Susan G. Komen, Planned Parenthood, and Women’s Health

Posted on February 3, 2012 by

“It’s hard to understand how an organization with whom we share a mission of saving women’s lives could have bowed to this kind of bullying. It’s really hurtful.” – Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America [source]

The organization in question is the Susan G. Komen [SGK] For The Cure – a leading voice in the battle against breast cancer. SGK announced it was removing Planned Parenthood off it’s list of grant recipients due to PP being under a congressional investigation. Critics of the move believed it to be a response to political pressure from pro-life advocates.

“I was perplexed and troubled to see the decision by Susan G. Komen for the Cure to cut off funding for lifesaving breast cancer screenings through Planned Parenthood because of a political witch hunt by House Republicans,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. “I truly hope that they will reconsider this decision and put the needs of women first.” [source]

“I am stunned and saddened. I call on Komen to reconsider this decision, stand strong in the face of political pressure and do the right thing for the health of millions of women everywhere.” – Representative Michael Honda, Democrat, California [source]

Today, SGK reversed course and reinstated PP as one of their benefactors. I wonder if Honda will criticize SGK for not standing strong in the face of his political pressure? I’ll leave that paradox for another time; instead, I will argue that by supporting Planned Parenthood, SGK is actually defeating their own purpose.

Let’s look at each organization’s mission.

“Susan G. Komen for the Cure is fighting every minute of every day to finish what we started and achieve our vision of a world without breast cancer.” [source]

“Planned Parenthood believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual’s income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence.” [source]

SGK wants to rid the world of breast cancer and PP wants to help the world manage their fertility. At first glance these seem like complimentary goals, but there’s a hidden truth that’s killing women – birth control.

“Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of reproductive health services in the United States, which include contraceptives and abortions, among other services. Contraception accounts for 35% of PPFA’s total services and abortions account for 3%; PPFA conducts roughly 300,000 abortions each year, among 3 million people served.” [source]

Birth Control pills are as common as Tylenol, but far too many married women don’t realize they are steadily increasing their risk for breast cancer with every pill they ingest. The reason – pregnancy and breastfeeding reduce a woman’s risk for breast cancer. Furthermore, women who intentionally prevent pregnancy using chemical birth control increase their risk because of the chemical, progestin (synthesized progesterone).

Pregnancy and breastfeeding both reduce a woman’s lifetime number of menstrual cycles, and thus her cumulative exposure to endogenous hormones. In addition, pregnancy and breastfeeding have direct effects on breast cells, causing them to differentiate, or mature, so they can produce milk. Some researchers hypothesize that these differentiated cells are more resistant to becoming transformed into cancer cells than cells that have not undergone differentiation. – The National Cancer Institute

Breastfeeding may also play a role in breast cancer prevention. The longer you breastfeed, the greater the protective effect. – Mayo Clinic [source] (Breast-feeding implies a pregnancy. At least I think so)

Having many pregnancies and becoming pregnant at a young age reduce breast cancer risk. Pregnancy reduces a woman’s total number of lifetime menstrual cycles, which may be the reason for this effect. – American Cancer Society [source]

The National Cancer Institute adds that some pregnancy-related factors have been associated with a reduced risk of developing breast cancer later in life: [source]

  • Early age at first full-term pregnancy: Women who have their first full-term pregnancy at an early age have a decreased risk of developing breast cancer later in life. For example, in women who have a first full-term pregnancy before age 20, the risk of developing breast cancer is about half that of women whose first full-term pregnancy occurs after the age of 30. This risk reduction is limited to hormone receptor-positive breast cancer; age at first full-term pregnancy does not appear to affect the risk of hormone receptor-negative breast cancer.
  • Increasing number of births: The risk of breast cancer declines with the number of children born. Women who have given birth to five or more children have half the risk of women who have not given birth. Some evidence indicates that the reduced risk associated with an increased number of births may be limited to hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.
  • Longer duration of breastfeeding: Breastfeeding for an extended period (at least a year) is associated with a decreased risk of both hormone receptor-positive and hormone receptor-negative breast cancer.

While we’re at it, The National Cancer Institute also states that pregnancy reduces the risk of Ovarian cancer,

Women who have had a full-term pregnancy have reduced risks of ovarian and endometrial cancer. Furthermore, the risks of these cancers decline with each additional full-term pregnancy. [source]

So, according to the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and The Mayo Clinic, pregnancy and breastfeeding reduce a women’s rick for breast cancer. Could one not deduce, then, that inhibiting pregnancy, and therefore breastfeeding, increases a women’s risk for breast cancer, at least as compared to those who are getting pregnant and breastfeeding.

The problem is Progestin.

“Progestins are a class of female sexual hormones that have been used by millions of women around the world over the past 25 years. They come in several forms: 1) the all-progestin oral contraceptive pill (ie, the minipill which women may know as Ovrette®, Nor–QD®, or Micronor®); 2) the injectable contraceptives such as Depo–Provera®, which is injected into a woman’s muscle; or 3) an implantable contraceptive (ie, Norplant®) which is surgically implanted under a woman’s skin.” – Chris Kahlenborn, MD [source]

Progestin came under scrutiny when it was learned that breast cell division was highest when the progesterone levels were the highest. At it’s base level, cancer is simply a bad cell that continues dividing to create more bad cells, eventually leading to a tumor, etc. The more cell division that occurs, the greater the chance for a bad cell division. This is why the cell division in the breast is important. The main reason they develop more breast cancer is because their breast cells are constantly exposed to the growth-promoting effects of the female hormones estrogen and progesterone [source]. The discovery linked progesterone to breast cell division, and because Progestin is synthesized progesterone in high doses, Progestin became suspicious.

Studies have found that women using oral contraceptives (birth control pills) have a slightly greater risk of breast cancer than women who have never used them. – American Cancer Society [source]

Estrogen plus Progestin was associated with greater breast cancer incidence, and the cancers are more commonly node-positive. Breast cancer mortality also appears to be increased with combined use of estrogen plus Progestin. Journal of the American Medical Association [source]  

It seems SGK would heed these findings. Planned Parenthood does not.

You may have heard claims linking the pill to breast cancer. The most recent medical literature suggests that the pill has little, if any, effect on the risk of developing breast cancer. – Planned Parenthood [source]

It’s a compounding problem. Limiting pregnancy and breastfeeding robs a woman of a God-given cancer prevention, while increasing their bodies, especially their breasts, exposure to Progestin they are increasing the woman’s risk. This doesn’t sound like an equation for “saving women’s lives.”

I believe SGK is serious about saving women’s lives. I believe Planned Parenthood is, pardon my pun, cancer personified. These two organizations work primarily with women, but that’s where their similarities end. The Journal of the American Medical Association, The American Cancer Society, The National Science Institute, and The Mayo Clinic see the relationship between pregnancy, breastfeeding, progestin, and breast cancer. Planned Parenthood says they’re all wrong. SGK should listen to the cancer experts.

For all my women readers, can I encourage you to do your homework? Planned Parenthood is not a friend to women. They are a misguided, fundamentally flawed institution that is daily undermining your God-given dignity and beauty. With every little girl they terminate in the womb, and every woman they convince to reject their God-ordained design, they are dehumanizing the feminine essence.

Addendum: NPR released this article revealing that Planned Parenthood doesn’t even provide mammograms. Read “A Lying Planned Parenthood“

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Biblical Politics?

Posted on January 27, 2012 by

A guide for thinking Biblically in American politics.

People and parties change. A Democrat in 1922 doesn’t necessarily think the same as a Democrat in 2012, and the same is true for Republicans. Let me begin with a brief, cursory history of the two primary political parties to illustrate what I mean.

The Democratic Party evolved from Anti-Federalist factions that opposed the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton in the early 1790s. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison organized these factions into the Democratic-Republican Party. The party favored states’ rights and strict adherence to the Constitution; it opposed a national bank and wealthy, moneyed interests. The Democratic-Republican Party ascended to power in the election of 1800. [source]

So, the Democrats were the strict constitutionalists and favored states’ rights.

Founded in Northern States in 1854 by anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex-Whigs and ex-Free Soilers, the Republican Party quickly became the principal opposition to the dominant Democratic Party and the briefly popular. The main cause was opposition to the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise by which slavery was kept out of Kansas. The Republicans saw the expansion of slavery as a great evil. The first public meeting where the name “Republican” was suggested for a new anti-slavery party was held on March 20, 1854 in a schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin. [source]

And the Republicans were the civil rights activists. Am I the only one who finds this ironic?

To think Biblically about politics we must avoid blind association with a party. They change – century to century, decade to decade, year to year. Your grandfather might have been a staunch Democrat, but that was before Roe v. Wade (1973), and that issue dramatically changed the parties. You’re grandfather might not recognize today’s Democrat party, and I doubt Honest Abe would recognize the GOP. Associating with a group is fine, but you are individually accountable for the decisions you make politically. It’s an issue of stewardship.

Stewardship is an ethic that embodies responsible planning and management of resources [source]. The Bible defines God as the owner of everything (Psalm 24:1-2, Haggai 2:8, 1 Chronicles 29:11-12)  and ‘we the people’ as His stewards. It’s not our money or house. They aren’t our kids. It’s not our talent, and it’s not our vote. Every choice we make is a spiritual act of stewardship, but we live in an era that tries to separate matters of faith from matters of, in this case, politics. Bill Clinton’s impeachment and, more recently, Newt Gingrich’s marital issues are examples of this dichotomy. The truth is, thinking Biblically doesn’t allow us to apply truth on Sunday and ignore it on Tuesday; truth is true in the sanctuary and the Oval Office. Whether you’re writing law or voting for a county commissioner, you are operating in God’s kingdom and excellent stewardship is expected. To think Biblically about politics we must understand that we are God’s stewards.

“If God owns everything, and America is a democratic republic, does that mean that God endorses our government? Is democracy Biblical?” In a word, No. Now hang on, put the monitor back on your desk, count to ten, and hear me out. I didn’t say democracy was un-biblical, just that it wasn’t Biblical – it’s Biblically neutral… sort of.

God’s design was for men and women to live governed only by their love relationship with Him. Sin entered the world, Adam and Eve exited Eden, and humanity began operating with their relationship to God fractured. People grew in their evil towards each other and the Ten Commandments were issued. We still wronged each other and ignored God, so some clamored for a king – a government. God told them it was a bad idea, but they persisted and God granted their request (1 Samuel 8). The rest is a bloody history. Government is an idea conjured in the minds of men as a means to govern a society outside, or in addition to, God’s law. God said “thou shall not kill” long before it was illegal. Is Democracy better than a dictatorship? I think so, but that doesn’t make it necessarily Biblical. To think Biblically about politics we must understand that democracy is like a prosthetic – functional but not part of the original design.

“So does that mean we aren’t supposed to vote?” I don’t think so, in fact I believe the reverse is true. If you’re curious to study what the Word of God says about politics, Romans 13:1-7 is a good place to begin. In the passage we are admonished to submit to those in authority, assuming that submission wouldn’t cause you to rebel against God’s authority. The Constitution doesn’t mandate that every citizen vote, however it is the proper means of expressing your voice. Your voice is not really yours don’t forget; as a steward I believe (me speaking, not God) we must steward our political voice and leverage it for His Kingdom.

“Some people tell me I’m throwing away my vote if I support Candidate A.” I’ve heard that too. I supported Mike Huckabee in the last primary and when it became my turn to vote (I was in NC at the time) I was “encouraged” to go another route because Huckabee “couldn’t win.” The winner and the loser isn’t my primary concern; my primary concern is to be a good steward of my vote. Only I will be called to question with my votes, or what issues I support. To think Biblically about politics we must understand that, like a dollar, our vote is an issue of stewardship. To vote, or not to vote, and who gets our support if we do vote is a spiritual decision with spiritual ramifications.

“You mentioned the constitution; what about it? Do we have to do what it says?” The Constitution established the way our country would operate and we are to submit to the mandates within. However, and this is where Christians can get in trouble, the U.S. Constitution is not equal to God’s Word. Romans 13:1-7 applies here, but so does Philippians 3:20-21 which declares that our citizenship is in Heaven. Our Heavenly citizenship trumps our American citizenship, just like it did for the Christians living in Roman Empire. As long as our Constitution doesn’t contradict God’s Word, we should submit to it. However, if there is ever a conflict of authority, God’s Word must win the battle for our submission. To think Biblically about politics we must remember that the documents of the government do not hold authority over, and are not equal to God’s Word.

“I follow that, but politics confuses me. I never know what’s being voted on or who’s being ‘constitutional.’ What do I do?” There is no denying the convoluted and confusing web of jargon that our political spiders weave. A vote on oil includes an amendment for taxing an import from Jamaica, and an earmark to fund a water fountain in Ohio. All I’ll offer is that 1 Corinthians 14:33 tells us “God is not a God of confusion…” and I’ll say no more.

I use a funnel system for evaluating potential candidates or upcoming issues – everyone goes in the top and the pool gradually thins until I’m left with my candidate. Unfortunately, many of the issues fall into areas where scripture is silent – there aren’t verses that speak to offshore drilling or the use of solar panels. Sharp thinkers develop positions using Biblical inference, but these are issues of wisdom, not Biblical decree.

I begin with what’s clear. First, I do my best to understand the spiritual makeup of the candidates. The Constitution does say, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” but this speaks to governmental controls, not an individual’s vote. As a steward of God’s vote, I do not believe He would want it to be given to someone who denies His existence, for example. In a time when having a “spiritual side” is politically advantageous discerning a candidate’s view of God is no easy task. Sometimes we will be forced to make our best guess, but I try to make the guess as educated as possible. Second, I evaluate the potential candidates on the issues that scripture is clear about. Before I go on, I need to make a distinction: I’m not so much concerned with someone’s political view on an issue, like if a state should make the law or the federal government should, not at this level as least. I want to know if the candidate has a Biblical view on the issue I’m considering.

