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.” It is considered an injury to the psychological idol of self-esteem and an 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

P.S. On a personal note…

My goal is not politics; it is the glorification of God. I am in politics in order to someday “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 :). Blessings, friends. Just wanted to clarify and share my heart ♥.


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: 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

William Wilberforce: The Impossibility of Moral and Religious Pluralism

May 13, 2012

By Whitney Ann Dotson

hand that rocks the cradle

“Is it not the great end of religion, and, in particular, the glory of Christianity, to extinguish the malignant passions; to curb the violence, to control the appetites, and to smooth the asperities of man; to make us compassionate and kind, and forgiving one to another; to make us good husbands, good fathers, good friends; and to render us active and useful in the discharge of the relative social and civil duties?”

~ William Wilberforce

What William Wilberforce proclaimed a Christian obligation is regarded with great skepticism today. Legislative attempts to “drive religion and its influence out of public life” (Carson) and appeals for tolerance from within the church have contributed to the labeling of Christian political participation as irrelevant to biblical priority and evangelical calling. As immorality gains legalization in increasing distaste towards life and family, many well-meaning believers assume silent complacency in the face of moral deterioration. Insisting that God’s people are not of this world, and holding to a misconception of church-and-state separation, the Church has unknowingly forfeited her voice in the pulpit and courts. Unfortunately, she has forgotten that an evangelical calling requires that every believer wield the sword of righteousness in a biblical worldview which places earthly law in the scope and view of the consummation of the Great Commission.

To limit the Christian’s accountability to the church or mission field is to underestimate God’s range of presence and concern. He does not reign over those regions pronounced religious only, but also over every aspect of life. To reflect His universal permeation, man was designated the role of cultivator over both natural and spiritual matters (Genesis 2:2). From tilling the ground to constructing profound cities, creation was lent subject to man’s will for the express purpose of directing men to their Creator (John 20:31). Men were called to exemplify the spiritual implications of this cultural mandate in upholding the Law in both daily life and particular vocations. Biblically prominent figures such as Daniel, Joseph, and Deborah were each called to civic roles to enact social order based on biblical statutes. Paul re-affirmed the continuity of this responsibility among believers in addressing the protection of widows, orphans, and the socially weak (Psalm 82:3; Isaiah 1:17).

A truly biblical understanding of the Great Commission perceives the world a mission place in which every earthly subject holds potential to serve and glorify the Savior. This worldview presents not a dichotomy of life, but a unity which centralizes upon Christ. By asserting laws which resemble eternal precepts and restraining surrounding evils, Christians fulfill their office as true “witnesses” (Isaiah 43:10). The institutions of church and state are perceived not as polar associations, but as subjects mutually ordained by God. Only in this perspective do we begin to fathom God’s all-consuming sovereignty. It is only in this enlightenment in which regenerate, mortal beings can exist in the world, utilizing its tools without conforming to its values.

Works Cited: Carson, Clarence B. Basic American Government. Amercan Textbook Committee Publishers. Wadley, Alabama. 1994.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: