Dr. Voddie Baucham said it well:

Let me also say a word to those who argue that “we cannot hold political candidates to biblical standards.” Why not? What other standard is there? Should we hold them to a Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu standard? How about a Secular Human, neo-Marxist, or New Age standard? What, pray-tell, should the standard be if not the Bible? Do we have one standard for pro-life in the church and another for Mr. Obama? Do we have one standard for pro-family in the church and another for Mrs. Palin? I think not. The whole point of my blogs was this: We cannot trade in the Bible for pragmatic utilitarianism when election time rolls around.

I stand with Jesus! I’ll dump a political party in a heartbeat. I am sick and tired of watching leading Evangelicals compromise in order to prevent the earth from turning to dust if the wrong guy is elected. Where’s our faith? We ought to speak God’s truth and let the chips fall where they may. We must bow to no man. If Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama don’t want Evangelicals to say things that may hurt them in the polls, they ought to speak and act like the Christians they both claim to be. Instead, they know that their constituencies within the Christian community (black liberals for Obama and white Evangelicals for McCain) will not speak too loudly when they get out of line because both groups are more concerned with winning than with truth.

Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”

…And David’s heart condemned him after he had numbered the people. So David said to the Lord, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done; but now, I pray, O Lord, take away the iniquity of Your servant, for I have done very foolishly.” ~2 Samuel 24: 1, 10

What was David’s great sin, for which he repented but for which the nation of which he was covenant head still had to live with the consequences?

Statist idolatry.

From the notes in my Reformation Study Bible:

Taking a census does not appear to have been wrong in itself (Num. 1:1, 2; 4:1, 2; 26:1-4), but see Ex. 30:11, 12. This act of census may have pointed to a lack of trust in David’s heart, or even to a desire to gain control of God’s providence by making an inventory of His apparent resources. That the report (v.9) emphasizes military strength may suggest that David wanted to take more territory than what the Lord had granted him.

Thus, it wasn’t wrong to strategize, but to put his dependence upon his poll numbers rather than upon God’s promises was evil in God’s sight.

From the latest issue of Tabletalk magazine, in an article titled “Statism,” by R.C. Sproul:

About thirty years ago, I shared a taxi cab in St. Louis with Francis Schaeffer. I had known Dr. Schaeffer for many years, and he had been instrumental in helping us begin our ministry in Ligonier, Pennsylvania, in 1971. Since our time together in St. Louis was during the twilight of Schaeffer’s career, I posed this question to him: “Dr. Schaeffer, what is your biggest concern for the future of the church in America?” Without hesitation, Dr. Schaeffer turned to me and spoke one word: “Statism.” Schaeffer’s biggest concern at that point in his life was that the citizens of the United States were beginning to invest their country with supreme authority, such that the free nation of America would become one that would be dominated by a philosophy of the supremacy of the state.

In statism, we see the suffix “ism,” which indicates a philosophy or worldview. A decline from statehood to statism happens when the government is perceived as or claims to be the ultimate reality. This reality then replaces God as the supreme entity upon which human existence depends.

Providentially, our friend Pastor Bret has just written on statism, as well, in his article titled, “Nothing’s Changed—Despite Palin There Remains No Reason to Vote Republican” (which just happens to be the 1000th post at The Backwater Report). He says:

First, we should remember that the Republican party, like the Democratic party, is dedicated to the pursuit of Statism. At the top of the ticket remains the guy who in the McCain-Feingold legislation eviscerated first amendment rights, thus strengthening state freedom against individual freedoms. The Republican party is still the party that, completely in the face of vigorous protestations of an energized majority that was its natural constituency, recently sought to ram down the throat of Americans an immigration bill that would have effectively erased borders while refusing to offer any kind of solution to the presence of 12 million illegal immigrants in this county. John McCain was one of the Republican senators who was vigorously pushing for that legislation, which would have strengthened the state by making it the only agency that could bring peace to the strife of the balkanization it was trying to create by the immigration bill. The Republican party, along with its allies in the major media, is that institution that did everything in its power to marginalize the Ron Paul campaign. It did so because the party realized what a threat to its statist designs Ron Paul was. The Republican party under the leadership of George W. Bush has grown the federal government in ways that Lyndon Baines Johnson could have only dreamed. The Republican party during the Bush administration grew the state in a massive fashion with its legislation on prescription drugs for senior citizens. In the Patriot Act, the Republican party grew the power of the state in its ability to spy on its citizenry. At every turn, the Republican party has shown itself, by its actions, to be a statist party. In this regard there is little difference between it and the party they are supposed to be opposing. If there is any difference between the two parties on their advocacy of statist government, it is that Republicans, for some odd reason, feel compelled to brazenly lie about their intentions with claptrap speeches about limited government. As I’ve said countless times, the difference between the two parties does not lie in their mutual agreement on the aggrandizement of the state, but rather their difference lies in the differences that divided the National Socialists from the International Socialists in 1930s Europe.

None of this has changed in the Republican party. What was true of the party before it nominated Sarah Palin remains true on the eve of Sarah Palin’s Republican national convention speech. The Republican party is an old wineskin, and the idea that by voting for it we can get new wine into that old wineskin is preposterous beyond imagination.

I hope you will take time to read both articles as they offer some clear thinking about the muddy issues we are facing. As Bret has also said, as far as she speaks truth to the issues regarding abortion and other things on which we can agree, we have no quarrel with Mrs. Palin’s positions, and the liberal media attacks on her which are meant to vilify her for her conservative credentials are not the reasons why we don’t support her in the position of VP. First and foremost, the Bible speaks plainly that men are to be chosen for positions of covenant headship in government, just as they are covenant leaders in home and church. Deborah, who sat under her own tree and judged as judgment from God for the apostate Israel (Judges 4:1-3), was hardly in an ideal situation nor was it typical for God’s people to have a woman in that position of leadership as we know from every other example of godly rulers in civil and ecclesiastical spheres being men (Queen Esther did not rule as one of Ahasuerus’s wives). And even though Deborah ruled wisely, the impact on her nation was not lasting as the children of Israel continued to do “evil in the sight of the Lord” (Judges 6:1). Secondly, John McCain, the one who is actually running for president, is statist to the core, which Bret points out in the post I link, and he is not the pro-life hero that he wants evangelical voters to believe he is.

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses;
But we will remember the name of the Lord our God. ~Psalm 20:7

Our vote does not belong to us…whatever we do, whether we eat, or drink, or vote, we are to do it heartily as unto the Lord our God. We must please God, not anybody else, with how we vote. We must vote for men of integrity who are not double-minded, to represent us, covenantally (which is what representative government is, not to be taken lightly), in the spheres over which the state has legitimate authority. God will use our votes as He pleases, and place in power the ones He chooses. We need to stop playing the numbers game and prostrate ourselves before the King and seek His guidance and His mercy for our nation.

As Dr. Sproul concludes:

Throughout the history of the Christian church, Christianity has always stood over against all forms of statism. Statism is the natural and ultimate enemy to Christianity because it involves a usurpation of the reign of God. If Francis Schaeffer was right—and each year that passes makes his prognosis seem all the more accurate—it means that the church and the nation face a serious crisis in our day. In the final analysis, if statism prevails in America, it will mean not only the death of our religious freedom, but also the death of the state itself. We face perilous times where Christians and all people need to be vigilant about the rapidly encroaching elevation of the state to supremacy.

From The Feminist Mistake by Mary Kassian:

The feminist ideal espouses a woman’s need for a career. In the past, homemaking was regarded as a noble and viable occupation, but now women who do not pursue higher education are deemed to have wasted their potential. Paid employment is regarded as the only type of work with significant social worth. Work in the home and caring for children has been devalued—relegated to the domain of the menial. Pushing women out of the home into the workforce was feminism’s way of giving women more choice. But it has, in essence, given them less. It has created an economic culture in which few women are able to choose to stay home to nurture their families. For some, the economic reality makes this choice virtually impossible. But according to the feminist ideal a woman can have it all—a high-powered career, happy, well-adjusted children, and a healthy marriage (having a husband is, of course, optional). She can climb the corporate ladder, help her children with homework, drive them to extra-curricular events, pursue personal hobbies, develop professionally, volunteer in the community, connect with friends and family, and have the time and energy left over to stay fit, sexually attractive, and sexually active. After all, she is strong and invincible. She is a woman.

Some of our friends have a silly and rather crude game they play when they go out for Chinese food and read their “fortunes” on the little slips of paper in the cookies at the end of the meal. Whatever the paper reads, they add, “…in the bathroom.” “You will soon meet a mysterious stranger…in the bathroom.” “You will have great success in your career…in the bathroom.” You get the idea.

I thought of this game the other night when listening to shrill Hillary Clinton give her final concession speech—the one where she reluctantly pretended to be on Obama’s team—at the Democrats’ convention in Colorado. We don’t watch television so it was the only speech from the convention I heard as I was alone and on the way home from taking my dad to the airport; I turned on the radio and listened in maudlin fascination as the deluded woman promised the moon while ironically blaming the current administration for the massive national debt. Of course, she promised universal health care and took credit for dreaming up the idea which was her pet project as first lady, as well as promising clean energy, affordable college, ending discrimination, and other pie-in-the-sky campaign promises which prompted me to make up a variation of the fortune cookie game. Every time you hear a politician promise something they will do for you if you elect them to office, add these words to the end of the promise:

…at the point of a gun.

Where does the money come from for all these things? What if you decide you don’t want free health care, government grants for college, public school for your children, or social “security” in your old age? Can you tell the IRS to take a hike? Yes, that’s a rhetorical question. We all know that jack-booted thugs, or a reasonable facsimile, will show up at your door if you should choose to be so uppity and refuse to participate in the government’s largesse. Did you think that Hillary was going to open her Gucci bag and generously throw about her own personal wealth?

We all nod sagely and sadly and bemoan the fact that the former Wicked Witch of the White House and her socialist cronies might get their clutches on the oval office once again. I don’t want it to happen, and most of those reading this don’t want that to happen, either. But lo, and behold: hard on the heels of Hillary gloating over her historic speech given on the anniversary of the 19th amendment granting women the right to vote, and coming within shouting distance of that coveted place (oh, how she coveted it!), her thunder was stolen when McCain pulled a fast one on her and Obama.

He announced that his vice presidential candidate would be a woman.

Alaska governor Sarah Palin was a brilliant choice from a strategic viewpoint. Hillary and candidate Obama had just finished outlining their plan for a socialist utopia in the midst of a national economic crisis. Disaffected Democrat women didn’t get their feminist dream of a woman in the White House. Evangelical Christians have been dissatisfied with McCain as a Republican candidate and there had been some fingernail biting while waiting to see if he might go with a pro-abortion running mate or (gasp!) even Democrat centrist Joseph Lieberman as his VP choice. The poll numbers show yet another close race, and it had to be someone who could garner some of those nebulous swing votes.

Who better than a pro-life woman?

Oh, how it must have grated Hillary and Obama to praise the “historic” choice of a a female running mate for the Republican ticket. Both were quick to congratulate Governor Palin for receiving this honor. They had no choice because they understand that it is a huge step forward for feminism, and supporting that cause is life-and-death for anyone who wants to be a star in the Democrats’ universe. Governor Palin, a member of Feminists for Life, also understands the huge leap for womankind that her VP candidacy presages. In her first appearance with McCain, using a feminist catch-phrase, she paid homage to Hillary’s reference to putting “18 million cracks” in the nation’s glass ceiling by saying, “It turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling.”

Well, it is very true that politics makes strange bedfellows, and the euphoria over McCain’s announcement was overflowing in the Christian and pro-life community, folks who, for good reason, are quite concerned about the ill effects of Democrats controlling the executive branch of the country’s government. From Eagle Forum to Dr. Dobson, from the halls of Patrick Henry College to the shores of Biola in California, we hear hurrahs for the tough “soccer mom” who has wowed everyone with her conservative credentials and her support of the prolife cause, and especially impressive is her willingness to give birth to a precious fifth child which she knew would be born with Down’s syndrome, a diagnosis which is usually a death sentence for babies in utero.

There is a lot to like about the photogenic, telegenic, articulate, conservative, prolife, mother of five, wife of one man for 20 years, governor of Alaska. But I think that Christians who support her for this political office are destroying the prolife movement and harming the cause of families far more profoundly than any of the obvious enemies of those causes who recently met in Colorado.