Abortion is an example. Scripture is clear that a baby in the womb is a life (Psalm 139:13-16), that children are a gift from God (Psalm 127:3-5), and that we are not to kill them (Exodus 20:13, Matthew 5:21-22). If a candidate is anything less than pro-life, he will not get my vote, ever. Condoning the murder of children is a contradiction to the authority of God, and a good steward will not give God’s vote to a candidate who supports that idea. I’m normally left with one or two candidates to choose from and my decision normally hinges on whom I believe to be more authentic. To think Biblically about politics we must let the issues that are Biblically clear carry greater weight than those that are based upon inference.

“Okay, let’s say we find an ideal candidate, will they fix our culture?” No, and this is another area where we get into trouble. Politics cannot redeem our culture because politics is an element of our culture. Redemption requires something that transcends the situation to interject, like a lifeguard entering the water to rescue a drowning person. The Bible teaches us that the individual believer is indwelt by God and has the power of the Holy Spirit. And we know that when two or three are gathered in His name, He is there with them. To redeem culture we need individual believers submitting their lives to the authority of God, local churches submitting to the authority of God, and those entities collectively engaging our culture in the realms of business, art, politics, and academia. To think Biblically about politics we must understand that an individual politician or party is not “the answer.”

God is sovereign. Whether our president is a devout Christian or a raging atheist, God is still the one who places them into office (Romans 13:1, John 19:10-11). Our submission is ultimately owed to God, not to man. Our submission to those in power is an act of worship to God and can never violate one of God’s decrees. We are expected to be stewards of what we’ve been given charge over, be it a person, a precinct, or Pennsylvania, and place our faith in God, not the political system. May God bless you as you seek to be His steward in this area of your life.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 11 Comments

“This is not what I want for my life.”

Posted on January 11, 2012 by

Hidden within the prose of the New York Times article, The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy, are three ideas I want to illuminate: moral decay, profound selfishness, and willful disregard of conscience.

Moral Decay

Mark Evans is an OBGYN and an abortionist. He was one of the pioneers who brought “pregnancy reduction” – killing babies that share the womb with one desired baby. Being an ethically minded man, he decided the practice needed guidelines and one of them was that “most reductions below twins violated ethical principles.”

The ethically sound reduction procedure begins with an ultrasound in the 12th week of a pregnancy. The physician identifies which child will die and deftly injects a needle into the baby’s chest. Then he releases potassium chloride into the child and stops a beating heart (that began on day 22, week 4). Gianna Jessen survived a procedure like this.

This baby is twelve weeks into her development.

By week twelve, developing babies have eyes and eyelids, arms and legs, hands, fingers, and fingernails, feet and toes, every organ in place, their skeletal structure, nerves, and vocal chords. This baby hiccups, urinates, kicks, swims, hears, turns its head, frowns, grasps objects, and sucks his thumb. [source]

Evans knows he’s taking a life. His self-justification was “to increase a woman’s chance of bringing home a healthy baby, because medical risks rise with every fetus she carries.” As an ethical man, he didn’t want to be associated with an industry that killed on a whim, so he told his fellow OBGYN’s to resist becoming “technicians to our patients desires.” This was in 1988, but in 2004 Evans changed his mind.

Now he endorses and performs abortions including those that leave just one child living. He grew concerned that the risks associated with carrying twins had increased and when “experienced hands like his” performed the abortions, miscarriages were unlikely. According to Dr. Evans, “Ethics evolve with technology.”

His slide was almost inevitable.

This particular slide can be traced back to Darwin. Margaret Sanger wholeheartedly embraced evolution and believed women were being restricted from evolving due to pregnancies and time out of the workforce. As a solution, she introduced birth control pills. Birth control led to the morning after pill (pharmaceutical abortion), which led to illegal, surgical abortions, which led to legal abortions, and now we have “reductions.” When you place a marble on a hill it will end up in the valley.

Profound Selfishness

“I couldn’t have imagined reducing twins for nonmedical reasons but I had an amino and would have had an abortion if I found out that one of the babies had an anomaly, even if it wasn’t life-threatening. I didn’t want to raise a handicapped child. Some people would call that selfish, but I wouldn’t. Parents who abort for an anomaly just don’t want that life for themselves, and it’s their prerogative to fashion their lives how they want.” – Dr. Naomi Bloomfield

Consider me one of the people who call abortion, especially “reductions,” selfish. Yes, even in the case of a rape. That doesn’t mean I am unsympathetic to women who have been raped and became pregnant, because I am. Rapist should be punished, but babies shouldn’t. We learn two wrongs don’t make a right in preschool, and it applies here as well. Regardless of the circumstances, abortion stops a beating heart and it’s an act of profound selfishness.

The following statements are from the article.

“Jenny desperately wanted another child, but not at the risk of becoming a second-rate parent.”

“These women didn’t want to be in their 60s worrying about two tempestuous teenagers or two college tuition bills.”

“Patients concluded that they lacked the resources to deal with the chaos, stereophonic screaming and exhaustion of raising twins.”

“This is not an option for us! I only want one!” (she found out she was having triplets)

“I felt like the pregnancy was a monster, and I just wanted it out, but we tried for so long, abortion wasn’t an option. My No. 1 priority was to be the best mom I could be, but how was I supposed to juggle two newborns or two screaming infants while my husband was away being shot at?” (she decided to have a reduction) “I didn’t choose gender… I had to make it as ethically O.K. for me as I could. But I wanted only one.”

“I asked not to see any of the ultrasounds. I didn’t want to have that image, the image of two. I didn’t want to torture myself.”

“I didn’t want to raise a handicapped child.”

The author of the article accurately diagnosed the underlying idea: “this is not what I want for my life.” I don’t know if she’s pro-life or pro-choice, but the selfishness wasn’t hidden from her.

Supporting abortion doesn’t make someone compassionate anymore than lying for an alcoholic makes one compassionate – both enable selfish behavior.

Willful Disregard of Conscience.

The glimmer of hope in this article was the rarely acknowledged existence of guilt and pain that comes with having an abortion. Like a police officer standing with burning building behind him saying, “there’s nothing to see here,” our culture has tried to conceal the pain that comes with abortion.

“I don’t wish this on anyone. I’m very grateful that we had this option (abortion) at our disposal, that it can be done safely and in a legal way, but it was very difficult for both of us. I still wonder, Did we choose the right one? – even though I wasn’t the one who chose. The idea, that one’s gone and one’s here, it’s almost like playing God. I mean, who are we to choose? Even as it was happening, I wondered what the future would have been if the doctor had put the needle into the other one.”

The last sentence is pregnant with the seed of our culture’s decay. After lamenting about the difficulty of their choice, she contradicts herself by simply wondering if she would have felt different killing the other one. Why didn’t she say, ‘I wonder what the future would have been if the doctor hadn’t put the needle into either one?”
The willful disregard of conscience acknowledges the evil in abortion while at the same time justifying its practice. If you read Padawer’s article, in place of abortion you’ll see: extinguish, escape hatch, terminating, intervention, reduction, moral calculation, option, and procedure. She did a good job thumbing through her thesaurus, but it’s interesting the words kill and murder were not selected. (I believe Padawer did a good job reporting on this troubling issue. She shared the facts in an objective manner, I thought. I have no issue with her reporting or writing.)

The Response

This isn’t an issue of politics – politicians aren’t the moral guides for the world. This isn’t an issue of law – it happened before it was legal and it will continue even if it’s declared illegal. It’s not an issue of preference, convenience, or circumstance. This is an issue of life. Are you one who destroys life or are you one who upholds it? There are no other places to stand.

To those that uphold, we must be consistent in our belief that every life has dignity and value, even those who’ve had or performed abortions. Would you adopt a child if a pregnant teen cried out for help? Would you dip into your savings to pay for a birth an uninsured mom couldn’t afford? Would you volunteer at a pregnancy clinic and befriend a scared mom? Would your home be open, like ours was when I was a kid, to teen mothers carrying their baby? Would you contribute to the construction and management of a crisis pregnancy clinic? We cannot just vote for pro-life candidates. We must scrub-in.

To those that destroy, His mercies are new every morning. If you’re reading this, you’re breathing, and if you’re breathing you have a choice to make. Yesterday does not define you. We are called to be stewards of the moment, and your moment is now. I’m as pro-choice as they come about life. You can choose to tell your boss, “I quit.” You can choose to tell your boyfriend, “It’s not your body and I’m having this baby.” You can choose to get an ultrasound, read about your baby’s development, and talk to mom’s like the one in the article, who said, “the thought of not having any one of them is unbearable now, because they are no longer shadowy fetuses but full-fledged human beings whom I love in a huge and aching way.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Evolution has finally been proven?

Posted on January 4, 2012 by

The debate is finally over; evolution is no longer a mere theory. Multiple news sources are reporting the discovery of “hybrid sharks” off the  Australian coast. The new specimens prove Darwin correct and Scopes an under appreciated hero. One researcher, The University of Queensland’s Jess Morgan, professed, ”This is evolution in action.”

Wait a minute, let me get my tongue out of my cheek.

With all due respect to Ms. Morgan, this is not evolution in action, at least not in the way it’s being presented.

The University of California at Berkley offers the following,

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life…

Evolution means that we’re all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales. (source)

There is a significant distinction to be made between “Macro-evolution” – one common ancestor for every species on the planet, and “Micro-evolution” – the method used to produce the Labradoodle.

Evolution in action?

The difference is in the DNA. The DNA of a Labrador and the DNA of a Poodle are both K9DNA (sorry for the scientific jargon). One has curly hair, one has short coarse hair, but they’re both Canis Lupus Familiaris, aka, dogs.

This is not an oak tree gradually evolving into a blue whale.

When asked about the sharks, Demian Chapman, of Stony Brook University, said,

the fact that these two species were so closely related made it easier for them to mate than wildly-divergent ones.

It doesn’t mean we’re going to see great-white-tiger sharks anytime soon, or bull-Greenland sharks,” he said. “If any species was going to hybridize, it was going to be this pair. (source)

The sharks in question are the common blacktip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus) and the Australian blacktip (Carcharhinus tilstoni), which is smaller and lives in warmer waters than its global counterpart. Notice they’re both “Carcharhinus,” aka, sharks.

Ms. Morgan’s implied idea, that a disenchanted Australian blacktip longed to swim in cooler waters, and reasoned to fulfill his dream in future generations by making shark babies with a common blacktip, is as nonsensical as it sounds.

Sharky: “Mom, why can’t you accept that me and Juliet are in love. I just know I was made to swim in colder waters.”

Mama Shark:”You’re just an Australian blacktip, Sharky. You’re dad is an Australian, just like his dad, and his dad before him. Don’t go fillin’ your head with all those crazy dreams. Anyway, you’re too small to make that swim.”

“Mom, there’s more to life than this crummy old reef! I won’t let you steal my dream. I just won’t! I’m going to Juliet’s!”

“Hey Sharky,” Juliet the common blacktip said.

“Hi Juliet. Mom just doesn’t understand our love. She thinks you’ll take me away from her – to the cold waters.“

“What do you think we should do about it?“

“What does every shark mom want?“

“Grouper?“

“No, Juliet. Stop acting so common! Grand babies.“

“Oh, Sharky, you’re so evolved!“

Two “closely related” sharks procreating isn’t “evolution in action.” Had the frisky Australian blacktip impregnated a neighborhood sea turtle we would have a story, but that’s not what happened, so there’s no story. It’s cool, but it’s not Oak tree to Blue Whale evolution.

This will likely be presented as evolutionary evidence in school classrooms across the country which is why parents have to pay attention to what their kids are learning about in school. You might believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution and find no issues with the premise of the article, that’s your prerogative. However, let me encourage you to at least take some time and consider whether the information is being presented accurately before passing it along as true.

Perhaps we should start teaching sex-ed in shark schools.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Blessing Number Five

Posted on December 29, 2011 by

I grew up in a big family. Four older sisters and a little brother gave us eight people in my family, including my parents. There were times when it drove me crazy, like when my sisters were left in charge and used their authority to inflict justice on their innocent little brother. Other times it made me proud, like when those same sisters united to put a beat down on a bully who tore up my notebooks at the bus stop one morning. I remember watching them march, side by side, down the street to bring the pain. It looked something like this.

disclaimer, my sisters weren't wearing sunglasses.

Now, as a grown up, I cherish my big fat American family, all eighteen of us. My oldest sister has four kids. Jeni and I have four of our own, currently. Jeni’s side of the family is growing now also. Her brother and his wife welcomed their first daughter, Emma Rose, this year. Lisa, Jeni’s sister, is getting married in March. After the wedding, there will be thirteen of us on Jeni’s side, currently. I love it!

It can be loud, chaotic, frustrating, and exhausting sometime. But it can also be refreshing, encouraging, joyful and, well, it’s always loud.

Having a positive experience fueled my desire to have a large family. Some want a large family because they had a small family, and envied families like mine. Others get freaked out by the chaos, cost, and challenges, so they opt for a small family. However, I’ve recently discovered the deeper magic behind having children.

Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! – Psalm 127 : 3-5

Jeni rediscovered this verse when she was pregnant with Toby. Walking through Wal*Mart pushing Caedmon in his wheelchair, Jack and Andrew riding in the cart, and rocking the baby bump resulted in quite a few moments of discouragement. Not from the difficulty of the task, but from the disapproving glares and comments from the people of Wal*Mart. Unholy, unjustified, unsolicited judgement.

Thankfully, God lead her to the 127th Psalm and nurtured her heart. Children are a heritage from the Lord, it says. Other translations say children are a blessing.
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them.

Notice there’s no qualifier in these statements of truth. It doesn’t say, healthy children are a heritage, or just two children are a heritage, or obedient children. It certainly doesn’t say children are a burden, expense, drudgery, or source of shame.

I once desired a large family because I thought it was cool. Now, I desire I large family because children are a blessing and if God’s willing to bless us, I’m eager to receive.

And, Lord willing, receive we will. The good Lord is “knitting together” Sprague baby number five and we are expecting our latest blessing in August. (I got chills writing that)

I’m just smiling…

My friend, Gary, painted this beautiful image. Click on the picture to see more of his work.

I can’t wait to see the first ultrasound, and I’m particularly eager to hold our new “fearfully and wonderfully made” child.

As excited as we are, we also know we’re raising the logistical bar. Sure, a trip to Disney just got $120/day more expensive. However, those realities don’t negate the promise of blessing. Not to mention, and you can ask my parents, the 5th child is the easiest, sweetest, best looking, and most compliant.

I heard this song yesterday and I thought it captured the essence of parenting – joy, struggles, fear, enthusiasm, and indescribable moments.

Afraid to love, something that could break, Could I move on, if you were torn away? I’m so close to what I can’t control I can’t give you half my heart, and pray it makes you whole.

You’re gonna have all of me, you’re gonna have all of me, Cuz you’re worth every fallen tear, you’re worth facing every fear You’re gonna know all my love, even if it’s not enough Enough to mend our broken hearts, giving you all of me is where I’ll start.

I won’t let sadness steal you from my arms I won’t let pain keep you from my heart Trade the fear of all that I could lose, for every moment I share with you.

You’re gonna have all of me, you’re gonna have all of me, Cuz you’re worth every fallen tear, you’re worth facing any fear You’re gonna know all my love, even if it’s not enough Enough to mend our broken hearts, giving you all of me is where I’ll start.

Heaven broke into this moment, it’s too wonderful to speak You’re worth all of me, you’re worth all of me So let me recklessly love you, even if I bleed You’re worth all of me, you’re worth all of me.

You’re gonna have all of me, you’re gonna have all of me, Cuz you’re worth every fallen tear, you’re worth facing any fear You’re gonna know all my love, even if it’s not enough Enough to mend our broken hearts, giving you all of me is where I’ll start.

You’re gonna have all of me, Cuz you’re worth every fallen tear, you’re worth facing any fear You’re gonna know all my love, even if it’s not enough Enough to mend our broken hearts, giving you all of me is where I’ll start It’s where I’ll start

This song is called “All of me” by Matt Hammitt. He wrote it in as a response having a new baby boy, and learning of his son’s heart problem. You can follow Bowen Hammitt’s progress at http://bowensheart.wordpress.com/
(Bowen’s situation is not related to Sprague #7. It’s way too early to know anything like that. As far as we know, all is well)
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 19 Comments

Anticipation (Part 3)

Posted on December 25, 2011 by

The previous two posts (Part 1, Part 2) talked about what we anticipate about Christmas and what the ancient Hebrews anticipated about the First Noel. This final Anticipation post addresses how we can properly look forward to the Second Noel.

Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us; to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all our days.

(Remember, these are the words of Jesus relative, Zechariah, from Luke chapter two.)

The arrival Emmanuel – God with us – was bigger than a simple baby being born. As we can read in Zechariah’s words, that baby redeemed his people (Israel), brought salvation for all mankind, saved us from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us, and is the manifestation of God’s mercy on Earth.

This is why Christmas is merry. This is why we say “Joy to the World!” Redemption. Salvation. Mercy.

Without this truth, “Merry Christmas” is powerless. It’s just an empty, meaningless phrase. Without this truth, we are still captive, lost, dying, hopeless wanderers. It’s just presents, decorations, family, and food – dressing up death, emptiness, pain, and grief.

However, with this truth, not only do we have the gift of redemption and salvation currently, we have the ANTICIPATION of rescue from this broken life we’re in now. One day suffering will cease, grief will end, and depression will be a thing of the past. No more cancer, no more dying, no more divorce. It’s a gift, and the anticipation of a greater gift at the same time! Christmas is merry because it reminds us that this life will fade, and the Christian will be with God in glory!

We won’t ever know the feeling of Zechariah about Christmas, and I don’t think we’re supposed to. Christmas, the First Noel, Emmanuel, was for the anticipating Hebrews, and to bring Jesus to pay our ransom with His blood. We can’t look forward to Christmas, but we can look forward to the Second Noel, the next Christmas, when Jesus comes again.

We all know what it is to hurt, to grieve, to be burdened. We see the injustice in the world and the wickedness displayed within mankind. We’re stressed out, overwhelmed, accused, and beaten down by the world we call home. Some people make a living at thinking positive and being optimistic, but they still know of what I speak.

When Jesus came at the First Noel, He didn’t come to end suffering and injustice. However, when He comes back, at the Second Noel, that’s exactly what He’ll bring.

Let this Christmas remind you of the glory that was Jesus’ birth, but let it also remind you of the promise of His return. Anticipation is better than hope because it’s rooted in a promise. Just as God promised Israel He would come, He’s promised all mankind He will come again. The First Noel demonstrated God’s faithfulness, and now we can most assuredly anticipate the Second Noel.

Then we will respond as the shepherd and wise men before us and the eternal celebration will begin. Joy to the World!

Merry Christmas!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Anticipation (part 2)

Posted on December 24, 2011 by

The first part of ‘Anticipation’ explored what it is that we look forward to each Christmas. Part two focuses on what the Jews of ancient Israel were anticipating.

O come, O come, Emmanuel. And ransom captive Israel, that mourns in lonely exile here. Until the son of God appear.

Obviously, this song wasn’t written by ancient Hebrews, but it communicates the desperation and anticipation in their hearts. Like castaways looking for a ship, or POW’s waiting for a SEAL team, the children of Israel were waiting for a rescue.

The song continues,

O come, thou Rod of Jesse, free thine own from Satan’s tyranny. From the depths of hell thy people save, and give them victory o’er the grave.

This verse is specific in describing both the person and the purpose of their awaited redeemer. The “Rod of Jesse” will free them from “Satan’s tyranny.” They knew what to anticipate.

Luke records this truth well when he shares Zechariah’s first words, after nine months of God induced silence. Zechariah was John the Baptist’s father, by the way.

Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us; to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all our days.

Zechariah’s words deftly weave in and out of history, present circumstances, and future promises. He speaks of the holy prophets and the oath God made to Abraham. The old man describes the truth that the God came and visited in the form of the child in swaddling cloths, and also brought rescue. Finally, he tells of how the church will respond to God’s visit. It’s beautiful.

The old prophets spoke,

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. – Isaiah 7:14 ESV

But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel,whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days. -Micah 5:2

God promised Abraham,

Now the LORD said to Abram (Abraham), “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

And the Rod of Jesse had come,

There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit. And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD.

Zechariah, the shepherds, the wise men, and the rest of God’s children were anticipating a very specific person, from a very specific place, to perform a very specific task. This person, Emmanuel, would rescue them!

They’d been waiting to hear from God for over 400 years. Generations had come and gone, anticipating the arrival of the redeemer. They looked forward to the First Noel with passion we can hardly appreciate. This is why they rejoiced when Jesus arrived in that manger. This is why they sang, why they traveled so many miles bearing gifts, this is why they celebrated.

Their anticipated rescue had arrived.

This is why we cannot feel the way they felt. We are looking back on a moment in time, a moment that can never be recreated. Just as you might reflect fondly on a great game, a family vacation, or your child reaching a milestone, but you cannot quite recapture the moment; we cannot fully recapture the First Noel.

But, we can anticipate the Second Noel.

Story will continue tomorrow.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Anticipation (part 1)

Posted on December 23, 2011 by

In Luke’s gospel, he records the reaction of the shepherds when they heard the news of Jesus birth,

Glory to God in the highest, and on Earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!

Matthew shares how the wise men reacted,

When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

When’s the last time you reacted like that to a Christmas morning? Would you think less of me if I told you I’ve never responded that way?

I love the Christmas season. I particularly love Christmas Eve and Christmas day. I look forward to family gatherings, complaining about my mom’s clam chowder, opening my Christmas pajamas on the 24th, the stockings hung on the stairs, seeing the mountain of gifts eclipsing our tree, eating a few plates of ham & cheese quiche, giving and receiving presents, and enjoying a day of leisure.

According to historian, Ronald Hutton, this is exactly what Charles Dickens was hoping for when he wrote A Christmas Carol.

Dickens sought to construct Christmas as a self-centered festival of generosity, in contrast to the community-based and church-centered observations… family gatherings, seasonal food and drink, dancing, games, and a festive generosity of spirit.

The Christmas so many of us look forward to is the Christmas Dickens created – a time of family, food, gift giving, and spirit. These are the things we anticipate.

Anticipation is why we love Christmas so much. Anticipation is why the shepherds and wise men responded the way they did. Anticipation is what unites us, but anticipation is also what separates us.

It’s all in what we’re anticipating.

Do these lines sound familiar to you?

A pair of hopalong boots and a pistol that shoots is the wish of Barney and Ben; dolls that will talk and will go for a walk is the hope of Janice and Jen; and mom and dad can hardly wait for school to start again.

Sing it with me, “It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas…”

How about this one?

Strings of streetlights, even stop lights blink of bright red and green, as the shoppers rush home with their treasures. Hear the snow crunch. See the kids bunch. This is Santa’s big scene and above all the bustle you’ll hear…

Do you see Dickens fingerprints on those lyrics? It is what it is. Hard as we might try to do otherwise, the vast majority of us anticipate the images and ideas romanticized in A Christmas Carol.

It’s a part of our history and nostalgia, and I don’t think it’s such a bad thing. But it does provide a clue to understanding why we don’t respond the same way the shepherds and wise men did.

Story Will Continue Tomorrow…

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments