His prostate made him do it

This past Wednesday, Jack Schaap - the former pastor of First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana - was sentenced to 12 years for the statutory rape of a girl in the church whom he was "counseling."

After pleading guilty in September in a deal with federal prosecutors, both sides had agreed on the 10-year minimum sentence. U.S. District Court Judge Rudy Lozano however passed down a 12-year sentence, saying that this was in accordance with federal sentencing guidelines. Additionally, Schaap will be on 5 years of supervised probation following his release, and must register as a sex offender for life. 

Source here

Based on the full text of his letters to the girl, which have since been released by the prosecution, as well as past perverted teachings and in particular his displays of gross sexual misconduct from the pulpit, I am certain that this girl was not his first and only victim. 

My hope is that other victims will have the boldness to come forward with their stories, so this pervert can stay behind bars for life. 

Read on below for details of the sentencing memorandums.

Source here

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Judas, not a David

Looks like his "guilty" plea for taking a minor across state lines to have an illegitimate  affair with her is going to land Jack Schaap, former pastor of the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, in federal prison for ten or more years. 

 Image by John J Watkins, The Times

As it turns out, it is, indeed, a criminal act for a 54-year old (married father of two, no less) to carry on an intimate relationship with a 16-year old under his care and counseling. Whodathunkit!!! While she met the legal age for consent, that only applies as long as there are less than 4 years of age difference... not  ***cough, cough*** 38 years.

Christmas in August

For your viewing pleasure and a little (okay, a lot) of comic relief, please enjoy this absolutely hilarious, albeit entirely extrabiblical, banter by none other than Dr. Jack Schaap.

Oh, I love this clip! It makes me laugh tears every time I watch it.

Why Ladies Should Not Wear Head-Coverings

(a guest post by my husband)
 

1Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
1Cor 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 1Cor 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1Cor 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
1Cor 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1Cor 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Cor 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 1Cor 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
1Cor 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
1Cor 11:12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
1Cor 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
1Cor 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1Cor 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
1Cor 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Some people have misinterpreted 1 Corinthians 11 and believe that it is commanding women to wear hats or "head-coverings" of some kind. In this chapter, God is dealing with gender roles and the authority that a man has over his wife. In verse 3, the authority that a man has over his wife is likened unto the authority that God has over a man. God is the "head" (authority figure) of the man, and the man is the "head" (authority figure) of the woman. This matches perfectly with what the Bible says in Ephesians 5:

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

As we continue in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 4-6 state:

1Cor 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 1Cor 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1Cor 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

According to these verses women should have their heads "covered," and men should not. In fact, if a woman's head is not covered, that is just as bad as if she were "shorn" or "shaven." Notice that the Bible says that it is a "shame" for a woman to be shorn or shaven. We all know what "shaven" means, but what does the word "shorn" mean? The Bible uses the word "shorn" one other time in the New Testament:

Acts 18:18 And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.

The vow that the Bible is referring to here is a Nazarite vow from the Old Testament. Notice what the Bible commands about the Nazarite vow in Numbers 6:

Num 6:5 All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.

Num 6:18 And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.

Once again, the Bible is its own dictionary. Being "shorn" is another word for being "shaven." Paul having his head shaved with a razor is referred to as him being "shorn." Therefore God is saying that a woman being "uncovered" is just as shameful as her shaving her head completely bald as Paul did in Acts 18.

So, what is this "covering"?

1Cor 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
1Cor 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1Cor 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

According to verses 13-15, a woman is "uncovered" if she does not have "long hair." A woman is therefore commanded to have long hair, and a man is commanded not to have long hair.

Those who believe in women wearing external "head-coverings" or bonnets on their heads will argue that even though long hair is a covering (indefinite article), women still need to wear an additional covering or bonnet on their heads. This is easily disproved with the Bible. The same passage that tells women to be covered tells men not to be covered. Therefore, if this were talking about something other than long hair (i.e. a "head-covering" or bonnet), it would be a sin for a man to wear it while praying or prophesying. This is directly in contradiction with many Old Testament passages that command the Old Testament priests to wear bonnets and mitres while ministering in the priests office:

Exo 28:40 And for Aaron's sons thou shalt make coats, and thou shalt make for them girdles, and bonnets shalt thou make for them, for glory and for beauty.
Exo 28:41 And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office.

Exo 29:9 And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the bonnets on them: and the priest's office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute: and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons.

Exo 39:27 And they made coats of fine linen of woven work for Aaron, and for his sons,
Exo 39:28 And a mitre of fine linen, and goodly bonnets of fine linen, and linen breeches of fine twined linen,

Lev 8:13 And Moses brought Aaron's sons, and put coats upon them, and girded them with girdles, and put bonnets upon them; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Eze 44:17 And it shall come to pass, that when they enter in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them, whiles they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within.

Eze 44:18 They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causeth sweat.

Notice that the priest's clothing consisted of coats, britches (pants), and bonnets. Why would God tell us that "nature itself" teaches us that a woman should wear a head-covering, and that men should not, when he commanded over and over again that the priests (who were men of course) were required to wear bonnets when they prayed and prophesied in the priests office! The covering referred to in 1 Corinthians 11 is long hair, as defined in the passage itself; it is not a bonnet or head-covering.

This is consistent with the Old Testament, which commanded the priests not to have long hair:

Eze 44:20 Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long; they shall only poll their heads.

They were commanded to be neither completely bald nor long-haired, but rather to "poll" (i.e. cut short the hair on) their heads.

Other proponents of "head-coverings" on women will say that if you "go back to the Greek," you'll see that the word for "covering" in verse 15 is different than the other words used for "covering" in the passage. Of course, they are not fluent in Greek, but because the words look a lot different, they assume that they must be talking about completely different things. However, there are many examples in our language of words that look completely different as different parts of speech, but that are actually the same. Here are a few examples:

- having faith (noun) means that you believe (verb).

- being undressed (adjective) means you aren't wearing any clothes (noun).

- doing something manually (adverb) means that you did it by hand (noun).

- thing that are lunar (adjective) have to do with the moon (noun).

You see how identical words can look completely different as different parts of speech. Therefore a woman can be uncovered (adjective - ακατακαλυπτω) because she is not wearing a covering (noun - περιβολαιου). Just because the words look the same in English does not mean that they will look the same in Greek. Apparently these head-covering advocates who couldn't even order a meal in a Greek restaurant think they know more than the KJV translators. This is why one should always beware when anyone has to "go back to the Greek" to prove their doctrine.

Now that we understand what "covering" is referring to in 1 Corinthians 11 (i.e. long hair), let's go back and look at the passage with this definition in mind:

1Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
1Cor 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (i.e. having long hair), dishonoureth his head (i.e. dishonours Jesus Christ - see previous verse).
1Cor 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered (i.e. with short hair) dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. (i.e. if a woman doesn't have long hair, she might as well be bald!)
1Cor 11:6 For if the woman be not covered (i.e. she has short hair), let her also be shorn : but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (i.e. in God's eyes, it is just as much of a shame for a woman to have short hair, as it is for her to be completely shaved bald).

You may say, "Okay, Pastor Anderson, I get it. Women do not have to wear head-coverings, but they do have to have long hair. But can't they wear head-coverings if they want to? Why are you against head-coverings?"

I am against head-coverings on women for two reasons:

1. I am against head-coverings because they associate you with the wrong crowd spiritually. Every church or pastor I have ever seen or known that taught that women were commanded to wear head-coverings was wrong on the Gospel. I have never seen or heard of a church that taught that women must wear head-coverings that believed that salvation was by faith alone. The churches and teachers promoting head-coverings on women teach a works-based salvation in one of the following forms:

- some teach you can lose your salvation

- some teach you must repent of your sins in order to be saved

- some teach you must surrender your life to Christ in order to be saved

- some teach Calvinist doctrines of "grace" which teach that if you don't have works, you aren't saved, and that God is the one who chooses who will be saved and who will be damned (TULIP).

The Bible on the other hand states that salvation is by faith alone:

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Rom 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I have never seen or heard of any church that preached Bible salvation that taught women to wear head-coverings. Therefore, wearing a head-covering will lump you in with unsaved false teachers such as the Amish, Pentecostals, etc.

Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

1Thess 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

2. I am against head-coverings because they are not modest apparel. Yes, you got that right, I said that they are not modest apparel:

1Tim 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

1Tim 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

The word "modest" in these verses is often misinterpreted to only mean "not revealing" or "not promiscuous." However, there is nothing revealing or promiscuous about broided hair, gold, or pearls. This passage is telling ladies not to dress in a way that draws attention to themselves. Their good works should be what stand out, not their appearance, clothing, hair, or jewelry. Instead of a "Christian uniform," it should be the good works of Christian ladies that stand out to the world.

mod·est

/ˈmɒdɪst/ Show Spelled[mod-ist]

–adjective

1.having or showing a moderate or humble estimate of one's merits, importance, etc.; free from vanity, egotism, boastfulness, or great pretensions.

Women who wear head-coverings or Amish-looking dresses are doing so in order to purposely look different and stand out. There are many beautiful and stylish dresses for women to wear that are very modest and and not revealing whatsoever, but that do not purposely draw attention and cry out, "Look at me! Look how 'modest' I am!" Purposely drawing attention to yourself is neither modesty nor humility!

If ladies who practice "head-covering" were truly just trying to obey scripture and not draw attention to themselves, then why not wear a "head-covering" something like this:

or this:


Instead, this is what you usually see:


or this:

 

Conclusion:

Ladies are commanded by the Bible to have long hair. They are not commanded to wear an external head covering of any kind. If they do wear one, people will probably associate them with religions that preach a false Gospel.

The egg recall: Austin "Jack" DeCoster not the "Christian businessman" he's cracked up to be

Certainly, most everyone has heard of the massive egg recall this past week. 550 million eggs - that's 550,000,000 - or close to an average of 5 eggs per household in the US. Did you check the eggs in your fridge when you heard the news?

I for one didn't, because we get all our eggs from an organic farm that lets its chickens roam freely out in a pasture. The eggs are the best I have ever tasted - the yolks are huge, round, and dark yellow/orange. They are so tasty that people have asked if I added cheese to my scrambled eggs when they were, in fact, just plain eggs.

Don't these ladies look happy?

So I didn't really pay any attention to the whole egg recall. I mean, these days, factory-produced food is being recalled all the time, and it's hard to even keep up with.

Then this weekend, I must have been bored or something, I clicked on this article. My interest suddenly peaked when I came across a familiar name, "Jack" DeCoster. I had heard mention of him many times before, and it was only ever positive.

Austin "Jack" DeCoster, right, sits with Timothy O'Brien, a lawyer representing Maine Contract Farming, LLC, in 10 counts of animal cruelty stemming from an undercover investigation in 2009 by Mercy For Animals at the Turner egg farm. Maine Contract Farming, LLC, has agreed to pay $134,674.11 in fines, restitutions, and aid to inspectors after pleading guilty to the charges.

First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana and their college, Hyles-Anderson College, had lifted him up countless times as the example of a hardworking, Christian businessman who uses his hard-earned business empire to financially aid and further the cause of Christ, namely by donating large sums of money to their ministries. In fact, the "modern 1,500 seat DeCoster Dining Hall facility" at the college is named in honor of this generous donor.

Imagine my surprise when I read these news. The more I looked into it, the more apparent it became that Mr. DeCoster uses anything but integrity in his business operations. Such behavior would be unbecoming of unbelievers, even downright criminal - how much more of someone who is revered as a Christian with a burden for supporting local churches?

Could it be that this latest egg recall was simply a one-time mishap? Hardly. DeCoster has a record of violations that goes back at least three decades:

• In 1977 neighbors whose homes were infested with insects filed a $5 million lawsuit, claiming nose plugs and flyswatters should be the "new neighbor" kit.

• In 1980, the DeCoster operation was charged with employing five 11-year-olds and a 9-year-old by the Labor department.

• In 1988, 100,000 chickens burned to death in a fire and were left to decompose.

• In 1992, DeCoster was charged by the state, with indenturing migrant workers, denying them contact with teachers, social workers, doctors, lawyers and labor organizers.
  

