[The following excerpt is from Mary Kassian's book The Feminist Mistake, published by Crossway. It is available as for download here.]

One difficulty in discussing the relationship of Christianity to feminism lies in the definition of feminism. Many Christians view feminism as an ideology that merely promotes the genuine dignity and worth of women. If this were true, feminism would definitely be compatible with Christianity, for the Bible does teach that women and men are of equal value in God's sight, co-created as bearers of God's image. But the philosophy of feminism adds a subtle, almost indiscernible twist to the basic biblical truth of woman's worth. Feminism asserts that woman's worth is of such a nature that it gives her the right to discern, judge, and govern that truth herself. It infuses women with the idea that God's teaching about the role of women must line up with their own perception and definition of equality and/or liberation. Feminism does not present itself as an outright affront to the Bible, but it nevertheless contains an insidious distortion that erodes the authority of Scripture. Acceptance of the feminist thesis may not drastically alter one's initial beliefs, but if followed, it will naturally and logically lead to an end miles away from the Christianity of the Bible.

In my email inbox was a link to an article on the newly published book Impossible Motherhood: Testimony of an Abortion Addict by Irene Vilar. Halfway through the article is a picture of the book cover. The design is a sketch of a slender woman's torso and at the center of the torso is the title, author, and 15 tick marks. We've all seen tick marks used in movies by prisoners to signify every year they've been incarcerated or something similar. Only this time, they are meant to signify how many abortions Irene Vilar has had - 15.

The memoir is her attempt to explain her addiction. The article summarizes:

The attractive one-time academic prodigy attended a boarding school in New Hampshire and was accepted into a New York University when she was only 15. A year later, she fell in love and married a 50-year-old Latin American literature professor, who she says was opposed to having children. She claims he bragged that his relationships never lasted more than five years and told that having children killed sexual desire. In response, Mrs Vilar said she rebelled by 'forgetting' to take her birth control pills.

Vilar claims that she had the abortions to keep her husband, yet being pregnant made her excited. She likened herself to a "druggie." She wanted to stop every time. Interestingly, her struggle to stop was not because she felt it was a moral failure, but rather, because such actions "let the woman's movement down." For Vilar, abortion was contraception. Now a mother, Vilar understands the "weight of the privilege we have in exercising our right to choose."

I do not want to equate this behavior to the woman who has had an abortion out of fear or through a regrettable series of events. Both are dreadfully sinful and those involved should repent, but Mrs. Vilar's case is peculiarly tragic. Her story is an explicit picture of what is sinfully evil in the pro-abortion movement. Her rebellion is not against her husband. She has chosen to act in the place of the Creator by ending the lives of her 15. The abortion movement wants to put in the hands of creatures what is only rightfully in the hands of our Creator. This is a sign post for darkened and foolish hearts that have exchanged the glory of God our Creator for the glory of ourselves.

Some will read this as a good thing gone bad. Some will read this as an expression of freedom. Everyone should read this story and shudder. The publishers can pretty this memoir up with a chic book cover and rejoice in a woman's choice, but Vilar's actions were sinister, barbaric, and serial.

[This article originally appeared on Dr. Mohler's blog on October 14, 2009.]

Literary critic Lionel Trilling once referred to "the dark and bloody crossroads where literature and politics meet." In reality, almost all literature is political in some sense. Oddly enough, the most explicitly subversive literature is often presented to the very youngest among us -- our children. Far too many parents seem not to notice.

In "The Defiant Ones," a recent essay published in the New Yorker, Daniel Zalewski argues that picture books for children now reflect a world turned upside down in terms of the relationship between parent and child. As he explains, in the newest picture books for children, the kids are solidly in charge.

In this sense, the books we read to our children reflect the cultural values of our age. Inescapably, these narratives for children reveal far more than a storyline. Indeed, the books tell us more than we may want to know about the tenor of our times.

And Zalewski explains:

Like the novel or the sitcom, the picture book records shifts in domestic life: newspaper-burrowing fathers have been replaced by eager, if bumbling, diaper-changers. Similarly, the stern disciplinarians of the past-in Robert McCloskey books, parents instruct children not to cry-have largely vanished. The parents in today's stories suffer the same diminution in authority felt by the parents reading them aloud (an hour past bedtime). The typical adult in a contemporary picture book is harried and befuddled, scurrying to fulfill a child's wishes and then hesitantly drawing the line.

Zalewski's insight into the revelatory character of books for children is truly important. As he knows, today's parents have indeed experienced a "diminution in authority" that is unprecedented in human history. Increasingly, it is children who have the upper hand in the power equation. Parents, who have been drinking deeply from the wells of contemporary secular parenting advice, have largely become passive facilitators in the lives of their children.

As Zalewski argues, today's young parents "learn that there are many things they must never do to their willful young child: spank, scold, bestow frequent praise, criticize, plead, withhold affection, take away toys, 'model' angry emotions, intimidate, bargain, nag." In other words, "nearly all forms of discipline appear morally suspect."

Modern "experts" like Alfie Kohn now go so far as to argue that rewarding children for good behavior is virtually as injurious to the child as punishing children for negative behavior. Arguing against what he calls "conditional parenting," Kohn came out against everything from the "time out" to positive reinforcement. Writing recently in The New York Times, Kohn asserted:

Conditional parenting isn't limited to old-school authoritarians. Some people who wouldn't dream of spanking choose instead to discipline their young children by forcibly isolating them, a tactic we prefer to call "time out." Conversely, "positive reinforcement" teaches children that they are loved, and lovable, only when they do whatever we decide is a "good job."

Today's parents, advised by the likes of Alfie Kohn, are themselves the children and grandchildren of a generation raised by parents who abandoned traditional parenting for the advice of Dr. Benjamin Spock. The war against parental authority gained momentum throughout the 20th century. Now, today's children are often virtually undisciplined -- their parents having abandoned the central role of disciplinarian due to distraction, ideological intimidation, cultural pressure, or sheer confusion.

In his essay, Zalewski reviewed some of the most popular of the picture books released in recent years. In these books, "the default temperament of the child is bratty." Indeed, the brattiness of the children depicted in these books is often "so zesty and creative that the behavioral transgressions take on the quality of art." Parents are presented as frustrated, bewildered, and concerned -- but clearly not in charge.

It was not always so. As Zalewski observes, "The parents in picture books used to be tougher." Parents used to set the rules, and children were expected to obey. Disobedient children were corrected and (gasp!) even punished. The new literature for children presents a world in which parents are more likely to obey their children.

Indeed, in today's world "nearly all forms of discipline appear morally suspect." Do parents have any clue that it is the lack of discipline that is far more likely to harm a child?

Today's Christian parents must push hard against the prevailing secular wisdom if they are to be faithful. The Bible makes clear (and simple observation affirms) that children desperately need discipline from their parents. Furthermore, the Bible reveals that the faithful and wise parent disciplines, teaches, corrects, chastens, rewards, and punishes the child as a demonstration of true love and parental responsibility.

Furthermore, the Bible straightforwardly presents a model of the family in which the parents possess an authority over their children that is nonnegotiable and essential for the health and happiness of the entire family. Indeed, the faithful parent is the one who rightly exercises and fulfills that authority. In our current cultural context, there are few collisions more direct and determinative than that between the secular and biblical conceptions of the role of parents.

Once again, we are reminded that books matter. In this case, Daniel Zalewski's essay reminds us that books intended for the very youngest matter very much. The picture books we put in front of our children help frame their expectation and understanding of their place in life and in the family. Today's parents must look carefully at the books they put before the eyes of their children. Some of the most subversive literature in the land is designed to put children -- and not parents -- firmly in charge.

This is the fourth part in our series of clips from D.A. Carson's talk at Different by Design 2009. Having walked through the argument in 1 Timothy 2, Carson now moves on to deal with Paul's qualifications for elders and deacons in chapter 3.

Part 1 on "Permit" can be seen here.

Part 2 on "Authority" can be seen here.

Part 3 on "Adam before Eve" can be seen here.

You can listen to all of Carson's address here.

I'll never forget where I first heard a Christian speak cogently about the sovereignty of God. It wasn't any of my theological heroes. It wasn't J.I. Packer or John Piper or R.C. Sproul or John MacArthur or John Calvin or Jonathan Edwards. It wasn't my seminary professors. No, I first heard about God's "absolute control of all events and all people" as the children's catechism puts it, from Ernie Harwell, a legendary announcer of Major League Baseball games, a man so great at his craft, he was inducted into the baseball hall of fame in 1981.

His confidence in God came during a frustrating time in his brilliant career. It was the early 90s and Harwell was being forced out by new leaders in the Tigers front office and an overzealous marketing director at the radio station for which he had labored for decades. But, due largely to the overwhelming outrage by the sports-viewing public in Detroit and across the country, Harwell was retained and many of those behind the attempted ouster were themselves shown the door. I'll never forget the godly Harwell's response when asked if his Christian faith had been tested by the events. "No, God is in charge of every sparrow that falls from the sky. If He wants me to continue on as announcer for the Tigers, I will. If He doesn't, I can't force my way back in. My life is completely in His hands and he always does what is right." Amen.

Harwell returned to the booth and stayed until retirement in 2002. A native of Georgia, my own home state, Harwell became an American icon while announcing baseball games on radio and television for 55 seasons, including 42 for Detroit. Harwell also did games for the New York Giants, Brooklyn Dodgers and Baltimore Orioles.  Harwell is famous for the easy-going manner with which he announced games.  As a young baseball-mad boy with little else to do in rural north Georgia, I fell asleep many a summer night to the sound of Ernie's soothing southern drawl emanating from my transistor radio. Millions of baseball fans can tell the same story. Sadly, in an age when retired athletes typically serve in radio and television broadcasting booths, Harwell is among the last of a dying breed in baseball - an announcer who was so beloved that he was as much a part of the Detroit Tigers experience as the players themselves.  So beloved was Harwell, a statue of him now sits outside Comerica Park, the Tigers' new ballpark.

Last month, the 91-year-old radio broadcaster learned that he is dying of a cancerous tumor in his bile duct. God converted Ernie Harwell at a Billy Graham crusade in 1961 during spring training in Lakeland, Fla. One of the founders of Baseball Chapel -a formal Lord's Day chapel service for baseball players - Harwell is known and respected across baseball as a humble, unashamed disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. And now he is dying like a humble, unashamed follower of Christ. Doctors expect Harwell to live about six months, but he is clearly dying well. When asked whether he was worried about dying, his answer was reminiscent of Paul's attitude in Philippians 1. "If you worry, that's like telling God that you don't think he can handle things. It's a slap in the face of God," said Harwell. ""My confidence is in God. Long ago, I gave my life to him. My life is in his hands."

Harwell and his wife Lulu have been married for 68 years and have seven grandchildren. When asked how he wants to spend his final months before the call to glory arrives, Harwell said he wants to do all he can to serve his wife with the time he has left. This is how a Christian man dies well, living out Ephesians 5 to the end. Ernie Harwell, the announcer, is noted for his simple, yet ornate home run call - "It's gone." Ernie Harwell the man is noted as a Christian who lives for the service of others to the glory of God. Many a budding announcer and young journalist have experienced his Christ-like kindness and his selfless focus. I met him briefly at the World Series one year and count it as one of the great moments of my former career as a newspaper journalist.

"I try to live my life the way [God] wants me to," Harwell said in his biography, Ernie Harwell: My 60 Years in Baseball. "I try to be kind to people, no matter who they are. One thing I have done is I have tried to help young announcers. I've listened to tapes, talked to them about what they could do to improve or to find opportunities. It's something I feel I have to pass along."

"I've seen so many people in the public eye turn people off, and I decided I wasn't going to be like that. Often, when someone meets me, it will be the only time. You could really hurt someone's feelings. I try to live by the old golden rule."

Ernie Harwell will be sorely missed in baseball and far beyond, but he has given us a godly man's picture both in life and in death. May the Lord richly bless Ernie and Lulu in Ernie's final days as a citizen of the city of man. Very soon, his faith will become sight and death will be swallowed up in victory. And of that, Ernie Harwell is abundantly confident.