Readers Respond

Dear Paul and Gena,

I can only imagine how busy you must be with your family and work responsibilities, but I just had to add one more email for you to read! This is simply to thank you for the work you do and for the wonderful support (and freebies) that you provide for homeschool group leaders. My husband and I took over the support group leader position for the

Laurel Christian Home Educators in Laurel, MS, last year. It has been a big responsibility for us, but we are really enjoying it. Several times lately when I was feeling a bit overwhelmed by family, school, church, support group, and other responsibilities, I received some really neat "stuff" from TOS, and it encouraged me and brightened my day! What you are doing really matters, and my husband and I so much appreciate it!

I have introduced several homeschooling friends and relatives to your magazine, and some of them have chosen to become subscribers as well. Your magazine is truly the best homeschooling magazine I have ever read. Thanks so much for what you do to help and encourage homeschoolers and support group leaders.--Wendy Hilton. MS

Hey Deborah!

 I can't get enough of TOS; it is such a blessing to my life! Amazingly, it is the very first "thing" I ever purchased referring to homeschooling. And that was when my 7-year-old son was a baby. The Lord put it in my heart then to begin this wonderful journey! But over the last few years we've moved 2 different times and my subscriptions kept getting lost in the mail, so I've just depended on what I could get through the online information (and believe me that has been a tremendous blessing as well!). Having been educated in the public school system, which was totally different when I was growing up than it is now, I remember lining up for lunch and praying, even though we weren't "supposed" to.  (How's that for us Southern "Bible-belters"?) I have had to re-train my mind about education. But through God's anointing and the application of His Word we are moving right along. So again, thank you for answering God's call and blessing so many people.  We are praying for your ministry and everyone involved. We love you!

P.S. [Here are] a couple of pictures of our family; it is always great to have faces to go with names! My husband is Adam, Wade is 7, Evalyn is almost 6, and baby Harrison is 10 months. This was [taken during] our recent vacation to Carillon Beach, FL.
--Jenny Williams, Woodstock, GA

I am a new subscriber and am absolutely in love with your magazine! Every word has been an inspiration to me. Keep up the awesome work! Thanks! --Kathy York, Summit Point, WV

Hi! I just purchased a subscription to The Old Schoolhouse. I have borrowed (and renewed) the Spring '08 issue from the library and have photocopied some of it, and am still reading some of it. It is too good to return! It moves all over the house with me.
--Jeanne Ridley, Midland, MI 

Dear Deborah,

I enjoy reading your articles in The Old Schoolhouse Magazine (and also in The Homeschool Minute). You are my favorite writer and I love your straightforward articles that make us women think! You are such an encouragement. I like the way you accept your children, no matter how many or how close they are! Congratulations on your eighth pregnancy! I feel I can relate to you as we have seven children, too. I sometimes dream of just one more but also accept that I just may be getting too old, now that I'm getting close to my mid-40's. We all sure enjoy our youngest (3 years old) and are thankful for all of our children. Keep writing in your thought-provoking way!--Neva Emery, Rindge, NH

Hi Deb,

My name is Susan McCord and I am a homeschool mom who subscribes to TOS and The Homeschool Minute. I simply wanted to take a moment to tell you that I have been lifting you and your family up as we get ready to start the new school year and knowing that you now have a new baby son who you will be tending to as you try to school. I am schooling kindergarten and first-grade daughters as well as taking care of my three-week-old son and am curious to see what each day will hold especially since my first-grader is ADHD. But I know I am called to do this and therefore God will give me the grace and strength and wisdom to do as He has instructed. My grandparents always taught me after I became a Christian that when you have a need find someone who has the same or similar need and pray for them before you pray for yourself and that is why I have been remembering your family and new son. Take care and God bless every day for you and your family.
--Susan McCord

WOW! Praise God. I am so blessed that you are praying for me and my family, Susan! I have known the Lord to be faithful to bless my efforts when I am consistent with what He has called me to do. I know He will help you and give you strength for each day. Some days will be harder than others, but we know that we can run to the Lord for help. You had very wise grandparents. I will be praying for you, too, Susan!--Deborah

Dear Deborah,

I just finished reading your article about being prepared in the TOS Schoolhouse Support newsletter (August, 2008). Thank you so much for writing this! I'm sure you get loads of mail, so I'll be brief.

I got pregnant for the 3rd time in May 2007. We stopped school cold the day I found out because I was so sick and barely able to get out of bed. That fall, I tried to have school but would feel so tired and sick most days that we did very little. We read, we played a few math games. The kids learned, but we weren't "doing school" like I wanted. The baby arrived six weeks prematurely in December of 07, and we did absolutely nothing for the next three months. The little guy was only nine pounds when he turned three months old and I nursed him almost 24 hours a day (no exaggeration, honest). Even if I tried to wear him in a sling to do something besides sit on the couch and nurse, he would cry. So we sat on the couch and nursed.

Finally, in early May I knew we had to get back to school. We've been doing "partial" school since then, but I've been telling myself for over a month, "Fall is coming. We have to get back to real school, a real schedule." The baby is eight months old now (and 16 pounds), sitting up, playing with his toys, and nursing only 18 hours a day (just kidding . . . I think) so there is no more excuse about it.

But it's like I can't get myself "back in the groove," can't motivate myself. I've made a schedule, I've made lesson plans . . . but when 10 or 11 o'clock comes each day, I think, "I don't want to." We do a little and then stop. I don't know where my enthusiasm went, but I'm still looking for it. I told the kids yesterday, "Monday we are starting back to school for real . No more playing. No more fooling around." And I really do mean it!

Reading your article was such an inspiration. It's exactly where I'm at right now, and I appreciate being able to read it. It's nice to see that I am not the only homeschooling mom who is not prepared for the new school year to start. Thank you and God bless.
-- Cindy Horton , Princeton, WV

Hi, Cindy! I'm so glad you took the time to write in!

I can totally relate with all that you said. These babies are precious, but believe it or not, they really do grow up so fast! When all my kids were young I thought they'd never grow up (see the editorial in the Summer ' 08 issue) but now I am savoring the time I have with them a bit more.

As for school, with three boys, you probably are better served to do more hands-on, active type of learning activities, which it sounds like you are doing already. Unit studies are great--you let them pick a topic and then you all run with it for awhile. What my boys loved were science experiments and nature journals where they could record information on plant growth or draw pictures of insects, etc. Maybe if the boys were motivated to "do school," then you might have a little more motivation. Now, if I can only practice what I preach and get down to the business of getting everything ready for my school year! (Editor's Note: Yes, we did really start school and are happily plugging away.)--Deborah Wuehler, Senior Editor

Another response from Cindy:
Hello, Deborah. Thank you for the response. We started school Monday as planned, and things are going wonderfully!   I guess I just needed to set a date, and the motivation and enthusiasm followed. We're using an audio unit study about time from Homeschool Radio Shows this week. It's been wonderful, even my four-year-old is enjoying it. Yesterday, I got the Spring 2008 TOS issue that you sent me and it contains an article [titled] "The Science of Time and Sir Sanford Fleming," which goes right along with the time unit!

Cindy Horton, Coordinator for HSN-WV
www.HomeschoolBlogger.com/WestVirginia
www.HomeschoolBlogger.com/fencedinfamily

Olympic E-Book and Freebies

Hello, I downloaded the Olympics companion E-book from last week's Toolbox but it was erased before I was able to save it. Could you please send me another copy of it so that I can use it. Our budget is a little tight this year and we are using as much free stuff as we can. I really love your magazine and newsletters. I look forward to reading everything I get. Your freebies have saved us so much. I cannot thank you enough for the things you do for us homeschoolers. I have four children: 6th, 7th, 9th and 10th grades. Some years have definitely been easier then others but I would not give them up for the world. With the struggles we face as homeschoolers, money is always on top of the list of things to improve. Your store, magazine and emails have helped us with our school budget. I have also been able to let go of the "public school" mentality and become free in schooling my children in a more peaceful, loving, God-centered home.--Terri Juliano, Glendive, MT

Adoption Section Last Issue

I usually never take the time to comment on articles that I read. However, because this one was so close to my heart, I wanted to take a moment to show my appreciation for your magazine.  We have five children, 3 adopted and 2 biological, and we have always homeschooled. We have one 4th grader, two 2nd graders and two kindergarteners. We live on a farm in KY and we stay very busy, but a good busy! We are also in the process of adopting again. We have approval from our state but only the Lord knows who our next child will be. We just wanted to encourage your promotion of adoption to other homeschool families. These children so need a Christian home. Also, how wonderful to get to be in a home where everyone is learning together! Thanks for your support. 
--Tedra Strickland, Waynesburg, KY

Creation Articles

Dear TOS,

I really like your magazine, and I hope it continues to be successful in every way.  I was, however, disturbed by your recent articles on creationism vs. intelligent design. There were a number of problems with these articles, but because of space I will focus on the biggest one.

Currently, I live in the no-man's land between creationism and ID, having spent most of my life on the creationist side but now seeing a significant case for intelligent design and a less literal view of Genesis 1-2. Because I am undecided, I am not criticizing the magazine for supporting creationism exactly. What disturbs me very much is the lack of balance in the articles. Perhaps you did not intend for it to happen, but what came across to me in these articles was the dictum that anybody who sees Genesis and current scientific information differently from the articles' authors is not really a true Christian--or at least is a Christian with serious problems--and does not believe or properly reverence the Bible. This message was so strong that I had to write, because now that I better understand both viewpoints, as well as theistic evolution, I can say with strong conviction that there are other viewpoints that have very strong arguments by authentic Christians who are also "Bible-believing"--but with some different interpretations from the articles' authors.
 
Because your readership varies widely and because this is a homeschooling magazine, not an apologetics magazine, I think it would have been prudent and thoughtful to have a set of articles that offered several different viewpoints by authors who actually take that side. For those who are interested in understanding the support for other viewpoints, there are a number of books, such as those by Michael Behe (which was mentioned in one article). My current favorite book is "The Language of God:  A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief," by Francis S. Collins, a conservative, evangelical theistic evolutionist. Studying the Catholic view is also worthwhile, since Catholicism shares the Protestant view of the Fall, death, and redemption but also sees no reason to fear and distrust scientists, although there are a number of creationist Catholics. It is possible to be an orthodox, "Bible-believing" Christian and also be something other than a literal creationist.
--Cheri, Minnesota

Actually, I'm not sure why Cheri thinks that "seeing a significant case for intelligent design" is somehow a matter of abandoning biblical creationism. As my article tried to point out, creationists certainly do even more than see such a case--they promote it. Many in the ID movement are in fact biblical creationists. My attempt included permitting believers to think through the consequences to biblical authority of the "broad church, let's leave the Bible to one side" official approach of the movement (without rancor). I would have thought that things relevant to biblical authority were very much a part of the mandate of a Christian homeschool organization, something all believers should welcome the chance to consider carefully. No one's authenticity of faith was being questioned in this intended-as-irenic article

But certain biblical issues are hard to lightly overlook. When the overwhelming biblical evidence is that the Lord Jesus and the Apostles took Genesis as history; when the time-honored historical-grammatical hermeneutic leaves no other option than this, either; when even liberals (who are not trying to juggle their science and faith, and freely admit to not believing Genesis and many other parts of Scripture) such as top Hebrew scholars James Barr of Oxford, and the late Marcus Dods, admit that the Hebrew of Genesis leaves no alternative other than the obvious; and when it is so crucial to our understanding of the entire logic of the Gospel "big picture" (good world, ruined by sin, to be restored in the future)--then, respectfully, it comes across as somewhat more than trite to try to talk in terms of some smorgasbord of options, some range of "private interpretations" where it makes no difference to the credibility of the gospel in an increasingly educated world.

The same sort of reasoning as we are urged to apply here has been applied to the Resurrection, with disastrous consequences. That is, regardless of the actual words of Scripture, the obvious intended meaning of the author, some "authentic believers" who "reverence the Bible" tell us that it really doesn't matter if one adopts the "extremely literal" view that Jesus really rose bodily. After all, isn't the important thing that more and more good people believe otherwise, and are able to affirm that His spirit lives, etc. etc.? Shouldn't we adopt a much less "rigid" viewpoint on our understanding of this event? And so on. (I hasten to add I'm not suggesting that this is where Cheri is coming from, just trying to point out that there is ultimately no logical difference, no matter how good one's intentions.)

For anyone also in the "no-man's land" Cheri describes as applying to herself, let me say that while it's never possible to come to any scientific certainty on past events (that's the nature of science) and while there are lots of things in the OT one can't be similarly dogmatic about, one can come to a very high degree of biblical certainty about the "big picture" of Genesis, utilizing some very basic principles of logic. I recommend the very quick-to-read booklet by my scientist colleagues, Dr. Sarfati and Dr. Batten, 15 Reasons to Take Genesis as History . Our FAQ pages on www.CreationOnTheWeb.org have many more rewards for those wanting to dig even deeper.   

Dr. Carl Wieland , Managing Director
Creation Ministries International Ltd (Australia)
www.CreationOnTheWeb.com
[Author of the article titled "Intelligent Design: Why the Fuss, and What's It About?"]

There are obviously many authentic Christians--Godly, sincere, lovers of Jesus--who do believe in evolution. No insinuation was meant that such Christians are sub-par in the faith. There is not a Christian on the planet with perfect orthodoxy in all areas. Thank God perfect doctrine is not required for us to be used of God. But this is why Christians should wrestle with these sorts of issues. Having right belief is important, especially for those of us who adhere to the fact that Christianity is all-encompassing Truth, not simply a personal value judgment as equally valid as every other religion.

My article titled "What About Theistic Evolution?" was written specifically for Christians--for those who presumably believe that the evidence of Scripture carries some weight. The scientific side of the debate was set aside to concentrate on the main thesis, which is that a nonliteral (in this case, evolutionary) interpretation of Genesis compromises the integrity of the Bible itself and cannot hold water logically, theologically, or literarily when held up to the light of the Bible's claims regarding itself and the nature of God. My point was to show the reader that given the defining presuppositions regarding our faith and some basic logic, an evolutionary interpretation of Genesis quickly leads to insurmountable theological barriers.

But given the presuppositions that virtually every Christian on the planet has--that God is good, that He wants to be known, and that He is the ultimate Author of the Bible--one must ask why so many Christians feel the compulsion not to take the opening chapters of Genesis literally? I would submit that the only reason is because they have bought into the notion that evolution is an indisputable fact of science. They must, therefore, by necessity, find a way to make it compatible with the Bible. As a result, Scripture must be allegorized or stretched beyond its intended meaning, read and interpreted in an unnatural way.

The "literalist" approach to Scripture, of course, accommodates simile, parable, and metaphor when the context demands it. But Genesis does not. It is, plain and simply, written (by God) as actual history set in space and time. Lots of people make the claim that "there is more than one way to interpret Genesis." Well, of course there is. But there can be only one correct interpretation. I say that because Genesis is written, from beginning to end, as historical narrative. It is not meant, as is the case with other kinds of Biblical literature--parables, for instance--to be open-ended with, perhaps, multiple meanings, each as valid as the next. Genesis is history. The events related there either happened or they didn't. If they didn't, I don't see how that fails to make God a liar. If it's allegory, then a dangerous precedent has been set allowing free rein to allegorize any part of the Bible, whether it was intended to be or not, and, in effect, allowing us to make it say anything we want it to say. This renders the Bible meaningless as a communiqué from God and effectively denies its inspiration.

This is the kind of impasse we face at every turn when we try to meld the Bible with evolution. This is why I'm not so sure that "it is possible to be an orthodox, 'Bible-believing' Christian and also be something other than a literal creationist." The alternative (allegorical, metaphorical, and mythological) views of Genesis so quickly lead to conclusions that are un orthodox and contrary to the Bible--i.e. God is a liar, the Bible is not inspired, or Jesus is not divine--that they are unacceptable as Truth.

It's one thing to paint with broad strokes a picture of a Bible that is big enough to accommodate a nonliteral, evolutionary interpretation but a dramatically more difficult thing to actually construct such an interpretation. Honestly, I have never heard such an interpretation of Genesis that is logically consistent (noncontradictory) with the whole of Scripture and does not eventually lead to a denial of Christianity's defining beliefs.

Clearly, there are Christians who have formulated theistic evolutionary views that, in their own minds, are consistent with the Bible and with which they can live, but I, personally, have found it impossible to mesh evolution with Scripture in a way that does justice to the Word of God. Fortunately, I no longer feel the need to. The Bible and the scientific evidence overwhelmingly support the literal creationist view of reality.--Darren Nelson
[Author of the article titled "What About Theistic Evolution?"]

Dear Editor: The article on Intelligent Design by Carl Wieland . . . in the Summer 2008 edition of The Old Schoolhouse is interesting, but is unfortunately very unbalanced in its perspective, with several serious errors in fact. Dr. Wieland incorrectly implies that all born-again Christians embrace his young-earth creation perspective (a universe that is about 7,500 years old), and those who hold an old-earth perspective have rejected God's Word and embraced Darwinian evolution (naturalism): "Biblical Creationists have long pointed out that the 'millions of years' concepts in fields such as astronomy/cosmology and historical geology . . . . were not neutral deductions from the facts of nature but rather resulted from presuppositions based on the deliberate rejection of God's Word and its authority regarding the world's history" (p. 88).    

There are in fact many Christians today--and throughout history--who hold to an old-earth interpretation of Genesis, holding to a literal interpretation of  "yom" [day]. There is also complete agreement by credentialed scientists about the scientific evidence for an old earth. There is no ambiguity or "presuppositions" about this evidence--other than a belief by most that science provides us with real, valid observations about creation. 

From Jeremiah 33:25 we know that the laws of science were "fixed" by God from creation--and thus are still "fixed" today. Thus, the science we use to observe creation does in fact reflect Truth about God's creation--not some type of mystical illusion. Biblical Christianity stands alone among the world's religions in its complete agreement with science and what we observe through science about God's creation. We should celebrate the validity of God's Word, proclaiming this to the lost!

If TOS is interested in a "counter-point" article from the old-earth perspective, I hope you will consider publishing one of those written by Dr. Hugh Ross (www.reasons.org).

Thank you.
David S. Nelson, Ph.D.
David.nelson@alumni.usc.edu

Dr. Nelson's "serious errors" comment appears to arise from things he has inadvertently read into my article.

Despite the difficulties of old-earthism, such as pre-Fall death and cancer, I nowhere suggested that all "old-earth Christians" deliberately reject God's Word.  

Historically, the "slow and gradual" philosophy of the anti-Christian Lyell, motivated by his rejection of the global Flood catastrophe, led to geology's "millions of years." This does not mean that Christians misled by this consciously oppose Scripture.

Nor, by stating another historical fact, that the "millions of years" paved the way for Darwinism, do I imply that all old-earthers embrace Darwinism.  

Nelson's claim that "all credentialed scientists" accept old-earthism is simply astonishing. For decades, each issue of our Creation magazine has featured an interview with a qualified scientist holding to a recent creation--including world-class experts such as geophysicist Dr. John Baumgardner.  

I agree with Dr. Nelson about scientific observation, not "mystical illusion." But for him to suggest that scientific facts "speak for themselves," or that their interpretation is uninfluenced by the presuppositions of the ruling paradigm, would contradict most modern science philosophers.  

Along with other Hugh Ross sympathizers, Dr. Nelson utilizes the truism that a "millions of years" creation day is a "literal" meaning of the Hebrew "yom." However, this is like saying that, because one literal meaning for the English word "day" is an indefinite period of time, therefore "it took them six days to fix my car" can refer to an unspecified repair time. Obviously, it can't. Context is crucial--in Hebrew too. Thus, according to Oxford's James Barr, the heads of Hebrew departments at world-leading universities are unanimous in stating that Genesis can mean only earth-rotation days.

I commend the classic Sarfati book Refuting Compromise to Mr. Nelson (available at www.CreationOnTheWeb.org store section). Written as a rebuttal to Rossism, it is a devastating defense of straightforward Genesis (utilizing the time-honored historical-grammatical hermeneutic)--from both the scientific and theological/philosophical perspectives. It also documents how, despite contrary claims on the website he references, recent creation is the church's overwhelmingly consistent position through most of its history.

Dr. Carl Wieland, Managing Director
Creation Ministries International Ltd (Australia)
www.CreationOnTheWeb.com