TRUE FAMILY VALUES

It is really amazing that they are digested by this culture. But Satan is strong and has focused some of his highest goons to work on the leaders of the UC. The Morris's do not even practice what they preach. In another article in the UNews, Marilyn writes, "These days, the word 'family' and 'values' are used widely and with many different meanings. True Family Values attempts to express the essential meaning of these two words. Promise Keepers, a program attempting to reintegrate men into leadership roles within their families, is sweeping the nation. According to the most recent articles, it is not being driven by men with the desire to take over the family as a 'macho' ruler, but rather by women persuading their husbands to go in an attempt to create a stable home life."

ROLES

Tragically, she tells the Unification Movement that the Promise Keepers are not really for men being the head of their house. She writes, "True Family Values does not try to create specific roles for men and women, but rather reveal core concepts of how we develop and relate to one another as human beings in the family, which we call, the 'school of love.'" Wrong. Father says repeatedly that men are bones and women are flesh. He has never said men are objects and women are subjects. Roles means there is position. Mother's position is to always stand, sit and walk on Father's left. How many UC sisters make it a point to always be in that position to their husbands?

She says that "as a professional pastoral counselor, I have counseled numerous married couples and can see that many of the marital problems." Because she counsels against the traditional family, she has been one of the causes why the UC is dead in the water. Her confusion is complete. On the one hand, she does not have an egalitarian feminist marriage and then puts down the traditional family. Because she holds two contradictory values at the same time, she is useless as a leader, and because the UC tries to mix feminism with anti-feminism they are confused. A confused mind does nothing and that is the story of 25 years of the UC -- nothing. No members. The Morris's have not built a church in their state to number into the hundreds or thousands. Like all the states it is miracle if even one new person joins in a decade.

The beginning of her article says " She is a full-time wife and mother of three, and a part-time pastoral counselor."  Is her husband a "full-time husband and father of three, and a part-time pastoral counselor? She gives no details to how they organize their life and they give no details to how anyone should organize their family.

Titus 2:3-5

Marilyn says she is a "pastoral counselor" to the members in her state. What she should be counseling members is the beautiful value of patriarchy that the Promise Keepers teach. That men are the final decision makers in the home is the cornerstone of their belief the lack of patriarchy is the core reason why the family is in such a crisis today. Men must be leaders like they were in the past that Marilyn feels is reactionary and has nothing to do with the new Unificationist man.

WORDS ARE IMPORTANT

Marilyn's denial of the role of what Christians call "headship" is the opposite of God and True Parent's teachings. The Three Day Ceremony is the restoration of Adam dominating Eve so Eve can dominate her children and he can dominate creation and build an ideal world. There is divine order -- a vertical order. Circular motion happens within hierarchy. The Morris's have been digested by this secular humanist culture. They are on the Left, not the Right. Their teachings in the UNews are of Satan. Words are powerful. Their words are like poison to the UC. How many lives have they destroyed by their evil words? We will never know. But we do know that their words had an impact on us as well as all the other feminist propaganda the UC churns out. We lived the egalitarian life Marilyn teaches to the world-wide UC in their newspaper. The result was that we lived in poverty and despair. We fought constantly. When we discovered that God had given each of us a complementary role then we found happiness. Our children can testify to how our lives went from tragedy to happiness. Marilyn's teachings are false. She should write articles in the UNews apologizing for her demonic words of division. The truth sets us free and we thank God that a sister in the UC gave us the Andelins and we stopped listening to the feminists sirens like Marilyn Morris. We pray that our church will humble themselves to truth given in the Bible and give true counseling for the Biblical family.

The Bible says clearly that a woman is supposed to do the precious words of truth in Titus 2: 3-5: "tell the older women to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited."

Spiritual Mothering vs. Choosing to Lead

Marilyn and all sisters who embrace feminism's goal of castrating men should do as Susan Hunt teaches in her book, Spiritual Mothering : The Titus 2 Model for Women Mentoring Women. The opposite of this view is the cultural elite such as Constance Buchanan who pushed feminism as associate dean of the Harvard Divinity School. In her book "Choosing to Lead: Women and the Crisis of American Values we read the kind of things Marilyn writes in the UNews. The home is too confining and women need to be in the public offering their unique skills of compassion and justice. Women's challenge, she says, is to formulate "the personal and public vision that will make them effective agents in remaking this world." Women have a "public responsibility for the human welfare of society" and "women must generate progressive, values-based public vision." Her book is vague like Marilyn's writings. But the result of women entering the marketplace is the emasculation of men. Perhaps John Morris may be secure in his manhood, but the net result of women competing with men has created a crisis in masculinity. Don't believe me? Look at President Clinton.

MARILYN'S MUMBO JUMBO

When you cut through the pschobabble the Morris's write it still stinks of the Marxist, communist family that glorifies women leaving the home to build an equalitarian utopia where men and women live a unisex existence. Men and women will do laundry and change diapers and earn money equally. The result of this insanity is the same for anyone who fights against the laws of the universe -- no growth. Sadly, it seems that the leadership of the Women's Federation would embrace the feminist book of women competing and then leading men outside the home. I have never seen anything in the UC women's literature saying that women can heal the world by having a Titus 2 ministry. They seem to think the action is at the United Nations and going to hear speeches of career women at hotels. Touchy feely bridge ceremonies and visiting with celebrities is secondary. The primary focus should be on UC sisters sitting at other women's kitchen table comparing passages in the Bible such as Titus 2:3-5 and Father's many commands for women to be flesh. This is how we have love and romance.

AMAZONS

The only result to trying to get women to lead men is to castrate men and turn women into screaming Amazons. The message UC sisters should be giving during this cultural war is to discern between books like Spiritual Mothering and Choosing to Lead. There is no third or new way like Marilyn says. Marilyn gives no blueprint that is different from the two sides of the Cultural War. Either men lead all the time or they don't. It is black and white, Cain and Abel. Marilyn deludes herself that she has a Seth alternative. The teaching that Marilyn gives that decisions are always made democratically is intellectually bankrupt. Their denial of vertical leadership while they take formal leadership is a disconnect. American men and women haven't got a clue to what a man and woman are anymore. And if anyone has the guts to speak up for the Biblical family and criticize men for being flesh and women for being bones, he or she will be crushed in an avalanche of contempt. Marilyn's alternative to patriarchy is just another sick social experiment in feminism. When we give up patriarchy we quickly slide down the slippery slope to gay marriages. The path to God is a narrow one, not the wide one with feminists alternative creativity.

Gordon Anderson

A prominent intellectual in the UC is Gordon Anderson. He wrote in a book he edited titled The Family in Global Transition that the book "shows which aspects of family life are universal and which are particular to a specific time and culture." He say it is his hope "that this book will leave the reader with an understanding of what the family is, and how families can best perform their role in this time of global transition." It is my hope that you will not read this feminist book that does not give the "universal" "aspects of family." Anderson says he is against "religious fundamentalism of all types: Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Hindu and others." Why? Because "Members of these traditional cultures sense the threat to the family and attempt to protect it through the restoration of the traditional culture. However, these traditions are rooted in forms of social organization and systems of belief that make them ineffective in the modern world of global technology and pluralism." His goal is to make sure that we don't "impose old orthodoxies inapplicable to life in the twenty-first century."

GOOD OLD DAYS

Anderson does not define "religious fundamentalism." There is a big difference between Beverly LaHaye who heads the largest Christian Women's organization in America to the Ayatollah of Iran. What does he mean when he uses words like "restoration of traditional culture." I believe we should restore traditional values. I define exactly what those values are in my books; Anderson does not. The reader can only conclude that he believes in the values of the authors he chooses in his book. One of the authors puts down, what she says, those who feel "there is a need to return America to an earlier era, the 'good old days.'" She argues "that effective family policy for the future must focus not on nostalgia for the past, but on the realities of changing demographics, economics and values and the need to achieve achieve social and economic justice." This sounds good, but it is empty of meaning. Just because there were some good things in the past and we should restore them, does not automatically mean that everything in the past is good. Traditionalists are not asking we return to horse and buggy instead of using cars.

Many types of cancer

Another writer Anderson has chosen says that "the factor that gives us most ground for believing in the future of the family -- is the combining of the values of equity-feminism with old-fashioned family values, and these are what should be taught in schools to young people." Again, these terms are not clearly explained. I define these terms and show that they are incompatible and there is no compromise between them or some new hybrid in which both are transcended. Feminism and old-fashioned family values are as different as night and day. The core of old-fashioned family values is patriarchy and the core of feminism is anti-patriarchy. One is of God and the other is of Satan. One is of health and the other is of cancer. We don't combine the two and we don't go beyond to some new paradigm that transcends health and cancer. Either you have cancer or you don't. There are many types of cancer, just as there are many types of feminism. Some are worst than others, but all of them must be completely removed.

The impression from Anderson's book is that he is against what I write about and perhaps represents the thinking of the majority of UC intellectuals. If that is not the case I hope he and other leaders in the UC will say so in future writings and if it is the case, I pray they will change and apologize for pushing the feminist agenda while all the time thinking they were anti-Communist.

---