Important Information.

STOP PRESS: My second book - Foundations of the Faith - is now available as a Kindle e-book at*Version*=1&*entries*=0
Paperback NOW available at:

The first volume - Great Words of the Faith - is still available at
Paperback NOW available at:

If you haven't got a Kindle, there is a FREE app at

30% of the profits go to support the persecuted church.

I may be contacted, personally, at

Monday, 13 May 2013

Time to be totally reactive?

As we travelled north, on Saturday, my wife and I listened to the Radio 4 programme Any Questions.  There were a number of topics covered, but one that particularly caught my attention had to do with the new rules that are being introduced to the child-minding sector regarding the number of children an individual minder may look after.  If my memory serves me well, this was a maximum of two up to one year of age, with the number increasing as the age group was raised.  The main concern seemed to be that, rather than such a move making nursery care less expensive, it would only serve to increase profits.

The panellists all had there opinions (or party dogmas), but no-one seemed to consider the obvious!  Why not close all nursery establishments, and allow mothers to do the natural thing and look after their own children, in their own homes, kept by a working husband and father?!  It certainly worked with  my own parents and their six surviving children - and my dad was not in a highly-paid job.  I would also claim that my own childhood was much happier than that of many children today - who do not have both of their biological parents at home, and who often appear to have no restrictions placed upon them, and no sense of personal responsibility instilled into them.

Of course, I already know the objections.  People, today, cannot get by on just one income.  Yes they can, if they adopt the old-fashioned virtue of living within one's means - of not having to have the latest wide-screen TV; the latest iPhone; a new car every three years; a couple of holidays every year; expensive carry-out meals; etc.   Perhaps it would be claimed that many do not even have one income.  Could it not be that, if mothers were at home, then there would be more jobs available for men?  What about equality?  Well that, it seems to me, is the root of the problem.  It was so-called 'equality', quickly combined with consumerism, that took mum out of the house and gave us the first generation of what were called "latch-key kids".

The problem with 'equality' is that it is a pipe-dream!  It has also come to mean 'equivalence'.  They are not the same!  My wife and I are equal as human beings.  I am not a more important person than she; and she is not a more important person than I.  However, we have different functions; abilities; talents; and so on.  When, as a young married couple, we decided that it was time to start a family, we didn't debate as to who would bear our children!  In spite of films like "Junior", the male of the human species is incapable of conceiving and bearing a child.  My wife and I are most certainly not 'equivalent'!

Another popular film was entitled "Back to the future".  Could it be that to have a future, we need to go back?  Back to the family unit as designed by a loving heavenly Father.  Back to the provider-father, and the carer-mother.  I am convinced that, if some political party were to "take the bull by the horns" and adopt policies that would lead to a return to what used to be called "old-fashioned values", we would actually see a positive difference in the society, and culture, in which we live.

No comments: