A Desire to Control

It is difficult for me to read about women in the Quiverfull/Militant Fecundity movement. Aside from the not being allowed to vote, go to college, or get a job; there’s also the fact that some of the women have a baby nearly every year. It might seem strange to be writing this article when I’m not married but believe me; I have a good grasp of anatomy and have done my research. (I’ve also posted links at the bottom to other resources.) One young Quiverfull/Militant Fecundity mother has given birth to four children in four and a half years, at risk to her health due to requiring an emergency c-section for baby #3 and a life flight trip to the hospital for a D&C after baby #4. Quite frankly, this is not normal or natural! Don’t get me wrong, I love children and I want to have as many as God wants to give me…. (The Quiverfull/Militant Fecundity crowd has an annoying way of taking something good and making it an ugly, idolatrous route to "perfection".) However, when the time comes, I want to have children naturally. “Wait, stop!” You say, “Quiverfull is natural! They’re not using birth control!! It is God’s design!” Uh, no, it is not God’s design for a woman to give birth every year or to be pregnant again within 6 months of her last pregnancy. Women’s bodies are simply not designed to have children this quickly. When I see that a woman has four children in four years, I don’t see God’s design for family; I see a desire to control. It is known that many Quiverfull proponents are not exactly proponents of attachment parenting. I highly doubt that many Quiverfull women co-sleep, exercise, eat correctly, or do anything to maintain a healthy body. I also doubt that they continue to nurse for an extended period of time. It saddens me to write this but most of the women in the movement look as if they never lose their baby weight―a fairly telling sign that they aren’t nursing correctly. My guess is that early weaning and blanket training is the norm for most Quiverfull mothers. In fact, an old friend of my mother’s is a proponent of attachment parenting and is in with the Vision Forum crowd; she was very sad to find that many women in the Vision Forum crowd are fairly hands-off with their babies. Purposely weaning your child, making them sleep in a crib, and blanket training them is a way of controlling how many children you have. It is birth control… in reverse. It’s not in line with biblical custom either if you want to think along the lines of their culture. Hebrew children were not weaned until they were at least two; most commentaries on the first book of Samuel agree that Samuel was at least three by the time Hannah brought him to Eli. Again, women’s bodies are not designed to give birth every year; it is unhealthy and risky for both mother and child. God is good and He knows that having a child every year is not good for a woman’s body or for the wellbeing of her other children. He has designed a healthy, simple way of controlling fertility. “How food-foraging peoples regulate population size relates to two things: how much body fat they accumulate and how they care for their children. Ovulation requires a certain minimum of body fat, and in traditional foraging societies, this is not achieved until early adulthood. Once a child is born, its mother nurses it several times each hour, even at night, and this continues for a period of four or five years. The constant stimulation of the mother’s nipple suppresses the level of hormones that promote ovulation, making conception less likely, especially if work keeps the mother physically active, and she does not have a large store of body fat to draw on for energy. Continuing to nurse for several years, women give birth only at widely spaced intervals.” (1) When a woman breastfeeds on demand, her fertility declines. If she carries her baby with her in a sling, sleeps beside her baby and nurses him or her at night, doesn’t use a pacifier, or even continues to nurse a toddler or young child, her fertility will decline sharply. (2) “It has long been observed in cultures where breastfeeding is common that nursing a child has a prophylactic affect against conceiving. In fact, this phenomenon has been so consistent and observable that it has been named: lactational amenorrhea, the absence or suppression of a woman's menses (or menstrual flow) due to breastfeeding…. Studies show that this method provides more than 98% protection against pregnancy during the first six months after birth. Many women find that breastfeeding is effective as a prophylactic against getting pregnant well beyond this six month period. Sound incredible? There is actually a perfectly logical, or, more to the point, physiological explanation for this phenomenon. Here's how it works. As a baby nurses at its mother's breast, the sucking action stimulates nerve endings in the areola, which send messages to the hypothalamus, a part of the brain that controls metabolism. This in turn signals the pituitary gland to release two hormones (oxytocin and prolactin) which work together to produce and release the mother's milk. However, in addition to contributing to milk production, prolactin has another effect: high levels of prolactin in a woman's body helps to suppress ovulation.” (3) We in the U.S. are pretty culture bound (4) when it comes to babies, as this quote from the Anthropology textbook will tell you: “As a case in point, consider the fact that infants in the United States typically sleep apart from their parents. To most North Americans, this may seem normal, but cross-cultural research shows that co-sleeping, of mother and baby in particular, is the rule. Only in the past 200 years, generally in Western industrial societies, has it been considered proper for parents to sleep apart from their infants…. Recent studies have shown that separation of mother and infant in Western societies has important biological and cultural consequences. For one thing, it increases the length of the child’s crying bouts. Some mother’s incorrectly interpret the cause as a deficiency in breast milk and switch to less healthy bottle formulas; and in extreme cases, the crying may provoke physical abuse. But the benefits of co-sleeping go beyond significant reduction in crying: infants also nurse more often and three times as long per feeding; they receive more stimulation (important for brain development); and they are apparently less susceptible to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS or “crib death”). There are benefits to the mother as well: frequent nursing prevents early ovulation after childbirth, and she gets at least as much sleep as mothers who sleep without their infants.” (5) And this is in a secular textbook!! :-D Perhaps one truly unfortunate aspect of young women not going to college is the fact that they are less likely to be exposed to sociology and psychology classes which contain a lot of useful information about marriage and family. I never thought I would learn so much about childrearing as I have in my Psychology and Sociology survey classes. Did you know that people of other cultures consider cribs to be “cages”? One missionary to New Guinea who visited my church explained that the people there wanted to know why she put her baby in a “cage”. Take a moment to study all the other cultures that practice co-sleeping including Korea, China, and Thailand, and allow your eyes to be opened to how the rest of the world functions. And for the “you’ll roll on your child!” crowd, here’s information on sleep cycles from a psychology textbook, “Even when you are deeply asleep, your brain somehow processes the meaning of certain stimuli. You move around on your bed, but you manage not to fall out of it. If you sleep with your babies, you will not roll over and suffocate them (assuming you are not intoxicated). The occasional roar of passing vehicles may leave deep sleep undisturbed, but the cry from a baby’s nursery quickly interrupts it. So does the sound of your name―a stimulus our selective attention responds is ever alert for. EEG recordings confirm that the brain’s auditory cortex responds to sound stimuli even during sleep.” (6) Yes, I am a proponent of the family bed. (Read some articles by Dr. Sears and you will be as well.) I believe that babies and children are entitled to as much love and cuddling as they want and I believe they should be allowed to nurse as long as they want to nurse. I believe that blanket training and letting a child “cry it out” is neglectful and even abusive. Now, I know not all Quiverfull proponents wean early or blanket train but I ask you, can you name one? My Mom’s friend in the Quiverfull/Vision Forum crowd who was a proponent of attachment parenting did not speak up! She was and still is too intimidated to say anything! If there are those who understand natural child spacing or attachment parenting in the Quiverful/Militant Fecundity movement, they need to speak up! Can you imagine how wonderful it would be for mothers and babies across this country if Michelle Dugger was a proponent of attachment parenting? A perfectly good opportunity lost! Militant Fecundity (I hate that term!) really is a good name for this type of child raising/training because it is much more akin to a military campaign than normal living. It is also just as toxic as a war zone to mother, child, and family. Quiverfull and Militant Fecundity are NOT pro-family nor are they Biblical; those who believe that these movements are beneficial are sorely mistaken.

Ingrid

Addendum

November 5, 2014,

I’ve gotten so many comments on this post that I feel a few explanations are necessary. So, I’m taking a minute here to address a few things that have confused several readers…

1: I’m not advocating NFP here. I’m explaining how patriarchy claims to be “natural” and “God’s design” but really is not at all. I truly believe that God designed women’s bodies to self-regulate and space out pregnancies. However, we live in a fallen world and sometimes things just don’t work how God planned due to genetics, disease, and etc. So, while NFP can be a good option, I don’t think it’s for everyone. 

2: I think some forms of birth control are a perfectly fine option and plan to use some sort of control when I get married. The reason? I don’t want to spend 10-15 years of my life able to become pregnant at any point. There are many personal reasons for this but one of them is simply practical: I have seasonal allergies and I take medications for them. I get migraines sometimes and take ibuprofen. I wouldn’t want to worry about unknowingly becoming pregnant and having medications affect the baby. Because I care about stuff like that and I think it matters.

3: Let me make something clear. In this article, I’m taking about parents within the patriarchy movement… not parents in general. There’s a big difference. I don’t care if you have one child or ten or how closely spaced they might or might not be–unless you’re having all of them because some system made up by random people told you that you should. You should have children because you want to have them and love having them–not because some guy somewhere decreed that you needed to have kids. But please, space your kids out as much as possible, for your own sanity, there’s usually no need to have them all at once. ;)

4. Seriously, I don’t care about your baby weight. Like really. Please stop telling me about your baby weight. Life happens. I believe in being healthy and keeping a healthy weight, even during pregnancy. I do firmly believe that pregnancy is not an excuse to eat whatever and whenever you want. That is a recipe for disaster. It’s actually one of the times when you should be most health conscious. And any doctor you ask will back me up on that. Just please, I beg you, no more comments about your baby weight. That gets awkward for me and for you and it just ends badly. So please no more. :D 

Works Cited

1. Haviland, William, et al. Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge. Belmont, CA: Thomas Wadsworth, 2008. Print. Page 9.

2. Now please, don’t start giving me the, “Well my sister/friend/cousin tried the nursing thing to limit her fertility and it didn’t work. She ended up with another baby 11 months later!” I’ve heard that many times before and all I want to say is: “But did she co-sleep? Did she use a pacifier instead of nursing? What about slings?” All of the mothers I know who nursed on demand, co-slept with their babies, didn’t use pacifiers, nursed more than one child, and etc. had child spacing of 2-3 years. It is always possible that one spacing might be closer than another just as another could be longer.

3. Overton, Larry G. Breastfeeding and the Bible.
4. Culture Bound - “Theories about the world and reality based on the assumptions and values of one’s own culture.” As defined in Cultural Anthropology.

5. Haviland, William, et al. Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge. Belmont, CA: Thomas Wadsworth, 2008. Print. Page 9.

6. Myers, David G. Exploring Psychology. New York, NY: Worth Publishers, 2005. Print. Page 210.

Resources

1. Family friend with 10 children (who is not Quiverfull influenced!) Proponent of the family bed and natural child spacing via extended breastfeeding. http://www.themotherscompanion dot org/index.php

2. I <3 Dr. Sears! http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/sleep-problems/co-sleeping-yes-no-sometimes

3. Has a great article right now about not letting your baby cry it out and co-sleeping. http://parentingfreedom.com/

10 Reasons to Read Betsy-Tacy

The Betsy-Tacy books were written by Maud Hart Lovelace and were based upon her childhood and young adulthood in the early 20th century. There are four books about covering her years from 5 to 12 and these are suitable for all ages. The next six books cover her high school years, travel, and marriage and are suitable for 14+. (The reason? Well, Betsy can be a little silly about boys…but really, you’ll just appreciate them more if you’re in high school yourself or have been in it.) There are also 3 Deep Valley books about other people that Betsy knows. They are delightful books and worth reading again and again…and here are 10 reasons why.

1. The characters are hopelessly flawed but always learn from their mistakes and become better people. Which is so nice, yes? :-)

2. Betsy and Tib are a little boy-crazy but Tacy isn’t.

3. The characters have loving relationships with their families (and their fathers!) but it’s not sickly sweet or obsessive.

4. College and education are viewed as good and beneficial things. Most of the girls go to college and then get married.

5. Betsy learns to keep house after she’s married and makes it a priority. But, she doesn’t give up her writing to do so. They’re some of the few books I’ve read with a healthy balance between homemaking and having dreams and pursuits as a married woman.

6. Betsy’s life doesn’t end with her marriage: the wedding is in the beginning of the last book.

7. The books make a statement against sororities and fraternities which shows some greatness of mind on Mrs. Lovelace’s part, I think.

8. The characters eat so well! Warning: These books will make you hungry!

9. Betsy doesn’t like Elsie Dinsmore (and neither do I)!

10. They show that heartache (even over, (horrors!) boys) is normal and can be a beneficial thing to growing up and maturing.

And the 11th reason to read Betsy-Tacy is….

After a long sojourn in the world of “out of print”… the high school books are being re-released on September 29th! And Carney’s House Party and Emily of Deep Valley will be out next year!







So now instead of having to track them down on Abebooks and paying $25 for one paperback you can find them on BN.com for 11.99 (for 2 books actually). Dreeaming.... :-)

And if you want to know more about Betsy-Tacy follow these links:

http://www.maudhartlovelacesociety.com/

http://www.betsy-tacysociety.org/

Ingrid

Mere Decorativanity

In homeschooling circles these days, there seems to be an inordinate amount of costume making going on. One glance at a few young ladies blogs (who shall remain nameless, you can make your own lists) and you will read of making a new costume either for fun or for an event. Now, don't get me wrong, I like costumes and sewing; one of the few websites I visit regularly is The Costumer's Guide to Movie Costumes. I have made two or three reproductions—all of them to be used daily or for a special event. So, I know how fun costuming can be. However, all things can cross the line. Many times as I read these young ladies' blogs, that's all there is: costume making. (Oh, and a strange obsession with food too…but I digress.) And make-up…that's another puzzler. It just seems weird to me that people that laud the Victorian age would wear make-up…something that was taboo back then. Take the Botkin girls, for example. I've often wondered how long they spend every day on those hairstyles and their perfect make-up. Maybe you've never noticed, but I can tell you that their hairstyles look easy but are not simple at all. It can take hours to make your hair look so perfectly lovely with every strand in place or a little tousled in a perfect way—they must spend lots of time on it. Also, they obviously wear layers of make-up. They look like the sort of girls you could tease by saying, "We're out of foundation and eye shadow" and could really freak out about it. :-) I have not been able to find a picture of the Botkin girls in a non-made up state. Do you think they ever get really dirty or exerted? I mean, like have they ever gone kayaking, hiking, trail riding, and swimming all in one day? (I have, in that order; it was exhausting, messy, and totally fun. :-)) There’s nothing wrong with make-up (I wear it myself sometimes :-)) or styled hair but I really don’t think it should be so important to us. Also, I am growing tired of hearing about dressing feminine because ladies should be feminine. They should be yes, but I am sooo sick of hearing about it! There's nothing wrong with being a girly girl and there's nothing wrong with being a tomboy—I'm an even mix—but, there is something wrong with focusing so much on outward appearances. It doesn't seem that many young ladies are actually focusing on running a household, it seems to me that they are simply studying the art of looking perfect all the time. It makes you wonder…are they being trained to be just delicate ornaments hanging on their husband's arm? (Many people would say yes, and I agree but I like to ask rhetorical questions.) Why is being decorative so important to these young ladies? Why are some of them so wimpy? (You read things like: "I am terrified of bugs" "I hate math" "I don’t like the outdoors"… it would be funny if it was only occasional but it's to the point of being unnatural now.) It always reminds me of this quote, "If you feel your value lies in being merely decorative, I fear that someday you might find yourself believing that's all you really are. Time erodes all such beauty, but what it cannot diminish is the wonderful workings of your mind. Your humor, your kindness, and your moral courage; these are the things I cherish so in you." ― Marmee, Little Women, 1994. They, meaning the Botkin girls and other patriarchy influenced girls, quote the verse, "Charm is deceptive and beauty is vain but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised." Proverbs 31:30. But they don't mean it. There's nothing wrong with being beautiful and trying to look your best but if that's all you talk about and present to others; it really is all that you care about and all that anyone will take away from knowing of you.

Ingrid

Sheep in Need of Shepherd: Apply Within – Part One

Many people in this world are like sheep, needing a shepherd. They have to be led. They have to follow what someone else says. They settle for second best. History shows this in every era. "What is has already been, and what will be has been before."1 Only a few people are brash enough to seize the leading position and only a few people are brave enough to stand up against them. The rest follow like sheep to slaughter. People like Doug Phillips show up every few years, proclaiming that they hold the answer and encouraging the populace to "think for themselves." In actuality, they are taught to think, talk, and reason like their leader. They have no minds of their own and are constantly looking for guidance. All their young men and women can recite is the gospel according to Doug Phillips and his minions. They are taught to believe that every word he says is true. That what he believes is the right and true thing. "Just because you are taught somethin's right, and everybody believes that it's right, it don't make it right."2 What a tremendous weight to put upon a sinful human being. I pity Doug Phillips and Scott Brown and Jonathon Lindvall and Little Bear and Mr. Botkin and his daughters and the Harris Twins and their brother Josh and everyone else in a "position of honour." Someday, these mere mortals will pass away and will go back to dust as all things do in their time. What happens to the sheep then? Their shepherd is gone… where will they go? Why must people be lead from one place to another? And Christians too! People that claim to be followers of Christ! Just who are you following? Jesus or someone else? Are you living according to His words or by a mere mortal's words? They're going to die eventually and so are you. Will what they say even matter in 50 years time? Yeah, patriarchy people are trying to extend themselves beyond their years…but I don't think it'll work. They're not God. They're not even close and neither is anyone else. "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?" So I saw that there is nothing better for a man than to enjoy his work, because that is his lot. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him?"3 People do need guidance. It's a fact. But the only guidance that you or I need comes from the Good Shepherd. It's amazing how, if every day, you spend quality time reading your Bible and praying and trusting in God—you don't need any other books. It's as if your need for guidance just drains away and if you do need direction, you look to your Bible and prayer before anything or anyone else. Don't ever put anyone in Jesus' place as your Shepherd.

The Shepherd and His Flock – John 10:1-18

"I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice." Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.
Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

Ingrid

- Works Cited -
1: Ecclesiastes 3:15.
2: Jim, The Adventures of Huck Finn, Walt Disney Pictures, 1993.

3: Ecclesiastes 3:18-22.

Part Eight: Let it Be = Love3

A short paragraph on the Botkin sister’s book, So much More. I have not read the book, my sister has, but I refused to read it beyond the occasional paragraph. (I find it rather funny now that I kept on refusing to read the book....) I have seen the Botkin’s video and been to their web-site and am appalled by the amount of arrogance in their teaching. Lots of young women choose to live at home, even after eighteen, and this does not make them heroines! (Though, if the word “heroine” is used in Latin it means “demi-goddess” so maybe that’s what the Vision Forum people want young ladies to be. :-D) In one section of their website, a father and mother ask for advice on parenting their daughter. The Botkin sisters, ages 19 and 21, seem to have no end of intelligence for they readily tell their elders how to handle their daughter. That is just wrong and weird. Since when do young ladies council parents? Since when do parents ask for advice from young women? Why didn’t the Botkin’s refer the couple to their parents for answers? What kinds of parents allow their daughters to give advice to parents on parenting? The Botkin sisters are not married and don’t have kids. If an adult asked me a question on parenting, I would give them a blank look and say, “I think you’d better ask my mom.” I might give my view on the subject but I doubt that I would be the only opinion a mom would seek. On another topic, the sister’s specifications for mates leave very little room for love and forgiveness—this trend in seeking perfection is sickening. We’re not perfect—far from it, actually—yet we make specifications for a future mate that seek absolute perfection with no exceptions? Now about serving my father, I love my father! I help him with odd jobs and his volunteer work—as does my entire family. This does not qualify me for a marble pedestal, nor is serving my father (and mother!! :-) ) my chief end and purpose. My parents would be very displeased if I gave up all my thoughts, plans, and dreams just to stay around waiting for a husband. That’s basically the teaching of So Much More. Really, there’s only a certain amount a young lady can learn about housekeeping, cooking and such things. I sew, bake, and cook but my mom is always there to bail me out if I burn something up. No matter how much I help and serve my father; I will still have to adjust quite a bit when I marry because a husband is not the same as a father. The same goes for Before you meet Prince Charming by Sarah Malley. I haven’t read it because I don’t see the point. You don’t need a book to prepare you for anything; you just need to observe and use your common sense! One of my favorite fairy tales is found in a little paperback story-book that was my mother’s as a child. I found it when I was small and took great delight in reading all the little stories, but my favorite is titled, The Practical Princess. Princess Bedelia was blessed with the gift of common sense by a fairy at her christening and she uses it quite well. I suppose Princess Bedelia is one of my greatest influences; for her catchphrase is, “Use your common sense!”14 I doubt if Princess Bedelia would be friends with any of the authors of the books I’ve critiqued. Here’s my advice: Leave So Much More and any other books that try to tell you how to live, on the shelf. (With the exception of the Bible.) Spend your time serving the Lord. Whether that is by serving your father or going to college to become a doctor or going to Africa to be a missionary; I really don’t care. :-) It's your life and it's between you and God. Oh, and we used our common sense and sold our copy of So Much More on eBay. :-)

Part three: Let it be = Love3

4: I’ve heard a tape of Heather Paulson speaking at a Homeschool convention; her talk was better than the book. She basically gave practical advice on controlling your thoughts and keeping yourself in check but she made at least one odd statement. That your level of devotion is like a post-it note; if you keep using it, then the “glue” will get worn out and you won’t be as devoted to your mate as you could have been. At first hearing, this seems logical, but think again, and apply it in a life situation. Take a nurse for instance, one that loves her job and wishes to do as well as possible; if she has three patients on her rounds, will they not all receive the same level of care and devotion? How about a mother with six children? Will she not devote herself to all six equally? Or will her level of devotion have gone drastically down by the time the sixth arrives? What about you? Say you have three friends and you like them all equally, but for different reasons. If you go to a hockey game with one, a flower show with the other, and then swimming with the third; will your devotion be gone by the time you get to the third? Sure, I understand that the idea is not to devote yourself romantically to someone that you’re not married too. Why not just say that and leave the brainwashing logic out of it? Brainwashing is basically presenting a load of clap-trap with a few facts and fancy sounding names thrown in; it sounds pretty but won’t hold up in the wash. That’s why I’m very leery about people that write in a flowery, exaggerated way; you must read it over several times to gather any meaning and I always wonder, “What are they trying to hide?” I believe that both young men and women should keep their hearts for their future wife/husband but in a practical sense. You don’t have to agonize over it nor do you have to ignore every member of the opposite sex. A young person should not be made to feel guilty for having a harmless crush on someone else, as long as you don’t act on it and behave yourself, they are perfectly normal between the ages of 9-15. What kind of people read Emotional Purity? There are those like me; that can see what is practical and what is not, but then there are the slightly naïve boys and girls and even adults that take every word as if it were Holy Writ. The young people have no experience in romantic relationships and don’t stop to think before they over-examine their own relationships. This can ruin perfectly normal friendships, between boys and girls, between cousins, and it can strain old ties. “It’s silly, but they live by it. And I lived by it, too, once. ‘Till I saw what a toll it took on the people who I love most.”1 They should not be living by someone else’s personal philosophy! These books are suggestions! The only book to live by is the Bible, no self-help books can ever measure up to God’s word and common sense and instinct. Basically everyone teaching these “rules” has made a mistake somewhere and wants to keep others from making one like theirs. That’s admirable, as long as it makes sense and holds up to biblical standards. Still, be wary and check it out thoroughly before you buy it. If a person can write a book and get someone like Elizabeth Elliott or Doug Phillips to laud it, then they have a sure ticket of making a bunch of money. From people like you and I. That gives you pause doesn’t it? With all the “Christian” self-help/instructional books out there, it makes you wonder how many authors simply write fluff to make money. It’s really not that different from the “Christian” record labels, putting out low-talent young artists just to make a buck. “Just remember the words of P.T. Barnum, ‘There’s a sucker born every minute.’ ”2 He was and is correct but I’d rather not be the easy target. How about you?