• Prior to 1993: Even before he built his first large-scale Iowa pig farming operation, Austin J. “Jack” DeCoster had already drawn the serious attention of environmental and labor law enforcement authorities. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection had brought a 14-count action against him for activities that were polluting both air and water. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) had investigated DeCoster in connection with farm workers’ reports that they had been exposed to lethal asbestos in DeCoster chicken houses. There had also been a federal suit brought against DeCoster under the Migrant Agricultural Workers Protection Act, based on workers’ reports of unfit housing, and of illegal threats and harassment ongoing at DeCoster plants.

• In 1996, federal investigators found DeCoster workers living in rat and cockroach infested housing and the egg operation was fined $3.6 million. At these facilities, federal investigators found that workers had been forced to handle manure and dead chickens with unprotected, bare hands, and that the trailers serving as worker housing were filthy and infested. Then-Labor Secretary Robert Reich described the conditions at the Maine DeCoster egg operations as “among the worst” found in the U.S. "The conditions in this migrant farm site are as dangerous and oppressive as any sweatshop we have seen,'' said Labor Secretary Robert Reich; "I thought I was going to faint and I was only there a few minutes,'' said Cesar Britos, an attorney representing DeCoster workers, after entering a barn."

• June, 2000: DeCoster was named Iowa’s first “habitual violator” of state environmental laws, after losing a succession of enforcement cases brought against him by the Iowa Attorney General. At the time, DeCoster Farms’ pig-feeding business confined hundreds of thousands of pigs, and was generating more manure than it could contain in its underground pits. When the company simply spread its excess manure across open land, and transported huge volumes of it along open county roads, manure flowed into public waterways, causing hazardous pollution. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources ordered DeCoster immediately to construct concrete manure-storage structures, and assessed him a $150,000 civil penalty. DeCoster’s “habitual violator” status raised applicable penalties for noncompliance from $5,000 to $25,000 per day, and barred DeCoster from constructing any new confinement feeding operations.

• In 2001, dead hens intermingled with live ones during truck transport sparked a complaint to the Department of Agriculture.

truck transport

• June, 2002: OSHA imposed a fine of $345,810 on Maine Contract Farming LLC (a DeCoster business successor) and several other related entities in Turner, Maine, based on findings that they had refused to remedy hazardous conditions that were continually placing workers in danger. At the time of this OSHA action, the egg farm already had a documented history of roof collapses. Violations listed in the June 2002 OSHA order included exposed asbestos, defective eyewash stations, hazardous electrical equipment, uninspected fire extinguishers, unsanitary shower facilities, and fall hazards. Commenting on the OSHA penalty, an Auburn, Maine lawyer who had represented 80 workers in a pay-violation case against DeCoster told press that Maine Contract Farming and its associates were “still DeCoster Egg Farm,” and “still operated by Austin DeCoster.”

• July, 2002: DeCoster Egg Farms of Maine agreed to pay $3.2 million to settle a discrimination lawsuit brought against it by Mexican workers who suffered deplorable working conditions while working at the Farms. The workers asserted that DeCoster Egg Farms had exploited their vulnerable immigration status in order to avoid obligations to comply with labor laws. The plight of the workers was so substantial that the Mexican government joined in the case, and made the case a cause celebre.

• 2001 – 2003: In 2001, the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence (ICADV) filed a federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint against DeCoster Farms in Wright County, Iowa, on behalf of female workers who reported that they had been sexually assaulted and raped by supervisors at DeCoster Farms. EEOC reviewed the complaint, and sought an injunction against DeCoster. This resulted in an order requiring DeCoster Farms to enforce federal anti-harassment and non-retaliation policies at its facility, and to cooperate with EEOC’s ongoing investigation into the facts underlying the workers’ complaint. EEOC ultimately ruled for the workers, but DeCoster would not cooperate towards a settlement payment. EEOC therefore commenced a formal proceeding against DeCoster, which ended in 2003, when DeCoster agreed to pay $1.3 million in damages to 11 workers, $100,000 to ICADV, and $125,000 to any additional victims who might be identified within a year of the settlement decree.

• August, 2003: A. J. DeCoster pleaded guilty to federal charges that he had knowingly and repeatedly hired illegal immigrants at his Northern Iowa egg plants. The charges resembled others that DeCoster had faced and settled in 1989, for his illegal hiring practices at Maine-based egg operations. Under the terms of the Iowa plea agreement, DeCoster paid the federal government $1.25 million, and another $875,000 in restitution, to cover some of the government’s enforcement and monitoring costs at his plants. DeCoster was also required to pay for unannounced facility and record inspections at his plants, for five years following the date of his plea.
  

• June, 2006: During the third immigration raid of DeCoster egg operations in Iowa since 2001, law enforcement officials confirmed that DeCoster was still engaging in illegal hiring practices at his six Iowa egg facilities. Thirty-six workers were detained in the course of this enforcement operation. 8• May, 2007: Former DeCoster manager Cacy Cantwell was granted a hearing before the Maine Human Rights Commission on his complaint that DeCoster had fired him and stripped him of company housing on the sole grounds that Cantwell is an atheist. A Commission investigator who reviewed the evidence found a reasonable basis for Cantwell’s assertion of religious discrimination. Cantwell supplemented his Human Rights Commission complaint with a separate filing against DeCoster at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

• September, 2007: Federal immigration investigators raided the same six DeCoster egg farms in Iowa that had been raided by officials in June, 2006. Children were among the 51 illegally hired workers found on the premises, this time.

• August, 2008: OSHA cited DeCoster surrogate Maine Contract Farming for willful violations of worker safety laws, based on findings that during the prior Winter, the company had forced workers to salvage eggs from inside a dangerously unstable structure that had collapsed from the weight of ice and snow. OSHA called this company misconduct “astonishing” and “unacceptable.” For actions that exposed workers in other buildings to additional collapse hazards, and which allowed workers to operate powered industrial trucks in a way that exposed them to the risk of crush injuries, OSHA issued the egg operation two additional citations for hazards that OSHA classified as likely to result in death or serious injury to workers.
  

• Workers' drinking water has been found contaminated with feces by OSHA and after a conciliatory "free" chicken banquet offered to workers, they were docked for their time eating it, reported the Portland Press Herald.

This laundry list of violations is a testament to the uselessness of the government agencies involved. Sure, they fined DeCoster's operations, but they don't seem to have succeeded at making him change the way he conducts business, or else withdraw his business license(es). I guess as long as he kept paying them high fines, they didn't mind letting him carry on (and on and on, and expand into hog farming, as well as into other states).

Now, I am not an animal rights activist by any stretch of the imagination. I mean, I would never even think of treating our dog this way, and believe me, we have no intention of eating her, nor will I particularly care when she eventually dies - at which point we will simply replace her. Animals are not human beings. I neither worship animals, nor the environment. But I DO greatly respect and care about human lives. The reason why I care about the housing and treatment of these animals is because it affects their health, which in turn affects the health of those who eat the products they provide us with (in this case, eggs), as well as the health of those employees taking care of them.

Don't let the sickly look of these chickens fool you - they lay high quality eggs, in spite of their obviously disastrous health!

The food industry in the United States must be one of the most corrupt industries in our country, second-worst probably only to the pharmaceutical industry (and the two are much more connected than one might suspect). Among these crooks, this "Christian businessman" stands out as particularly ruthless and corrupt.

Did you know that people can and do die from salmonella poisoning? Did you know that during pregnancy, it can lead to miscarriage or stillbirth? Did you know that even in the best case scenario of "just" getting diarrhea, nausea, etc. this leads to lost work, a miserable 24-48 hours of sickness, and a completely unnecessary hassle all around?

Yum, yum!!

And why? Because of someone's greed for more money in less time. How do people go to sleep in their fancy houses, drive around in their fancy cars, and live a luxurious life knowing that it is financed by the health and lives of those to whom they sell their dishonest products, and the health and lives of those whom they employ?

And then for phony pastors to lift these people up as examples of Christianity, for no other reason than that they want to keep the donations coming! As if God depends on dishonest crooks to finance furthering the gospel. Hyles-Anderson college pays most of its employees ridiculously low wages that are far below minimum wage, but offers them perks such as free tuition at their Christian schools for the employees' kids, and free meals in the "DeCoster Dining Hall", where I'm guessing they get their namesake's eggs for free or at a great discount. Wow, ruining your family and your health are thrown in for free when you work for the college!!

I guess birds of a feather flock together.

Some thoughts on Switched-on-Schoolhouse and similar curricula

An important guest post from a dear friend:

As someone who went to Christian school from Kindergarten through my senior year, taught in a Christian school as an adult, and later homeschooled my own children for several years, I am familiar with the various curricula that are available for homeschooling families. There is no perfect curriculum, but there is one company in particular that I would like to warn parents about. It is the company that produces Switched-on-Schoolhouse (S.O.S.), LIFEPAC, HORIZONS, and WEAVER products.

I have read statements in the LIFEPACS about creation that seemed to be, in an underhanded way, actually making fun of God. Also the Horizon math books have word problems about purchasing religious icons including crosses as well as cheesy “What Would Jesus Do?” bracelets at a Christian book store. Sometimes it was harder to put a finger on it, but the way things were worded, it just did not sound like the authors really believed in the biblical account of Creation that they sarcastically described. Switched-on-Schoolhouse, in earlier editions, used the King James Bible exclusively, so I used it for awhile for my older children in spite of other liberal content eg. referring to persecution by the Catholic Church as “Christians killing other Christians”, etc. I made the decision to use S.O.S. during a difficult pregnancy, because the work is done on the computer and there is no grading or record keeping to do since it is done automatically. Anyway, for our last year of homeschooling, I ended up switching to mostly Abeka Books which at least comes from an independent Baptist college where hopefully most people believe in the existence of God.

Circumstances changed, and I enrolled my daughter in a public high school for her sophomore year. Although she was able to transfer some of her homeschool credits and challenge other classes by “testing out” of them, she was required to take a credit recovery class for Biology which is done on the computer. The name of the software she works on for that class is Odysseyware. To her surprise, the format was exactly the same as the Switched-on-Schoolhouse software she had used for science while home schooling during her junior high years! The work was easy for her, since it was almost identical to Switched-on-Schoolhouse. There was only one difference--the Odysseyware Biology course taught evolution, whereas the Switched-on-Schoolhouse course left out the evolution and instead mentioned Creation. Also, a few Bible verses were thrown in here and there for the Christian version. After a quick Google search, our suspicions were confirmed that Odysseyware is the same company as Odyssey Learning Services/Alpha Omega Publications which produces Switched-on-Schoolhouse (S.O.S.), LIFEPAC, HORIZONS, and WEAVER products. If you are homeschooling, it is probably because you do not want your children taught by unbelievers, but if you use any of these “Christian” brands, who do you think is teaching your children? The authors claim to be Christians from a “Bible church“, but why are they teaching evolution as fact? Evolution can be a major stumbling block to many public school students who do not go to church and are not taught the Bible at home.

2 Peter 2:14-15
(14) Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
(15) Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;




1 Timothy 6:10
(10) For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

An Independent Fundamental Baptist Mom in Texas


[end of guest post]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The website of Glynlyon, the parent company of both Alpha Omega Publications (the "Christian" version) and Odysseyware (the "public school", evolution-based version), confirms:

The Glynlyon Learning Companies are dedicated to the development and adoption of effective modalities of learning through tools, curricula, multimedia techniques, and various delivery strategies designed to best educate students regardless of their learning styles. ODYSSEYWARE® provides an electronic curriculum for grades 3-12. Alpha Omega Publications® provides Christian curriculum for grades kindergarten-12, including print and electronic options.

I for one certainly do not want my children to be taught by people who believe one thing, but teach both what they believe, as well as the opposite of it, for maximum financial gain.

The authors of these books either believe in creation, but lie and promote the false and erroneous teachings of evolution to increase profits.

Or, they really do believe in evolution, while passing themselves off as Christian publishers, making themselves false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing, and again lying for financial gain. Besides, "the fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge," so these people are also ignorant and in no position to be teaching anyone.

If you are equally disturbed by this, please pass this information on to other homeschoolers who most likely are not aware of the true nature of this publisher, many of whom would be appalled to find out the truth.