding. It is extremely practical. Here is an example to women:

“There is no doubt that young women are being taught today to be sexually aggressive and to expect many partners. Modesty and restraint are considered signs of obsequious surrender to a foregone age of sexual repression. The strong woman is one who takes responsibility for her own body and who is smart enough to know how to use it. If she is good at it, it is assumed that she will have many partners. Women can and do get to this point. But this is not what they are by nature. This was not their starting point, only their settling point. Blow away the ash, and the ember yet burns for a healthy, tender, passionate, enduring, mutually satisfying relationship with just one man.” (p.29)

Ensor is not lopsided in his perspectives of gender. He sees clear differences revealed in Scripture, and yet affirms the Scriptural equality of both genders. They are equal, but different:

Why these differences should be so threatening is hard to grasp. The issue is not about equality—equality is a given. Nor is it about superiority and inferiority. It is about men being stronger than women and women being stronger than men in different and complementary ways. Our complementarity is rooted in nature. (p.74)

The author gives what I consider to be outstanding, direct counsel to both men and women who are anticipating marriage (as well as those already married). Every chapter addresses key ideas for waiting in purity as one prepares for marriage or how gender is fleshed out in marriage. I can only give samples for each apart from quoting the entire work.

For men, I offer a very clear sample of Ensor’s way of writing:

Unmet sexual passion is like carrots: it helps a man see better what he really wants in life. Unmet sexual passion brings into focus a vision for being a husband and potentially a father. Unmet sexual passion drives him toward removing all the obstacles, whether they are inner fears and doubts or the need to work toward preparing him to know her family, to talk about their future, and to finish up what needs to be done in order to be able to make a living. It drives us to solve problems and get ready. It matures us. (p. 121).

For women, Ensor is equally direct and helpful:

Sisters, abstaining from sexual immorality is, for you, too, a matter of submitting to God and his commands. But it is more. It is God’s “Mature Manhood Test Kit” for women. The immature, self-centered, ungodly man will test negative in a matter of weeks. The deceitful and cunning predator will test negative in a matter of days. Men willing to wait, and wanting to wait, will test positive. It is not a lack of sexual interest; it is a healthy fear of God. It is love, which at this point rightfully expresses itself as protection from sin and shame. If he weakens, help him succeed. If all else goes well in the development of the relationship, you know you are marrying a godly man, one who has self-control and a clear sense of his calling as a man. (p.118)

Though I would probably land a bit more conservatively on some issues than Ensor (women and working outside the home, for example, which he briefly addresses in Chapter 15), I think that the greatest blunder of the book is the title of the book itself. The title is vague, and gives no clear indication of the treasure that this small 160-page book contains. Benefit is certain to any reader who is serious about God’s teaching on gender, and who is desiring a God-intended quality relationship with one person of the opposite gender throughout life. People of both genders would be greatly benefited by this book, if only they knew of its excellent life-directing content.

I would offer the following alternate titles:

• Manhood and Womanhood: What God-Designed Gender Differences to Look Like in a Romantic Relationship 
• Male and Female He Created Them: Living Out Gender Differences in Relationships as God Intended

Knowingly taking the chance of sounding “over the top,” I cannot recommend this book highly enough. If within my power, I would (after changing the title and cover art) put this book in the hands of every teenager and adult believer. Ensor’s book is that helpful and practical. I have read it several times, only to be convicted and challenged over and over. The book cannot be summarized. Each page is therapeutically piercing in a time when the very existence of gender is being questioned, ignored, or forsaken. ~ KES

30 Years of Marriage: A Few Things I've Learned

My wife and I celebrated 30 years of marriage yesterday. We began our second 30 years today. After 30 years, 15 children, and 7 grand children (so far), I'd have to admit I've got lots of experience, but the whole "expert" label has been very evasive. Here are a few things I've learned (and often, re-learned):

1. No one is ever truly "ready" for marriage. A "good marriage" is a moving target. Conditions that make a great marriage today are the same conditions that make it hard the next day. I suppose that any marriage is, in part, the sum of the two personalities, which varies with each couple. My wife and I both have strong personalities, willing to stand up and speak up for what we think is right, which produces conflict. (Such willingness can can be good and bad, depending upon the situation). Some couples might be more passive, or have one member that is strong-willed and the other that is not up to fighting or  (some are not up to fighting for even what they need to fight for). Regardless - two people are involved in a marriage (not counting the children).

Marriage is also influenced by each person's individual life experiences, which create an expected "norm" which does not exist. Each marriage is different, because each marriage brings with it two unique individuals with all of their unique perspectives that derive from their unique combination of observations, experiences, instructions, and other influences. The result is a beautiful complexity that produces a one-of-a-kind union. Though each marriage has commonalities, each marriage is uncharted territory, to a great degree.

Each day brings its own challenges. Sleepless nights or stress-filled days come, because of long work hours or a needy, sick child (sometimes for nights on end), inevitable personal hardships or sickness, daily challenges and needs from car care to house maintenance emergencies, unscheduled or unplanned obligations, and even emergency room visits - all can change one's day and outlook instantly. Further, these challenges can be compounded on any given day. Sometimes life is more like an endurance test or obstacle course rather than a relaxing stroll. In fact, it can often be the norm to face these challenges.

Who is ready for such things? Really, one only can learn and grow through the experiences as God weaves them into our lives. Each experience (and combination of experiences) brings its own unique blend of difficulty. Such requires a proper heart attitude to endure the challenges and enjoy life in the midst of what life brings, rather than waiting until "all is well." C.S. Lewis hits on this several times. One of his statements rings home: "We must stop regarding unpleasant or unexpected things as interruptions of real life. The truth is that interruptions are real life."

The truth is, God allows difficulties to refine us. Marriage is, in part, there to refine us more than existing to make us happy (happiness comes and goes). God uses the strengths and weaknesses of our spouse to reveal our own rough edges or inaccurate views of our own self. Hopefully the marriage is focused on God to the point that the couple allows God to help them work through and grow through the inevitable conflicts and challenges of life. This is a hard process, but a fruitful and beneficial one if we work through, rather than run away from, these refining moments which God allows.

2. Marriage is worth the effort. Though marriage (and by extension, family) is a tapestry of challenges, difficulties, unfulfilled (often unrealistic) expectations, changed plans, and an ongoing series of reality checks, this idea created by God is worth every bit of the effort. One key is understanding that God is at work, in us (what is going on inside of us) and on us (the pressures on the outside), to conform us to the image of His Son. This happens a bit each day, over the long haul. God's sanctifying work can often go unseen in the momentary blips of routine or chaos of a day, but it is happening. We need to continue to press on with humble and faithful hearts, even though we face difficult times.

As Jane and I have the chance to review and discuss our lives together, we readily admit the difficulty, but we also embrace the difficulties because of what they have accomplished in us. We have not ended up with all the answers, but we have a deeper sense that God does have all the answers.

In the midst of these challenges, Jane and I enjoy being lifelong "best friends." We delight in each other's company (usually in the midst of some number of children, younger or older). We enjoy being home together, rather than chasing the wind of individual, external hobbies. Life moves quickly, but it is truly a blessing of the Lord to spend that brief life with your best friend. The companionship that marriage brings to those who work at it is incomparable, and makes the struggles of life a shared challenge, rather than a lonely one.

In the midst of all of these reality checks, God brings joy. Honoring God by keeping the covenant of marriage brings abundant blessing while these struggles of life go on. Intimate conflict grows us as individuals, but also as a couple. We have some "rugs of expectation" pulled out from under us, but God replaces them with the foundations of truth. We enjoy the deep companionship that can only be molded through time and tempest. We catch glimmers of understanding of what God's bigger picture is, beyond us as individuals or us as a couple. Things may not be what our fairy tale ideas would have liked them to be, but they are better in a much deeper way. Things are as they should be. We affirm God's goodness and greatness because of His goodness and greatness, which is beyond our designs or plans.

3. Marriage is workable in God's pattern. To the best of our understanding, we have embraced the Biblical gender roles - doing what God designed us each to do. Jane has stayed home and cared for the family and home, and I have provided for the family. Such a practice is seen by most in our day, as "swimming upstream," and often classified as "impossible" by many. We are living proof that it can be done with just me working outside the home so that Jane could be the active mother of our children (not just holding the title), and the homemaker (truly making our house a home).

We have been able to do this in a way that does not depend upon the government or others to upplement our needs. We have lived, at times, on very little, and we have lived healthy lives. We did not consider it unreasonable to support and care for our own family. We actually think it has worked out better than any other "option" that others might consider. We have been able to home school our children, giving them what we believe is a better quality more realistic, more rounded education than they could get anywhere else. We have enjoyed family closeness at meals throughout our marriage which would not nor could not have happened in any other scenario. We have been able to be a family because of our commitment to this pattern which pervades the Bible. We have thrived, in the midst of struggle, on what it has brought to us. We would not change a thing. As we see it, we could only trade down.

4. Marriage really blossoms with a large family. People have heard me say, "People think we're crazy because we have so many children. We think their crazy because they don't." Jane and I really believe this. Allowing God to give us children as He saw fit produced no disappointment on our part. Rather, we have experienced incredible joy (and yes, laundry) throughout our married lives to this day. Children truly do increase the love of a home, rather than stretching it thinly. A larger family gives an ongoing joyous "mission" to parents that is truly fulfilling beyond any career or early retirement or sport or hobby. It postpones or eliminates the empty nest, and fills a home with constant companionship for everyone for years and years and years. Our children delight in one another's company at many different levels. They understand better that the world does not rotate around any one person. They learn to love and share and care and help as a lifestyle. Further, it allows us to send these blessings on into the next generation with the capability of influencing more for the cause of Christ. We cannot imagine a home without such love. Children are one of the few eternal focuses that anyone can have, and they are worth our lives to raise for God's glory, in the midst of the struggles of life. You can add more to our wealth, but you cannot add more to our joy. Children, as God's gifts, bring that joy.

We look at the nine children yet at home. We often marvel that we have been blessed the number of children that we have had. We have so much more because we have allowed God to make the decisions. We love each of our children deeply, and would not trade one of them for a better circumstance, greater liberty, more money, a higher position - nothing. Each is truly a gift from the Lord, an eternal being with his or her specialness to bring to the world. Nothing compares to the joy that each one has brought to the family, and to the world. We are incredibly, richly, blessed, and grateful beyond words.

I've learned much more, and I've had to unlearn and relearn a great deal. The learning process continues, but I wouldn't trade what I have for anything on earth. God, in establishing marriage, knew what He was doing! Bring on the next 30 years.