Archive for the ‘apologetics’ Category
This is not a book review; this is an examination of a child rearing method, the theology that undergirds it, and the execution of the practice. This will be long. If you want to ignore my examinations and rebuttals you can scroll to the end and be done with it—but I would rather you read all of this. The end of the post will also contain several links of importance.
Up front: a warning—this will not be the last time this sort of examination has to come up.
Parents are like soldiers in the trenches. They’re afraid. They’re living in the moment. They’re wondering if they’re doing wrong and what they could do better while trying to discover what their parents did right (and wrong) in their own experience. Quick fix books, especially the short and easy to read variety, will keep showing up on the web and in bookstores. For Christian parents, these books will cite Scripture and give a façade of being Biblically grounded. The spurious glitter of their treasures of pseudo-wisdom will fade, but sometimes not before doing incalculable damage.
The current culprit is Michael and Debi Pearl’s To Train Up A Child. Their ministry (No Greater Joy) is known within individual fundamentalist circles for their training methods and some of their other writings regarding the marriage relationship. Up front: their book and their teaching is dangerous. Not only is it Biblically naïve, it is theologically confused and potentially damaging, at the very least, physically and mentally.
Read the rest of this entry »
Technorati Tags: child-rearing, deb pearl, michael pearl, no greater joy, the pearls, to train up a child, training
Tags: child-rearing, deb pearl, michael pearl, no greater joy, the pearls, to train up a child, training
Posted in apologetics, current affairs | Comments (12)
23 February
Posted by rey
The other day I saw Gervais’ The Invention of Lying and it raised questions in my mind. The story, says the narrator (Gervais) occurs in a world where no one ever lied and that the protagonist eventually tells the first lie. In this world, whenever someone asked “how are you?” one would answer with the facts. People married because they wanted genetically desirable offspring. Movies consisted of historical narration of facts (which is part of the question that the movie raised). One of the major lies Gervais told was that there was an afterlife with a Man-In-The-Sky who was preparing mansions for everyone as long as they were good; but he had a bad place for those who were bad. I thought it was a bit wonky that this “lie” was in contrast to the professed “truth” of the people which was that when on dies, there is nothing. Doesn’t matter though since eventually everyone was professing Gervais’ lie that there was an afterlife.
Read the rest of this entry »
Technorati Tags: lying, truth
Tags: lying, truth
Posted in apologetics | Comments (5)
I’ve gotten several questions in my email box and phone line about some terminology that has been bandied about as of late resulting in some serious confusion. It’s not the fault of the person listening to the terminology either since, I think, the terminology has been employed in such a way that it sneaks extra information into the discussion without proper cause.
Read the rest of this entry »
Technorati Tags: semantics, terminology
Tags: semantics, terminology
Posted in apologetics | Comments (8)
I was listening to John Frame a while ago and he made a case for homeschooling that I’ve heard some variations of but not with the undergirding that makes Frame’s view understandable (maybe even plausible).
Read the rest of this entry »
Technorati Tags: homeschooling
Tags: homeschooling
Posted in apologetics, current affairs | Comments (2)
Quiet now, everyone. Take your seats. Let’s give a warm round of applause to Aunt Matilda and the cake she has walked out on stage with. Thank you for being with us today Aunt Matilda; what a delicious looking cake next to you! One must wonder what is under that icing, or even why it’s there! But as it were, the reason for Aunt Matilda and the cake being on stage has very little to do with the taste of the cake but everything to do with you, Audience.
This is all about you.
You see, as Aunt Matilda entered the stage pushing that cart with the delectable treat, you made several conclusions: that Aunt Matilda is important for our discussion; that the cake is too; but also, that Aunt Matilda and the cake have some sort of relationship. Perhaps she baked the cake. Perhaps it is Aunt Matilda’s birthday. Perhaps it’s the birthday of someone in the audience—maybe Aunt Matilda’s nephew . Even as I “speak”, you are searching for clues as to the connection.
Read the rest of this entry »
Technorati Tags: presuppositionalism, theology, van til
Tags: presuppositionalism, theology, van til
Posted in apologetics | Comments (0)
