... comes from contentment. This blog has reminded me of being content. Without God's saving grace, I would not be able to be truly thankful for anything right now. We are not entitled to anything but God has graciously provided a way for us to have abundant life. I cannot express how much I thank God for my new life and family. I am so grateful I can fall prostrate at His feet and weep. I am so thankful I am willing to lay down everything I want to be everything He wants. With His help, we will teach our kids to give it all and keep none. We will follow Him. Whatever it takes. Lord give us the wisdom. We can do nothing without You. Help us to continue growing our family and hearts towards You. AMEN.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Take over
I have been so stressed out! I need God to take over and let me rest. I admit I have a very moody personality. I can be really happy and outgoing, and I can be really depressed and hide like a hermit. I am not sure why, but I am still trying to find a balance. Right now I am suffering from some kind of stomach cramps and it's been hurting since last night. I sure hope it's not my appendix. There is a chance it's totally stress related cuz when the baby cries too much, I'd start hurting a lot. And when she got hold of a pair of scissors in the living room while I was in the bedroom, I heard Phill say to my 4 year old, take that scissors away from her, and I cramped up really bad too. I am trying so hard to balance our lives and find a good schedule for all the kids and at the same time trying to do things right with Phill. It has not been easy. I need so much help.
God, help! Give me the wisdom and strength. Alleviate my stress and take over. Have mercy and grace on my children. Continue to teach me, humble me, and search my heart. AMEN.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ABIGAIL!
God, help! Give me the wisdom and strength. Alleviate my stress and take over. Have mercy and grace on my children. Continue to teach me, humble me, and search my heart. AMEN.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ABIGAIL!
Thursday, November 19, 2009
POLARITY in worship
EXodus 24 1 Then he said to Moses, "Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. You are to worship at a distance, 2 but Moses alone is to approach the LORD; the others must not come near. And the people may not come up with him."
Psalm 100 1 Shout for joy to the LORD, all the earth.
2 Worship the LORD with gladness;
come before him with joyful songs.
3 Know that the LORD is God.
It is he who made us, and we are his [a] ;
we are his people, the sheep of his pasture.
4 Enter his gates with thanksgiving
and his courts with praise;
give thanks to him and praise his name.
5 For the LORD is good and his love endures forever;
his faithfulness continues through all generations.
Psalm 100 1 Shout for joy to the LORD, all the earth.
2 Worship the LORD with gladness;
come before him with joyful songs.
3 Know that the LORD is God.
It is he who made us, and we are his [a] ;
we are his people, the sheep of his pasture.
4 Enter his gates with thanksgiving
and his courts with praise;
give thanks to him and praise his name.
5 For the LORD is good and his love endures forever;
his faithfulness continues through all generations.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
The Rationing Commission: Meet the unelected body that will dictate future medical decisions.
Wall Street Journal
As usual, the most dangerous parts of ObamaCare aren't receiving the scrutiny they deserve—and one of the least examined is a new commission to tell Congress how to control health spending. Democrats are quietly attempting to impose a "global budget" on Medicare, with radical implications for U.S. medicine.
Like most of Europe, the various health bills stipulate that Congress will arbitrarily decide how much to spend on health care for seniors every year—and then invest an unelected board with extraordinary powers to dictate what is covered and how it will be paid for. White House budget director Peter Orszag calls this Medicare commission "critical to our fiscal future" and "one of the most potent reforms."
On that last score, he's right. Prominent health economist Alain Enthoven has likened a global budget to "bombing from 35,000 feet, where you don't see the faces of the people you kill."
As envisioned by the Senate Finance Committee, the commission—all 15 members appointed by the President—would have to meet certain budget targets each year. Starting in 2015, Medicare could not grow more rapidly on a per capita basis than by a measure of inflation. After 2019, it could only grow at the same rate as GDP, plus one percentage point.
The theory is to let technocrats set Medicare payments free from political pressure, as with the military base closing commissions. But that process presented recommendations to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Here, the commission's decisions would go into effect automatically if Congress couldn't agree within six months on different cuts that met the same target. The board's decisions would not be subject to ordinary notice-and-comment rule-making, or even judicial review.
Yet if the goal really is political insulation, then the Medicare Commission is off to a bad start. To avoid a senior revolt, Finance Chairman Max Baucus decided to bar his creation from reducing benefits or raising the eligibility age, which meant that it could only cut costs by tightening Medicare price controls on doctors and hospitals. Doctors and hospitals, naturally, were furious.
So the Montana Democrat bowed and carved out exemptions for such providers, along with hospices and suppliers of medical equipment. Until 2019 the commission will thus only be allowed to attack Medicare Advantage, the program that gives 10 million seniors private insurance choices, and to raise premiums for Medicare prescription drug coverage, which is run by private contractors. Notice a political pattern?
But a decade from now, such limits are off—which also happens to be roughly the time when ObamaCare's spending explodes. The hard budget cap means there is only so much money to be divvied up for care, with no account for demographic changes, such as longer life spans, or for the increasing incidence of diabetes, heart disease and other chronic conditions.
Worse, it makes little room for medical innovations. The commission is mandated to go after "sources of excess cost growth," meaning treatments that are too expensive or whose coverage will boost spending. If researchers find a pricey treatment for Alzheimer's in 2020, that might be banned because it would add new costs and bust the global budget. Or it might decide that "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," as President Obama put it in June.
In other words, the Medicare commission would come to function much like the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which rations care in England. Or a similar Washington state board created in 2003 to control costs. Its handiwork isn't pretty.
The Washington commission, called the Health Technology Assessment, is manned by 11 bureaucrats, including a chiropractor and a "naturopath" who focuses on alternative, er, remedies like herbs and massage therapy. They consider the clinical effectiveness but above all the cost of medical procedures and technologies. If they decide something isn't worth the money, then Olympia won't cover it for some 750,000 Medicaid patients, public employees and prisoners.
So far, the commission has banned knee arthroscopy for osteoarthritis, discography for chronic back pain, and implantable infusion pumps for pain not related to cancer. This year, it is targeting such frivolous luxuries as knee replacements, spinal cord stimulation, a specialized autism therapy and MRIs of the abdomen, pelvis or breasts for cancer. It will also rule on routine ultrasounds for pregnancy, which have a "high" efficacy but also a "high" cost.
Currently, the commission is pushing through the most restrictive payment policy in the nation for drug-eluting cardiac stents—simply because bare metal stents are cheaper, even as they result in worse outcomes. If a patient is wheeled into the operating room with chest pains in an emergency, doctors will first have to determine if he's covered by a state plan, then the diameter of his blood vessels and his diabetic condition to decide on the appropriate stent. If they don't, Washington will not reimburse them for "inappropriate care."
If Democrats impose such a commission nationwide, it would constitute a radical change in U.S. health care. The reason that physician discretion—not Washington's cost-minded judgments—is at the core of medicine is that usually there are no "right" answers. The data from large clinical trials produce generic conclusions that rarely apply to individual patients, who have vastly different biologies, response rates to treatments, and often multiple conditions. A breakthrough drug like Herceptin, which is designed for a certain genetic subset of breast-cancer patients, might well be ruled out under such a standardized approach.
It's possible this global budget could become an accounting fiction, like the automatic Medicare cuts Congress currently pretends it will impose on doctors. But health care's fiscal pressures will be even stronger than they are today if ObamaCare passes in anything like its current form. And that is when politicians will want this remote, impersonal and unaccountable central committee to do the inevitable dirty work of denying care.
The only way to take the politics out of health care is to give individuals more power to control medical dollars. And the first step should be not to create even more government spending commitments. The core problem with government-run health care is that it doesn't make decisions in the best interests of patients, but in the best interests of government.
As usual, the most dangerous parts of ObamaCare aren't receiving the scrutiny they deserve—and one of the least examined is a new commission to tell Congress how to control health spending. Democrats are quietly attempting to impose a "global budget" on Medicare, with radical implications for U.S. medicine.
Like most of Europe, the various health bills stipulate that Congress will arbitrarily decide how much to spend on health care for seniors every year—and then invest an unelected board with extraordinary powers to dictate what is covered and how it will be paid for. White House budget director Peter Orszag calls this Medicare commission "critical to our fiscal future" and "one of the most potent reforms."
On that last score, he's right. Prominent health economist Alain Enthoven has likened a global budget to "bombing from 35,000 feet, where you don't see the faces of the people you kill."
As envisioned by the Senate Finance Committee, the commission—all 15 members appointed by the President—would have to meet certain budget targets each year. Starting in 2015, Medicare could not grow more rapidly on a per capita basis than by a measure of inflation. After 2019, it could only grow at the same rate as GDP, plus one percentage point.
The theory is to let technocrats set Medicare payments free from political pressure, as with the military base closing commissions. But that process presented recommendations to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Here, the commission's decisions would go into effect automatically if Congress couldn't agree within six months on different cuts that met the same target. The board's decisions would not be subject to ordinary notice-and-comment rule-making, or even judicial review.
