2022 Retreat

Outline

Key Verse

“If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
(John 8:31-32)

Goals

Day 1 - Homosexuality

Resources

Outline

Day 2 - Feminism

Resources

Outline


Day 1 Introductory Topic: Truth

Visual Aid

Convention Introduction

The Truth

Why Discuss Homosexuality?

How did Homosexuality Become so Prevalent in our Society?

Desensitization
Jamming
Conversion

Conclusion

Day 1 Outline

Day 1 Station 2: Biblical View of Homosexuality

Visual Aid:

Goals:

What is Sin?

Homosexuality in the Old Testament 

Biblical Evidence 1: Leviticus
Argument 1: Hebrew Word Lost in Translation
Biblical Evidence 2: Sodom and Gomorrah
Argument 2: Sodom and Gomorrah Didn't Practice Homosexuality
Argument 3: Picking and Choosing Verses

Homosexuality in the New Testament

Biblical Evidence 3: St. Paul
Argument 4: Greek Translation Error

Conclusion: Biblical Interpretation

Day 1 Station 4: Holiness in Marriage

Day 2 Introductory Topic: Feminism

Visual Aid

Introduction

What is Feminism?

History of Feminism

Why Discuss Feminism?

Lies Told by the Feminist Movement

Conclusion

Convention Outline

Day 2 Station 2: Does Feminism fulfill God's Will? (Abortion)

Method of Delivery:

Visual Aid:

Introduction

Argument 1: It's not a baby, it's a fetus

Argument 2: It is cruel to bring a child into a world where they will suffer

Argument 3: What about rape and incest?

Day 2 Station 2: Mock Trial Script

Visual Aid:

See Attachments on Left Side


All Rise!

The Honorable Judge is now presiding. Court is now in session

Scene

A desk is prepared for the judge - it contains scales, the Scriptures, and a gavel.

Two stands are prepared for each of the attorneys. A Jury box is also prepared for the jury. A TV is present in full view of the jury.

Opening Statements

Judge:
You may be seated. Let me begin by reminding everyone here that we are in a Court of Law.

[ Gavel ]

But this is not a United States Court of Law - our concern here is not the Constitution or the Law of the Land. Our Concern here is for the Law and Commandments found here, in this Book. Our goal today is to determine whether or not Feminism fulfills the will of God. For today's arguments, the counselors will focus on one small facet of that argument - abortion. And since our concern is the will of God, we will let God be the judge. We will begin with Opening statements from each of the two parties here, and then we will give them an opportunity to present witnesses, evidence, and testimony.

Your job, as the jury, is to take in the information and the arguments. These arguments are commonly heard in the outside world - you'll hear them at school, at work, on social media, in TV and Movies. It is common in a court of law for the jury to maintain silence. However, in this specific case we've organized a provision - you will be allowed to ask questions provided you raise your hand and are called upon by the judge.

[ Gavel ]

The Prosecution may now proceed with their opening statements.

Prosecutor:
Thank you, your honor. And thank you to the members of the jury for joining us today in this very important case.
    
Today my goal is to convince you that there's no problem with abortion! It's not murder! It's simply a woman's right to choose - it's her body! Why should any of us make that choice for her? There's something growing in her body - and make no mistake, it's not a baby! It's a fetus. What if she doesn't want it there? And why bring a baby into this cruel world in the first place? Would you force a woman who was raped to carry the baby as a reminder of the sexual assault?
    
Your honor, I could go days talking about the benefits of abortion. The fact of the matter is that women cannot fully function in society without access to abortion.

Judge:

Thank you, counsel. The Defense may now proceed with their opening statement.

Defense:
Thank you, your honor. Thank you members of the jury for your presence today.

I'd like to start by asking a very simple question - what is abortion? The Prosecution throws the word around without any thought to it - but the word itself is very simple! It's the killing of a baby boy or girl. There's no question about it.

Your honor, what we see in the world today is totally and completely reprehensible - we see Washington DC and several other states allowing Abortions even in the third trimester! We've got the governor of Virginia and other politicians saying that when the baby comes out of the womb, the mother can decide if she wants it to live and die. Even outside of the womb! Where do we draw the line?

Members of the jury - for many people, abortion is just an easy way out. It was born of the sexual revolution to give women this false idea that having sex whenever you want is fine and there aren't any consequences. But it's not. What it is, is a grave sin - one that cannot be undone.

I'd venture to assert that anyone - ANYONE - who takes the life of another, puts themselves in the place of God. And I'll remind you that in the Law that sits before you on the stand, Your Honor, it is clear - "The Lord kills and makes alive; He brings down to the grave and brings up." (1 Samuel 2:6)
    
Prosecutor:
Objection! Your honor, he's testifying
    
Judge: 
Sustained
    
Defense:
No matter, your honor - I've made my point, and that concludes my opening statement.

Argument 1 - Not a Baby; A Fetus

Judge:
Thank you, counsel. The Prosecution may now present their first Argument.

Prosecutor:
Your honor, the first point that I'd like to put forth is to directly refute what the Defense stated in their opening argument. Abortion is NOT killing of a baby boy or girl. It's not killing at all! There's no baby involved. Simply a cluster of cells - a zygote. An embryo. A fetus at best. How could you call it killing if it's not a human in the womb?

Defense:
I'd like to call my first witness. Dr Anthony Levatino is a board certified obstetrician and gynecologist (OB/GYN). He has practiced obstetrics and gynecology for several decades in both private and university settings. I'd like to call him to the stand where he will describe for us exactly what goes on in an abortion. Then we'll see if it's really a human or not. And please, Dr Levatino - no more than five minutes when addressing the committee!

Witness 1: Dr. Anthony Levatino
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sshxz4H8aMM 

Defense:
It's brutal and sad, your honor, that this is happening to so many children every day. But it's also clear - abortion is murder.

Prosecutor:
Arms and legs - even animals have arms and legs. That may be what makes someone human, but it's NOT what makes them a person. Your honor, members of the jury, we're not arguing about humanity here - we're arguing about personhood. Even if you posit that life begins at conception, the baby does not possess personhood. Personhood comes from consciousness, from self-awareness, from the ability to feel pain. This is what MAKES us human and MAKES us people!

Defense:
So if someone is knocked unconscious, they're no longer a human? Or if they're in a coma, is their life less important? Would it be okay to kill someone simply because they're unconscious? And what about self-awareness? Would you kill someone because they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Does that make them less of a human? Is self-awareness what gives them value? Even if someone is asleep, they're not self-aware! They're barely conscious? Would the Prosecution also argue that it should be legal to kill them? Did not God create us all equal, in His image, according to His likeness?

I present to the court my first piece of evidence DIRECTLY from the Source.

Prosecutor:
I can stand with you on Equality of Human Life. But we can't stand here and say that this human life exists in any capacity before birth!

Defense:
In that case, your honor, I'll present to the court my next piece of evidence also DIRECTLY from the Source.

Members of the jury, even throughout the Scripture we see many times that a baby was announced or prophesied before their birth... even before their mother was pregnant! Did God not create them before the pregnancy? Did God not form them, even in their mother's womb?

I think that I have sufficiently proven here that the Lord formed us and created us, even BEFORE we were in our mother's womb - even before conception. I rest my case on this matter.

Judge:
Thank you, counselors. Here, I'd like to open the floor to the jury for any questions. Please refer all questions to me and if it so pleases the court, I will refer them to the appropriate counsel. 

Argument 2 - It is cruel to bring a child into the world where they will suffer

Judge:
The Prosecution may now present their second Argument.

Prosecutor:
Your honor, we have come a long way in the fields of Genetics - we can now screen the fetus and make sure it's getting everything that it needs to become a human.

Defense:
Objection! Your honor, didn't we JUST agree that it's not a fetus it's a baby? And that it's already a human?

Judge:
Sustained. Watch yourself, counselor!

Prosecutor:
Fine. Even if we come to agree that the fetus is human life and has personhood, wouldn't it be better to ease their suffering early on? As I was saying, we have come a long way in the fields of genetics - we can now screen the BABY and make sure it's getting everything that it needs. But we can also find out very early on if a baby will be born to suffer. A baby who is born with Down Syndrome. A baby who will be born without arms or legs. A baby who will be born with diabetes or Autism. Why subject them to a life of suffering? Wouldn't it be easier on them, and on their parents, and on society, if they didn't have to go through that?

Defense:
I'd like to tell a story to the members of the jury. In 2017, the Republic of Iceland came out with statistics showing that they had eradicated Down Syndrome. It turns out they were just killing any babies with Down Syndrome (via abortion) almost 100% of the time.

I'd like to ask the prosecution: Would you kill an adult who has Down Syndrome?

Prosecutor:
Of course not! Don't slander me!

Defense:
Would you kill a man who didn't have arms or legs?

Prosecutor:
You know my answer - of course I wouldn't! Get to the point.

Defense:
My point is clear. If we wouldn't kill an adult who has the condition, why should we kill a child who has it? What's the difference between the two? Their age! The human right to life is grounded in our humanity, NOT in our age.

Now you say it would be better for society... what society are you talking about? How do you measure whether a society is good or bad? Just or unjust? Just societies care for the most vulnerable. We have all these campaigns out there against bullying, right? Don't pick on people who are weaker than you; don't pick on those who are disabled; etc. But with abortion, that all goes out the window.

I'd like to put forth my next piece of evidence, Your Honor:

Prosecutor:
But they will suffer! Anyone who was in that situation might wish not to be!

Defense:
I'd like to call my next witness, Your Honor. Nick Vujicic was born without arms or legs. Now, he is a public speaker and making a lot of difference in the lives of many people. Let's here his opinion on life, despite living without arms or legs.

Witness 2: Nick Vujicic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWiaXFPbdmY 

Defense:
Members of the jury - physical or mental challenges do not guarantee a poor quality of life. Life is a gift. Life is hard and some people have harder lives than others. But despite our challenges, each of us is forced to deal with them. Killing people is not the right way to stop suffering. I rest my case on this matter.

Judge:
Thank you, counselors. Here, I'd like to open the floor to the jury for any questions. I'll remind you to please refer all questions to me and if it so pleases the court, I will refer them to the appropriate counsel. 

Argument 3 - Rape and Incest

Judge:
The Prosecution may now present their third Argument.

Prosecutor:
Your honor, we've spent the entire time discussing the unborn baby, and how it's not fair to them. But what about the mother? The innocent mother who was raped and found herself pregnant with the child of her rapist. Would you force the mother to carry the child of her attacker? Would you force the mother to see in front of her, the image and reminder of her perpetrator?

Defense:
I'd like to submit into evidence this table that shows the percentage of women reporting their reasons that contributed to their decision to have an abortion. The column on the right is the percentage in a 1987 study. The column on the left is the percentage in a 2004 study. As you can see, the percentage of women that report rape as being their reason is less than 1% (it's rounded up). Even if we allowed abortion in those cases, we would still have a majority of the 1.8 million babies who die annually in America through abortion. But the Prosecution wants to use this small number to justify abortion on demand for anyone at any time. That's like saying we should get rid of traffic laws because 1% of the time when I'm rushing my child to the hospital, I need to run a red light. 

Prosecutor:
Objection! Speculation, Your Honor!

Judge:
Overruled!

Defense:
Members of the jury, Abortion is wrong, EVEN in the cases of rape! Don't you see that Abortion punishes the innocent party? In the situation that the Prosecution is describing, there are three parties: The rapist, the woman and the child. Which of these three is guilty? Which deserves punishment? The woman and child did nothing wrong... and yet, we are punishing the child with a punishment that not even the guilty rapist will receive.

Would we justify killing a BORN child who was conceived in rape? Would we justify punishing a child for any sin that his parents did? Does the child not have value? Does God not bring about good things from evil circumstances?

I'd like to submit my last piece of evidence your honor, and then call my last witness to the stand:

Witness 3: Sean McDowell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrENlbau-mA 

Defense:
Members of the jury, rape is a heinous heinous crime, and a sin against God against nature and against humanity. But an Abortion will not change what happened. It may seem like it would make it easier to deal with... but it doesn't. It only adds to the sorrow. Many women who were raped and then had an abortion came back and said that recovering from the abortion was more difficult than recovering from the rape. Rape is not a choice. But Abortion is. Abortion doesn't make the woman - the MOTHER - any less than a victim. But it does add another victim. 

The Defense rests its case.

Judge:
Thank you, counselors. Here, for the last time, I'd like to open the floor to the jury for any questions. I'll remind you to please refer all questions to me and if it so pleases the court, I will refer them to the appropriate counsel. 

Judge:

members of the jury, it is now up to you to examine the evidence and make a determination of the Truth. You will gather as a group and deliberate over the matters presented here. Juror #1, you will be responsible for providing the verdict in favor of the defense or the prosecution. Please proceed.

jury deliberates

Judge:

the court hereby rules in favor of the defense. The court adjourns

 

Day 2 Station 3: Is Feminism fair to everyone?

Introduction (10min)

Activity (15min):

Research your assigned female saint and see how God used them to deliver His ministry

Lesson (20min):

Christianity is the first institution in the world to be open about liberating women
Is Feminism Fair to Everyone?
Conclusion

References:

Day 2 Station 4: Does Feminism Build Society

Definition of Feminism

Google defines feminism as: the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.

Merriam-Webster defines feminism as: belief in and advocacy of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes expressed especially through organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

I. Feminism History

First Wave
Second Wave
Third Wave
Fourth Wave

II. Analyzing the Evolution

Are we seeing a pattern here?

Little by little, the cause no longer became a movement that had any interest in a woman’s right to vote or her right to be treated  equal to a man. In fact, the causes have contradicted much of the early feminist movements. How? By creating a woman whose  main interest is sexual freedom (given the many ways there are to end pregnancy) and acceptance of transgenderism. Connecting sex with a woman was a label they wanted to remove in earlier waves. Now it is being amplified. It has become a cause no one would ever be able to identify if the term “feminism” were not attached to it.

Is it possible the goal for women's rights has already been achieved, at least in the eyes of a Godly woman?

Unless the Christian woman is lobbying for sexual freedom, abortion, lesbianism, and transgenderism (just to name a few), she is unlikely to support feminism as it is today. She is also satisfied by the equality achieved by the early waves of feminism and by the traditional role of a woman.

Why is the focus no longer a woman's right to vote and her right to be treated equal to a man?

Because oppression based on gender no longer exists. 

Women can Work in STEM field, aerospace engineering, chemical engineering, computer science, etc. But they choose not to. There is no discouragement to go into these fields. However, 4 out of 5 top paying college majors are dominated by men and 4 out of 5 lowest paying college majors are dominated by women. (Elementary education, psychology, social work, theology/religion) 

III. Social Media

Feminism is pushed on social media now more than ever. Social Media does a great job of using big, extreme words, unclear analogies, and sarcastic statements to make it seem like aligning with Feminism is “common sense.” How many times have you seen TikToks and Instagram posts like these?

Real understanding of what the feminism agenda is NOT

It is NOT equal rights for men/women. It is an ideology that is pushing the statement that women have no need for men. As mentioned previously, it is also pushing lesbianism, transgenderism, sexual freedom, and abortion. All of these ideologies are negating the existence of the Christian family: a loving and equal marriage between man and woman, cooperation between the two, children, and the family abiding in God’s commandments. However, the movement is perfectly wrapped within a package labeled “feminism” to bring support from those who believe they are backing a real cause. 

Through social media, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that women are oppressed in America, which is not the case.

Example 1: Here, the video completely strips away the ideology of feminism and equates it to sexism.

Example 2: With both these videos using sarcasm and far‐fetched analogies, they make the point that feminism is just the belief that women should have rights. 

Example 3: This video also uses sarcasm to drive the agenda that being a woman = low pay (“gender pay gap”) 

Satan is very carefully using social media outlets closest to us to slowly introduce these ideas into our heads.

The goal is to slowly desensitize us to these ideologies that are not beneficial to society, or what God created as the structure of a family. The family is a small church: the husband is the head of the family just as Christ is the head of the church. 

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” (Ephesians 5: 31‐21) 

IV. Is there a positive impact from the movement?

No. There is no positive impact in the public and blatant pushing of an agenda that completely disregards God’s laws and His intent for man and woman. So even if those pushing the agenda win, their victory is an earthly one. Ultimately, they will lose the eternal life for living this life and for pushing it onto others.

V. Is there a negative impact from the movement?

Yes. The negative impact is so far ranging, they are actually oppressing the very gender they are trying to advance: woman. How? Because the woman is no longer free to choose the “traditional” lifestyle (the one God intended for woman). This lifestyle includes marriage, children, caring for the family, and living a righteous life. Why can’t a woman choose this lifestyle without offending feminists? Isn’t freedom for a woman to choose a lifestyle part of the feminist movement? Or does it only apply when a woman chooses to live a promiscuous life? Academic and professional advancement can also be achieved living this lifestyle, so ultimately, there is no deprivation of any kind.

VI. Biblical Perspective

Today’s movement clearly contradicts with God’s plan and creation. Men and women are different: they have different characteristics, strengths, and capabilities. 

VII. What is the Biblical Role for Each Gender?

VIII. Does Feminism Help Build Society?

Feminism, in its present form, does not help build society. It is a means to eliminate the traditional family (marriage, children, values) by glorifying sexual promiscuity, transgenderism, lesbianism, and abortion. It also aims to position women as victims of oppression, despite being very much equal to men in every way. Ironically, the feminist movement is oppressive to women who choose to live the “traditional” lifestyle as they are often condemned for not conforming to the lifestyle of the modern woman. Lastly, it causes division between supporters of the cause and those that are not. Those who do not support the cause are unfortunately called sexist.

Review

  1. What does Feminism mean?
  2. What was the initial cause for the feminist movement?
  3. How does the initial cause compare with the cause(s) today?
  4. Is there a positive impact from the movement?
  5. Whom does the movement negatively impact?
  6. What is the biblical perspective for the role of a woman? Role of a man?
  7. Is the biblical role for each gender a bad thing?
  8. How does the biblical perspective affect the feminist movement/agenda?
  9. Does Feminism help build society?

Reference