Category Archives: Debates?

Discussions and debates both, but that was a bit long for the sidebar

Not Just Staying Home (Part 2 of 2)

Posted on by

Sometimes I think that if I didn’t have other things (reading, writing, storytelling, music, teaching) in addition to keeping my home I probably wouldn’t enjoy “staying home,” but it’s only partially true.

My best analogy just now is to electricity. I’ve proven I can live contentedly without it, with the right attitude, but life is (forgive me) so much easier to enjoy with than without, I see no compelling reason to stretch myself that way.

Thankfully, God hasn’t asked me to do without these things I enjoy, and He’s shown me their place in my life just now: mixed with my children or spread thinly around the edges.

He’s also given me a “vision” (as it were) of their possibilities in the years to come.

This is where reminders such as that late chapter in Home by Choice are encouraging to me; they show my now-locked (think: land-locked) mind the possibilities once I reach the “coast” of empty-nesting.

I can touch and look at water in lakes, pools and streams now, but my current job doesn’t allow me to live by the ocean. I remind myself to be content in the wait because I know this job will eventually be over, whether I want it to be or not.

Hearing stories about women who fulfilled their second callings second helps me remain patient and content. I am such a *now* person I need the now stories of others to assure me I can wait for the train to arrive.

~

This doesn’t mean I am just hanging on until my kids are grown. It means that I have the same double vision in my home life as I have in my spiritual life.

All of we who are waiting for an eternal and infinitely better kingdom are only doing a good job if we are also doing everything in our power to equip ourselves and our children to live well in this one.

As a mother I am aware both of my present time with my children, and that it is not an end in itself.

Continue reading »

Not Just Staying Home (Part 1 of 2)

Posted on by

A recent conversation— sparked by my recommendation of this book— has made me think about a paradox I feel in my life. (I wonder how many women share this feeling/awareness…):

I am a huge cheerleader for moms staying at home to care for their families (and I unreservedly think it’s God’s “best plan,” along with two-parent families and living debt-free), but I don’t think it’s the be-all, end-all of my life.

And I don’t think this contradicts scripture.

For one thing, my life doesn’t end when they leave, and that, combined with the fact that God continually grows us, leads me to the conclusion he’s got plans for me beyond my time home with them.

I think they are the most important assignment I will ever have, but they are just one part of my life, not the whole thing.

This is what makes me think my desire to write is more than a distraction. I believe it is a part of me, useful in my parenting journey, that will not be fully explored until my first assignment is fulfilled.

But this awareness of– what can I call it?– a life beyond (within?) my role as a home-keeper, left me feeling hobbled in an uncomfortable conversation I recently got caught in.

I was subjected to… not outright derision at me and my career choice, but snarky jabs at women who do what it looks like I do.

For the first time in my life I think I understand what wounded feminists are trying to label “The Patriarchy,” and the bruises inflicted by subtle racism.

I am fairly sure this was not meant to be mean in a conscious way. It was a mouth speaking out of the overflow of his heart.

Apparently I have lived an *amazingly* sheltered 28+ years.

Among other things, I heard that overused refrain about women who are lost once their children are gone and *need* someone to nurture but there’s no one left.

Continue reading »

Can We Show Them More Evil, Please?

Posted on by

This is going to be a odd ramble since I recently wrote that “Sheltering” post, but perhaps it acknowledges some of the issues of Sheltering’s opponents.

I’m hoping someone will converse with me over the latest story I posted. I picked “The Snake’s Savior” to start this conversation because of the reaction of some boys when I told it once. There were several variations on,

“I would have saved him until he was almost warm, then tossed him away from me reallyquick!”

And I began to wonder if we (our culture’s) storytellers, in our admirable efforts to teach our children to be accepting of many different peoples, we are somehow teaching them to be “as innocent as doves” and leaving out the “wise as serpents” part.

So this enlightened generation automatically assumes the best of anyone who acts sincere, but what happens when these poor, molded children (heaven forbid!) meet real evil?

Call me cold and unfeeling, but I believe there are times when people simply are evil.

I am one who believes there are enough people that overcome (say) rejection and isolation without (say) shooting up a classroom, that those who act that way shouldn’t be excused or their evil be explained away because of the way they were treated.

Those who pretend it’s possible (or even necessary) are reversing the already faulty “the end justifies the means” to say “the means justify the end.”

It doesn’t become more right when turned on it’s head.

~

My quote on the side bar (about dragons and witches— and yes, it was inspired by a similar but different quote of Chesterton’s) is what made me first think about this problem.

I’ve come across very few stories about scary dragons or evil witches.

The majority of stories I see describe how misunderstood are peaceful dinosaurs and old women.

Continue reading »

Why is “Sheltering” a Bad Word?

Posted on by
“Clearly there is an appropriate kind of sheltering. When those who are opposed to homeschooling accuse me of sheltering my children, my reply is always, ‘What are you going to accuse me of next, feeding and clothing them?”
— R.C. Sproul Jr.

I was at my moms’-group yesterday, and heard a pair of women exclaiming incredulously over a young lady who realized much later than most that sex happens outside of marriage.

“I don’t know how in the world she missed it that long,” said one. “I mean, it’s even in the Bible.” The tone hovered somewhere between scorn and pity for this poor girl, and I (with my latest thoughts and feelings) couldn’t help saying, “Maybe it was a mercy.”

I had no opportunity to expand on this, because at that point I accidentally knocked over a cup of juice and spent the next five minutes dealing with that.

But I have been frustrated hearing this sort of talk before.

Talking with my uncle late last year, I endured his monologue about how worried he’d been for us kids because we were homeschooled and sheltered from the real world. I didn’t think at the time to say I was grateful for my ignorance.

~

Via e-mail this week I got a little article by By Gena Suarez, one of the owner/publishers of The Old Schoolhouse Magazine, that articulated perfectly the way I feel about this.

Do you “shelter” your children?

We’re finding that’s a bad word in some circles. Something is creeping into the church (and even the homeschooling community), and it isn’t biblical. It is an “anti-sheltering campaign” of sorts, and it’s full of holes. Think about it. What does it mean to shelter? Protect. Defend. Guard. Preserve. Watch over. Shield. Safeguard.

Hmmmm, so far so good, right? Sure, until “pop psychology” comes in and tells us we should allow our children to taste a little of the world in order to understand it or pray for it – that we should not “over-shelter” them. Nonsense.

What’s the opposite of shelter? Expose. Endanger.

I’ve observed the arguments against sheltering typically fall under one of two categories:

First, the warning that the poor child will suffer culture-shock upon entering the “real world,” and the second, that his/her uninitiated palette will irresistibly succumb to these new and tantalizing flavors.

Leaving aside that these two possibilities seem a little contradictory, lets look at them.

First, the second (I love writing that): never having seen an actual study, I can’t even stay whether this theory is statistically true, but I don’t think it is.

My educated opinion is that when children leave the faith or are “led into sin” there are more factors than just sheltering involved.

I would blame, for example, a controlling environment where independent thought is not taught or encouraged. This lack of preparation for making choices would leave anyone vulnerable.

As to “culture shock,” I think that the majority of Americans are more “sheltered” than all but the most sheltered of children.

If they ever got the culture shock of abject poverty, of the continual fear and violence common in other parts of the world, would they be more or less likely to be thankful for the security of the familiar?

This is how I felt upon my greater acquaintance with “the real world:”

Thankful it hadn’t been foisted on me sooner.

And why the implication that culture shock is inherently negitive? (But that’s another post. Moving on.)

~

Ultimately, I think we have to look at what our goals are. Sure, perfect children would be the ideal, but as they will make their own choices that we cannot control, we have to eventually accept that.

People who do not shelter their children will make the same discovery, and I wonder if they will have more questions about whether they left out something important.

My goal is to give my children enough of a “boost” toward Truth that their own leap toward faith may not have to be into the perilous unknown.

It’s a well-established fact that humans both fear the unknown and resist starting things they don’t know will succeed.

As a parent I want to remove what stumbling blocks are in my power to remove, and one of those stumbling blocks is the outside influences that can distract from Truth or skew a developing perspective towards a more hardened heart than God intended.

Sheltering is part of meeting this goal.

Character Songs

Posted on by

One thing that always seems “magical” to me is when I hear a song (usually on the radio, but it’s also happened in a store) with a message, sound or single line that perfectly encapsulates a personality, action beat or relationship.

I initially noticed this when I was working on my first novel, and heard a line from “For the Longest Time” by Billy Joel:

And the greatest miracle of all
Is how I need you
And how you needed me too
That hasn’t happened for the longest time

It was the heart of the first part of the novel and their interaction.

So here are some highlights for my current work (don’t read anything into the videos– I never saw them before I did a search for the song itself. YouTube is an *awesome* substitute for iTunes– I just don’t watch while I’m listening if it’s for the sound, like here).

I guess I’m more auditory than visual, because if I’m going to be imagining for a while, it’s with music rather than images. I think these examples hint at the individual conflicts of interest that arise in my novel.

Includes the lines,

“…I feel so small and bewildered…
Tell me that you love me, tell me that you want me
Even if I’m not all you thought I would be.
Tell me that … you’ll catch me when I fall.”

Cecilia is the bride arranged for the crown prince Torbjorn, and I love this sweet wistful song for her. Torb doesn’t have a song of his own yet, but (jokingly) I’ve assigned him “I knew I loved you before I met you,” as his relationship song, because he’s that kind of guy— one who makes up his mind and that’s the way it is.

Parental Involvement

Posted on by

It is a sad commentary on our modern culture that the only place where parents are still expected (I almost said allowed) to “impose their personal views” on their children is in nutrition.

The 9th Circuit Court has asserted that parents have no right to input in their children’s learning: this, apparently, is the essence of a public school; courts also have shot down efforts for parents to be involved in important health-care decisions of their children; and many moderns nod over the wisdom of waiting on the introduction of a specific religion, so children can decide what they want to believe when they grow up.

You really ought to stop imposing your own, narrow, religious views on your children. They’re just children, for mercy-sake! They are vulnerable and susceptible to ideas from those they love and trust. If you start pumping just one religion into them before they’re old enough to critically evaluate it, they’ll never have the chance to think for themselves.

Do the mature thing and leave them out of it for now. Instead, cultivate a respectful attitude toward all beliefs– you know that can’t happen if they think only one is “true”. (The common side-effect of no adult faith is really not scary enough to make this bad advice. Really.)

And it’s none of our business– or yours– if that child is “active” sexually, collecting diseases or exposing herself to un-safe situations. Keep your nose out of it while your daughter decides how to deal with the unexpected results of that “natural” behavior.

As a parent you have no say in her moral development– leave that desensitizing to us (the government) and our agent (the public school). We’ll make sure we dull or mute any of that unconscionable resistance to same-sex relations. This will create a safer environment for all, since no one will feel threatened if they never have to explain their choices or behavior to those who don’t understand.

Continue reading »

The “Hidden Rules” of Moms’ Groups

Posted on by

The presentation I mentioned a month ago had a lot of blog-worthy ideas– to the point of over-load. So I never took it anywhere. Recently one element has come up and I spent some time thinking on it while trying to sort myself out.

Hidden rules was the resurrected element. The authors of Bridges out of Poverty describe how every human group has unwritten rules that all “true” members of the group follow, just because they are a part of the group; sometimes to keep the peace and to prove they belong to the group.

When different groups collide, or a person is new to a group, mistakes can be made that damage relationship– not because the offending party desires to offend, but because s/he doesn’t recognize the land-mines.

In a spirit of community-service and a healthy effort to avoid future explosions, I have compiled the following list.

I must point out that some of these will seem infinitely *duh!* to some of you, and my pride compels me to say I did not learn all of these the hard way. But All of them are based on interactions I’ve observed since my first moms’ group two years ago.

Some might just get you a cold shoulder or a nasty look, and (adding to the confusion) people with similar strengths– e.g. a good marriage– tend to overlook similar rules as unnecessary.

If you know them all without thinking, Congrats! You’re already “in”.

I have never spent a lot of time with groups of women. I’ve always been the “loner” (the type with just a couple close friends), never one to run with “the herd.” In high school this had its uses, but it also inhibited my picking up some key rules.

My current collection of The hidden rules of Mothers’ Groups (mostly what you shouldn’t do), beginning with “The things I can’t say:”

  • “I really have to be careful about what I say when I’m with you.”
    • Says “You don’t understand me.” or “I can’t be myself around you.”
  • “Wow, you raise your kids really differently than I do.” (Not a criticism!!!)
    • Any comment that’s not a complement or asking for advice can make people defensive.
  • “That time/activity doesn’t work for me.”
    • Can make it sound (arrogantly) like I and my availability carry some great weight.
      • This is tricky because on the one hand I’m supposed to be quiet rather than negative, but other I’m supposed to participate. One of many balancing acts.
  • “Hanging out with a group is not my most favorite thing to do– even if it is a break away from the kids.” (Did say this one once– to a very cold reception).
    • They could’ve heard, “I don’t enjoy being with *this* group,” which, for me at least, isn’t true, since I wouldn’t be there. ;)
      • Should treat it like a date: i.e. don’t let on there’s anywhere else you’d rather be.
    • It can be taken as devaluing those who find getting-away is their favorite recreational activity.
  • Anything to contradict a contradiction. It’s like a white elephant gift exchange. You can only turn things around so many times or it looks ugly– like you’re fighting or something.
    • It’s too bad people have a hard time disagreeing without taking offense. Too often the rejection of an idea is taken as a rejection of the individual or her experience (see “contradicting experience” below) and there’s no ‘clean’ way to do it.
  • Any unsolicited advice when someone is under pressure. Continue reading »

The Danger of Trusting God

Posted on by

I guess a better title might be “The Danger of *saying* you’re trusting God.” Or maybe just, “We’re trusting God too.”

Barbara at Mommy Life is working on an article about Evangelicals (basically non-Catholics) who have given up birth control and are trusting God for their family size. She acknowledged “full-quiver” (having as many children as you can?) isn’t exactly what she’s trying to talk about.

The comments are full of personal stories, some quite inspiring, and (though I haven’t finished going through all of them) thankfully free of calls to sameness or the implication that all Christians are called to this type of obedience.

Jay and I haven’t felt called to this type of “openness to life.” We’ve felt peace about three biological children being the appropriate number for my body, and expect that to tie into plans God is giving us for when they are older.

My difficulty with this (and the reason for this post) is– you guessed it– the language.

There is no way (I have yet found) for a couple to express their calling to a large family (or whatever number they’re given, free of the plans of men) without somewhere, in some way, saying they’re “trusting God.” The unfortunate opposite of that is, of course, implying not trusting God.

I believe that couples (assuming they have sought God rather than only their own plans) can still be “trusting God” when they use contraceptives.

I feel very strongly that there are very few medical (or conscionable) reasons to use hormonal birth control or IUDs. There is enough question–some will say proof– about their abortifacient nature that I don’t think a pro-lifer should use them without careful consideration.

That said, I do believe there are contraceptive methods that are quite acceptable choices for believers.

I think of it as a stewardship issue, and compare trusting God for your family size to trusting God for your family finances.

Continue reading »

Further Musing on “Helpmeet”

Posted on by

To begin, this is not pretended to be researched extensively. It’s merely a comment/thought has grown from the double seed of Debi Pearl and Teri Maxwell in a book (Debi) and talk (Teri) about loving your husbands and being good wives.

Both of them include the beginning in Genesis where the idea of a help meet or “helper” was first introduced. Whenever I have heard this verse discussed I have always noticed the speaker/author adding hastily this isn’t the type of “helper” we call our little ones (that slow us as much as help us).

They point out that the word used to say “helper” here is the same word God uses to describe himself later in the bible. This clarification usually accompanies the point that being this sort of helper is not a lowly position, as it’s the role God himself has, or is in.

Later both Teri and Debi both point out that they are their husbands’ helpmeets, not the other way around. That God has given them the assignment of helping their husband, not of him helping her.

All that said, I was thinking about this yesterday and a new idea entered my mind.

Like these women said, my husband was not given to me as my helpmeet, I was given to him. As the type of helper God it to us (they implied).

So maybe in looking at what my job is, I should be studying what kind of a helper God is, and see what he is doing that I may emulate. That is, I already know it’s not my job to convict, but maybe it is in my role to advise my husband– I may see something more clearly than he. Or I may “make his paths straight” (his way easier or more smooth) by anticipating what he needs and helping with that.

This is a neat (and to me a new) way at looking at my job as a helper to my husband.

But, also because of this way of looking, I think it’s a mistake to imagine I was designed as his helper and not the reverse. Because God doesn’t (as some people seem to think) just sit, taking notes as we pray, then jump to work. He has a plan, and he somehow uses us little humans to accomplish that plan.

(I don’t mean to imply the reverse– that really the woman should be in a God-like position of control– just that if our role looks a little like God’s, it’s definitely not all our husband’s ideas and our following blandly along.)

I’m just beginning to question and think this through, so if anyone else can articulate this better I welcome your thoughts. I still agree that God did not give man as a helpmeet. That is simply plain in scripture– it’s the woman’s title.

But I don’t think the woman’s assignment having that title must exclude the man from also being a helper. It is not a lowly position for the woman, because it is way God describes himself, and is no more lowly for the man.

It’s not scripture, but I believe it was accurate when Diane Sawyer said:

A good marriage is a contest of generosity.

Not for kids? (Defending the Use of Fairy Tales)

Posted on by

I have heard (and said myself) that fairy tales were not meant as entertainments for children.

While I still believe most of the content needs to be filtered by discerning parents, as my kids get older (and, remember, they’re not very old yet) I’m finding and thinking that some of the tales aren’t as inappropriate for them as I once thought they would be.

I first started thinking this way when I hung on to Wiley and the Hairy Man despite my mother’s opinion of it. I can see that the book is intense, but I know my kids, and went though it with them until they were acclimated to the story.

More troubling to me are (several) “children’s” movies that are equally or more intense than this story and too often used to “babysit.” That is, entertain a child without the adult’s involvement.

I am not “above” using movies to entertain my children. That’s what they’re there for. That’s why I watch movies. I have a stash that I am comfortable doing this with.

My general complaint with children being left alone with the television is that too many people equate cartoon with child-friendly.

For this reason I won’t let my girls watch certain “childhood standards” and I will continue to delay those while I can.

I like the movies (well enough). I think they’re good storytelling and art and all that, but I don’t think their level of tension is appropriate for preschoolers.

One of the difficulties with movies is that all the images and emotions come rushing at you like wild animals, and there’s no time or context for processing one of them before being attacked or buried by the next one.

When reading stories– even the same ones the movies were made from– I have more control, the children have more context, and (therefore) more safety for the whole exercise.

~

Why do it at all if it requires special presentation to be “safe”? Because I enjoy them, for one thing, and I best meet my own expectations of reading aloud frequently if that first criterion is met.

Also because the stories, told in the right way, create opportunities to talk about real issues (this can be good or bad, depending on what issues are brought up).

Did you know the original Snow White (from the German, not Disney) was a child? She first angers her step-mother at the tender age of 7. There is nothing remotely passive or weak (common complaints about the tale) about a 7-year-old being taken somewhere by an adult she trusts, or being told what to do for her own safety (e.g by the dwarfs).

We have used the original Snow White (still edited slightly as we read aloud) to talk about the danger of disobedience; the reasons for adults’ warnings, designed to keep children safe. Continue reading »