My daughter's homeschool to public school experience

I never planned on homeschooling, it just happened. The turning point in our children's education came during a Kindergarten parent-teacher conference. I was told by the teacher that my daughter spent too much time drawing and did not leave enough time for her writing,  which would be a problem when she went into 1st grade. I remember wondering why it was a "problem" for a 6-year-old to draw and why wasn't the teacher directing her to complete the work that she needed to do first? If I taught her at home, she would have all of the time in the world to draw and write.

That Kindergartener (now back in public school) is working toward graduating high school this school year. Which means that she is talking about college. Which means that she has to fill out applications and write essays. When I asked her what her college essay was about, she told me that it was about the move from homeschool to public school.

I asked her if I could share her essay and she agreed. This is still a rough draft, and she needs to whittle it down to 500 words or less, but it's a good start.

Not Like the Movies

After being homeschooled for 11 years, my first day of public school was a huge shock. On the first day of my sophomore year I got onto a crowded and uncomfortable school bus, and when I got to school I was completely lost. There were no “popular tables” at lunch and nobody was dumped in a trash can. There were no lunches stolen or teachers that were crazy strict. Movies made high school seem like a dreamland full of fun classes, dates to dances, decorated lockers, and instant friends.

Public school took a lot more adjustments and dedication than I expected it to. The classes were now an average of thirty loud, distracting kids compared to the size of one quiet kid that I grew up used to. Making friends took effort because most kids gave you a glance before they decided if they liked you or not. The culture of public school was full of crude language and showy clothing, and having grown up a semi-conservative Christian I had no clue how to fit in. My school work was difficult, especially since I had never had to share a teacher before and all of my homework was regular school work, but when I was homeschooled homework was combined with class work.

Coming into public school my sophomore year of high school made it very hard to interact with other kids, because the majority of them had known each other since elementary school. Growing up I had been a part of a few different groups here and there. I was a part of a Christian homeschool group when I was younger and had a couple friends through that. When I was older I played basketball with a Christian organization, had a science group with other homeschooled kids using the same curriculum, and took art classes for a few years at a private Christian school. Apart from a couple good friends that I had through doing those things, I did not have many friends. Although I didn’t have many friends I didn’t think of it as a bad thing, because the friends I did have were very good friends. Going into a public school setting though, I began to question this because I didn’t know anyone. None of my friends went to school with me so I had a very rough first year. Once I joined the theatre at school I had found my place. I made good friends that I felt comfortable around, and I made a place for myself.

The school work was very different from what I was used to. I came from waking up in the morning and sitting down at my kitchen table to do my school work. I worked in a classroom of 1, and I got the teacher (my mom) all to myself. Switching to sitting in a desk in a classroom full of kids that were loud and distracting, and having to share my teacher was a huge shock. I had to quickly learn how to take notes from a lecture, how to work in groups with other kids, and how to speak in front of the class.

The switch from homeschooling to public school was a switch that I will forever be glad I made. I value having experienced both sides of schooling, and I can’t wait to see where it takes me.  

When will homeschool leaders accept the fact that child abuse does happen in homeschool families?

I first heard of Lisa Cherry when R.L. Stollar at Homeschoolers Anonymous did a series about Lisa Cherry's Frontline Family Ministry's Child Abuse Prevention Week. While reading this series, I happened upon thatmom.com, Karen Campbell's, first podcast with Lisa Cherry. I thought this first podcast was decent. It mostly addressed Cherry's experience with her daughter when she was lured into a sexual abuse situation with an older man at church. She also addressed that homeschoolers face some distinctive vulnerabilities when it comes to abuse. The kicker, though, was that she did not address the fact that homeschooled kids may be abused by their parents until the end of the conversation.

This is my main frustration with homeschooling leaders. I have yet to hear from one homeschool leader that homeschooled kids CAN be abused by their homeschooling parents. Karen Campbell's second podcast with Lisa Cherry lived up to this.

Karen starts off her podcast by saying:

"The protection of homeschooling children from the ravages of sexual abuse is one of the hot topics within homeschooling circles, and for good reason. As much as we would love to be able to say this never happens in homeschooling families, sometimes it does."

Okay.  Good start. At least she's admitting that "sometimes" child abuse happens in homeschooling families. However, further on in her podcast, Karen states:

"One of the concerns that I have had is that there seems to be an agenda on the part of some people that the parents are the perpetrators of abuse towards children. Now you and I both know that there are times when that is true. We watched in horror the reports of what happened with people who had used the Pearl’s “To Train Up a Child” book. We have heard these abusive stories, we’re talking about physical abuse. We’ve, we’ve seen and I’ve heard and I know people personally who have been through very spiritually abusive homes where legalism rules and there is no desire for relationship with children. So we know those kind of things do happen. But I do not believe that parents for the most part are the perpetrators of this kind of situation with their children. And I also believe that sometimes when those things have happened it is not because you have parents who desire to be abusive, it’s because they have been subjected to teaching that tells them that this is the only Godly way." 

This is the point in which I think I spit my coffee out on my laptop. Really, "But I do not believe that parents for the most part are the perpetrators of this kind of situation with their children." And this "agenda?" REALLY??!!

And, even later:

"And I’m not convinced what they think is a problem actually is a problem."  

Let's look at some facts from Children's Bureau, an Office of the Administration of Children and Families. Every year they post child abuse statistics. The most current listing regarding child maltreatment is for the year 2012.

• Four-fifths (80.3%) of perpetrators were parents
• 6.1% of perpetrators were relatives other than parents
• 4.2% of perpetrators were unmarried partners of parents
• 4.6% of perpetrators were an other relationship to the victim
• 3.1% of perpetrators were an "unknown" relationship to the victim

These statistics are consistent with all of the statistics that I have every read about child abuse. When it comes to child abuse, the only grace that I will give Karen Campbell and Lisa Cherry is that in the area of child sexual abuse, it is difficult to find information regarding the breakdown of the relationship of the perpetrator to the victim. Most statistics note that a "very high percentage" of victims of child sexual abuse "know" the perpetrator.

Lisa Cherry continues the train of thought:

"To think, to think that, you know, we’ve got a few cases here in homeschooling. Well, I open my, my email feed just constantly and I find, you know, the, the two women that went after the teenage boy in the high school just a few weeks ago. You know, you find just case after case after case."

It's as though child sexual abuse is committed by the bogeyman or some other government sponsored officials. The continued denial of child abuse happening within Christian homeschooling families does not help victims. It is time for Christian homeschooling leaders to tear down the pedestal of the perfect Christian homeschooling family and admit that child abuse does happen.

The other point which stood out to me was this part of the conversation:

Lisa: "Now I know that there’s some places online that are saying we need the government to step in, we need more regulation, we need to protect our kids, we need to have more rules, we need to have more laws. Karen, I don’t believe that’s the answer."

Karen: "No."

Lisa: "I don’t believe the government will be able to protect from these kinds of very sensitive things. I think, I believe that God placed families together to provide protection for children."

I would agree that the government is not the best parent of a child. I have been working with a kid in the foster care system due to child abuse and it is frustrating to get her the help that she needs. However, I believe that that DHS is an avenue that attempts to help kids who have been abused. And to say that God provided families to protect kids? What about the kids who are being abused by their family members? Who is protecting them?

As far as Lisa's concern about government's regulation over homeschooling, I would agree with "some places online" that think there should be some regulation. Having been a homeschooler for 10 years and interacted with some in my state's Christian homeschool association, I understand the concern for having more regulation to protect children. Campbell and Cherry's defense that the government does not help protect public schooled kids is not helpful. First of all, let's consider the fact that there are far more children schooled in the public school setting than in the homeschool or private school setting. Secondly, consider the fact that at least public schooled kids have mandated reporters that are able to see any potential child abuse problems and report them. Homeschooled children do not have this extra attention from mandated reporters who may advocate on their behalf.

But it was this additional statement that made me almost spew my coffee a second time:

"We’ve seen HSLDA try to help us with them."

HSLDA. Honestly, I have not seen much by them for supporting victims of abuse. ThinkProgress.org has a good article about how HSLDA has lobbied for laws against making "false reports." It is my opinion that HSLDA's main goal is to protect the rights of homeschooling and parental rights. While HSLDA does not condone child abuse, I think that they really do not know how to handle a case of an abusing homeschooling parent unless it directly relates to homeschooling. In that case, I think that HSLDA will fight for the right of the parent to homeschool and not for the child victim.

All in all, this second podcast by Karen Campbell with Lisa Cherry left me very angry and frustrated. It seems that we will continue to wait for homeschool leaders to admit the fact that child abuse does in fact happen within homeschooling families. Until they are willing to accept this fact, child abuse "may" happen in homeschool families, but most likely it will be perpetrated by someone outside of the family. Darn that elusive bogeyman.

Chambers: Liberty on the Abyss of the Gospel

Like many Christians, I have an Oswald Chambers, "My Utmost for His Highest" book sitting on my shelf. I admit that it has been several years since I have used this book. Today, I read someone else's post regarding the May 6th entry. I thought I would share it as well.

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free" (Gal. 5:1)

A spiritually minded man will never come to you with the demand - "Believe this and that;" but with the demand that you square your life with the standards of Jesus. We are not asked to believe the Bible, but to believe the One Whom the Bible reveals (cf. John 5:39-40). We are called to present liberty of conscience, not liberty of view. If we are free with the liberty of Christ, others will be brought into that same liberty - the liberty of realizing the dominance of Jesus Christ.

Always keep your life measured by the standards of Jesus. Bow your neck to His yoke alone, and to no other yoke whatever; and be careful to see that you never bind a yoke on others that is not placed by Jesus Christ. It takes God a long time to get us out of the way of thinking that unless everyone sees as we do, they must be wrong. That is never God's view. There is only one liberty, the liberty of Jesus at work in our conscience enabling us to do what is right.

Don't get impatient, remember how God dealt with you - with patience and with gentleness; but never water down the truth of God. Let is have its way and never apologize for it. Jesus said, "Go and make disciples," not "make converts to your opinions."

Kevin Swanson is NOT a patriarchal-ist

Thank goodness Kevin Swanson has let us know that he is not a "patriarchal-ist."

I'm sensing some damage control from the Doug Phillips scandal. Kevin Swanson, I believe, is following on the heels of Michael Farris in declaring that patriarchy is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Swanson, in the first link, makes some clarifications for why he does not toe the patriarchal line:

It is no sin for a woman to take college level classes.

It is no sin for a woman to obtain an M.D. degree. One of our favorite presenters at our Family Economics conferences is a family whose mom is a dermatologist. And, I’ve referred to my daughter operating on her brother’s appendix (perhaps a hundred times on the conference tours across the nation).

It is no sin for my 20-year-old daughter to take to the mission field in Uganda as she has done this year.

Also, I have never believed it to be a sin for a woman to lead in civil government. I cannot believe that Deborah was sinful in her work. Nonetheless, I distinguish between de-ontological ethics and teleological ethics. This is a highly critical distinction in a hundred separate discussions.

I advocate the recently-abandoned, age-old concept of the family-based economy.

I still like the 5th commandment.

I advocate Eph. 5:22-33, and suggest that modern husbands and wives have a hard time keeping these commands. That’s why the divorce rate stands at record levels, a thousand times higher than it was in 1668.

Kevin is okay with women being educated, going on the mission field, and holding down government jobs, however, I have not once heard Kevin say that it is alright for a woman to have a leadership position in the church or for her to have a leading role in the family. I believe that Kevin runs a very fine line between complementarian and patriarchy. He may not think that a father needs to keep his daughter at home until she is married, but he does think that there are definite gender specific roles.

Here is my other concern with Kevin's rhetoric about not being a patriarchal-ist. On December 2, 2013, Kevin made a list of people he likes. He clarifies his list by saying that it is better to "define yourself by who you like." His list is:

I like Al Mohler. 

I like Franklin Graham.

I like Gene Edward Veith.

I like Mike Farris.*

I like Tedd Tripp.

I like R.C. Sproul and Jr.*

I like (liked) Johnny Cash.

I like Nathan Clark George.

I like Brian Cosby.

I like James Dobson.

I like G.I. Williamson.

I like Erwin Lutzer.

I like Jay Adams.

I like Phil Kayser.

I like John Morris.

I like Larry Pratt.

I like Ken Ham.*

I like James and Stacy MacDonald.*

I like Voddie Baucham.*

I like Carl Bobb.

I like Bo Skeen.

I like Douglas Wilson.*

I like Scott Brown.*

I like Hal and Melanie Young.

I like Martin Selbrede.

I like Norm Wakefield.

I like Brian Ray.*

I like Joe Morecraft.

I like Marvin Olasky.

I like Ray Comfort.

I like Joel Belz.

I like Geoff Botkin.*

I like Al Martin.

I like Gregg Harris.*

I like Bill Downing.

I like Joel Beeke.

I like the guy who runs SermonAudio.

I like Mike Richardson.

I like Israel Wayne.*

I like Marcus Serven.

I like the guys who run Samaritan Ministries.

I like Jeff Pollard.

I like Jason Young.

I like Frode Jensen.

I like Jeff Meyers.

I like Richard "Little Bear" Wheeler.

I like Marshall Foster.

I like John Piper.

I like Joseph Pipa.

I like Alex Kendrick.

I like Colin Gunn.

I like Sam Allison.

I like Leonard Coppes.

I like John Macarthur.

I like Jerry Bridges.

I like David Barton.

I like Gary Demar. 

And I like Jesus Christ, and people who like Jesus Christ. 

I placed an asterisk by the names that may approve patriarchy as well as those who are well known patriarchy apologists. I find it interesting that Swanson cannot name one woman independent of her husband that he likes. 

Of course, Swanson states at the end of his list that he may not agree with everything those on his "like list" adhere to. However, he starts off his list by saying that he is "defined" by these people.

So which is it Swanson? Do you agree with patriarchy or do you not? Because some of these folks would definitely define you in leaning towards it.

P.S. - I don't believe for one second that he likes all people who like Jesus Christ. He makes that very clear on his shows.

Why not have some fun?

Let's see a show of hands for those who love to listen to street preachers.

(crickets)

Yeah, I didn't think so.

I found this gem today at Friendly Atheist - 4 Creative Ways to Deal with Preachers.




I was seriously laughing out loud when he suggested hosting a Bingo game around the preacher. Include words that you think the preacher will say - hell should be a free space.

If you can't stand to listen to them, you might as well have some fun!

Are most conservative Christians gullible?

I hate to ask the question.

Look up the definition of gullible in any dictionary and it will tell you the following: easily deceived or cheated. Does this describe some conservative Christians?

A thesaurus would give you other descriptive words such as: foolish, unsuspecting, innocent, naive, trustful, and simple. Some of these words might be what I'm looking for.

Why even ask the question?

I responded to a friend's blog post stating that I thought some Christian homeschoolers were gullible. After that response, I went to take a shower (I tell you this because I do my best thinking in the shower) and realized that my words may have been taken incorrectly because I didn't write it out very well. I wanted to make sure that I did not mean that those reading or responding to her post thought that I meant that about them. I surely didn't because I don't know the people reading her blog and I want to maintain the integrity of the blog being a safe place to contribute. Sure enough, someone responded to my words before I could issue my apology.

So what did I mean to say?

I have experienced two Christian homeschool conventions. The first one was right before I started homeschooling. I went to hear the basics about the laws in our state and to look at curriculum. I didn't hear any of the main speakers or go to any sessions. 

My second experience was about 8 years later when I worked at a booth for my employer. At this point, I really did not want anything to do with the homeschool movement. I did not care for the the people who headed the organization and I clearly saw that there was an agenda. When I looked at the list of sessions, I noticed that most of the topics dealt around relationships and the home environment. There wasn't much substance when it came to actually teaching children. From our booth location, I could hear the main speakers and I remember thinking that I was glad that I didn't get caught up in the fear that I thought was being perpetuated. I remember feeling a bit sad for the people who walked around there and wondered if they believed everything being said because it came from the mouth of a "respected" homeschool leader.

The other reason why I ask the question is because of a conversation that I had with my mother-in-law about the Noah movie. *Please note that I love my mother-in-law dearly, but we do have some "interesting" conversations.* She told me that at first she was excited with the Noah movie because she likes Russel Crowe. Then, she told me that she was not going to be seeing it because of all of the reviews that she read about the movie not being "biblical." I didn't think of this response at the time, but I wish I would have encouraged her to go see it and make up her own mind about it and not just make her decision based upon reviews from Christian writers.

Can you see where I am going with the question, "Are most conservative Christians gullible?" I say "most" because I know that there are conservatives who are able to think for themselves. However, I do find a lot who only form their opinions about issues based upon what other respected Christian leaders think.

What are your thoughts on this?

Kevin Swanson's program about recovering from sexual abuse

I had never heard of Kevin Swason until after I got done homeschooling. That's how out of touch with the Christian homeschool movement I was during my homeschooling period.

When he did a show on March 18th titled, How to Recover from Sexual Abuse, I had to listen. This program included guest Keith Dorscht from Biblical Concepts in Counseling. Here's an interesting point to make note of - at the end of the program, Keith Dorscht tells listeners how to get in touch with Biblical Concepts (www.biblicalconcepts.org - this is the URL he provides). However, when you go to that URL, it shows up through Sedo's Domain Parking and it gives someone the option to purchase that domain name. Because of this, I'm not sure how anyone who listened to Swanson's program would be able to follow up with Biblical Concepts in Counseling.

I became interested in this particular program because of my social work focus in child abuse, my past work with children who had been sexually abused, and because of my own personal experience with abuse. I admit that when I saw the title of the program I sighed and thought myself to be a glutton of punishment. (Swason's voice tends to grate on me a little - okay, a lot. But, there's nothing that a glass - or two - of wine can't cure!) I tell you this because I am passionate about helping people who have been abused.

Unexpectedly, and thankfully, there were some good ideas and thoughts on dealing with sexual abuse. What did not surprise me were some of important things that were left out and the prevailing attitude toward victims that creeps in. I transcribed* the show and am here to offer my opinions on the good and the not so good of what I heard.

The Good

1. Keith Dorscht acknowledges the fact that sexual pleasure can be experienced at any age. At the 7 minute mark he says,

"What that means is that from birth, there can be sexual stimulation, excitement, that feels good. And, you can’t stop that as a child of any age, you can’t turn that off. God wants you to have that."

And, that is true, it has been shown that babies are able to experience genital stimulation. Our bodies are hard wired to be that way.

2. Right after this remark, he continues saying,

"When some perpetrator comes in, takes advantage of that, but they also overwhelm you and you feel guilty because you know something is going on wrong. So one of the main damages is that someone at any age is experiencing something that feels pleasurable, but they’re feeling guilt. And there's a knitting together, a marrying together, of those two emotions."

Very true, too. Abusers will manipulate a victim for their own pleasure. Threats, fear or simple words such as telling the victim that this is something "special" shared between them and that no one else should know about it, are tactics used to keep the in their grasp. The victim, realizing that what this person is doing is wrong, may feel pleasure in the act. Thus, the feelings of guilt may become overwhelming.

3. As far as responding to a child who tells you that they have been sexually abuse, Dorscht says the following after the 10 minute mark:

"You can pretty much trust that they’re telling truth. Only half a percent of children actually make up a story of this. So if you’re getting signs and statements being made and strange behaviors in your child, you want to definitely consider the idea that perhaps someone has sexually abused them and get talking about that."

While there have been times when a child will lie about sexual abuse, it is very rare. If a child tells you that they have been sexually abused, always believe them.

4. Dorscht offers hope to victims of sexual abuse. Just before the 9:30 mark he says,

"There is so much hope for people who have been sexually abused. If I can say one thing on this program today and leave people with something, is that there is hope. That God can restore. He can finish the work."

There is hope for a survivor of sexual abuse. A person can be made whole again. It takes a lot of time, patience and hard work with a therapist to get there. I do believe that God can help in that healing process, however, if the person does not have a faith in God, healing can be accomplished.

The Not So Good

1. Kevin Swanson seems to think that sexual abuse did not happen as often in the 1800's compared to today. In the opening of his show, just before the 1 minuted mark he says,

"See, we have social sins now that were almost unheard of in the 1800’s. And they are common place today. The 1 in 10,000 occurrences we saw in the 1800’s, now 1 in 100, the 1 in 100 now 3 in 10.  The free sex movement of the 1960’s has resulted in people thinking they can get any kind of sex they want for free. And they’re doing it all the time. They’re doing it with kids. It’s hard to get accurate numbers of sexual abuse. But accounts have it as high as 20, 30, 40% 

"The stories abound. Priests abusing kids. School teachers abusing kids. Babysitters abusing kids. Everywhere. Part it is the absence of parental oversight in the training of children. And, part of it is the whole sale raw eros sex on MTV and the whole music culture. Part of it is the lack of phileo love, agape love, and all that is left is animalistic physical copulation. Whatever the cause, the consequences of this free sex, this fornicating sexual abuse culture, the consequences of this stuff is just devastating. The purity has been stripped away."

And, just after the 5:30 mark he says,

"Just horrific to see what is happening. And of course I believe this has been increasing over the last 30-40 years. This kind of thing was not happening as much 100 years ago." 

Dorscht follows this statement by saying,

"No, and you can blame the internet for that. Blame media influences and parents letting their guards down with their children and not protecting them the way they need to be."

Does Swanson realize that while avenues for reporting sexual abuse existed in the 1800's, the response to those reports were very different than today's response. Also, means of storing numbers for statistical analysis did not exist in the 1800's. How about the fact that there really was not a clear definition of child abuse in the 1800's or child abuse reporting laws or laws set in place to help protect victims. 

My only other note to Swanson is that if you are going to supply a fact in the form of a percentage of something happening, please make sure you do your homework and make it very clear to the listener. This "20, 30, 40%" of reported abuse does your listener no good. Let them know the facts up front.

2. Swanson wants to deal with the problem of guilt. Rightfully so. Children who have been sexually abused may feel guilty about their participation in the act, or in their lack of ability to stop the abuse from happening. Just after the 13 minute mark he says,

"You know, some Christian perspectives of psychology will tell us that man suffers from guilt and often he will resort to masochism or sadism, that is hurting themselves or hurting others, as a means of atonement. Because, of course, guilt cries out for atonement. And when people try to self atone for that guilt, by mean of masochism or sadism, they are denying the atonement of the son of God who came to atone for those sins. And that in itself is a sin, right Keith? If we don’t go to Christ and say, 'Hey, your atonement is sufficient for me,' you’re denying his offering."

So Swanson wants to heap on more guilt for a person who is trying to deal with their abuse. (Shaking my head) In essence, he is saying, "If you don't rely on Christ, you are sinning." I'm sure this extra layer of guilt will be helpful for the victim.

3. Bitterness - One of my least favorite words. Swanson wants to deal with it though. Just after the 14:30 minute mark he says,

"Well, Keith, there’s also the issue of bitterness. Perhaps we should talk about this as well. This is, of course, carrying other people’s sins and holding them against them. How often do you see this problem of bitterness where they hold this bitterness against the violator?"

 Dorscht responded at the 15 minute mark with,

"They’re holding that bitterness. Every single week in the counseling office those people are holding on to that bitterness. The problem is too often that the perpetrator is out of their reach and not receiving any of that bitterness. And, again, it can turn back on them. Or turn back on a spouse, or to parents. A girl will have anger issues with a father or a brother, and they may wonder where that’s coming from. And those people are paying."

Swanson continues the thought after the 16 minute mark,

"And, you know, as we bring the guilt and the bitterness together, this is precisely what Jesus puts in the Lord’s prayer when he says, 'Forgive us our debts, our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us.' So, Keith, I think that these things come together in the counseling situation where we go to the cross of Christ. Yes, we drop our sins there, but while we’re there, we drop everybody else’s sins too. It’s almost as if the bitter person, the guilty person, is holding two burdens. He’s got his own sins, and then he’s got everybody else’s sins. I don’t think anybody can carry that much."

It is important to note that Dorscht is identified as a "Biblical" counselor. I don't have any training in Biblical counseling, so I'm not exactly sure how a Biblical counselor works in a therapy session. What I have heard, though, is that Biblical counselors stress the need for a victim to forgive a perpetrator. Dorscht confirms this at the 17:30 mark:

"When they forgive that person, I’ve seen people instantly, when they pray, 'God I forgive that person.' And they open their eyes, they look at me, and they say, 'Can I pray for that person?' And I say, 'Why would you want to do that?' Just to kind of test them. They say, 'Because I know how much I’ve been forgiven. And I know now how hurting that person must have been for them to hurt me.' And not in every case does this happen. But, I think people can get to that point where they can say, 'I want to pray for them because they are hurting also.' And that is a sign of genuine heart-level forgiveness. They have compassion. If that person needed a meal or needed a cup of water, that person is free to give that to them. That’s a minimum requirement."

KS: "Wow! That’s true deliverance. And, that’s walking in Jesus’ ways when he says, 'Pray for those who despitefully [sic] use you.' And, if there is anybody who would despitefully [sic] use somebody, that would certainly be one who sexually abuses. And, to pray for that person is exactly what Jesus wants to see happen there."

I'm not downplaying anyone who says that they are able to forgive someone who has victimized them. If they are able to say and do that, then more power to them. However, some people may never be able to forgive the person who abused them. I would never consider that person bitter, and I would never question their faith. I would also never say a person needs to forgive their abuser because they were hurting too. There is never a good excuse for someone to sexually abuse another person. Saying that a victim is bitter because they are unable to forgive the perpetrator is another way of placing guilt and shame on a victim.

4. Going back up to point #1, did anyone else realize that Swanson never states that parents may be the ones who are sexually abusing their kids? He mentions priests, school teachers and babysitters, but not once in this radio show does he admit that a parent may abuse their child. 

Just after the 18:30 mark, Swanson asks Dorscht what a parent should do when a child tells them that they have been sexually abused. Dorscht's advice is to first allow their child to talk openly about what happened; to hold them and cry with them. Then at the 20 minute mark he says,

"You’ll want to report something to authorities if that’s appropriate and necessary. You want to warn anyone else who may be in danger. Again, I said there’s a 90% chance that you know the person who abused your child, so you might know other people that could be in danger."

Of course it's "appropriate" to report sexual abuse to the authorities!!! Along with being there for your child, this should be the first thing a parent should do - even if it means that your spouse is the perpetrator of the abuse.

5. Toward the end of the program, Swanson talks about the cold, hard reality of sin in the world. Honestly, at this point in the program I started getting an uneasy feeling and here is where Swanson's voice starts to grate on me. Just after the 20:30 minute mark he says,

"And, Keith, I think the cold, hard reality of sin and this sinful world comes home to us. Not just in the case of sexual abuse, but when the family has been robbed. You know, when somebody has broken into our house or into our car and stolen our things. Or, even when we have a horrible disease or when somebody dies in the family. I mean, you know, it’s not as if these people who have been sexually abused are the only ones who have suffered the consequences of sin."

Okay, "these people??!!" How condescending are those words toward a victim of sexual abuse? I would never refer anyone to Swanson for counseling. I do not think he has the ability to feel empathy or compassion toward someone who is suffering.

He brings in another illustration to emphasize his "cold, hard facts" about sin in the world. This is just after the 21 minute mark:

"And the cold, hard reality of that sinful world comes home at certain times in our children’s lives. In fact, just yesterday, two little bunnies died that we were trying to take care of that we found in the wild all by themselves. And my little daughters were crying. Oh, it was such a hard thing to see the little bunnies die. And they’re still recovering this morning.  You know, we had to tell them, this is what happened when man sinned against God. This is what sin has brought into the world. Little bunnies die. This is the real facts of the matter. But, the hope is in Jesus. We’ve got to give them hope, don’t we Keith?"

Creepy. Dead little bunnies. 

And to suggest sexual abuse is one of the the cold, hard realities of a sinful world that enters our children's lives is horrendous.

*Please note: In my transcription I may have missed some words, and I intentionally did not include “filler” words (ummm…, and, or any repetitive words). Even though I left out the filler words, I maintained the cohesive thought of the speaker.*