Yet if the goal really is political insulation, then the Medicare Commission is off to a bad start. To avoid a senior revolt, Finance Chairman Max Baucus decided to bar his creation from reducing benefits or raising the eligibility age, which meant that it could only cut costs by tightening Medicare price controls on doctors and hospitals. Doctors and hospitals, naturally, were furious.
So the Montana Democrat bowed and carved out exemptions for such providers, along with hospices and suppliers of medical equipment. Until 2019 the commission will thus only be allowed to attack Medicare Advantage, the program that gives 10 million seniors private insurance choices, and to raise premiums for Medicare prescription drug coverage, which is run by private contractors. Notice a political pattern?
But a decade from now, such limits are off—which also happens to be roughly the time when ObamaCare's spending explodes. The hard budget cap means there is only so much money to be divvied up for care, with no account for demographic changes, such as longer life spans, or for the increasing incidence of diabetes, heart disease and other chronic conditions.
Worse, it makes little room for medical innovations. The commission is mandated to go after "sources of excess cost growth," meaning treatments that are too expensive or whose coverage will boost spending. If researchers find a pricey treatment for Alzheimer's in 2020, that might be banned because it would add new costs and bust the global budget. Or it might decide that "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," as President Obama put it in June.
In other words, the Medicare commission would come to function much like the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which rations care in England. Or a similar Washington state board created in 2003 to control costs. Its handiwork isn't pretty.
The Washington commission, called the Health Technology Assessment, is manned by 11 bureaucrats, including a chiropractor and a "naturopath" who focuses on alternative, er, remedies like herbs and massage therapy. They consider the clinical effectiveness but above all the cost of medical procedures and technologies. If they decide something isn't worth the money, then Olympia won't cover it for some 750,000 Medicaid patients, public employees and prisoners.
So far, the commission has banned knee arthroscopy for osteoarthritis, discography for chronic back pain, and implantable infusion pumps for pain not related to cancer. This year, it is targeting such frivolous luxuries as knee replacements, spinal cord stimulation, a specialized autism therapy and MRIs of the abdomen, pelvis or breasts for cancer. It will also rule on routine ultrasounds for pregnancy, which have a "high" efficacy but also a "high" cost.
Currently, the commission is pushing through the most restrictive payment policy in the nation for drug-eluting cardiac stents—simply because bare metal stents are cheaper, even as they result in worse outcomes. If a patient is wheeled into the operating room with chest pains in an emergency, doctors will first have to determine if he's covered by a state plan, then the diameter of his blood vessels and his diabetic condition to decide on the appropriate stent. If they don't, Washington will not reimburse them for "inappropriate care."
If Democrats impose such a commission nationwide, it would constitute a radical change in U.S. health care. The reason that physician discretion—not Washington's cost-minded judgments—is at the core of medicine is that usually there are no "right" answers. The data from large clinical trials produce generic conclusions that rarely apply to individual patients, who have vastly different biologies, response rates to treatments, and often multiple conditions. A breakthrough drug like Herceptin, which is designed for a certain genetic subset of breast-cancer patients, might well be ruled out under such a standardized approach.
It's possible this global budget could become an accounting fiction, like the automatic Medicare cuts Congress currently pretends it will impose on doctors. But health care's fiscal pressures will be even stronger than they are today if ObamaCare passes in anything like its current form. And that is when politicians will want this remote, impersonal and unaccountable central committee to do the inevitable dirty work of denying care.
The only way to take the politics out of health care is to give individuals more power to control medical dollars. And the first step should be not to create even more government spending commitments. The core problem with government-run health care is that it doesn't make decisions in the best interests of patients, but in the best interests of government.
"Obamacare is not 'reform' -- given what it would do to spending, it's more like malpractice."
Obamacare: Buy now, pay later By Robert J. Samuelson (The Washington Post)
Monday, November 16, 2009
There is an air of absurdity to what is mistakenly called "health-care reform." Everyone knows that the United States faces massive governmental budget deficits as far as calculators can project, driven heavily by an aging population and uncontrolled health costs. As we recover slowly from a devastating recession, it's widely agreed that, though deficits should not be cut abruptly (lest the economy resume its slump), a prudent society would embark on long-term policies to control health costs, reduce government spending and curb massive future deficits. The administration estimates these at $9 trillion from 2010 to 2019. The president and all his top economic advisers proclaim the same cautionary message.
This Story
* Obamacare: Buy now, pay later
* ROTC for civilian service
* Gambling with the dollar
So what do they do? Just the opposite. Their far-reaching overhaul of the health-care system -- which Congress is halfway toward enacting -- would almost certainly make matters worse. It would create new, open-ended medical entitlements that threaten higher deficits and would do little to suppress surging health costs. The disconnect between what President Obama says and what he's doing is so glaring that most people could not abide it. The president, his advisers and allies have no trouble. But reconciling blatantly contradictory objectives requires them to engage in willful self-deception, public dishonesty, or both.
The campaign to pass Obama's health-care plan has assumed a false, though understandable, cloak of moral superiority. It's understandable because almost everyone thinks that people in need of essential medical care should get it; ideally, everyone would have health insurance. The pursuit of these worthy goals can easily be projected as a high-minded exercise for the public good.
ad_icon
It's false for two reasons. First, the country has other goals -- including preventing financial crises and minimizing the crushing effects of high deficits or taxes on the economy and younger Americans -- that "health-care reform" would jeopardize. And second, the benefits of "reform" are exaggerated. Sure, many Americans would feel less fearful about losing insurance; but there are cheaper ways to limit insecurity. Meanwhile, improvements in health for today's uninsured would be modest. They already receive substantial medical care. Insurance would help some individuals enormously, but studies find that, on average, gains are moderate. Despite using more health services, people don't automatically become healthier.
The pretense of moral superiority further erodes before all the expedient deceptions used to sell Obama's health-care agenda. The president says that he won't sign legislation that adds to the deficit. One way to accomplish this is to put costs outside the legislation. So: Doctors have long complained that their Medicare reimbursements are too low; the fix for replacing the present formula would cost $210 billion over a decade, estimates the Congressional Budget Office. That cost was originally in the "health reform" legislation. Now, it's been moved to another bill but, because there's no means to pay for it (higher taxes or spending cuts), deficits would increase.
Another way to disguise the costs is to count savings that, though they exist on paper, will probably never be realized in practice. So: The House bill is credited with reductions in Medicare reimbursements for hospitals and other providers of $228 billion over a decade. But Congress has often prescribed reimbursement cuts that, under pressure from squeezed providers, it has later rescinded. Claims of "fiscal responsibility" for the health-care proposals reflect "assumptions that are totally unrealistic based on past history," says David Walker, former U.S. comptroller general and now head of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.
Equally misleading, Obama's top economic advisers assert that the present proposals would slow the growth of overall national health spending. Outside studies disagree. Three studies (two by the consulting firm the Lewin Group for the Peterson Foundation and one by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, a federal agency) conclude that various congressional plans would increase national health spending compared with the effect of no legislation. The studies variously estimate that the extra spending, over the next decade, would be $750 billion, $525 billion and $114 billion. The reasoning: Greater use of the health-care system by the newly insured would overwhelm cost-saving measures (bundled payments, comparative effectiveness research, tort reform), which are either weak or experimental.
Though these estimates could prove wrong, they are more plausible than the administration's self-serving claims. Its health-care plan is not "comprehensive," as Obama and the New York Times (in its news columns) assert, because it slights cost control. Obama chose to emphasize the politically appealing path of expanding benefits rather than first attending to the harder and more urgent task of controlling spending. If new spending commitments worsen some future budget or financial crisis, Obama's proposal certainly won't qualify as "reform," as the president and The Post (also in its news columns) call it. It's more like malpractice: a self-inflicted wound.
Monday, November 16, 2009
There is an air of absurdity to what is mistakenly called "health-care reform." Everyone knows that the United States faces massive governmental budget deficits as far as calculators can project, driven heavily by an aging population and uncontrolled health costs. As we recover slowly from a devastating recession, it's widely agreed that, though deficits should not be cut abruptly (lest the economy resume its slump), a prudent society would embark on long-term policies to control health costs, reduce government spending and curb massive future deficits. The administration estimates these at $9 trillion from 2010 to 2019. The president and all his top economic advisers proclaim the same cautionary message.
This Story
* Obamacare: Buy now, pay later
* ROTC for civilian service
* Gambling with the dollar
So what do they do? Just the opposite. Their far-reaching overhaul of the health-care system -- which Congress is halfway toward enacting -- would almost certainly make matters worse. It would create new, open-ended medical entitlements that threaten higher deficits and would do little to suppress surging health costs. The disconnect between what President Obama says and what he's doing is so glaring that most people could not abide it. The president, his advisers and allies have no trouble. But reconciling blatantly contradictory objectives requires them to engage in willful self-deception, public dishonesty, or both.
The campaign to pass Obama's health-care plan has assumed a false, though understandable, cloak of moral superiority. It's understandable because almost everyone thinks that people in need of essential medical care should get it; ideally, everyone would have health insurance. The pursuit of these worthy goals can easily be projected as a high-minded exercise for the public good.
ad_icon
It's false for two reasons. First, the country has other goals -- including preventing financial crises and minimizing the crushing effects of high deficits or taxes on the economy and younger Americans -- that "health-care reform" would jeopardize. And second, the benefits of "reform" are exaggerated. Sure, many Americans would feel less fearful about losing insurance; but there are cheaper ways to limit insecurity. Meanwhile, improvements in health for today's uninsured would be modest. They already receive substantial medical care. Insurance would help some individuals enormously, but studies find that, on average, gains are moderate. Despite using more health services, people don't automatically become healthier.
The pretense of moral superiority further erodes before all the expedient deceptions used to sell Obama's health-care agenda. The president says that he won't sign legislation that adds to the deficit. One way to accomplish this is to put costs outside the legislation. So: Doctors have long complained that their Medicare reimbursements are too low; the fix for replacing the present formula would cost $210 billion over a decade, estimates the Congressional Budget Office. That cost was originally in the "health reform" legislation. Now, it's been moved to another bill but, because there's no means to pay for it (higher taxes or spending cuts), deficits would increase.
Another way to disguise the costs is to count savings that, though they exist on paper, will probably never be realized in practice. So: The House bill is credited with reductions in Medicare reimbursements for hospitals and other providers of $228 billion over a decade. But Congress has often prescribed reimbursement cuts that, under pressure from squeezed providers, it has later rescinded. Claims of "fiscal responsibility" for the health-care proposals reflect "assumptions that are totally unrealistic based on past history," says David Walker, former U.S. comptroller general and now head of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.
Equally misleading, Obama's top economic advisers assert that the present proposals would slow the growth of overall national health spending. Outside studies disagree. Three studies (two by the consulting firm the Lewin Group for the Peterson Foundation and one by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, a federal agency) conclude that various congressional plans would increase national health spending compared with the effect of no legislation. The studies variously estimate that the extra spending, over the next decade, would be $750 billion, $525 billion and $114 billion. The reasoning: Greater use of the health-care system by the newly insured would overwhelm cost-saving measures (bundled payments, comparative effectiveness research, tort reform), which are either weak or experimental.
Though these estimates could prove wrong, they are more plausible than the administration's self-serving claims. Its health-care plan is not "comprehensive," as Obama and the New York Times (in its news columns) assert, because it slights cost control. Obama chose to emphasize the politically appealing path of expanding benefits rather than first attending to the harder and more urgent task of controlling spending. If new spending commitments worsen some future budget or financial crisis, Obama's proposal certainly won't qualify as "reform," as the president and The Post (also in its news columns) call it. It's more like malpractice: a self-inflicted wound.
Friday, November 13, 2009
From frc,org - assisted suicide in health care
Health Care to Die for
Today's fact of the day is a fitting one for Friday the 13th, since H.R. 3962 promises to deliver the grim reaper to any patient signed up for the government health plan. Under Section 240 of the bill, insurance companies are required to provide information on "end-of-life planning" to people who are looking to enroll in coverage offered by the health insurance exchange. In the final bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) decided to strip the broader protective language that was adopted in the Energy and Commerce Committee, which means that H.R. 3962 will mandate the distribution of end-of-life materials about assisted suicide options in Oregon and Washington. At the request of Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), the pro-euthanasia organization Compassion and Choices also added "advance care planning consultations" as a new optional Medicare-covered benefit. This would open the door for Medicare to pay for end-of-life consultations that include assisted suicide options in states where it is legal. Both provisions include language that claims these sections don't encourage the promotion of "suicide or assisted suicide." But in crafting their state laws, Oregon and Washington redefined the act of assisting in a suicide as "death with dignity," explicitly stating that such action is not legally considered assisted suicide-even though by medical definition that is exactly what it is. Think such rationing of care could never happen? It already has in Oregon, where patients were told their state provided insurance would not cover treatment but would gladly pick up the cost if they went the assisted suicide route. Just don't call them death panels...
Today's fact of the day is a fitting one for Friday the 13th, since H.R. 3962 promises to deliver the grim reaper to any patient signed up for the government health plan. Under Section 240 of the bill, insurance companies are required to provide information on "end-of-life planning" to people who are looking to enroll in coverage offered by the health insurance exchange. In the final bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) decided to strip the broader protective language that was adopted in the Energy and Commerce Committee, which means that H.R. 3962 will mandate the distribution of end-of-life materials about assisted suicide options in Oregon and Washington. At the request of Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), the pro-euthanasia organization Compassion and Choices also added "advance care planning consultations" as a new optional Medicare-covered benefit. This would open the door for Medicare to pay for end-of-life consultations that include assisted suicide options in states where it is legal. Both provisions include language that claims these sections don't encourage the promotion of "suicide or assisted suicide." But in crafting their state laws, Oregon and Washington redefined the act of assisting in a suicide as "death with dignity," explicitly stating that such action is not legally considered assisted suicide-even though by medical definition that is exactly what it is. Think such rationing of care could never happen? It already has in Oregon, where patients were told their state provided insurance would not cover treatment but would gladly pick up the cost if they went the assisted suicide route. Just don't call them death panels...
Abigail - first day on bike with no training wheels!
We are sooooo proud of her. She was so excited and surprised. Daddy prayed for her to learn before he went to work and we prayed and gave thanks to the Lord for her success afterward. I truly pray she will learn to give God all glory to all she does.
Thank you Father for Your faithfulness. Grow my children unto You and set them apart for Your Kingdom and work. AMEN.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
"halloween" - It's just not our holiday
Last year, I blogged about halloween too and had a strong view against it and I still do. So before reading on, here's the post from last halloween. "And WHAT occasion is THIS?"
My feelings of halloween has been from a parenting spiritual battle point of view and there are several different views of halloween from the ministry angle here at the seminary. I totally understand the alternate festivals to halloween and believe there are some who are called to reach out during the events. There's "harvest festival", "cow town", "trunk or treat" etc etc. I still don't get why kids are allowed tons of candies but I can see the whole building relationships during these events and having an alternative for believers who want to have fun but without the gory side of it. So, in short, I don't condemn believers who celebrate it because we all have different convictions, backgrounds and cultures.
I was a little bothered on halloween this year because the ones who chose not to celebrate halloween were labeled the "legalistic". I felt bad so I talked to an older and trusted friend to see if they did it too. Cuz if they did, I think I'd really feel bad about not "participating" in the ministry side of it all. But guess what, they don't!!!! They had handed out candy and tracts one year, but they've been in Arizona where they were exposed to what halloween was all about and so they know it's a spiritual battle. I am so glad I got to talk to my good friend. And I love gathering reasons for not celebrating halloween, this year, I get to add a quote.
"We don't celebrate halloween the same reason we don't celebrate Hanukkah. It's just not our holiday!" - Gayle Veitenheimer
God continuing to grow us and set us apart from this world. Help us to love one another and to win souls for Your kingdom. AMEN.
My feelings of halloween has been from a parenting spiritual battle point of view and there are several different views of halloween from the ministry angle here at the seminary. I totally understand the alternate festivals to halloween and believe there are some who are called to reach out during the events. There's "harvest festival", "cow town", "trunk or treat" etc etc. I still don't get why kids are allowed tons of candies but I can see the whole building relationships during these events and having an alternative for believers who want to have fun but without the gory side of it. So, in short, I don't condemn believers who celebrate it because we all have different convictions, backgrounds and cultures.
I was a little bothered on halloween this year because the ones who chose not to celebrate halloween were labeled the "legalistic". I felt bad so I talked to an older and trusted friend to see if they did it too. Cuz if they did, I think I'd really feel bad about not "participating" in the ministry side of it all. But guess what, they don't!!!! They had handed out candy and tracts one year, but they've been in Arizona where they were exposed to what halloween was all about and so they know it's a spiritual battle. I am so glad I got to talk to my good friend. And I love gathering reasons for not celebrating halloween, this year, I get to add a quote.
"We don't celebrate halloween the same reason we don't celebrate Hanukkah. It's just not our holiday!" - Gayle Veitenheimer
God continuing to grow us and set us apart from this world. Help us to love one another and to win souls for Your kingdom. AMEN.
November - Adoption Awareness Month!
Help care for orphans
Lord guide us to the child you have already chosen for us to take into our home. Prepare us to love this child as our own. We will trust you in this process. AMEN.
"Adoption is the new pregnant!" - Sharon
Lord guide us to the child you have already chosen for us to take into our home. Prepare us to love this child as our own. We will trust you in this process. AMEN.
"Adoption is the new pregnant!" - Sharon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)