Hannity Provides Good Reasons for Defending Immigration Ban

January 31, 2017

While many are outraged about Trump’s immigration ban, Sean Hannity is outraged, as well. Not by the immigration laws, however, but by what he describes as radical Leftists “coming unhinged over Trump’s executive order, mischaracterizing it in order to paint the president as an extremist, or bigot.” The reporter further provides the motive of resistance, “What it comes down to is very simple: Democrats, overpaid celebrities and the mainstream media are willing to endanger our lives to score cheap political points.”

Pointing out the fact that this is only a temporary ban not specifically directed to Muslims—a reality which #muslimban tweeters conveniently fail to mention—Sean depicts Trump’s recent executive order in a much different light: that is, as a safety precaution against terrorist-infiltration. He additionally notes that the mainstream media is responsible for demonizing actions which many Democrat leaders, including former President Barack Obama and even Hillary, once admitted necessary.

Meanwhile in the Christian realm, believers are divided over the obligation and political implications of love. Shouldn’t Christians accept with open arms the stranger in their midst? Others respond that Christians have a duty to steward the resources given them in protection of one’s own people. While the initial argument appears from first glance to be the most self-sacrificing and Christ-like, this author owns the latter view for a few different—and may I say, unashamedly—fairly good, common-sense reasons.

First of all, this is merely a temporary ban. It is not an order directed at any one class of people, but one which takes grave consideration in hand. More than Muslims and even more than foreign relations, the core of the issue here seems almost entirely extinct to today’s American mind: common defense.

Donald Trump has contextually never actually refused immigration of any kind unless it happens to also be illegal. Indeed, the president treats citizenship—as does his wife and fellow immigrant—as he treats all law, and that is, simply, it must be lawful. And isn’t this, after all, the predominant duty of the executive chief who is Constitutionally bound to uphold the laws of his nation? Following in the footsteps of the founding fathers and even Patriarch George Washington’s wisdom, Trump is determined to make national security his priority. Our own founding document provides focus as follows:

To establish: “…Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Note that the emphases require a nationalistic perception. James Madison even goes so far as to call it the “cardinal duty of every citizen.”

Despite Britain’s petition containing 1 million signatures to refuse a Trump-visit as well as former President Obama’s warning that “American values are at stake,” Trump remains unmoved. And rightly so. And shame on citizens who have neglected their “cardinal duty” of not only failing to support our president’s efforts at being lawful, but also for failing to apply a lawful attitude ourselves. Indeed, if any Scripture passage is to be utilized in upholding any action here, a review of Romans 13, I believe, is in order:

“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.” Romans 13:1-3

Loving Well: Principled Passion

November 1, 2015


I don’t want to marry a ‘nice’ guy. If by ‘nice,’ it means his eyes are dull to the vision of God, and he is ‘safe,’ but no Holy Spirit fire flames in his bosom. If he is only moral and contents himself with the monotony of the day, unscarred and unaffected by the spiritual warfare surrounding him. If his hands are unshackled and comfortable being “lawful” when principle and His beloved God requires that he be a transgressor of the wicked laws set before him. If his “peaceful” spirit in reality exists as a guise for complacency, if he prefers the shield of pacifism to the spilling of his own blood as the reputation of his Savior, his family are ravaged by the powers of darkness. No, may he rather be God’s warrior who loves with both passion and principle. He knows how to love well, excluding neither.”

~ Whitney Ann Dotson

The Privilege of Being a Pillar

August 28, 2015


The Scriptural charge to married women is to be keepers at home, lovers of husbands and children. We are prescribed the added purpose of women elsewhere (whatever their marital status); that is, the divine commission to be “graceful pillars, carved to beautify a palace (Psalm 144:12).” Note carefully, dear friend, that pillars are neither the structure providing shelter, nor the main premises but rather, the unmeasurable provision of graciousness and beauty. Despite the world’s notion for femininity, it is clear that such is the vision that God would see all of His daughters readily embrace.

In a world which teaches women to compete with men in every way imaginable, there is an unexplainable beauty in the arrangement that He has planned. The value of biblical femininity supersedes the expectations of a society which can only find value in monetary success. However, the Bible unfolds a vision of a very different nature: the emphasis of support.

With her tongue, in the very design of her body, of kind words, of Life itself, she is to be a supporter. The very curse of her kind only reaffirmed this charge: the increase of pain in child-bearing.

I can think of no better commission than to be the wife of a visionary man, sharing in his hopes and dreams by the means of His careful description: spiritual, emotional, and affectionate support. Where home is domain and sanctuary, beautified by Fruitfulness and Truth. Where Woman enhances and furthers Husband’s vision with presence, availability, and a mind well-informed and hewn by the Spirit.

May we not grow weary in raising daughters (or being daughters) aiming for this unpopular vision. Neither the unbelieving world nor the carnal church will welcome it. But it is how this country was found, colonized, and prospered. It gave us daughters, wives, and mothers like Abigail Adams who utilized education and wisdom towards the aim and eventual success of multigenerational reformation—all from home.

Let no man lead you astray in minimizing this possibility. Reform and revival always begin in the domestic Seat.

Whitney Ann Dotson

The Ill-Logic Behind Religious Pluralism

June 16, 2015

It would be inaccurate to maintain the belief that Christian observance has been wholly abhorred historically. Contrary to popular notion in Ancient Rome, a time often notorious for its hostility towards Christianity, it was not illegal to worship the Jewish Messiah—provided that other gods were credited equal recognition with Him. In modern America, a similar perception is inspiring the concoction of major governmental legislations and legal documents. As in the culture previously noted, it is presently acceptable to recognize Jesus Christ—under the singular condition that He is reverenced alongside a myriad of additional ideologies. Prominent professors, UN ambassadors, and liberal politicians alike spout the singular demand: truth must be identified as indefinite and inclusive, and the virtues of Fairness and Tolerance venerated accordingly. Leading law instructor Kimberly A. Yurako resounds this maxim in pronouncing the validity of “legal and constitutional limits” upon parental instruction of “illiberal beliefs and values (Cramer)” The banning of religious and private schools with the enforcement of compulsory education epitomize a utopian achievement to the masses anticipating a universal, religious “co-existence.” Historically, orthodox Christianity has been associated with thwarting enlightenment due to its fixed adherence to Scriptural authority. Today, however, the division traditionally disparaged appears to be a waning sect; fewer believers can competently defend the claims of Christ for a lack of Scriptural insight and trust. A pluralistic worldview formulated by John Hick, a once-professing proponent of the Christian faith, propelled a philosophy which seemed credible to biblically illiterate generations. Therein, Hick proposed that all religious persuasions could co-exist as partial-perceptions of a greater Truth. The infiltration of this theory in many cases displaced the belief in scriptural authority with a mentality that all is truth; predictably, virtue ebbed from sight and moral choices between the Church and non-Church generated as hardly distinguishable. A review regarding John Hick’s formulation and apprehension of Reality with the rationale’s consequent denial of absolute principles would promptly reveal a return to biblical insight regarding the essence of truth and human nature in relation to Christ as necessary in defeating the moral ambiguity and ensuing chaos characteristic of the world today.

Though John Hick’s popularity would eventually spring from an objective to theoretically obscure all religious doctrines, the emerging academic initiated his undergraduate education by affirming a persuasion he would as passionately decry in days to come: Christianity. Declaring the Bible a source of his tutelage, the impressionable youth’s earliest aspirations seemed anticipative of the clergy. A presumably innocent habit formed upon returning to Edinburgh University, however—that of indulging company with faiths contrary to his own,—proved an irreversible spark of humanistic empathizing which elevated tolerance above conviction. An attempt to “equalize” the tenets and value of all religions would effectually displace all of the youth’s former fervor for biblical Christianity with the path of apostasy. Keith Johnson later illustrated his mentor’s emerging proposal through the largely-recognized “Elephant Model.” Hick’s vision of perceptional reality was conveyed therein by a subtly humorous image wherein blind men, probing the creature’s different parts, rightly recognize each separate division a facet of the whole, same creature. This representation sought to convey that likewise, every religious persuasion—every “divine persona”—singularly captured a dimension of actuality, and most accurately represented truth collectively. As the blind men recognized existing truth only within their sects, so, too, does every person perceive truth—limitedly, with inevitable prejudice.

According to Mr. Hick, Reality is transcendental and exclusively, divinely intelligible. Human perception in contrast is earthly and biased, capable of grasping only a slanted perspective of Reality‘s image. Each limited facet is equated with a perception of truth, including those perceptions within the religious realm of knowledge. No facet, it is emphasized, is without human bias. Perception is influenced and represented by culture, and is therefore always limited by it. Every doctrinal assertion, therefore, is deemed a mere “idealism,” an interpretation of Reality, rather than Reality itself. Hence, as every religion is structured perception—a product of human devising—no religion is purely and wholly divine.

The pluralistic philosophy is under-girded by several assumptions, and is sustained by an utterly naturalistic view of the world, the universe, and its constituents; the earthly is acclaimed while special revelation is discounted. Religious absolutism, the belief that certain religious dogmas are absolute and unchanging, is disapprovingly labeled as partial and even self-centered for its unabashed claims to certain theoretical axioms, and because it asserts a certain claim upon truth which adversely implies a contradicting non-truth. Religious sensory, on the other hand, primarily deduces truth through personal experience. Where religious absolutism is criticized for its selective assertions, religious, “sensory perception” is in contrast applauded. Certain truth constitutes that material which can be deduced here and now—the tangible and the existential. The concrete elements surpass the abstract in worth and order. An understanding of knowledge reverberates in which experience and reason are exalted, and absolute statements disregarded.

At its heart, the theory of religious pluralism boastfully denies discrimination against any mentality. Consequently, no perspective may be concluded as wholly true or false as such a conclusion would in turn warrant a biased and therefore undesirable assessment upon another view. Any personality attached to Reality presumably originates from the psychological “streams of consciousness” of the human mind (Cramer). While Hick professedly respected every perception, he personally denied the certainty of any particular creed. Universally-affirmed principles served the idealistic standard for every decision. Such principles ostensibly avoided unfair religious distinction, and presumably maintained general justice. Two interpretive options generally follow, however, whenever such a worldview culturally reigns: the doctrines of personal subjectivity and utilitarianism. Personal subjectivity deems each man the judge of his own ethical decisions. In this view, one deed may be ethically acceptable regarding one person and incident, and yet unacceptable concerning another individual under different circumstance and persuasion. Utilitarianism delineates “goodness” as that element which promotes the pleasure of the majority in a particular way. A pantheistic deism dominates in which everything is truth; consequently, religious literature is denied the credit of being divinely inspired, and sin is reduced to a matter of moral relativity.

Followers intent upon continuing Hick’s message and universalizing the world by dismissing individuality as “rivalry” destructive to “world peace” today insist upon the benefit of scriptural convergence. Religious literature in accordance with Hick’s worldview is dismissed as yet another demonstration of human perception, a product of man’s creative ingenuity, a hopeful contribution to an idyllic tolerance. Resultantly, all absolute declarations in the form of doctrine and religious literature are denied relevancy for all people and circumstances. Detested is the thought or even scent of partition or conclusive certainty. What Hick failed to anticipate, however, was the sheer vanity of his assumptions. True equality is futile in a fallen world inclined towards evil; morality, moreover, consistently degenerates wherever relevancy reigns in society. In today’s post-Christian world, sin is considered merely a mistake in judgment, an impulsive remnant of man’s prehistoric subconscious. When sectarian religious thought is denied—in particular, the biblical dogma concerning human depravity—only an ambiguous sense of human nature is disclosed; that is, only one deducible by the human eye. Thus, while evil is acknowledged, it is considered only in general terms, and is not attributed to human nature.

Though Hick admitted the concept of human imperfection, he viewed the concept of evil as more of a positive reminder than an innate destroyer. Sin, he resolved, existed in order that man might better know God and recognize His holiness. As Hick denied the absolute truth of Scripture, however, he overlooked a paramount fact; that is, that man cannot recognize or attain holiness apart from the redemptive work of Christ. In his vision, evil, like truth, was left largely to the eye of the beholder, and could manifest in faulty judgment, lapses in logic, or in conflict. It was never an inherent characteristic penetrable only by the atoning blood of Christ. Man could thwart whatever he perceived to be evil through the imitation of a perceived deity.

Despite his pronounced distaste for “definition,” an explicit understanding of morality nevertheless proceeds from Hick’s propositions—the maxim that truth is definitely indefinite. In declaring all to be reality, the hypothesis consequently depreciates the substance of truth. An ethical system which embraces multiple truths naturally follows. The predominating philosophy of relevancy has reduced truth to the subjective preferences of individuals; consequently, truth is anything and everything is truth. Consequently, murder may be labeled as varyingly as a reproductive “right,” a medical “procedure,” a liberating “choice,” or a “solution” to a “problem.” Such a worldview thrives upon relevancy—the belief that truth is dependent, rather than independent, of external factors, and leads ultimately to inconsistency and confusion as every man chooses an actuality for himself.

Few who scour nearly any region of the earth will refute the subsidence of a regular ethical system. Cannibalism and tribal revenge are hardly customarily authorized, after all; a general code of conduct binds most judicial systems around the world. To many, this universally-recognized moral obligation signifies a multiplicity, or pluralism, of truths. Where pluralists conclude each ethical system as an equal and acceptable manifestation of truth, however, Christians conversely infer a common Authority by Whom and through Whom everything obtains definition, sustenance, and consummation. As the Creator and Sustainer is eternal and permanent, so is every word which has proceeded from His mouth ( source). Knowledge and wisdom subsist immutably and subsequently in accordance with His presence. Biblical verbiage abstractly depicts Christ as Truth, and elsewhere interchangeably associates God incarnate with the written Word (John 1:1). A form of morality expectedly resonates from these statements. Founded upon a singular Origin and Standard, a singular face of truth consequently follows.

Hick’s view helped to further spawn the obsession with progression so prevalent in our contemporary society—the philosophy that asserts that truth is constantly subject to change—and sin, god, and man exist definitively only within our own judgment. Progressivism has consumed virtually every anticipation held by American churches, schools, and governmental stations, and presupposes the idea that everything in existence awaits humanity’s determinant, sovereign will. A truly moral society, however, presupposes a society built upon absolute morals—a philosophy which, in turn, is established upon a fixed God who never changes, and whose revealed character forms the basis for all other ensuing philosophies concerning Reality, human and divine natures, and legality. Reminders of the extent to which religious pluralism has infiltrated our society are omnipresent. From bumper stickers promoting “peace” at any and all expense, to public schools endorsing cultural integration, there can be little wonder as to why recent generations have presumed their Puritan predecessors to be little more than bigoted, narrow-minded fixtures. Yet, should pluralists lend any serious attention to their own theory, any anticipation for “equality” and “fairness” would be sorely disappointed. By declaring a limitlessness of truths, the previously noted apprehensions unintentionally yet essentially undermine and contradict their foundational claims; the obvious negation of such speculations involves the regular bias inevitably wrought by them. Personal subjectivity impinges upon another’s personal beliefs. The satisfaction of the greater margin still condones others’ values, however scant the opposing few might be. The briefest scrutiny of world religions and standards reveal obvious irreconcilable differences; personalities are simply too numerous and unique to prevent a difference of opinion or some form of inequity. An honest response would admit instead that the observance of a common, ethical law is insufficient in delivering an entirely fair code of conduct, or justifying the often complex situations within the sphere of ethics. Unconditional tolerance always requires compromise as it fundamentally prohibits total fidelity to any view. Total fidelity to any view, moreover, in some measure consistently discredits the allegations of another. In short, No utopian world of equality and harmony exists as the frequent display of humanity’s inclination towards wickedness and inconsistency indubitably verifies. Where legality and discipline cease to exist, hedonism dominates as man is naturally prone to enthroning Self (Romans 3:23).

In pronouncing Jesus as the Logos and personification of Truth, Scripture is simultaneously enunciating that the origin of understanding resides within His definition and domination. He is Authority in which humanistic autonomy has no place, and to which men are accountable. This emphasis upon law and truth presupposes a need for restraint which, in turn, presupposes the sin nature of man. Liberty is founded upon a proper measure of restraint; restraint is instituted by law, and involves a definite exclusion of certain behavior. While its message is no longer popularly articulated in contemporary pulpits, it is a chief characteristic of the Holy Spirit, and effectuates the opposite of what most people identify it as producing. While most commonly associate the term with constriction, or with limitation upon happiness; in a world basically hedonistic, such thinking could seem quite logical. Christ, after all, came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it in order that man might have life more abundantly (John 10:10). Restraint, legality, and truth all bring to surface reality and expectations; reality which reveals to man his spiritual condition, and his need for repentance, expectations which promote good behavior and penalizes the bad. Ambiguity has no place as principles and standards are spouted by a perfect, divinely-inspired Book (2 Timothy 3:16-17). As man’s heart is treated by reliance upon His Word, faith is effectuated, and new life is brought about which generates individually, and reaches collectively. Thus, a society is established which operates upon definite, absolute truths.

The Bible promotes virtuous morality as it recognizes the essence of the disease—the human heart—and treats it accordingly: through an internal conversion wrought by the Holy Spirit. The prerequisite to Christianity necessitates an averting of eyes from men’s philosophies and opinions. It demands the submitting of one’s hopes and very person to a seemingly blind faith, of sacrificing fixed persuasions to the infallible Word of God. The precedent to a reliable morality must first involve an honest review of the real nature of the human heart, and God’s attitude towards it. Scripture reveals an undeniable nature characteristic of every man, present from conception: depravity. The third chapter of Romans insists upon a depravity characteristic of every individual, and present from conception. Not only has sin infiltrated the human race generally—surfacing visibly to a person’s conduct from time to time—but it has disabled man wholly, tainting his ability to reason or discern morally and intellectually apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Often, a purely naturalistic comprehension of human frailty situates man in a kind of caste system from which he is doubtful to recover; within, he is born either good or bad. Another typical understanding correlates with the present culture’s obsession with the psychological aspect of humanity; every man is evolving in an escalating fashion—yet nonetheless possessing a remnant of his prehistoric inclination towards savagery. However, these explanations succeed in only disabling, rather than enabling, individuals. A solution is proposed which succeeds only in disguising the true root of the problem. Man’s dominating crisis lies not in his inability to overcome by and through himself nor even chiefly himself. Rather, the predicament of humanity rests in a depreciation of Christ—an error which effectually initiated and continues from the Fall.

Contrary to the insistence of Buddha and countless others, sin is not a difficulty conquerable by mere self-will or self-denial; indeed, salvation is not ascertained by self at all. In contrast, Scripture depicts sin as a relentless disease effectuated both by intention and by innate character. Every life conceived bears the scar of Adam’s fateful choice in the Garden; this birthmark extends to the youngest heart, mind, and soul. In addition, this same individual will also, by deliberate resolve and choice, act upon his own evil inclinations, thereby proving himself an enemy of God and a slave to Satan (source). This bondage taints the soul’s eye view, and oppresses every transcendent member of the individual in such a way as to deprive him of any hope of pleasing God (Romans 3:23). Liberty, however, is presented in the deistic Messiah, in the reputed “Logos (John 1:1).” In the Greek, this Christological title refers to the concept of reason. As the self-ascribed Epitome of all Truth (John 14:6), Jesus declared Himself the Personification of Actuality—not in that He embodied all truth, but that He signified the Authority of its interpretation. All mortal reason was clearly to be compared first with the revelation given by God through the Old and New Testaments. Increasingly apparent should the fact be that we possess deceitful hearts which cannot be trusted nor apprehended at face value (Jeremiah 17:9).

It was once accurately stated that to believe everything is to believe nothing. Though unrestricted acceptance may appear at first thought superiorly loving, it is in factuality lethal and self-destructive. The briefest perusal of the modern world’s situation would disclose an atmosphere characterized by violence, sorrow, guilt and confusion. History has demonstrated extensively enough that whenever legality ceases to exist, man declines to barbarity. Francis Schaeffer, prolific philosopher and writer, rightly observed the Reformation as the source from which a system of “checks and balances” was introduced to society. The Reformation is commonly recognized as an era of innovation, in which spiritual and social slavery gave way to a spiritual and social liberty, Infiltrating and reforming the Church and subsequently branching out through the governmental system. The doctrine of human depravity underlined and shaped this flourishing of liberty. Recognized was the fact that even the best of men are hopelessly flawed, and tend towards greed for power. Because of this, limitations and standards are crucial.

Hick’s diagnosis of sin is a highly popular one: it exalts the ego, and condemns all attempts to wound it so that no one is wrong, and all are right. Knowledge is what one makes of it, and is confined to how one defines it. As a result, understanding is diminished to a grossly exalted vagueness, as unknowable and undistinguishable (Zacharias). In contrast, legality assumes imperfection and unruliness. It encompasses the two-fold responsibility of protecting the blameless and prosecuting the guilty, thereby causing the evil to fear (Romans 13). Unfortunately in the modern Church, the Church has nearly forgotten the mandate to restrain; this can be directed back to a sore disregard for God’s Word and, consequently, ignorance of human depravity and the importance of legal structure.
Morality is completely determined by some understanding of legality. Hick’s all-inclusive philosophy in the end only fruits moral anarchy; morality is possible only when standards exist—moreover, upon standards that are concise and unambiguous. One’s moral perception is subsequently formed by one’s perception of reality and truth. Where truth is ambiguous, random and unknowable, every following precept naturally resonates these characteristics. A recognition of the nature of truth in connection with the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures and the whole signification of Matthew 28:19-20 is alone capable of defeating the rise of Hick’s observation of Reality, and the ebb of morality inevitably following. Men stand not obligated to principles or legalities in and of themselves, hence, but to One who has personified perfection. Scripture attests to Itself as the Law of God which neither fades nor changes with time. Through It, men are dispensed the Way to liberty, the Path upon which the bondage of sin is released. Precedent to the Cross, the best of men’s intentions are as “filthy rags.” Through the Cross, however, men are brought to a new understanding in which they are enabled not only to discern between truth and falsity in a more profound way, but also to perform pleasing works through faith. Such deeds are underlined by a supernatural love for God, and rooted in a recognition of law. Furthermore, men are changed from lawless creatures to lawful creatures. It is only by establishing clear divisions, through plain distinctions between “right” and “wrong” that evil is restrained. Only until sin is perceived as it truly is can men recognize why and how to avert it.

~ Whitney Ann Dotson


Works Cited:
Cramer, C. David. “John Hick.” Available online at: [http://www.iep.utm.edu/hick/]

The Holy Bible, New International Version. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan Publishers.1984
Johnson, Keith A. “John Hick’s Pluralistic Hypothesis and the Problem of Conflicting Truth-Claims.” Available online at [http://www.leaderu.com/theology/hick.html]

Schaeffer, Francis. “By Consent of the Governed.” Available online at:[http://www.theschaefferfoundation.com/footnote6_2.php ]

Redemptive Motherhood

January 7, 2013

Child-bearing is not oppression as the secularists would have us believe; on the contrary, God calls it a means of redemption. Not that we are saved by works, but by child-bearing and raising up for God a godly seed as He desires, we reiterate and multiply the vision needed in order to propagate the Gospel—beginning with a literal interpretation of Deut 6:6-7. Biblical training of children is an instrument of the Great Commission, and the home is the first mission:

“But women will be saved through childbearing–if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” I Timothy 2:15

The desire, rather than contempt for children, reveals a heart touched by God. The qualities of godly motherhood require and showcase the fruit wrought by the Spirit in a woman’s heart.

In a statistical study, Above Rubies’ Nancy Campbell noted that for every child a woman bears, her risk for ovarian cancer decreases 10%. Research further reveals the safeguarding action of pregnancy and lactation; whereas women today experience 400 menstrual cycles in their child-bearing years—a contributing factor to the rise of Endometriosis and other reproductive-related problems—women who experienced around only 100 cycles about a century ago lived virtually free of the diseases now feared. Why? Because the God-given gifts of pregnancy and lactation naturally allow rest for the body in ways that intervening methods (such as birth control) in reality prevent.

It is a possibility that Timothy’s  admonishment is including a two-fold redemptive process: one of both spiritual and physical preservation. God’s Word is always true and right, down to every jot and tittle!

Whitney Ann

The Hand That Rocks the Cradle…

November 27, 2012


Human pride seeks elevation in varying forms according to personal desire. It is an innate and relentless passion, detesting any seeming form of oppression or hindrance to the escalation of personal power. Whether this pursuit takes a more obvious platform in public view or a more conspicuous position of self-righteousness, it is nonetheless self-seeking. This is perhaps a most accurate truth in America, where the rugged spirit of individualism has emboldened the demand for equality in every sphere. Pride is absolved of its sinful reputation and rather justified by the urging to “be the best.” Indeed, it is considered an injury to the psychological idol of self-esteem and affront to reason to willingly accept the unseen position. This is exactly why the biblical term “helper” arouses so many raised eyebrows and frowns. The natural mentality will scoff at the keeper at home because her job is supposedly less important; it allows no time for the woman to “find herself.” The more spiritual mentality will quickly propose that the home offers little if any place for ministry, that the female as “simple” wife and mother scarcely contributes to social betterment outside the four walls of her dwelling. The recontructionist will insist that Scripture changes with time, and that the role of “helper” adapts with humanity’s needs of the age. Yet, such judgments are also often made far before the term is even explained and rightly understood in proper context and ultimate end.

The idea that the housewife has little influence outside of her domain is a dependent assertion, indeed. Outcome is always relative to one’s incentive, is it not? That the woman in the workforce can accomplish as much for the Kingdom of God as the woman who merely resides at home is true—yet neither woman is the “keeper at home” described by Titus:

“To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, 
obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” ~ Titus 2:5

The plainest reading of Scripture describes woman’s divinely intended role from man’s literal origin of life: Genesis. Eve, the “mother of all living” and feminine representative, was designated the title of “helper.” Ergo, the natural inclination in her very emotional and physical makeup bent towards the act of helping. In a day where young women are being trained to assume the role of conqueror in public stardom, the concept of helping is almost entirely lost. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, however, depicts the vocation of one who keeps a home as one who “… has the care, custody or superintendence of any thing.” Her duties are clearly domestic, and include loving  husband and children, and maintaining primary attendance over the affairs therein.

The true keeper at home has globally-extensive implications. She is not a woman who merely resides in a house, but one who embodies a vision that God Himself seeks:

“Has not [the LORD] made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring.” ~ Malachi 2:15

She is a fruitful vine from which godly seed, God’s greatest reward and treasured possession, are borne. Her children arise and call her blessed, and in turn act as generational, Gospel-reformists who reiterate the pattern of discipline by the means of visionary education (Deuteronomy 6:6-7) and a responsive, evangelical obedience.

In keeping with biblical context, the contented help-meet proves God’s Word  faithful, that His words never return void, and that obedience is always possible in exactly the method He has prescribed. The propagation of godly seed and general instruction aims in coherence with its purpose generations equipped for a more well-rounded, expansive comprehension of the Great Commission than is in truth perceived by those who disregard biblical womanhood. Where gender blur lacks distinction, order, and certain means, the concise confinements presented in Scripture add definition and layout; as in mechanical engineering, everyone has a place, a duty, and yet each is working all the more skillfully and swiftly towards the same goal.

Keeping a home as God intended has widespread spiritual implications; Titus denoted this most strongly by terming rebellion against the role as equating with a “blaspheme,” an utter distortion and dishonoring of God’s reputation and holy Word. Is this a too-stern judgment on the part of God’s disciple? Not when it is recognized that God is synonymous with His Word, and that a disregard to It is simultaneously an affront to God Himself (John 1:1). The “battle of the sexes” began with original sin, and has fruited the destructive vices of chauvinism, feminism, and gender blur—nearly dismantling the family unit, God’s first institution in the command to “be fruitful and multiply,” altogether.

A final note in the form of a historical reminder and encouragement.

Many times, God will form in the single lady’s heart a vision and longing in preparation to help her future husband. Where, after all, would John Quincy Adams take his place in presidential history apart from his mother Abigail, a woman whose wisdom and encouragement from the domestic front kept his father John Adams “afloat” amid the often-disparaging political experience? Marion, the legendary future wife of Scotland’s heroic William Wallace, is recounted to have formed a heart passionate for liberty, long before she met her intended. There is no shame, no less value in being a helper, dear one. Remember that the Holy Spirit is also the epitomized Helper, and yet He is one and equal with Father and Son. Of all the noble feats of history, humanity itself exists because of—and is shaped by—the “hand that rocks the cradle”:

Infancy’s the tender fountain,
Power may with beauty flow,
Mothers first to guide the streamlets,
From them souls unresting grow—

Grow on for the good or evil,
Sunshine streamed or evil hurled,
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.

~ William Ross Wallace

~~~ Whitney Ann Dotson
P.S. On a personal note…

My goal is not politics; it is the glorification of God. I dearly hope someday to “rock a cradle” according to the Bible’s prescription. When God brings my William Wilberforce along, I will be more than happy to be quiet, let him do the talking/ standing/ defending, and make his dinner. Happily so. Until he does, though, I hope to preserve the liberties required to make a godly home :).  And then, someday, do so as a pillar of support to my visionary husband.


United Nations’ View of ‘Rights’ All Wrong!

November 27, 2012

The US Senate to vote on this treaty Wednesday, November 28, request your US Senators to oppose it tomorrow, Tuesday, November 27, 2012!

Link to 20-minute radio interview informing on the dangers of the UN Convention On the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:


Visitwww.hslda.org/crpd for more info.

I Think I Love Daddy Now

June 16, 2012

For the first few years of my life, I was incessantly clingy—at least, that is, to my mother. It was said that while hospitalized and incubated for my first three months, when physical contact was professionally denied me, the mere sound of my mother’s voice excited my heart monitor. When I was finally taken home, I proved to imbibe time and trouble; throughout the night, I would involuntarily cease to breathe. Emergency Room trips kept my parents from boredom. My mother, however, spent the whole of her days with her only child at the time: her little papoose, the exact physical inverse of her. However, this appeared to me the only difference between us. Upon exiting toddler-hood, I ate and listened to what she ate and listened to. I particularly demanded Diet Coke (though given Hi-C instead), and still distinctly remember the record album to one of Amy Grant’s first Christian records, played so often in our first base housing residency. On the whole, I loved everyone that she loved…except, perhaps, for those whom I occasionally felt threatening to this vital relationship. At times, I surmised this “occasional” circumstance to be my dad.

The truth is, we were two peas and a pod, my father and me. Everyone said we looked alike. Don’t get me wrong, I dearly cherished him, too; just, I didn’t quite always recognize the extent of my affections…until any hint of rivalry was dissolved when, at the age of four, my dad temporarily left the small Dotson clan to fight in the Gulf War. Beside myself, in unwitting humility and vulnerability, I declared, “I think I love Daddy now!” And I did. I hated to see him leave, and honestly cannot recount ever again feeling any formerly tense feelings for him following. Simply, I realized what I could have lost forever: the Gate of our home. When he returned, I was almost a whole year older. By then, Ashley was old enough to join her older sister and father in play-sessions which included two little girls, lovely dolls in hand, and one Marine, Elvis figure in hand. Bonding times for certain.

While the above account might seem humorous, I am still coming to acknowledge how increasingly more I am in need of paternal presence. I appreciate more than ever the protective covering he provides, and the company he affords. He loves my beautiful mother more than can be described (a fact I’ve grown much more accustomed to—in fact, quite fond of), and represents the Gate, the Fortress through which one may enter only in an understood sense of accountability. He is the leader, the patriarch of the family; I am proud of him, and thank God that I am always destined to be his daughter. And yes, I have since that day sincerely voiced that “I KNOW I love Daddy now…and always.”

Memories flood back whenever I see this clip concerning young Susan’s sudden and different reaction when her father leaves for war as it was very similar to the feelings I also experienced as such a young girl:

~~~Whitney Ann

The Principle Approach to Education: Reading, Grammar, History, and the Sciences

May 25, 2012

Read the rest of this entry »

Constitutional Qualification for “Equal Rights” Claim

May 14, 2012

A contention for the Constitutionally legitimate right to LIFE and biblical marriage in brief contrast to the maligned insistence that same-sex “marriage” and other forms of perverted sexuality also qualify as natural, equal rights.

An actuality that most people are increasingly (and, often willfully) ignorant of today is the fact that America began with the collective ambition of effectuating a “city upon a hill” vision. This goal was the dream of our Puritan founders; the proclamation of the Gospel and the freedom to interpret it privately as common citizens was the primary motivation for our establishment. Ensuing liberty was consequently inevitable as responsible men and women recognized that freedom was not an absence of laws, but rather an upholding of God’s Law. One such, namely, was the sanctity of the marriage covenant.

The defilement of sexuality and marriage was rightly understood a reproach to a nation (Proverbs 14:34); this persuasion signified not merely the understanding under the Old Covenant, but continued and surfaced throughout several centuries of our own government, as well. As is the case with every substantial document, the Constitution cannot be properly interpreted by its text alone as definitions and wordage subjectively undergo continual evolution with society and culture. Historical context is nearly as important as textual content itself, acting as the enlightening “lens” of literature, so to speak. During the time of the Constitution’s drafting and following, the sin of sodomy was severely penalized by castration. Thomas Jefferson endorsed a bill supporting dismemberment of rapists. Imprisonment connoted one penal consequence of adultery. Clearly, perverse sexuality was a significant issue to our founders—not a matter deserving “equal-rights protection,” but as a matter deserving due recompense considering the natural right it essentially opposed.

Civic rights are founded initially on the concept of natural law. Natural law delineates those rights divinely dispensed at conception; this conviction was the driving motivation of the Preamble (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”) The highest and most fundamental of these natural rights was the “right to LIFE,” ensured indirectly by Amendment Ten, and directly by Amendment Fourteen and our Preamble. Life was therein avowed federal protection and preservation from the womb.

Homosexuality blatantly disregards life as it opposes the marriage union and the pattern of sexuality providing the only possible formula for reproduction: the one-man, one-woman bond. More severely, it transgresses the spiritual concept that earthly marriage reflects: the Trinity.

Without a respect for natural rights, no basis for “equal rights” exists.

“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” ~ George Washington

~Whitney Ann

%d bloggers like this: