The Grinch Who Stole Mother’s Day

Tags

mother's day, motherhood

I was lying on the ultrasound table with a towel over my pregnant belly. As the ultrasound tech left the room, she left a bitter taste in my mouth with her bright, “Happy Mother’s Day!” It felt less happy and more ironic, given the reasons we were at the specialist’s office in the first place, to look at my daughter’s imperfect heart. The slight clenching I felt inside was all too familiar: during the long, dark night of infertility, I also cringed at the cheerful gush of “Happy Mother’s Day!” as the holiday rolled around again. Back then, I would actually get angry at all the Hallmark hoopla that seemed to mock me from every sappy commercial or store display. Even after I did have children, I still held a grudge against Mother’s Day and the sappy sentimentality that pushed my childless friends into hiding.

So, on that exam table, if I could’ve morphed into a green cartoon character, I would’ve gladly become the Grinch Who Stole Mother’s Day. But after my appointment, I happened to read Romans 12:15 (ESV): “Rejoice with those who rejoice; weep with those who weep.”  I realized that BOTH halves of that verse are important, and that my disdain for Mother’s Day was completely ignoring the first half of the verse. This year I am in that odd place between joy and fear as I prepare to meet a precious baby girl with physical issues sure to challenge our little family.

So this year, I will be celebrating Mother’s Day by identifying with the elation of some, and lamenting over the difficulties of the day with others.

I will offer a cheery, heart-felt “Happy Mother’s Day!” to

1. The woman who is blessed (as I am!) to have a wonderful mother or grandmother or children with whom to celebrate the day.
2. The elated (and overwhelmed) mama who is snuggling a long-awaited child for the first time this Mother’s Day.
3. The tired mother who struggles with the daily drain and mess of preschoolers who are ever-present and ever-needy. She needs to be reminded that her efforts are worthy of celebration and praise!
4. The mom who has raised her children, learned her lessons, and is joyfully sharing her gifts with younger moms.
5. The many teachers, childcare workers, aunts, etc. who mother the children in their care so well and so lovingly.

I will offer a hug with a warm and quiet, “Happy Mother’s Day” to

1. The mother who has miscarried, had a misplaced adoption, or experienced the death of a child and doesn’t know whether to stand or sit in church when mothers are recognized.
2. The mother-in-waiting who is longing for marriage and/or children, wondering when it will be her turn and why the journey seems so easy for others.
3. The woman who stands in the card aisle for 30 minutes because she can’t find a card that respects that difficult relationship she has with her mother, or the daughter who walks briskly past the cards because she’s holding back the pain of no longer having a mother.
4. The mother who is pained by the destructive choices her child is making and wondering if her parenting is worth celebrating.
5. The mama who is grieved because she chose to abort her child or in some other way allowed her own pain to spill consequences over into her child’s life.

Sometimes, these Mother’s Day greetings can be even more complicated by that fact that many women fall into more than one of these categories. The emotions of the day can leave us raw and unsettled. Motherhood (and the journey to and through it) is a winding road with an ever-changing terrain. There is almost always a mingling of the bitter with the sweet. So this Mother’s Day, say an appropriate “Happy Mother’s Day” to those you care about, and if you have the blessing of having it said to you this Sunday, receive it well, knowing that you are not alone in either your pain or in your joy.

From me to you, “Happy Mother’s Day,” with love, Sara (honorary resident of Whoville)

Follow me on Twitter: @paper_fences

Hunger Pains

I’m not type A. I’m not even type B or C. I’m some sort of strange hybrid that fluctuates between being uptight and particular and relaxed and spontaneous, depending on the situation, my mood, or the amount of chocolate in my system.

This lack-of-type has been evident in the way I approach the daily, personal worship time I spend with God. Some days, I have a wonderfully refreshing time of Bible reading and prayer. Some days, I plod through the reading like a horse trying to finish the last leg of her last race, then fall asleep when trying to pray. Intellectually, this makes sense: how I approach everything varies to this same degree.

But, for some reason, when I have a dry spell spiritually, I tend to overreact. I feel guilty about my lack of enthusiasm. Then, as guilt often does in my life, it discourages me to the point of giving up. I don’t want to be fake, and just go through the motions of spending time with God, but neither do I want to be legalistic about reading a certain number or chapters or praying for a certain amount of time. So I just stop altogether for a while. Then I get discouraged about stopping, and go take ibuprofen for the headache I’ve developed in the process.

Thankfully, I was recently rescued from this crazy cycle by a sermon I heard. The sermon didn’t really say much that was new, but somehow it has refreshed me. The pastor spoke about eating, and said that we eat for two reasons: we’re hungry, or it’s simply mealtime. (I would add a third reason: we eat to feel less bored or lonely or sad – but that’s an entirely different blog post!) His application was obvious: we should feed ourselves spiritually when we’re hungry and also just when it’s time to do so.

As I’ve thought about this over the last few weeks, I’ve found it to be very freeing. No longer does every encounter with God have to be the equivalent of a gourmet meal; I still get nutrition from a protein bar eaten on the go. Some days I don’t feel like eating, but (especially being pregnant), I eat so I don’t pass out or get cranky. How much more do I need spiritual food in order to accomplish the day’s tasks!

Here are my take-aways:

1. A snack is better than no meal at all. Reading a verse on my phone or praying at a stop-light is still nourishing.
2. Just snacking is not sustainable in the long run. Most days I should be having at least one real spiritual meal.
3. If I’m feeling hungry (aka discontented, insecure, grouchy), I should eat something nutritious! I need to recognize that reading my Bible and praying and spending time with other believers are the proteins that will make me feel satisfied. Eating junk food (surfing online or watching TV) will only make me feel temporarily full.
4. Some days, I don’t feel hungry. That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t eat. Sometimes, I get distracted from my spiritual needs, but I should recognize my need for daily sustenance and expect the emotional fallout that will inevitably take place I don’t stop to eat.
5. A long, leisurely meal can be refreshing and reviving. This is true when I date my husband; our relationship is always re-centered and reinvigorated. If I’m starting to feel hungry and find myself feeding on all sorts of junk the world offers, it is time for a feast in the presence of Christ.

The main thing I want to remember in all of this is that if I’m hungry in any way, there is only one thing that can satisfy me, and I need to nourish my soul through delighting in Him alone!

“Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? 
Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good,
 and delight yourselves in rich food.” Isaiah 55:2 (ESV)

Stealing Grace

I’ve always struggled with anxiety over imagined future scenarios. I have worked myself up over more hypothetical situations than I care to admit. My mom has been the natural dumping ground for my overflowing angst. Her wisdom to me has been, “God doesn’t give you hypothetical grace, only real grace when you actually need it” — God gives us enough grace to deal with the events of that day, not for all the fake futures I can conjure up during a day. By wasting time and energy on “vain imaginings,” I was also stealing from the grace God had perfectly apportioned for that day. She insisted, time after time (and she speaks from experience), that if I were to face any of my fears in reality, that God would give me the grace to deal with them when I needed it.

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.” Matthew 6:34 (NIV)

I’m grateful to report that my mom was right: even in the midst of our current season, God’s peace has comforted and protected us. In fact, in imagining that I would one day face this scenario (what scenario did I not imagine?), I felt far more anxiety than I’m feeling in actually facing it. And my most difficult moments lately have been when I have spent too much time on the Internet, imagining every possible outcome for my daughter (go figure – Mom wins again).

Now I’m not naïve; peace is not a numbing agent. I have cried more in the last week than in the whole past year, and, in front of doctors I’ve just met, I have very awkwardly burst into tears. There has been real pain involved with knowing that my baby girl is not physically whole. And there have been times in the past (most recently dealing with infertility before my son was born) that I really thought I would drown, and in those moments I didn’t believe my heart and mind were being guarded by anything, let alone peace. But I survived, with my faith and love for God  and for my family firmly in tact, so I was being guarded by sentinels of peace.

“And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” Phillipians 4:7 (NIV)

Some people confuse peace with a lack of emotion. People who go through crises with dry eyes and not a trace of sackcloth or ashes have learned to fake peace. Other Christians can sometimes encourage this “brave trusting” in God’s goodness, mainly because they like to think that if sorrows come, God will buoy them above it all in some unreachable hovercraft where they won’t get splashed with murky seawater or entangled in seaweed. But speaking as someone who’s currently in the middle of the waves, I can tell you that it’s cold and wet and dark and scary out here. But I am not alone. God’s presence is with me and my family, and his comfort is real.

While I had imagined being in situations similar to the one I’m in now, what I could not have imagined was the grace that is being apportioned to us. His grace is sufficient, and I am so glad to belong to him!

“He is my steadfast love and my fortress, my stronghold and my deliverer, my shield and he in whom I take refuge.” Psalm 144:2 (ESV)

Amelia Kate

(I know this is straying from my typical blog post, but since this is an established forum for communication, I think it will be easiest to give occasional updates here.)

We were sad and scared to learn last week that our unborn daughter, Amelia, has a significant heart defect. She has a complete AV canal defect, which as we understand it, basically means she has two holes in her heart that will allow oxygenated and un-oxygenated blood to flow together and into her lungs. This creates a need for her to have open-heart surgery as soon after birth as possible, probably at 3 or 4 months old. Before the surgery, she is likely to experience difficulty breathing, eating, and gaining weight.

In addition to the complications caused by this defect, we were also told that we now have a 50% chance of Amelia being born with Down’s or another chromosomal disorder such as Trisome 13 or 18 (Down’s being the most likely). The doctor was going to perform an amniocentesis so that we could know for sure, but I declined, as I am aware of the risk of miscarriages related to this procedure. When I told the doctor we would not terminate the pregnancy, she said there was no point in doing an amniocentesis in our situation: it won’t change the pre or post natal care provided to Amelia. So now we will just wait until Amelia’s birth to find out if she has a chromosomal disorder. So far, she does not have any soft markers of Down’s (measurements or blood work), which is good, but the heart issue is a hard marker that keeps our percentage at 50%.

We would certainly appreciate your prayers!

1. Please pray for our anxiety level to stay low. In my experience, the last 3 ½ months is a long time in any pregnancy, and it will feel especially long as we we will be waiting to find out what exact issues we’re dealing with until birth.
2. The pediatric cardiologist saw promising “parachute strings” growing over one of the holes in Amelia’s heart. Please pray that they continue to grow, as this could reduce her diagnosis to a partial AV canal defect, which would postpone open heart surgery until Amelia is three, and eliminate her having symptoms at birth so that she would be able to progress as a typical newborn.
3. Pray that there are no chromosomal defects.
4. Pray that our marriage/family will be strong and that anxiety over this will not cause tension in our home.
5. Pray that we will be godly and effective parents to all three of our children, regardless of what extra challenges they face in life.

Thank you for caring enough about us to read this! We appreciate all the support we’ve been offered by friends and family. Here’s an update on how we’re doing emotionally.

Apples to Orange Slices (the Candy Ones)

If you are silently stewing after reading my blog post with five arguments regarding gay marriage, you are not alone. One brave soul wrote a critique, and below is a the gist of my response to her.

Dear Brave Commenter,

I appreciate any respectful interaction, so thanks for the remarks! I have a couple questions/comments about your points…

1)   My first point was that gay people have the same rights as straight people. I can see how you thought I was “ignoring the very rights gay people want.” I think what’s confusing is that there are two questions being asked here.  The first is “does a gay person have the same rights as a straight person in marrying?” And, as I answered in the original post, the answer is yes. The second, which I believe you are actually asking, is “does a gay person have the right to marry whomever he/she chooses?” And I concede that the answer to your questions is no. But it is also true that a straight person cannot marry whomever he/she chooses. You are saying that all people should be able to marry whomever they love, whenever they want (after a legal age of consent). But marriage has not historically been based on existing love. Marriages have been entered into as a means for building a family, means of political alliance, and as a vehicle to obtain citizenship. Sometimes these marriages are arranged for the couple, and they meet at the altar. But what marriage is and has always been is based on the entering of a covenant and promising of future love and commitment until “death do us part.” Marriage is a legal contract, and the basis for entering into a legal contract shouldn’t solely be love. So what I surmise that you are proposing is actually a two-fold re-defining of marriage: define marriage as only a love relationship, and define that love as being between any consenting adults and any number of consenting adults. This may be exactly what you want, but you must concede that it is a complete overhaul of the current definition.

1B) There has been mounting evidence that many gay people (mostly gay men) are actually hoping that gay marriage will change the definition of heterosexual marriage. These advocates no longer want monogamy to be part of the definition of marriage! They think we would all be happier if we were “monogamish” (thank you, Dan Savage). So you can see that the fight here is not to slightly tweak the definition of marriage but to dig up the foundation and start over with a “new and improved” building, based on the current, trending thoughts about love and coupling. Lest you think this is being advocated by a fringe group, here is a very thorough, well-researched article that links to many of the publications encouraging this disturbing redefinition. So, you can see that we’re now comparing shiny, red apples to artificially-flavored, candy orange slices. Except that what you are advocating is that we call the orange slices apples, and pretend that the same nutritional value exists in both. 

2)   You state that marrying two people (I presume you mean simultaneously) should be legal, and I appreciate your honesty in admitting this, as it is consistent with a stance that is pro gay-marriage. So you just want to take marriage and make it whatever you want? It’s as though I really want to eat at a local hamburger joint, but what I want to order is quiche. So instead of finding a different restaurant, I picket, threaten to sue, wax eloquent about my RIGHT to eat quiche at that particular hamburger joint. Wouldn’t it make more sense for me to find a restaurant that’s already serving quiche? Or make my own? Why should I force an individual to change his restaurant menu just because I want to redefine the type of restaurant he owns? Quiche is not illegal. Forcing hamburger joints to serve quiche is (though not for long, I imagine).

3)   I’m sure gay people do face genuine discrimination (as opposed to being told that a centuries-old institution won’t be redefined for them, which is in no way discriminatory), though I think reports have been wildly exaggerated for obvious reasons. But do you think legalizing gay marriage would really rectify all the issues you mentioned? Also, most people walk around trying to present a good public image, and everyone has something that someone could use as a basis for discriminating against them (halitosis, handicap, social awkwardness, chewing with mouth open, allergies, etc). And, for the record, I know many, many Christians, and I don’t know ANY who go around telling people they’re going to hell.

4)   The evolution argument was just made before the SCOTUS last week, so it does seem relevant to this debate.

5)   How can you say that marriage is part of citizens’ private lives, but their businesses are part of their public lives? What someone does sexually is part of his/her private life (presuming the act was done privately), but marriage is a public, societal institution. Your sex life, in effect, to some extent becomes public when you decide to marry. You say you want the government out of marriage, but then go on to say you think the government should be regulating everything about how those “married” people are treated. What a double standard! The Constitution (to which you strongly appeal, on the basis of equality) actually has far more to say about freedom of religion than about gay rights. “All men are created equal” does not mean that at the end of the day everyone has to have the same portion of everything – we are not communists. There are rich people and poor people and smart people and dumb people and educated people and uneducated people. The Constitution does nothing to rectify these situations, though you could argue that many were “born that way.” And, when discussing the photography court case, you advocate gay couples being treated the same as interracial couples, even though you concede (in point 3) that there are significant differences between race and sexual orientation. You refer to the photography case as being a “civil rights’ issue,” when it’s actually a religious issue. If you read the court case, you saw that the photographer’s emails to the lesbian couple were very kind, yet the potential customer claimed she was “fearful.” Why she was fearful was not explained. The photographer was not hateful, she was not rude, she did not tell the couple they were going to hell or even that their behavior was wrong. She simply said that her business did not photograph gay weddings. Her religious beliefs prevented her from doing so. The photographer’s rights should have been protected under the First Amendment! Instead, she was forced to pay for her “discrimination.” And that’s one of the scariest things about legalizing gay marriage: the government will stomp all over religious people in the name of civil rights. You can’t say you want the government to get out of marriage, but then rejoice when the government clubs people who are exercising their First Amendment rights.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. I do wish this debate did not lead to people feeling alienated from each other, but original marriage is as dear to me as the idea of a new kind of marriage is to you. I know that may seem disingenuous, given the number of divorces, etc, and I agree that heterosexuals have found plenty of ways to make a mockery of marriage, all on our own. But the solution is for men and women wanting to maintain the sanctity of marriage to step up, not to step down and allow marriage to be knocked down and run over in the name of “equality.”

Top Five Reasons to Support Gay Marriage (and why those reasons are still not good enough)

Top Five Reasons to Support Gay Marriage
(and why those reasons are still not good enough)

As advocates of gay marriage are seeking to change a tradition that has existed since the dawn of time, the onus should be on them to prove that changing the definition of marriage would be good for society. Here are their five best arguments:

1. Gay people deserve the same rights as straight people.
I am all for equal rights. I don’t think the government should be in anyone’s bedroom, telling individuals what they should or should not be doing. I don’t think gay people should be told they can’t marry. But equal rights already exist. Gay people are not asked to use separate bathrooms or drinking fountains, as much as gay “rights” activists want to compare their plight to the Civil Rights Movement. LBGT people do not make less, on average, than others (as even women still do). Most companies now offer same-sex partner benefits. And – get this – gay people have all the marriage rights as straight people.

“Wait! But straight people can marry whom they love; gay people can’t.” But straight people can no more marry anyone they love than gay people can! The restrictions are the same, regardless of sexual orientation: no one can marry someone who’s already married, a minor, more than one person, an object/animal, a close relative, the same gender, etc. There are no additional restrictions on LGBT people. The laws are EXACTLY the same for everyone. And unless we as a society are prepared to throw out everything on that list, we should be very careful about removing one aspect. Marriage: it is what it is for every American, and the laws regarding the institution apply equally to every citizen.

2. You can’t/shouldn’t legislate morality.
Every society has legislated morality to some extent. Passing laws against murder or stealing is legislating morality. My question to gay rights’ activists on this topic is this: If we shouldn’t legislate morality, why should it be wrong to marry your father? More than one person? An animal? If you object to any of these on moral grounds, then you want to legislate morality. Also, just for the record, telling restaurants they can’t sell sugary drinks over 16oz is legislating morality… if liberals are willing to have such minor moralities legislated, they should understand conservatives wanting DOMA. As a side note, though sodomy is illegal in some states, that is not the right being fought for here; policeman are not monitoring bedrooms in any state. What gay rights’ activists are asking for is a public celebration of their sexuality and the public benefits that go with it.

3. Gay is the new Black.
This general idea has become very ubiquitous. Someone in my Facebook feed even compared traditional marriage advocates to racists of time-gone-by who tried to prevent Black people from being able to vote! He said that those opposing gay marriage would be ashamed of themselves in years to come. The article linked to above does a great job explaining how ludicrous this assertation is. One of the author’s main points is that race is something that can be empirically observed; you can’t hide it. I would add that homosexuality has an action attached to it, and it is the action that Christians object to; victims of racism are rejected before they ever act, before they ever speak. If being gay is accepted as being comparable to being Black, then affirmative action will soon follow, which becomes very complicated when it’s based on a non-observable criteria. I would also add that racism, unlike homosexuality, is a generational problem. One’s parents are held back economically or socially because of their race, which in turn, affects the next generation and the next, making the oppressive hand of racism so heavy that it is hard for any individual to crawl out from under it. There is no such generational oppression of gay people. They have no fewer advantages at birth than anyone else.

4. The current thinking on gay marriage is the most progressive and enlightened thinking to have ever existed on marriage in the history of the world. Just because no one’s EVER sanctioned gay marriage before our current day doesn’t mean anything. Evolution has taught us that we are currently the highest form of life, with the highest form of thinking. Ever. I’m not sure that homosexuals should be using evolution in their arguments (though it may be more implicitly than explicitly present), yet in the SCOTUS hearings, that’s the answer that was given for why a change from traditional marriage should be considered necessary at this time. But if you follow this line of thinking, and evolution has its way, gay people will either settle down with someone of the opposite sex to rear children, or never pro-create. Either way, the gene would necessarily (according to evolutionistic theory) eventually be diluted and die out. If evolution is more cyclical and not as simplistic as I’m making it out to be, then how can we be so ready to throw out centuries of wisdom in such a short span of time? The evolutionary argument on one hand works against the longevity of homosexuality and on the other hand supports marriage laws being changed because of our progressive and enlightened thinking. Both cannot be true.

5. True libertarians should support gay marriage.
I strongly lean libertarian politically. And that is, in part, why I cannot support gay marriage. As indicated in point #1, this is much less about gay people getting rights and much more about forcing the rest of us to condone a behavior we disagree with. A wedding photographer was taken to court because she didn’t want to take on a gay couple as clients – she didn’t want to celebrate in photographs what she felt to be an affront to God. Even if you think she was wrong, don’t you think she, as a small business owner, has a right to choose her clientele? The courts didn’t. If gay marriage is sanctioned, and if homosexuality is put into the same category as race, it will likely follow that adoption agencies will be forced to choose between placing babies with same-sex couples or closing their doors. Businesses will be told to provide benefits to married, same-sex couples, regardless of the business owners’ religious beliefs (Hobby Lobby, anyone?). Sanctioning gay marriage doesn’t just allow couples to “love and let love.” It involves the government in more details of our private lives than ever before. And it invades freedom of religion in a way never before seen (or even conceived of!) in America. Speaking against homosexuality in public, even from the pulpit, will be considered a hate crime, and pastors will either shut up or risk jail. Discerning libertarians see the writing on the wall and oppose gay marriage. Or they at least see that we should allow states to choose their own laws so that U.S. citizens/businesses have options for establishing a residence where they can freely practice their religions.

Just because the gay rights’ movement has lots of outspoken, powerful supporters: our president, celebrities, etc. doesn’t mean that it has logic on its side. And just because a current trend seems fresh and progressive, doesn’t mean that we all have to jump on the speeding bandwagon while waving rainbow-colored flags. We can want all people to have equal treatment under the law without wanting to celebrate and sanctify an idea that is newer than DVR technology as a replacement of an institution existing from the beginning of time.

Equality means giving each person the same shot at the same prize, not changing the prize according to each person’s qualifications.

What’s Working Wednesday

Here’s what’s working around here this week…

Floor Steamer

If you’ve been following this blog for any length of time, or if you know me personally, you will know about my unhealthy obsession with my vacuum cleaner.  You will also know how ironic this infatuation is since I enjoy cleaning about as much as I enjoy finding an empty box of Thin Mints. Well, my neuroses have extended to include my adoration of this steamer… the Haan Slim and Light Cleaning Floor Sanitizer!

This Haan steamer enriches my life by creating beautiful beams of steam on my hardwood floors and by bringing a song to my heart (too far?). When I’m cleaning, I like to feel like I’m accomplishing something monumental as a result of my efforts (hence sometimes attempting to do a full month’s laundry in one day). This steamer lets me clean and sanitize at the same time! When my daughter started crawling, I felt confident that she wasn’t picking up germs from my floors (picking them up from her brother presented more of a problem as he wouldn’t allow me to steam him). Unlike other steamers, this floor cleaner doesn’t require pumping; the steam flows automatically. The cord is a little short, and the head won’t fit in between my toilet and the wall, but what it lacks in those respects is more than made up for by how light and easy-to-use it is. And it cleans/sanitizes rugs with a simple attachment. Also, the floor pads are washable – what more could you ask for? Of course needing to wash the floor pads contributes to the aforementioned laundry issue…

Date Night

In case you don’t have children yet, you need to know that date nights are expensive. Start saving now! By the time you pay a sitter $10+ an hour, and pay for a meal at a place that doesn’t have a drive-thru, the evening racks up a bill of at least $80. Add to that price the guilt of using the kids’ college funds to have an evening out, and date nights end up on the endangered species’ list.

Our solution to this problem has been to make evenings out more rare by having more date nights in our family room. We watched West Wing when we were dating, so we recently restarted the series (we found it on Amazon Prime). That ensures that there’s always something good to watch together. (Are you thinking we should be talking and sharing our feelings during these date nights? You must not have children with the energy – and chattering – levels of ours!) To make the night a little more special, we make what we’ve dubbed the “Lazy Man’s Piña Colada” (coconut rum and pineapple juice).

Since I’m pregnant as of late, we’ve had to improvise, and we now make our version of the Dole Whip Floats served in the Magic Kingdom at Disney World. We scoop Haagan-Dazs pineapple coconut ice cream (amazing by itself) into a glass and pour pineapple juice (Dole, not-from concentrate) over it, making a delicious date-night pineapple-coconut float. Then we make out. Or fall asleep. Whichever.

Seriously, why have we never thought to combine ALL these ingredients at the same time??

The Week

Problem: I like to stay informed about culture and politics, but with such a plethora of information out there, it would take me hours to read the news from a variety of perspectives as is my preference. Also, I don’t enjoy reading about or even seeing all the sensational news that gets raked in by “reporters” looking to fill their news feeds.

Solution: The Week magazine – a summary of the week’s most important events. It starts with “The Main Stories… and How They Were Covered,” pulling quotes from editorials and columns from sources as different as National Review and The Huffington Post. It then pulls the most influential stories from around the globe, followed by the best columns from the U.S. and abroad. The week’s best political cartoons, book, art, and film reviews round out the magazine. They seem to specialize in the dying art of true journalism: unbiased reporting of facts from varying points of view: The Week even concluded one week’s issue with an essay decrying gun control, followed the next week by an essay promoting increased gun control. It is refreshing to get a summary of the week’s news without all the pretend objectivism. You can get 4 free issues and try it out for yourself!

(No, I don’t get a kick-back from any of these places for promoting their products. Not because I’m above that sort of income-gathering, but because I simply don’t know how!)

What’s working for you this week?

The Sins of Stubenville (What to Say to our Daughters)

Much has been said about raising sons in the aftermath of the Stubenville rape trial. And much should be said. The young men involved in this case are guilty of violating a young woman who was in a defenseless state. My stomach turns as I read media coverage of the rape, and particularly so when the media seems to be more upset about the young men’s loss of potential than about the young woman’s loss of dignity.

One poignant piece regarding this case was written as a beautiful letter from mother to son. I have a son, and I am already teaching him to value and respect others, especially his little sister and me. I want my son to be the kind of man who defends the defenseless, and speaks up for the vulnerable. I want to raise a protector, a man who can be trusted.

However, very little has been said about speaking to our daughters about this subject. I think there is a general fear that if we speak to girls, we will necessarily be casting a long shadow of blame on an already violated young woman in Stubenville. But there are valuable lessons to be learned, and I for one, want my daughter to learn them early and learn them well. If there’s any way she can avoid becoming a victim, I want to help her find that path.

First, some disclaimers. No, I’m not going to say that if my daughter dresses provocatively she’s “asking for it.” I’m not going to say that women who pass out, drunk, deserve what they get. I’m not going to say that there is ever, EVER an excuse for a man to violate a woman (or vice versa, for that matter).

BUT, think of it this way: if you’re going to drive down any road, it is possible that you will get hit by a drunk driver. So wear your seatbelt – always. If you drive without wearing a seatbelt, are you “asking for it” if you get hit by a drunk driver? No. Are you responsible for the driver’s drinking, his decision to drive? No. But it is a fact that drunk drivers exist, and if wearing your seatbelt increases your likelihood of survival, why wouldn’t you do it?

I think there are several ways a girl can “put on her seatbelt” to avoid being a victim. Will these always protect her? No more than wearing your seatbelt will keep you from being killed by a drunk driver. But it’s a start, and sometime, it just may save her life. Why wouldn’t we want our daughters to be as protected as possible?

Here’s what I’m going to tell my daughters:

1. Keep good company. Sure, that guy is cute, but how does he treat others? Does he speak disparagingly about other girls while you’re with him? Does he ogle woman, or does he assign less value to girls he finds less attractive? How a man treats other women when they can’t hear/see him is a good indication of his character and of how he will treat you (this includes the women he sees on a screen – is he okay with women being portrayed as victims in fictional settings?). Steer clear of men who treat others poorly, even if he’s currently treating you well (and even if he’s really hot). And if he’s currently treating you disrespectfully, even in small ways, run for the hills: he may be seeing what he can get away with on a small scale before he ups the ante.
2. Stick together. Build good friendships with other girls. Be a friend and have friends that can be counted on not to desert you if you get into trouble. Find friends who are willing to call parents (yours or theirs) if they feel you’ve all gotten in over your heads.
3. Respect yourself. Do not dress like you don’t care about how you’re treated, whether that’s dressing extremely sloppily or extremely sexually, indicating to others that you don’t see yourself as having value. Don’t joke coarsely about sexual things, indicating that you are free with your body. Predators look for targets. They look for signs that they will get away with their crime – don’t give those signs.
4. Do not get drunk. Seriously, how many date rapes (or even infidelities) have occured because one or both parties were drunk? Losing control of your own actions, especially in the presence of strangers, is a good way to magnetize yourself and attract men who are looking for an easy target. There are bad men out there. It is not your fault if you are victimized, but why make it easier for it to happen?

These are not new concepts, no more profound than a “Buckle up for Safety” campaign. But whenever our attention is drawn to these subjects, we should remind our sons of the respectfulness we are already teaching them, and we should remind our daughters to make wise and safe choices.

One last thing I would tell my daughter…

1. If you ever are violated, know, my much-loved daughter, that it is not your fault. Some evil men are not deterred by any safety measures. There is no foolproof plan. Even if you were not as smart as you could’ve been (hindsight’s 20/20), know that forgetting your umbrella does not cause the rain to fall from the sky. You are precious, and wonderful, and no act done to you will ever make you less valuable. Never let your worth be measured by a man’s actions, good or bad.

You are precious, and wonderful, and no act done to you will ever make you less valuable.

A Mother’s Loaves and Fishes

Tags

motherhood

Loaves and fishes started with good parenting. A mom made a lunch. Taught her son to share. Sent him to hear Jesus. Did she sigh as she required him to share with his sister for the hundredth time that morning?

Mothering little boys takes a lot of energy, diligence, and patience, and though I’m raising only one boy, in the 21^st century, I imagine that this has always been the case. One of the biggest challenges is reigning in the energy of a boy, teaching him to be mindful of those around him. Many times a day in our house, I ask my son, “Is your little sister enjoying your chasing her, tackling her, growling at her, etc.?” Sometimes she loves the energetic attention from her older brother, but she has a definite tipping point that I’m trying to train him to recognize. And it’s hard. And exhausting. And sometimes, I worry that he’ll never get it.

Feeding little boys can also be challenging. My son is a picky eater, but my daughter is hard to fill, so I’ve experienced both sides of the edible coin. Some days, just coming up with nutritious menu items (that will actually be eaten) three times a day can make me feel like I’m on a peanut butter and jelly hamster wheel.

But we’re mothers. So we keep going when it’s tough. We tell our children to share for the seventeenth time in an hour. We feed them because it’s time for a meal, not because we have a sudden rush of culinary genius. And it’s always been this way.

About 2000 years ago, there was a mother who probably felt a lot like I do some days: Is it making a difference? Are any of the lessons sinking into that sweet, stubborn, little head? This mother taught her son to consider others and to share. She packed him a healthy lunch. And she gave him the opportunity to take the lessons and the food out into the world to spend time learning from the greatest Teacher who ever lived.

Before Jesus fed the 5,000, “he already had in mind what he was going to do.”  And one of the things he was going to do was to allow a little boy’s training and care to be used in one of the most impressive miracles ever performed. It’s dinnertime, and this growing boy is most definitely hungry. But the lessons his mother has been teaching him have been sinking in, and he has been listening to Jesus. He knows that a little fish and a few loaves of bread can’t feed the huge crowd, but he offers what he has.

Now I know this miracle isn’t about this boy’s mother, or even the boy himself. I know that it’s not a moral tale about sharing what we have. It’s about Jesus being God, revealing himself as the Bread of Life. It’s about never hungering or thirsting again in Christ. But in the moments when I feel like parenting is the equivalent of beating my head against a disobedient, crabby wall, I remember that the lessons I’m teaching and the nurturing I’m giving will yield fruit someday. And hopefully, all the hard work is pointing my son to the Teacher who holds all wisdom and joy his miraculous hands.

New Thoughts About Old St. Nick

I have some serious issues with Santa Claus, and they’re not the issues you might think. Yes, there’s the whole lying to my kids thing, which bothers me. But we pretend a lot at our house, and I could play up Santa while truthfully telling my kids he’s make-believe. Of course, there’s also the whole Santa and the elves issue: does he pay them? Does he give them pills to keep them small? Are the elves indentured servants of some kind? And, no, St. Nick hasn’t yet received the message that cookies are a “sometimes food,” but I certainly can’t pass judgment on that one! Also, Santa watching my children when they’re sleeping and knowing when they’re awake? Sounds more like a creepy stalker than a benevolent gifter. But, I think Mr. Claus has bigger issues than being a fictional, slave-keeping, obese, creepy, character… the biggest problems are for the kids who see past all these potential problems and think Santa’s a good and generous man. Allow me to unwrap (sorry, I couldn’t resist) my reasoning:

He Looks So Innocent!

1. The first issue I have with Santa is that he’s terribly mean to poor children. This was brought home to me when I taught in a very poor community, with students who didn’t receive much, if anything, for Christmas. From a kid’s perspective, the rich kids get gifts all year round: they have plenty of food and new clothes and school supplies. Wouldn’t it make sense for Santa to give poor kids a little more on Christmas to compensate? Apparently not. Kind, jolly old St. Nick gives poor kids the shaft on Christmas, reinforcing the societal message that children without means are less valuable than those who have plenty. Even Santa recognizes that the poor kids are worth less. For kids who aren’t poor, the disparity can still feel personal. I remember being jealous of my closest friend in elementary school, who always got the BEST (and most) Christmas presents. I knew they were from her parents, and I knew it wasn’t because they loved her any more than my parents loved me. I just had plain old jealousy to contend with, and yet I can still taste it. I can’t imagine how this would’ve affected my psyche if I had tried hard to be extra good and was still deemed “naughtier” than my best friend.
2. This leads to my second point… Santa’s method of determining who’s naughty and who’s nice involves assigning monetary worth to children based on how good or bad they are. Nevermind that presents are not actually doled out according to Santa’s fictitious lists; the message prevails: if you do more good things than bad things, you win. Even if your heart was naughty and you were only doing good things to get on the Nice List, you still win. And if you tipped the scale the other way, well, your worth, my friend, is equivalent to a lump of coal. This is particularly problematic for Christian children, who are presumably being taught that their worth is in Christ, and that it doesn’t matter how many bad things they’ve done. Jesus has already taken the lump of coal as His and given them all the presents HE got for being perfect. Those gifts belong to our children, no matter which list they fall on this year. Christian parents should be reiterating that no matter how many good things their children do, they will be loved by God no more and no less than they already are!
3. Noel Piper writes here about how the association between God and Santa can be problematic for kids who are already struggling to understand the abstract idea of God. Wait. Did I say kids? I think this association runs deep in the fabric of our society and can trip up even us adults, who also struggle to understand God. This article is a great read, if you have time, and really spring-boarded a lot of my thinking. Basically, Piper says that Santa and God share too many attributes for us not to make the connection, however subconsciously (each watches us and knows what we’re doing and has the ability to grant “wishes”/answer prayers, etc).
4. Finally, I come back to the main reason my parents gave for not “doing Santa” with us growing up (besides not seeing how they could do it without lying): gratitude. My parents wanted us to see the people giving us gifts, recognize that they had sacrificed to provide us with such nice things, and thank them kindly and respectfully. Basically, they wanted credit to go to those who’d so thoughtfully chosen gifts for us. Has any child who’s ever written a Dear Santa Wish List ever followed up by sending a Dear Santa Thank You to the North Pole? Also, my parents wanted to nurture the parent-child relationship, and they knew that a fun Christmas morning put a lot of emotional cash in the bank (which had to be withdrawn on the mornings when we got yelled at for missing the bus or fighting over the bathroom). Though they showed us all year that they loved us, the mountain of gifts under the tree on Christmas morning was physical proof that our normally frugal parents loved us with a crazy, wild-abandon love. They were tangibly demonstrating how God loves us and gives excessively and lavishly to us.
5. So #4 was my last issue I have with Santa. But I have to include #5 to cover the opportunity cost of such celebrations: Celebrating Santa and his magical gift-giving is time that could be spent talking about God’s miraculous, eternal gift-giving. Listening to this sermon on the theology behind gift-giving was an amazing, eye-opening experience for me. God gave his Son, and will give us all things out of his glorious riches. When we celebrate Christmas, we celebrate the birth of Christ by giving gifts. But if it’s Jesus’ birthday, shouldn’t we be giving Jesus the presents? Yes. But the Bible teaches that if we give to our neighbors, we give to Jesus. So we should lavishly be gifting our neighbors, including our closest ones, our spouses and children. If Santa’s giving the gifts, how does Jesus get the glory?

So while I don’t think Santa is an anagram for Satan (okay, well technically it is, but I don’t think it matters a flying flip), I do think that we should all consider how central a role we’re going to give Santa this Christmas. At the same time, I hope we’ll all be gracious to others who see things differently… that way we can all stay on the Nice List!