Why is it that abortion is so prevalent and accepted in America today? What are the reasons that women “choose” to abort their babies rather than give birth to them and mother them? It wasn’t because one day a madness overtook the female sex and caused them to turn on their young. It was much more insidious and slow-moving than that. There are many moments we could point to in history, beginning with Eve’s emancipation by eating the forbidden fruit, for the genesis of the impulse to selfishly rid oneself of every encumbrance, including male headship and clinging children. But I think that the acceptance of abortion can trace its foundations more to Rosie the Riveter than to Roe v. Wade, which was only the culmination of independent roots that finally blossomed into wholesale slaughter of innocent children. Governor Palin leaving her home to become governor of Alaska, and “choosing” to run for second-in-command of the most powerful nation on earth, is not a coup for the prolife cause, despite her personal convictions, but it is the death knell of the the biblical family as an American institution, and will only bring grief to those who are trying to hold together the shreds of that family vision in the midst of a perverse society.

I know that my friends are now thinking that I’m such a party pooper, spouting such depressing nonsense in the midst of such a prolife victory, callooh, callay! Let’s slow down the galumphing for a minute, though, and examine this situation more carefully…

First of all, why would McCain pick Mrs. Palin, an untried figure on the national scene, as his VP running mate? I know that I’m not alone in my cynicism toward politicians, but during election cycles it does seem as if extraordinary madness and the delusion of crowds overtakes otherwise sensible people, particularly when demagoguery (manipulation through fear) is so skillfully used. “If you don’t vote Republican, then it’s a vote for Obama!” Though he voted for the Partial Birth Abortion Act, which prevents a few heinous murders of infants, Senator McCain is no friend to the prolife cause. He and his fellow Republican congressmen never supported Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act which was introduced every year but ignored every time. He did, however, vote year after year to fund Planned Parenthood with federal money. Think he would appoint prolife judges? He voted to approve pro-abortion justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. And he has been a proponent of stem cell research using the bodies of aborted babies. When the Republicans had control of Congress for six years during the “prolife” Bush administration, why didn’t we see significant gains in the prolife cause? I will tell you…because in order to get elected by gullible evangelicals, the Republicans have to talk the talk at election time and keep the prolife crowd in their hip pocket. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, then they lose that ace in the hole, and the dupes fall for it every election cycle. McCain may be in his 70s, but he is not planning on dying in office. Politicians and journalists both act like they are going to live forever (thus, the shock among the fourth estate when Tony Snow and Tim Russert recently passed on in their 50s, and the reverence accorded Chappaquiddick Ted who has been stricken with brain cancer). As vice president, Sarah Palin will be a figurehead on the cusp of greatness but with no real power, unless she is called upon to break a tie vote in the Senate, and ironically she’ll be the hostess with the mostess, entertaining heads of state at Blair House. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who is pro-abortion, by the way) ostensibly wields more power than Vice President Dick Cheney (who is pro-homosexual, by the way), though there is some conspiracy-nut speculation that is tempting to believe, that the current VP is the evil genius behind the Bush administration. In other words, Mrs. Palin is a well-calculated sop thrown to the saps who keep pulling the lever for the Republican ticket.

Second, if Christians support putting a woman on this ticket, and she should become president (as our friend Bret points out, McCain is pushing the limits of the average life span of an adult male in America), then we will have done what liberal feminists could only dream of: put a mother of young children—the youngest only four months old right now—into one of the most powerful positions in the world. While fighting the battle for the “traditional” family on the one hand, Christians would also be supporting Madame President whose husband (whom she already fondly refers to as the “First Dude”) and children would take a back seat to much more important matters of state. We will have to turn a blind eye to God’s explicit order for the family, of course, as outlined in places like Titus 2 where women are admonished to be keepers at home and obedient to their own husbands that the word of God not be blasphemed, because we have much greater things at stake, and in this battle it’s appropriate to put our trust in our horses, our chariots, and our swing votes. Once we’ve opened this Pandora’s box—or been complicit in smashing this glass ceiling—then good luck when the pro-abortion feminists use it as a stepping stone to grasp the reins of power. The pragmatic, short-term strategy might come back and bite us and we just might wish we had put our trust in God’s strategy for family order, established at creation, rather than the role-reversal which we find no biblical precedent for encouraging.

Third, I have heard so many parrot the Deborah argument that I am inclined to pick Deborah as my least favorite biblical personality, though I can’t quite bring myself to do that (I do, however, prefer Jael, who stayed at home and used her warm milk strategy to defeat the great General Sisera). I do agree that Deborah was a great woman of God, but she is in no way a role model for Christian women everywhere to claw their way to the top, though discontented Christian women in this feminist climate want to claim her as their patron saint. As a prophetess, she had direct communication with God, who divinely directed her path with special revelation. Such direct revelation is no longer available to Christians, as Hebrews 1:1-2 makes clear. The canon is closed, and we have all we need to direct us about how families should be structured, as well as how to select men to govern us in both the civil and church realms, written in the Holy Spirit-inspired Word of God. Here is what John Calvin said about the Deborah argument, which he must have had to deal with in his day, as well (commenting on I Timothy 2:11-13, quote found at Bayly Blog):

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.

If any one bring forward, by way of objection, Deborah (Judges 4:4) and others of the same class, of whom we read that they were at one time appointed by the command of God to govern the people, the answer is easy. Extraordinary acts done by God do not overturn the ordinary rules of government, by which he intended that we should be bound. Accordingly, if women at one time held the office of prophets and teachers, and that too when they were supernaturally called to it by the Spirit of God, He who is above all law might do this; but, being a peculiar case, this is not opposed to the constant and ordinary system of government.

Though she is not apparently the member of any church, one of the churches Mrs. Palin occasionally worships at is pentecostal (with women in leadership positions, I might add), thus, she may not be averse to an interpretation of the Bible which says God still audibly speaks to people today, but close scrutiny of Scripture does not support such teaching. Deborah’s rule was a shame on the men of Israel, a judgement of God on an apostate nation, and not a model for us to embrace.

Speaking of models, my last argument against supporting this decision is that for the “conservative” crowd to promote the model of family life portrayed by Sarah Palin is hypocrisy of the worst kind, and removes all ability in the future to oppose the liberal agenda which aims to undermine the biblical family model. How clever of Senator McCain, who at one time attacked George Bush for pandering to the “agents of intolerance” in the “Religious Right,” to pander to the same crowd who put Bush in office. By using the one issue which carries the greatest weight with the evangelical voters, McCain may have succeeded in undermining the very group for which he has shown such contempt in the past while using them to achieve his aims.

Does God ordain the means as well as the end? If so, then we are not free to use our own strategies and devices to achieve even the very important goal of ending abortion in this nation. Yes, we are blessed to still be able to use the political process to work toward maintaining (or regaining) freedom for ourselves and our children, and we should vigilantly use those means, but not by being religious vigilantes. God will not bless the aims of feminism, neither the conservative nor the liberal varieties, as the “I did it my way” theology undergirding both leads to death, and can never be prolife. Jesus is still King, no matter who is elected president. Let’s not be like the foolish Israelites and demand another king. That king may make nice promises, but it doesn’t turn out well in the long run.

Essential reading on this issue!
Sarah “Serpico” Palin and the Christian’s Quandary: Part 1 by Pastor Bret McAtee
Sarah “Serpico” Palin and the Christian’s Quandary: Part 2 by Pastor Bret McAtee
Sarah “Serpico” Palin and dthe Christian’s Quandary: Part 3 by Pastor Bret McAtee
John McCain Picks Mother of Five and Member of ‘Feminists for Life’ as VP Candidate by Doug Phillips
A Comparison of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin’s Speeches on Feminist Political Objectives and Victories to the Men and Women of America by Doug Phillips
Did McCain Make a Pro-Family Pick? by Pastor Voddie Baucham
Woe to My People by Jennie Chancey

I got this email today, and I know others are struggling with similar issues: what to do when there are no like-minded people to go to for wisdom and encouragement, and what if we have made decisions in the past that we regret but can’t easily change?

I NEVER once heard the idea of letting God determine the size of one’s family and thought 4 children was enough. My husband dismissed what his parents taught him in this issue and thought about how difficult it is to feed and clothe the 4 we have. Unfortunately, he had a vasectomy 3 years ago. I discovered teachings on God controlling the womb last year and have repented. My husband has also repented of this sin and we are at a loss as to what to do next. He is 40 and I am 34. He works 50 - 65 hours a wee and we live VERY frugally. We don’t have the money to pay for a reversal and by the time we saved for it, would I even be able to conceive?

I have two thoughts on this.
1) Sin has consequences that many times cannot be undone. I’ve repented and I should just move on even though I am filled with the deepest regret. Would having the reversal just be us trying to control again?

2) Have the reversal as a way of repenting and showing God that we trust Him fully and our family is in His hands.

Our (Christian) friends think that we are absolutely insane. After all, you need to provide for the children you already have. I really can’t turn to our pastor or our elders. They all have 1 - 3 children, by choice.

We really need wise, Biblical advice from a godly person and would love to see you post your opinion on this.

Hi! I am so glad you wrote as I can tell this is something that is weighing on your heart and you are struggling with how to deal with a situation that is very hard and has no easy answers. Either one of your thoughts about how to deal with it have merit, but one thing you don’t directly mention that is so very important is what your husband wants to do. It sounds like he works very hard to provide for your family, something for which to be very grateful, and one way to let him know how thankful you are for all he does is to gently share your concerns, but be willing, and let him know you are willing, to accept his decision regarding what you ought to do in your circumstances.

I do believe that ideally Christian families should be willing to accept what children God chooses to bless them with. We have been in difficult circumstances when I was pregnant with my sixth baby, and my husband’s business was failing and we lost a house and needed to move. God provided for us then, and we have had four more children and been blessed financially, as well as had some financial downturns. I don’t believe our financial circumstances ought to be the determiner of our family size, as those circumstance can change for anyone, as can health, family dynamics, and many other real-life trials that everyone experiences. I don’t want to minimize the trials, as they can be very hard, but they are part of our sanctification, as well, sovereignly ordained by God. And every child I have borne has been sovereignly created by God, planned from before the world began.

I once had a conversation with a dear friend who was agonizing over whether or not to have another baby because she wasn’t sure if it would be “God’s will” for them to do so. I told her that I didn’t think she could conceive a child apart from God’s will. Does God create a human being unless He wills for that to happen?

I have several friends who have had surgery to stop having children, then regretted that and repented, having reversal surgery done. Some have conceived and some have not. As always, that is in God’s hands, too. There are those who decide that they will not use birth control and then find, to their surprise (and sometimes their disappointment), that they are not able to have more than a couple of children. If that is what God ordains, then they have the “perfect” family.

Right now, even though you are convicted of cutting off your ability to bear children, you also have the perfect family because it is the one God has chosen to give you. It is good to desire children but not to demand that God give you what you do not have. Even though you have tried to circumvent God’s will for your family size, you cannot really circumvent His will for your family. When you truly repent of sin, He forgives you, and you need to believe that and remember it every time you despair over what you have done. You need to be thankful for the children you now have and teach them diligently about trusting God in all circumstances. If you are longing for more children, and if you believe that the right thing to do is pursue reversal surgery, then you need to have your husband’s support, of course, and the best thing to do, in my opinion, would be pray for the finances to become available. If he is not thinking about this the same way you are, then you can pray for God to change his heart but also pray for your own contentment and peace with this circumstance.

There are so many ladies in the same boat as far as not having like-minded support and encouragement in their area, let alone their church. Many I have talked to yearn to move to somewhere they imagine will be more perfect, with friends and mentors to counsel and comfort them. This is not a bad thing, but reality is that there is no perfect place and no perfect people, and even the churches filled with big families have big problems, too. I know this is true because I know how imperfect I am and my children can tell you how often I disappoint them! And in our family we tend to agree on almost everything, though the little annoyances can be that much more annoying if you have too much in common. We are never satisfied, are we? That is why, even though you may be in a place where your “radical” opinions are not understood or appreciated, you are right where God put you and you have a great opportunity to show love, forbearance, and maturity to those who are watching the weird lady who thinks four children is not enough :-).

Praise God for the internet…in spite of its many problems, we can find some encouragement from afar from kindred spirits, and go back to our real lives with some fresh courage and determination to please God in all things, even though we have imperfect lives and wish we could rest from our worries. But this battle in this life (sometimes called a “vale of tears” by the Puritans) is real and ongoing. God gives us rest and is our strength when we trust in Him. Don’t give up dear sister, but be a light for those around you, beginning in your home, with the dear ones you are charged to love and care for. I hope my words are encouraging to you. Don’t forget that God gives wisdom to those who ask.

In Christian love,
Carmon