A determined prayer warrior

I would like to wish you all a Happy New Year. This next year could be a most important one. There are tremendous needs. And tremendous opportunities.

Do you believe in making New Year resolutions? Have you thought, I wonder, of becoming involved in urgent, desperate prayer for your families? I ask because everywhere I look I see the children of serious, loving Christian parents, carefully brought up in church and Sunday school, beginning to drift away from the Christian faith.

I was reminded of the subject by the true story of a man we will call George. He and his wife had two daughters. He decided to spend an hour every day praying for their spiritual welfare. He continued to pray an hour a day for his descendants until one day he announced he had a promise from God that four generations of his family would all be Christians.

His two daughters - the second generation - both married ministers. Between the two of them, they had one boy and five girls. The boy became a minister and the five girls all married ministers. When it came to the fourth generation, two boys - cousins - were the first to go to college. One announced quite early on that he believed God was calling him to the ministry.

The other decided - a little apprehensively, in view of the family tradition - that he didn't want to be a minister. What's more, he wasn't going to be a minister. He was going to become a psychologist. He wrote a book on psychology, which became a best seller. His name: James Dobson.
     

Deciding what's important

I have the idea there's going to be a General Election shortly. Politicians are going at it hammer and tongs on television, and people are being canvassed for their opinions on this, that and the other. I expect candidates will be knocking at my front door shortly.

They say the most important matter is the NHS, and after that, the economy. They are not the only things that are important.

David Cameron's Government, in redefining marriage as it has stood for centuries, has done the nation a grave disservice.

Eric Teetsel, director of the Manhattan Declaration ("A Christian manifesto in support of the sanctity of life, traditional marriage and religious liberty"), puts it well: "As a Christian, I believe homosexual sex is one of the many forms of sexual activity God prohibits. Biblical norms are not arbitrary, but are based on God's design for human flourishing. Sin isn't just bad. It is harmful. Conversely, a life aligned with biblical principles will be prosperous.

"From this perspective, a person in a same-sex relationship is committing self-harm. Love for my neighbour compels me to fight against that harm, and to point the way towards life more abundant.

"The same applies to public policy. When our laws conform to biblical principles of justice and morality, we can expect society to thrive. When they don't, we can expect the opposite. Although you certainly don't have to be a Bible believer to understand marriage, basing public policy on a lie that contradicts God's design is a bad idea, and destined to fail catastrophically."

Marriage breakdown is causing social upheaval. Almost half of teenagers are not living with both natural parents.The results of family breakdown are costing £47 billion a year.

John Smeaton has worked for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children for 40 years, latterly as chief executive. He says evidence shows that marriage as an institution is fatally wounded by redefining it to include same-sex couples. "Those who suffer as a result are, above all, children. We are sacrificing children on the altar of adults' 'sexual rights.'

"Pro-life movements worldwide must work tirelessly to defend marriage and the family. The pro-lfe movement cannot possibly succeed in its efforts to end abortion if the family, based on marriage between a man and a woman, is destroyed."

So here are the questions I am preparing for election candidates: "Before I vote, can you tell me if you support the appointment of a families' champion at Cabinet level? What view do you take of same-sex marriage? And" - for good measure - "where do you stand on abortion?"
      

A few kind words. . .

It started as an anonymous act, but the story seems to have taken wings. . . 

 Ashley England went out for a meal in a restaurant on Friday evening with her family, including her eight-year-old son Riley. Riley has special needs. After a while, Riley began to get "a little rowdy."

"The past few weeks have been very hard and trying for us - especially with public outings," said Ashley. "Riley was getting loud and hitting the table and I know it was aggravating to some people."

A waitress walked over to the table with tears in her eyes and a note.

"I'll try to do this without crying," the waitress told the family. "But another customer has paid for your bill tonight and wanted me to give you this note."

The note read: "God only gives special children to special people."

Ashley said the kindness made her cry.

"To have someone do that small act towards us shows that some people absolutely understand what we are going through and how hard it is to face the public sometimes," she said. "They made me cry, blessed me more than they know. I felt like out of all the rude, negative comments that we are faced with, this outweighs them.

"Little did he know what struggles we had been facing lately and this was surely needed at that moment," she said. "Thank you."

Mr Cameron gets in trouble - again

Prime Minister David Cameron got himself into trouble this week. In Darwen, of all places. He was taking part in a question-and-answer session.
 
 "What would your response to Jesus be on His instruction to us to sell all our possessions and give the proceeds to the poor?" he was asked. (We are not all instructed to sell all our possessions and give to the poor, which rather spoils the question. That was for the rich young ruler, for whom his possessions came first.)

Said the Prime Minister: "I'm a Christian and I'm an active member of the Church of England" - he once likened his faith to the patchy reception of Magic FM in the Chilterns - "and like all Christians I think I sometimes struggle with some of the sayings and some of the instructions.

"But what I think is so good about Jesus’ teachings is there are lots of things that He said that you can still apply very directly to daily life and to bringing up your children. Simple things like do to others as you would be done by, love your neighbour as yourself, the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount.

"To me they’re still pretty fresh and good instructions so I find those a set of instructions that I can grapple with. But the particular one that you mention, I find that a little bit more difficult.

"I've always felt the strength of the Christian faith is the basic core of moral guidance," he said. "You can find moral guidance from other sources but it's not a bad handbook."

He tries, he says, not to "pick and mix" the lessons he takes from the Bible. Ah, there's the rub. What if you vigorously propose something which is completely opposed to Bible teaching? Like same-sex marriage, perhaps. What then?

The idea of marriage is to bring a man and a woman together in faithfulness to each other to form a lifelong unit in which to bring up children. A sort of kingdom of God in miniature. But have you noticed the things that are being suggested since government dared to redefine marriage?

If you can have a couple, how about a "throuple"? A throuple is like a couple, but with three people. “As far back as I can remember," said one woman, "I felt that loving one person romantically did not preclude the possibility of loving another at the same time. It seemed natural and intuitive to me.”

Or how about "monogamish" marriage? A monogamish marriage is one where the partners would allow sexual infidelity provided there were honest admissions of it. A more flexible attitude within marriage might be just what was needed, said one of its proponents. After all, sexual exclusivity “gives people unrealistic expectations of themselves and their partners.”

Or instead of wedlock, how about "wedlease"? Wedlease is where a couple commit themselves to each other for a year, or two years, or three years. When the wedding contract runs out, it could be renewed. Or not. That would save messing with divorce: ending the marriage would be as simple as leaving a rented property.

And how many broken relationships would there be? And broken homes? And broken children?

Jesus was once asked about divorce. He took his questioners right back to Creation. "Have you not read," He said, "that he who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt 19:4 - 6).

Being a Christian when it's convenient, Mr Cameron, isn't quite good enough. 

Fathers are not for nothing

Supporters of "genderless parenting" are saying that whilst it might be important for a child to have two "parental figures," the genders of the "parental figures" and their relationship to the child don't much matter.

Fathers, they say, are not essential. Fathers as well as mothers are apparently disposable when it comes to their children's development.

Jenet Erickson, writing at the Witherspoon Institute, has some impressive figures to demonstrate that that just isn't true.

Decades of research on fathers, she says, demonstrate that boys from fatherless families are twice as likely to end up in prison before they reach 30. Girls raised in homes without their fathers are much more likely to engage in early sexual behaviour. Girls whose fathers left home before their daughters turned six are six times more likely to end up pregnant in their teens.

There is more abuse in homes without fathers. In one study, abuse was 10 times more likely for children in homes with their mother and an unrelated boyfriend. Children who grow up without married mothers and fathers are more likely to suffer depression, behavioural problems and school expulsion.

Andrea Doucet, who wrote a book titled Do Men Mother? after extensive research with 118 male carers, tells how after a long evening of discussion with a group of single fathers, she asked "In an ideal world, what resources or supports would you like to see for single fathers?"

She expected requests for more policies, programmes and social support. But no. After a period of awkward silence, one said "An ideal world would be one with a father and a mother. We'd be lying if we pretended that wasn't true."

But then, most of us have thought that good old-fashioned fathers - and good old-fashioned mothers - were needful all along.

Changing society's attitude to marriage

Sir Paul Coleridge, a senior judge in the Family Division of the High Court, is a remarkable man. Appalled at the number of divorces and the effect family breakdown was having on children, he began some years ago to speak out in support of marriage.

Now, he says, it's no longer time to speak only, but time to act. This week he launched the Marriage Foundation, an independent charity whose aim is to champion marriage as the "gold standard of relationships," and by so doing to change attitudes towards marriage and divorce from the top to bottom of society.

Sir Paul, who once famously said that a divorce was easier to obtain than a driving licence, describes family breakdown as "one of the most destructive scourges of our time," and the impact family breakdown is having on society as "out of control."

"There are an estimated 3.8 million children currently caught up in the family justice system," he says. "I personally think that's a complete scandal."

The foundation's website says if you look at the facts and figures, the case for marriage becomes overwhelming. Its advice to married couples having problems will be where possible to "mend it, don't end it."

It is estimated, Sir Paul says, that the financial cost to the nation of family breakdown "exceeds £44 billion a year: greater than the entire defence budget."

When he was married in 1973, "we took the element of public commitment via our wedding vows seriously. Standing up in front of your family and friends to publicly commit to another person gives marriage a psychological stability or glue lacking in other relationships. . .

"The evidence I find overwhelming is that married relationships are more stable and the children of such relationships fare better. For example, a baby born to cohabiting parents is more than 10 times more likely to see its parents separate than one born to married parents."

It's good to see someone who, seeing a need, does something about it.

Why not same-sex marriage?

Glenn Stanton, of the American organisation Focus on the Family, says people who would not normally be in favour of same-sex marriage have been manipulated.

Homosexual activists, using focus groups and message testing, realised there was one message that would work better than all the others. The homosexual magazine OUT revealed in the mid-1990s that activists began using the phrases "marriage equality" and "freedom to marry" on the advice of a Los Angeles PR firm, based on how well they believed the expressions would work among heterosexual folk.

"The genius," writes Glenn Stanton, "is that while the average American might not personally like the idea of same-sex 'marriage,' they are hard-pressed to offer meaningful reasons for why it shouldn't be adopted in society. Compound this with the very deliberate and widespread accusation that opposition to same-sex 'marriage' and parenting is tantamount to hate-filled bigotry at its worst and back-woods ignorance at its best. With that gambit, this movement has really accomplished something. Show of hands: Who wants to be seen as hateful or ignorant?

"But here is the truth. Same-sex 'marriage' advocates have largely gained their ground through deception, emotional manipulation and diverting the public's attention away from the thousands of scientific studies that tell us healthy child-development requires the two different models of human parents: mothers and fathers. They have manipulated us by high-jacking civil rights language for their own narrow purposes. And as a result, millions of boys and girls will be subjected to intentionally motherless and fatherless families for no other reason than to fulfill the desires of adults who want such radical homes."

The suggestion that people have not known how to counter the homosexuals' argument is an interesting one. The homosexuals have said "We only want equality. A man and a woman can marry and a same-sex couple can't. That's not fair." And people have not known how to respond.

There are good reasons why marriage law should not be altered to allow same-sex marriage. I'm not going to list them here, because other people have done that already, and done it well. Dr Peter Saunders has given 10 good reasons why the law should not be altered. You can see them here. Have a look for yourself.

Prime Minister David Cameron is insisting same-sex couples be allowed to marry. By deciding to be trendy with the Trendies, he may have done himself and the Conservative Party a profound disservice. It seems clear the majority of Britons don't want marriage law meddled with. A new poll of 154 Conservative MPs found 37 per cent believed that the proposal to redefine marriage will fail, with 22 per cent unsure what the outcome will be. In the few weeks since it was introduced, the petition opposing a change in the law (you can see it here) has attracted 436,000 signatures.

Peter Saunders has written 24 articles on the matter. (You don't have to read them all!) But do read the one on the reasons for the law to remain as it stands. You may find yourself involved in a discussion on same-sex marriage. You wouldn't want not to be able to offer an intelligent contribution to the conversation.

Choosing life or death

A recently published study of the parents of Down's syndrome children revealed that:

* 99 per cent said they loved their Down's syndrome son or daughter

* 97 per cent said they were proud of their Down's child

* 79 per cent felt their outlook on life was more positive because of him or her

* 95 per cent felt their other children had a good relationship with him or her

* 84 per cent felt their other children were more caring and sensitive to others because of him or her

* Five per cent were embarrassed by their Down's child and four per cent regretted having a child with Down's.

One parent said: "I've learned the good lessons of patience and that its rewards are a smile - and that is always enough." Another said: "Our son is the greatest joy and motivation of our lives." Said a third: "What at first appears to be the worst possible thing that could be happening can turn into the best possible thing."

Of brothers and sisters (12 years old or older) of Down's syndrome children, 96 per cent said they liked their Down's sibling; 94 per cent said they were proud of him or her; and 88 per cent said they were a better person because of him or her.

But now note the following facts:

More than 90 per cent of unborn babies with Down's syndrome are aborted. To put it another way, three babies are aborted every day in England and Wales because of Down's syndrome. Tests now being perfected which will enable Down's to be identified in the early weeks of pregnancy simply by examining a blood sample from the mother are expected to increase the number of abortions of Down's babies still further.

There were 2,044 responses in the survey mentioned above. The study's authors, Dr Brian Skotko of the Children's Hospital in Boston, USA, and colleagues, concluded that the parents' decision to abort the Down's syndrome baby or to continue with the pregnancy can depend on the information provided by their health care providers. And mothers reported that the information they received was oftentimes inaccurate, inadequate, and in the worst cases, offensive.

Will somebody please take some notice?

Losing the one you love

Jessica Council was a beautiful redheaded American girl. She was 30 years old, with a husband and a two-year-old son. She and her husband Clint worked for a Christian charity, mentoring children.

She was always extremely healthy, took care about what she ate and exercised regularly.

Last August, she developed a sore throat. When it was still sore two weeks later, she saw a doctor. He had a test done, and said it was nothing to worry about. He had misread the results of the test.

In November, Jessica was having trouble breathing, and wound up in accident and emergency. The following day her throat closed up so tightly she couldn't breathe. Doctors managed to get a tube down her throat and put her on a ventilator.

The following day, they told her she had cancer. By then, she knew for certain that she was pregnant. Two days later, the hospital's obstetrician offered her an abortion. Jessica refused. For her, that was not an option.

Surgery for the cancer was not possible. The oncologist said chemotherapy would likely kill the baby. The obstetrician said the baby would probably survive, but would probably have brain damage. Radiotherapy carried similar risks. Jessica thought for a few seconds, then declined treatment.

One night in February, Jessica went to sleep and didn't wake up. Clint gave permission for a caesarean section.

The doctors thought Jessica was 25 weeks into pregnancy. When little Jessi was born, they realised she had been only about 23 weeks, the very limit of viability for the baby. Jessi weighed 1lb 3oz.

"Jessica knew she was going to die anyway," said Clint. "She didn't share that with me until almost when she died. . . But I think she knew, and she was going to give this baby every chance she could.

"I did struggle," said Clint, "because in the Bible the one person that we're commanded to love more than myself, this was her. Sometimes it's easier to be selfless as far as whatever happens to you, but when it comes down to losing the one you love more than anything else, it's very difficult."

For about a month after Jessica died, says Clint, "I could not - and I mean that as a literal inability - I could not read my Bible, I could not pray.

"I knew cognitively that the relationship was there, I knew [God] loved me. I accepted all these things from a mental standpoint. . . but the delight in God was gone for about a month. I was functioning solely on what I knew to be true from a mental standpoint."

Now he's busy working, caring for his two children - the doctors say the baby, though still in hospital, is doing well - and praying once more.

Less than two weeks after Jessica died, Clint wrote: "God is to be praised, my friends. Do not doubt God; do not be angry with Him for me.

"I am privileged to have had a wife who was so full of the love of the Father. Rejoice with me. . . God has blessed Jessica in taking her to a place of perfect peace and no pain. I must be thankful for the time that I had with her rather than ungrateful for all the things we never got to do together. We must give thanks in all things for this is the will of God in Jesus Christ.

"Grace and peace to all."

You can read the full story at LifeSiteNews.

Remembering Fat Tuesday

Russell Moore is an American Bible teacher who grew up in Mississippi, where some of the folks were Catholic, and some Baptist.

"Around me," he writes, "I saw Catholic casino night fundraisers and Baptist business meetings, and neither looked much like the Book of Acts. When it came to the divide between Catholics and evangelicals, we knew there were some big differences which resulted in the Protestant Reformation and all, but day to day those differences seemed to my friends and me to amount to little more than who had a black spot on their foreheads once a year and whose parents drank beer right out in the open."

Much of the differences between Catholics and Baptists, he says, were summed up on what the British call Pancake Tuesday and Americans know as Mardi Gras. Or Fat Tuesday, if you prefer.

"Some of the older Baptists in my community," he says, "downright hated the whole idea of Fat Tuesday. They knew that Mardi Gras was the day before Ash Wednesday. After Mardi Gras was the beginning of Lent, the forty days of fasting rooted in Jesus' time without food in the wilderness temptations. And they saw this party as blasphemy.

"'Those Catholics, they just go out and get as drunk as they want to, eat till they vomit,' I remember one neo-Puritan naysayer lamenting. 'They're just getting it all out of their system before they have to get all somber and holy for Lent.'

"As the years have gone by, I've concluded that we Baptists had Mardi Gras too. This phenomenon was seen in Baptist churches dotted all over the South. Mardi Gras Protestantism didn't celebrate a day on the yearly calendar, but on the calendar of the lifespan.

"The cycle went like this. You were born, then reared up in Sunday school until you were old enough to raise your hand when the teacher asked who believes in Jesus and wants to go to heaven. At this point you were baptized, usually long before the first pimple of puberty, and shortly thereafter you had your first spaghetti dinner fund-raise to go to summer youth camp. And then sometime between fifteen and twenty you'd go completely wild. . .

"After a few years of carnality, you'd settle down, get married, start having kids, and you'd be back in church, just in time to get those kids into Sunday school and start the cycle all over again. If you didn't get divorced or indicted, you'd be chairman of deacons or head of the Woman's Missionary Union by the time your own kids were going completely wild.

"It was just kind of expected. You were going to get things out of your system before you settled down. You know, I never could find that in the Book of Acts either."

British evangelicals are a bit like that. (I hope I don't get too pointed here.) They buy a Bible for each of their children and take them to church for an hour each Sunday. Then when the children get to 13 or 14, they decide they are not going to church any more, and parents are left with some years of heartache trying to win them back again.

Some youngsters will do their best to kick over the traces no matter what. If you are parents with rebellious teens, don't feel condemned. I understand. I feel for you.

But it does take more than the gift of a Bible and an hour's exposure to Christian doctrine each week to keep them on the straight and narrow. It takes love, it takes discipline, it takes personal example, it takes personal instruction, and it takes patience. Christian friends can help too.

Whatever young teens may think, God made us. He made us to worship Him. Because He made us the way He did, the only thing that will satisfy is a life of personal relationship with the living Lord. Without that, there will still be an emptiness inside.

Do continue bringing up those youngsters to a life of relationship with Him. They are infinitely precious. They deserve to have lives that are effective; lives that satisfy.

A tale of a mother's love

It's a sad, sad world. A world full of bad news. So here's some good news for a change.

Victoria Webster, from Birmingham, who is 33 years old, had a routine blood test when she was 21 weeks pregnant. She was found to have chronic myeloid leukaemia, or cancer of the blood.

Doctors said she had a good chance of recovery because they had caught the disease early, and wanted her to start chemotherapy immediately. There was a problem. Chemotherapy would kill her unborn daughter.

"To me, there was no decision to make," she said. "I had already bonded with my baby while she was growing inside me and as a mum, I had to protect her. Doctors kept telling me I should have a termination, but I had made up my mind. My husband supported me."

Mrs Webster opted for a less aggressive treatment. During the last three months of her pregnancy, her blood was drained from her body each week, "washed" by machine and replaced. "I was terrified," she said, "that even my milder treatment would have harmed Jessica."

But when her daughter was born, she was perfect. "We bonded straight away. Holding her in my arms was truly an amazing moment."

Mrs Webster, who also has a four-year-old son, began chemotherapy after the birth. She is responding well, and hopes soon to be in full remission.

"It's the best decision I have ever made," she said. "I can't imagine life without my daughter. I might have risked my life for her, but she was worth it."

'Our little hero'

Sometimes in the reports of national disasters individual stories get overlooked.

Last Monday Donna Rice went shopping with her 13-year-old son Jordan for a new school uniform. He was to start in high school in two weeks' time. Jordan's younger brother, 10-year-old Blake, went along.

As they were driving back to their home in the Australian town of Toowoomba, west of Brisbane, floodwater met them. Their car stalled, and wouldn't restart. Donna used her mobile phone to telephone triple zero - the number for Australia's emergency services - but the water was rising faster than the emergency services could reach them.

The mother and the two boys climbed on to the roof of the car. A lorry driver with a rope tied round him managed to reach the car and attempted to rescue Jordan. Although Jordan could not swim and was terrified of water, he insisted the man rescue his younger brother and his mother first.

The man got Blake to safety. Donna and Jordan were holding on to a rope, but before the man could get back, the rope broke and they floated away.

The two managed to catch hold of a tree until Jordan could hold on no longer. When he let go, his mother let go to try to save him. Both were swept away to their deaths.

Said Jordan's father, John Tyson: "Jordan can't swim and is terrified of water. But when the man went to rescue him, he said 'Save my brother first.' I can only imagine what was going on inside to give up his life to save his brother, even though he was petrified of water. He is our little hero."

Jordan's older brother Kyle said Jordan was really shy with people outside the family and wouldn't say a word to them - "but when it came to the rest of his family, well, he'd do anything for them."

That evening, Donna was due to make a birthday meal for the children's father.

A much better way

Andrea Minichiello Williams is chief executive officer of Christian Concern, an organisation which supports Christian standards in society. On her blog two days ago she posted the following, which merits careful consideration:

Yesterday the Government published the 'Schools White Paper.'

At 4.29 it states:

Children need high-quality sex and relationships education so they can make wise and informed choices. We will work with teachers, parents, faith groups and campaign groups, such as Stonewall to make sure sex and relationships education encompasses an understanding of the ways in which humans love each other and stresses the importance of respecting individual autonomy.

Not content with pushing for and achieving equality laws that promote a homosexual agenda, Stonewall wants to get its message to children directly. . . currently the actor Sir Ian McKellan is touring schools across Britain on behalf of Stonewall. He is giving assemblies, talking to children in classrooms and promoting a homosexual campaign "to tackle homophobic bullying". . . Stonewall's solution to bullying is to promote and legitimise the practice of homosexuality to children. That is not right. . .

When asked how teachers should explain the Christian stance on homosexuality, Sir Ian said that they should abandon the teachings of the church. They may not need to if Prime Minister David Cameron gets his way - in February he told pro-homosexual magazine 'Attitude' that the Church of England should change its policies on homosexuality.

The Prime Minister is serious about the homosexual agenda. Last week a Conservative councillor from Bristol, Chris Windows, was actually suspended after he expressed concern over Sir Ian's visit to schools in his ward. The more that incidents like this happen, and the less the Prime Minister defends freedom of speech, the more it is eroded and the more society is harmed. . . What happened to the concept of "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? . . .

The White Paper also stated:

4.30: Children can benefit enormously from high-quality Personal Social Health and Economic (PSHE) education. Good PSHE supports individual young people to make safe and informed choices. . . We will conduct an internal review to determine how we can support schools to improve the quality of all PSHE teaching, including giving teachers the flexibility to use their judgement about how best to deliver PSHE education.

This is a strong endorsement of PSHE ahead of a likely attempt to make PSHE compulsory in future legislation. PSHE, in its current form, is often taught as a politically correct programme which encourages the "promotion of equality" in sex education. In practice this means the promotion of the practice of homosexuality; legitimising same sex relationships as normal and desirable, as well as treating heterosexual cohabitation as equal to marriage.

The promotion of practising homosexual relationships as normal will not benefit children, only confuse them. It's contrary to the ethos of many parents and schools, whether Christian or not, and it may cause a range of difficulties for Christian teachers. . .

I will be doing all that I can to resist any attempt to make PSHE in its current format compulsory in schools. Please join me in resisting Stonewall's determined and aggressive campaign for the hearts and minds of our children. Their agenda must not go unchallenged.

In a country full of unplanned pregnancies, abortions, STDs and family breakdown, Christians have a strong argument that there is a better way. The 'sexual liberation' experiment has failed and has produced bad fruit.

We can offer values and an education based on our Christian faith. We can teach children about the importance of marriage and the family. We can teach them about purity and how to respect who they are. . . We can teach them that abstinence before marriage is the best way. We can give them positive life lessons and help them to avoid some of the consequences of sexual promiscuity.

The message is one of hope and promise and yet one that is excluded from the debate. It is time to re-enter the debate.

You can read the whole thing here.

Dad, listen to this

People should understand that men and women are different because they are made to fill different roles.

A man may be a wonderful father, but he's unlikely ever to become a wonderful mother. A woman may be a wonderful mother, but she's never going to be a wonderful father.

A child needs both a father and a mother. A child needs security. After that, a child needs love, discipline and teaching. A child needs to learn obedience and respect for authority.

That's the parents' responsibility. And first and foremost the father's. "Fathers," says Eph 6:4 (not "mothers"), "do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord." Training includes discipline. Admonition means to call attention to, to warn, to caution, to reprove gently where necessary.

A father, moreover, must teach by example.

This week I saw details of some Swiss research that I found interesting. It showed that where both father and mother attend church regularly, 33 per cent of their children will end up regular churchgoers.

If the mother attends church regularly but the father only irregularly, only three per cent of the children will become regular churchgoers, and if the mother is a regular churchgoer but the father non-practising, then only two per cent.

But if the father attends church regularly and the mother attends only occasionally, 38 per cent of the children will become regular attenders, and if the father attends regularly and the mother not at all, then the number goes up to 44 per cent.

The spiritual welfare of the children is the responsibility not of the mother, but of the father.

Fathers, are you listening?

No wonder parents are horrified

The politically correct children-must-have-more-sex-education-at-all-costs brigade is still going full tilt.

(A report by Ofsted complains that schools are failing to consult parents about the content of lessons, teaching pupils all they need to know about the biology of sex but placing little emphasis on the importance of marriage, failing to discuss the possibility that children can say no to sexual intercourse, and exposing children to materials inappropriate for their age. About time too, you might think.)

Family and Youth Concern reports on the experience of Mrs Lisa Bullivant, a young mother from Lincolnshire. She received a brief letter from her daughter's Church of England primary school saying the children would be having sex education lessons but giving no details of materials to be used. Some of the children had recently turned seven. She assumed the materials would be appropriate for the children's ages.

Says Mrs B: "How wrong I was. My daughter came home and tearfully informed me that she had learned about sex and that it had frightened and upset her. . . The effects of what our children had been taught became alarmingly apparent. Children were found simulating sex on top of other children and some children were telling much younger children what they had learned, much to the horror of their parents. Still others were openly stating to their parents that they now wanted to have sex.

"Some children, including my daughter, became very upset and worried about the whole matter. She was not emotionally or mentally able to cope with this information. She would often burst into tears if she started to think about it and I had to spend a lot of time comforting her and talking to her, trying to repair the damage that this DVD had caused to her innocent young mind."

The DVD was Channel 4's Living and Growing.

"I managed to find out what DVD the school had used and I and other parents watched it on the internet in horror. It was so graphic and the narrative was appalling. It promoted sex as a wonderful feeling and exciting - no wonder some of the children now wanted to try it.

"A number of parents made formal complaints in writing to the governing body and the local authority. . . We were fobbed off at every point. Our request for a meeting with the school's complaints committee was not even acknowledged and a final letter I received was inconsistent and full of false claims. The local authority backed these claims and said they were satisfied that the school had acted properly."

Morally deformed individuals in positions of authority are messing up the lives of innocent children, which makes me very angry. And very sad.

Making God smile

Will you permit me to record another love story that will warm the cockles of your heart?

Vernon McAlister and Sue, who was to be his wife, met while both were working on Vernon's father's farm in South Carolina. They married when he was 20 and she was 15.

The years passed by. When he was 92 and she was 87, Vernon fell and broke his hip. Doctors at the hospice where he was taken said he would not live long.

Then Vernon had a dream. In the dream, his wife Sue was in a room decorated with lace. She stood near a window, bathed in sunlight, dressed in a lace gown and veil, waiting for him to marry her again.

He asked the nurses to help him stay alive a few more days, so he could celebrate his 72nd wedding anniversary with his wife.

The day after his anniversary, said IndependentMail.com, they had a second wedding ceremony. Vernon lay in bed dressed in a smart shirt and tie. His wife stood by the bed in a pink gown and white veil, carrying a bouquet of roses. With their five children looking on, they renewed their wedding vows.

Said Vernon: "My father told me she would make a good wife. I couldn't have imagined how right he was. She is just purely wonderful. She is a jewel."

Said Sue of her husband: "He has taken care of me my whole life. He has loved me and respected me and cherished me the way he said he would when I was just a young girl and he was just a young man.

"We have not always had an easy life. But if you put God first, you can endure and your marriage can endure."

Retired pastor Bill French, a friend of the family who conducted the ceremony, said they were an example to the world. "When you took those vows all those years ago, no one could have known how long that walk together would be. You have fulfilled your promise, and God is smiling."

A few days later Vernon McAlister died, his wife at his bedside.

The sex education war

Sex education is an ideological battlefield on which a war is being waged for the hearts and minds of children. Behind the innocuous-sounding words used by the sex education lobby, there is a definite agenda at work to undermine the role of parents and to tear down traditional moral standards. The need for parents to be alert and vigilant has never been greater.

Who says so? The Family Education Trust (otherwise known as Family and Youth Concern), whose aims are to uphold marriage and traditional family life and promote young people's welfare.

And with good reason. NICE, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which advises on medicines and health issues - its chief role is to ration NHS drugs - has issued draft guidance on sex education suggesting that all children should be taught about sex and relationships starting at five and continuing into early adulthood.

The Labour Government legislated to make sex education part of the schools' national curriculum for the first time for pupils from the age of five upwards, but because of opposition Schools Secretary Ed Balls scrapped the sex education provisions in order to get the remainder of the Children, Schools and Families Bill into law in the limited time available before the General Election. Members of the sex education lobby were said to be furious, and attempts to reintroduce such provisions were expected.

The NICE draft guidance contains positive points, which might cause some people to be confused. But it also says

Research evidence does not support use of an approach to sex and relationships education that only teaches abstinence. Evidence shows that this does not help prevent the initiation of sex, or reduce the frequency of intercourse or reduce the number of partners a young person may have. Rather, such an approach may increase early sexual activity and its consequent risks.

(There is ample evidence that abstinence education is effective.)

It says school governors, teachers, nurses and community groups should

Reassure parents that sex and relationships education does not promote early sex, increase rates of sexual activity or increase the likelihood of sexual experimentation. Rather, it helps children and young people to resist pressure to get involved in activities that might damage their health. It also gives them the skills and confidence to delay sex until they are ready to enjoy a responsible and mutually loving relationship.

(Until they are ready?)

All involved in education should

Promote awareness of and sensitivity to diverse faith and cultural beliefs, and encourage understanding of different beliefs and practices, for example, in relation to alcohol use, sexual orientation and abortion. Discrimination and prejudices should be discussed and challenged.

(Prejudices against homosexual relationships and against abortion?)

It says that

A planned programme of sex and relationships education (SRE) that includes information and opportunities for discussion about sexual health, sexually transmitted infections, methods of contraception, pregnancy and abortion can help children and young people to delay sexual activity until they are ready. It does not cause them to have sex at an earlier age, or to have more sex, or sex with more partners, nor does it increase the number of unwanted or teenage conceptions and abortions.

(There is no explanation of why the more sex education there is, the more unwanted pregnancies and the more abortions increase.)

and

An overemphasis on concerns about the potential negative consequences of sex for young people, including teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, has sometimes led to an unbalanced approach to SRE that ignores the importance of consent and mutually rewarding sexual relationships for individual wellbeing.

(No mention, you will notice, of the context of sex within marriage.)

Norman Wells, of Family and Youth Concern, said "The team that drafted the guidance included lobby groups with an agenda to break down moral standards and redefine the family. Organisations with a commitment to marriage and traditional family values were not represented."

The draft guidance (you can read it in full here) is open for comment via the NICE website until July 15. Submissions will then be considered, and final guidance is expected in January.

Christian Concern for Our Nation is appealing for parents, teachers and school representatives to respond to the consultation.

Will you write and express your concerns? You should use the form here.

Wise words

Fellow Christian blogger Denny Hartford wrote something about marriage I just felt I had to reproduce here. Wrote young Mr Hartford (younger than I am, that is):

Marriage is supposed to be (and can be) about sharing, loving, forgiving and showing forbearance towards one another. And done right, two people move closer together, not farther apart. Love over time thus becomes more beautiful, more productive, stronger - an invaluable resource for not only partners and children but the general culture as well.

But when ego, career advancement, a love for money and position (not to mention roving affections) are allowed priority status in one's life, when these things assume the place that should be reserved alone for one's spouse, the pure and ennobling love of marriage cannot survive.

And neither can the culture. For though a secular judge can come along and divide the spoils, he cannot repair the broken hearts nor the damage done to children and extended family and friends. And with each sacred vow that is broken, the moral structure that underlies a secure and healthy nation is broken a bit more too.

New research figures published this week show that marriage is the number one factor in relationship stability. Said Harry Benson, author of a report by the Bristol Community Family Trust: "Based on data of 15,000 new mothers, marriage is the single biggest predictor, above and beyond the effects of income, education, age, ethnic group, benefit receipt and birth order."

The research shows that one in three unmarried couples with children separate before their child's fifth birthday, which is four times the rate of separation for married parents. Unmarried parents living together are at least twice as likely as married parents to split up in every category of income and education. And of couples who remain intact until their children are 15, at least 97 per cent are married.

Marriage is a wonderful thing. It was instituted by God Himself. It is not just a social convenience, nor an alternative to serial partners, nor something to be made a mockery of by same-sex relationships. It is intended to be a picture of the relationship between Christ and His church. It is the divinely appointed basis for the family and the basis for society.

Marriage vows are intended to be for a lifetime. Marriage is precious. Give yours the place it deserves.

No feet, no footprints

It would be difficult to find someone these days who hasn't heard of man-made global warming, polar bears under threat and the need to reduce carbon footprints to save the planet. Forgive me if I sound flippant in talking about it: frankly, I don't believe it. (Actually, I hear the climate is getting colder.)

A British population control group has had an idea: stop babies being born so they won't be able to produce carbon footprints. The Optimum Population Trust from the London School of Economics points out that a lot of births are unplanned.

A report commissioned by the trust claims that contraception is almost five times cheaper than conventional so-called green technologies, so the trust is calling for birth control to be included in funding for climate change in order to reduce the number of unintended births.

Said Anthony Ozimic, of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children: "Whatever the evidence regarding man-made global warming, the right to life and the right to found a family are fundamental, universal human rights enshrined in legally binding international conventions. Will the members of the Optimum Population Trust please tell us which of their children should not have been born in order to save the earth?"

That reminds me of a married mother of three children I knew of who became pregnant a fourth time. She went to see her doctor and explained that she didn't really want more than three children.

"Well, let's see," said the doctor. "Of the three children you have at home, which one shall we get rid of?" The woman was horrified.

"Well," said the doctor, "the one you have in the womb is just as alive as the other three, so why not get rid of one of the older ones?"

The woman put away all thoughts of an abortion. She is now an active pro-lifer.

So which married lifestyle would you prefer?

I was reading an article by John Piper in which he described life in his family home as a boy.

I grew up, he wrote, in a home where my father was away for about two-thirds of each year. He was an evangelist. He held about twenty-five crusades each year ranging in length from one to three weeks. He would leave on Saturday, be gone for one to three weeks, and come home on Monday afternoon. I went to the Greenville airport hundreds of times. And some of the sweetest memories of my childhood are the smile on my father's face as he came out of the plane and down the steps and almost ran across the runway to hug me and kiss me (no skyways in those days).

This meant that my sister and I were reared and trained mostly by my mother. She taught me almost everything practical that I know. She taught me how to cut the grass without skippers and keep a checkbook and ride a bike and drive a car and make notes for a speech and set the table with the fork in the right place and make pancakes (notice when the bubbles form on the edges). She paid the bills, handled repairs, cleaned house, cooked meals, helped me with my homework, took us to church, led us in devotions. She was superintendent of the Intermediate Department at church, head of the community garden club, and tireless doer of good for others.

She was incredibly strong in her loneliness. The early sixties were the days in Greenville, SC, when civil rights were in the air. The church took a vote one Wednesday night on a resolution not to allow black people to worship in the church. When the vote was taken, she stood, as I recall, entirely alone in opposition. And when my sister was married in the church in 1963 and one of the ushers tried to seat some black friends of our family all alone in the balcony, my mother indignantly marched out of the sanctuary and sat them herself on the main floor with everyone else.

I have never known anyone quite like Ruth Piper. She seemed to be omni-competent and overflowing with love and energy.

But here is my point. When my father came home, my mother had the extraordinary ability and biblical wisdom and humility to honor him as head of the home. She was, in the best sense of the word, submissive to him. It was an amazing thing to watch week after week as my father came and went. He went, and my mother ruled the whole house with a firm and competent and loving hand. And he came, and my mother deferred to his leadership.

Now that he was home, he is the one who prayed at the meals. Now it was he that led in devotions. Now it was he that drove us to worship, and watched over us in the pew, and answered our questions. My fear of disobedience shifted from my mother's wrath to my father's, for there, too, he took the lead.

But I never heard my father attack my mother or put her down in any way. They sang together and laughed together and put their heads together to bring each other up-to-date on the state of the family. It was a gift of God that I could never begin to pay for or earn.

And here is what I learned - a biblical truth before I knew it was in the Bible. There is no correlation between submission and incompetence. There is such a thing as masculine leadership that does not demean a wife. There is such a thing as submission that is not weak or mindless or manipulative.

It never entered my mind until I began to hear feminist rhetoric in the late sixties that this beautiful design in my home was somehow owing to anyone's inferiority. It wasn't. It was owing to this: My mother and my father put their hope in God and believed that obedience to his word would create the best of all possible families - and it did.

Two minutes after reading John Piper's article, I picked up a newspaper and noticed that "a hardline feminist" had been appointed the UK Government's new chief spokeswoman on families. Dr Katherine Rake, the paper said, had long declared her intention not to support parents as they are, but to revolutionise their lives; wanting to change not just what child care the state provides, but who changes the nappies at home.

"It is only when men are ready to share caring and work responsibilities with women that we will be able to fulfil our true potential to form equal partnerships in which we have respect, autonomy and dignity," she was reported to have said. But a critic claimed that Katherine Rake's agenda was more about reversing sex roles than helping parents.

Dr Rake, said the paper, does not publicise her personal life, but is married. Her husband said he hoped he was a hands-on father, but refused to comment further on his wife's remarks. "I'll have to check with her," he said, "before saying anything."

Of the two married lifestyles - the married lifestyle described by John Piper and the one presumably recommended by Katherine Rake - which would you prefer?