Marveling at Adoption

A good friend of mine from my college days, Kyle, recently released his first book, The Dream Key (a children's adventure/sci-fi novel) on Amazon as an ebook.  He's offering it free right now, so I snagged it.

It's a fun, fast read, with cool nuggets of poetry and truth throughout-- stuff that got me thinking.  One such snippet describes one aspect of life under the harsh religion known as The Order:

"Adoption is illegal here. It isn't theologically sound, they say. If someone receives new parents, they are receiving what they have not earned. The Order dictates that you must earn all that you receive, and since orphans cannot earn new parents, they must remain detached from any family life."

Think about that.  Adoption really is totally NOT merit-based.  No child could ever earn parents-- not their love, not their provision, not their care. such a reminder of why what we have in the Gospel (adoption by the King of Heaven!!) is so amazing, precious and undeserved!  (as is everything else, if you think about it... what if our religion, too, was based on earning?)

Those of you who've been Adopted, like me, just let this sink in:

"For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.  For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us."  (Rom. 8: 15-20)

Not only do we get to pray to God as His kids (no way are we holy enough to come into His presence otherwise!), we can look forward to receiving EVERYTHING THAT JESUS, His Perfect First Son GETS!!!!!  Enough that Paul, who was beaten within an inch of death many times, who was permanently scarred & disfigured by his whippings as a preacher, who was shipwrecked and imprisoned, could say "it's not even worth mentioning compared to what's coming After."  Talk about undeserved.

"But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God." (Gal 4:4-7)

God sent His One Son, Beloved from before Time existed, to be born to a life of suffering, then to die a death of utter desertion... why?  So that we-- hateful orphan urchins-- could be adopted as equals with that perfect, beloved, always-obedient Son.  How many of us would willingly do that to gain siblings?  How many parents would willingly send their children to do that?

And one more that I especially love:
"As a father shows compassion to his children, so the LORD shows compassion to those who fear him. For he knows our frame; He remembers that we are dust." (Psalm 103:13-14)

As is so often the case, it's children's literature (and/or the fantasy/sci-fi imagination-stoking genre) that leads me to worship.  Story has such power to teach!  What a beauty the "baptized imagination" is!!  (that's a CS Lewis reference to George MacDonald's writings, btw)

Parents,  kids, kids at heart, go download the book (if you have an iPhone but no kindle you can get it on your iPhone through the Kindle for iPhone app)!  Apart from a few very minor editorial glitches it's really good!  My only complaint is... it's a cliff-hanger ending!!  Sequel, you'd better be on your way!!

[if anyone is wondering why a Christian girl like me would spend time reading- no, reveling!- in fantasy or sci-fi literature, please check out these 4 posts on the topic:  In Defense of Magic, The Defense, Cont,  Addendum to the Defense, and What About that Scary Ghost?) Two other great short quotes from GK Chesterton and Dorothy Sayers might help too.]

Our Going-Away/Ryan's 29th Birthday Party

I finally had time to upload and edit the pictures from our "Photo Booth" at our super-fun party a few days before we left.  It was in our church basement, and we tried to treat folks to the best of everything:  bouncy castle for the little kids, door prizes, games like Pin-the-Ponytail-on-the-Ryan, good food (even Comfy Cow ice-cream!!), a note-writing station & a Photo Booth complete with kooky props galore.  We LOVE looking at all the pictures.  Those of you who made it a point to come by, THANK YOU!!! It meant so much to us.  I will make a little slideshow soon, but in the mean time you can see the pictures here.

Moving In

The Cutie taking a bath at Nina & GB's (I was sick in bed at the time)

Getting our new fridge (it has an ice-maker and built-in filter, wow!)

View of our back deck (and the blinds guy =D)

Ryan's office... it isn't a true "before" shot, as the primer is already on the walls, but at least you get the idea. 

Our living room

Ryan's newest gnome, now gracing our front porch =D

She is SO in love with back yard!  The first day we were here she was literally running around in circles, laughing fit to burst

Also loves her new "gi-girl bed" (big girl bed).  It was once Daddy's.

Our guest room/my craft room (my mom's already broken it in!)

My craft closet (off the guest room)

View of the craft-room half of the guest room (see the craft closet off to the right)

Main upstairs bathroom

The nursery

Our bedroom

Our master bathroom

I just love this of her stretched out on the fireplace.  She loves her new home; we all three do.  So thankful.

I've gotten requests for "Before" pictures of our not-quite-moved-in new home.  Since I am still battling the tail-end of a sinus infection (which followed the double-ear infection, following the stomach virus, following the upper respiratory infection, which followed the move), those are all I have the energy to upload. :)  Suffice it to say that my mom & aunt have been life-savers, coming over every day to unpack my kitchen, make me food and let me sleep... so thankful for them!  So far I'm recovering from everything, haven't needed any drugs and am feeling much much better.  Now if these Braxton-Hicks would just let up...

Saying Goodbye

Swinging one last time at the Bs'.

Playing in the church balcony with Hannah (2 1/2), a frequent fellow-balcony Sunday-school dropout. :)

Playing at Chick-Fil-A with library buddy, Lina (3)

Enjoying Pottery Barn Kids Story Time with Grace (Valentine's Day)- the girls are 2 weeks apart

This is pretty typical of their friendship:  Eowyn very affectionate (giving a back massage here), Grace a bit reticent.  But they talk about each other all the time.  We sure will miss Grace & her family!

At the Comfy Cow (best ice cream EVER) with Daddy

Last trip to the Lousiville Zoo on a glorious day included a ride in the Jeep

Dinner at the North End Cafe (a favorite eatery) with our friends the Schreiners-- Lydia is 1 year old.

E's favorite part of our Tuesday Mall Morning:  washing her hands at the "yittle sink" in the Von Maur family bathroom

Cheesing it up with Olivia (2)- we liked to go over to their house on Tuesday evenings when our Daddies were out

With Olivia's sis Kerith (3 1/2)

Saying 'bye to Mrs. Beth, Mommy's midwife-- she always let Eowyn hear the "heart-beep" a few extra times (and delivered Eowyn!)

With 2 of our favorite librarian friends (we went every Wed for story time at the Main Campus)- these folks always did a great job reading, singing & playing with Eowyn, and would pull our request books when they saw us coming!  Sometimes we didn't even need our cards, they knew us so well! :)

With our nurse friends at Kids R Great Pediatrics (the one on the left pierced Eowyn's ears for us at 4 weeks- E is extremely grateful, seeing as how she adores her earrings)

With our other nurse friend at the Doc's.  She was too traumatized to watch Eowyn's ear piercing, hah! 

Waiting in the Well Room one last time (we love the decorations at Dr Corba's!)

Picking up all E's medical records

Saying goodbye to Dr. Corba, Eowyn's first doctor-- he was a great one!

Couponing & The Big Picture

I love getting a good deal.  It's a rush that my husband just doesn't adequately appreciate.  Thankfully, my girl friends & sisters do, so I always have someone to pat my back and congratulate me on a deal well-snagged.  I set limits & budgets on just about everything, making shopping (when I'm not pregnant, that is) a sort of treasure-hunt or obstacle course that I thoroughly enjoy.  Meal-plans, clearance, sales, off-season purchasing, second-hand stores, repurposing/reusing, coupons, DIY, gardening, buying in bulk, directly from producers or through whole-salers all are my weapons of choice.

While I do use the occasional coupon (especially when the cashier hands them to me with my receipt), I've generally found them to be fairly unhelpful-- either for brands I can't or don't buy, or for products I don't need. The times I have tried to be more aggressive about couponing, I've found that it wasn't worth the time it took for me to try and track the coupons down & print them out, much less hit multiple stores.  Something about some tactics I read about bothered me, too, though I couldn't quite put my finger on it.

The other day one of my favorite blogs (Keeper of the Home) featured this blogpost, entitled "Can Coupons Be Used Responsibly?" and I found myself saying "Yes! That's it! YES!! That's what I've been trying to think but couldn't figure out!"  I LOVE this post. It states simply & persuasively many of the questions & thoughts I’ve had swirling in my head.  I think it hits the nail on the head about our American obsession with “cheap” over quality, especially in the food area.  I encourage you to check it out for yourselves!  The author welcomes comments & is really quick about responding to them.  It does NOT condemn couponing -- it just puts it in perspective and tries to pull back & look at the big picture.

A sample (emphasis original): 

Coupons in and of themselves are not bad. In fact, they can be valuable tools. For example, combining coupons with store sales can maximize savings for the consumer and profit for both the store and manufacturer of the product, as the sharing of the consumer discount minimizes the loss to both store and manufacturer.

This is a realistic part of a free market and it used to work. Lately, though, coupons have been taken out of their proper context and used unfairly. Take, for instance, the idea of stockpiling a product that can be obtained free or next to no cost when coupons are combined with store sales. [...]

The extreme bargain-hunting mindset, which has the potential to take on a sense of entitlement, has essentially dissolved the idea of brand loyalty as consumers begin to make purchases based on the current low price instead.

Unfortunately, as brand loyalty dissipates, commitment to consumers in the form of quality and service has become a thing of the past. Many companies are learning that to stay competitive, offering the lowest price is all that matters to many shoppers today, where in the past, quality was an equally important consideration. In the race to provide the most competitive price today, the cheapest possible materials are often used.

How often do we sit back and think about the labor & ingredients that went into what we bought, and ask ourselves if it was all ethically done?  Is a made-in-India product cheaper because it used child labor?  There's all sorts of thorny issues to be considered:  slave labor, child labor, techniques (many are toxic to the land or harmful to its inhabitants), worker wages, quality of product (cheap ingredients aren't usually good for the body), number of middle men... all of those go into the final sticker price on any item we purchase.  While this tool isn't perfect (it doesn't take into account a lot of variables), it's eye-opening:  The Slavery Footprint test.  Something to think about and pray about for sure.  This website lists the 13 products most likely to be made by forced or child labor.  These are items you may want to consider buying exclusively from fair-trade or local sources.  One last resource to check out is The Story of Stuff, a short animated film that walks through where our stuff comes from & where it ends up.  Watch it!!  Think about it.  This is stuff I'm still trying to figure out.

In our family I’ve found the main way around the cheap-is-best trap without spending extravagantly is to emphasize quality over quantity. Do I really NEED 10 bath & shower products? Not really. I can either make them myself or buy a concentrate that I dilute (less packaging & water cost).  So I spend the same amount as if I’d used double/triple coupons, but I’ve skipped the waste, the harmful chemicals, and I haven’t short-changed anyone on cost. Baking powder, vinegar & essential oils are always pretty inexpensive!

Similarly with clothes: I don’t NEED 20 outfits for my 2 year old. We wash laundry 1-2 a week, so at most she needs 7 outfits + a church outfit.  I either make them myself (usually using recycled material like daddy’s old shirts) buy them consignment (my $3/item limit is final), thankfully accept hand-me-downs, or enjoy Grandma’s gifts.  We give away what we receive extras of.  I also try to only buy brands that we know will last through many children/washings, and/or that are made fairly.  Even with only one child so far, I can tell a difference between the way The Children's Place and Garanimals (the Wal-Mart brand) wear.  By contrast, the outfits my great-grandmother hand-made for my grandma are still going strong!!

The same thinking is applied to our books, toys and food– get the minimum needed, get quality, and take care of it.  I know that our food expense/person is fairly comparable to (if not lower than) most families' despite our need to buy gluten-free, soy-free, mostly organic, seasonal items.  (HAH pregnancy has thrown a wrench in this, though, and we've eaten a LOT more convenience foods the past 4 months than usual!)  There is also the question of "does cheap equal more expenses later?"-- like in health-care expenses or replacement costs. Our daughter isn't allowed to abuse her toys, and she watches them get confiscated if she doesn't take care of them.  (We try to make sure her toys are age-appropriate so that this is a reasonable expectation.) The side benefit is FAR less clean up and clutter! I also feel like having less makes us less “owned” by our possessions. We pay a fair price for what we have (“the worker is worthy of his wages”), we enjoy it, and we use it thoroughly. No extreme couponing needed. :)

What about you? How do you balance the reality of a limited budget with the needs of your family and the burden of living ethically in a global economy?  Have you found a way to make couponing work for you?  Any brands you highly recommend?  If so, why?

Modesty and Breast-feeding

As a Christian woman, I'm really concerned about being a godly woman-- a big part of that is modesty. If you're like me, you've probably read several books on the topic, heard many sermons, seen "are you dressed modestly?" checklists, and had lots of discussions about it. There's no question that in our society we do NOT value modesty or the chastity it protects and proclaims. I firmly believe that how we treat and display our bodies reflects our view of our Creator, in Whose Image we are made.

As a Christian mom, the topic of modesty & correct use of the body has gained a new facet: breast-feeding. I've been disturbed to hear some mothers come to the conclusion that a nursing mother should always isolate herself while nursing her baby for the sake of modesty, even from her other children and other women. Others -- not only Christians in this case, but Westerners in general- I've known were unable to breast-feed because they "felt uncomfortable doing it." On the other end of the spectrum, some women hold "nurse-ins" where they join together to nurse their babies in public with no covering at all.  Which of these approaches is most appropriate?  How does nursing fit in with Christian modesty?  I think we have to step back a little further to even start to get an answer, and ask: how does nursing fit into our understanding of our bodies as women?

It seems to me that a primary function of the whole female body really is nurturing-- I'd even go so far as to say that it's crucial and central to our view of femininity. We are built to nurture, it's part of our image of God. (Isa. 49:14-15, 66:12-13, Hosea 11:1-4)  It starts in Genesis with the naming (defining, in many ways) of the First Woman, and it carries on through every list of womanly virtue in the New Testament.

"The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." (Gen. 3:20)

"No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds." (1 Tim 5:9-10)

"Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God."  (Titus 2:3-5)

A very basic part of this nurturing is the bearing, feeding & care of children.  We, as opposed to our male fellow Image-bearers, have the body parts to carry children, to give them birth, to nurse them, and tend them.  We've got the hips to carry them around, the multi-tasking brain to attend to a household, and the type of sleep that enables us to wake at a child's cry (read a fascinating article on this from the NY Times).  Child-safety expert Gavin de Becker says that women are more likely to stay with a lost child until the parents are found, while a man is more likely to merely direct the child to help.  My point?  Whether we physically care for children or not, nurturing is still a part of our feminine make-up.  Women who never bear children should still see their bodies as instruments of nurture. We are nurturing when we pick up our kids (or a neighbor's) and hug them, put an arm around a hurting friend, make a meal for a lonely person, care for a sick patient, tend a garden... we are nurturing, we are women, we are being God-like.

This PERFECTLY captures what I'm trying to say!

Our culture's attack on modesty has led to a hyper-sexualization of breasts, it seems.  They are used to sell everything; is it any wonder that some moms can't bring themselves to breast-feed because all their lives they'd grown up thinking of breasts as exclusively sexual?  Some wean their babies very early, as soon as the child showed any signs of being able to ask for milk, because they're disturbed that their child can now "ask for it." Poor babies! There's a breast-feeding doll that's come out and if you read the comments, you'll see that many people are appalled, saying it as "sexual" and "inappropriate." I'd say that's the furthest thing from sexual there is-- the feeding of an innocent child!   Surely even adoptive children can grow up with a proper understanding of nursing children, of knowing that's one very big reason why God gave Mommies the anatomy He did.  [I wouldn't spend $90 on such a doll, though... Eowyn "nurses" pretty much any ol' stuffed animal happily.]


That said, we are not animals, and there is a difference between a human mother feeding her baby and a cow feeding hers.  People wear clothes.  Animals don't.  There sure are other functions animals take NO efforts to hide that we humans treat (appropriately) as very private-- we have the glorious burden of being made in God's image, we have the shame of a sinful nature.  In an effort to show respect for my body, to keep any others from stumbling (into lust), and to be considerate of those whom it might make truly uncomfortable, I practice & encourage discretion in public or around guys (covering up is not really a big deal).  BUT, there are just no guarantees. I've had to nurse all over the world in all sorts of settings and I'm sure someone somewhere has seen some skin, lol, not by choice, but that's just life. The nursing of a child is a totally natural happening and it's something good. (Kind of like kissing your husband, I think-- we're not going to flaunt it and make out in public, but if someone catches us smooching we have nothing to be ashamed of!!)  [As a culture check, in our church care group we had a single guy who grew up as an MK in Papua New Guinea, where women nurse children on one side & suckling pigs on the other, with no covering at ALL... everywhere!!! As you can imagine, he was absolutely comfortable around breastfeeding women, especially if they were covered up (and lacking in suckling pigs).]  I do hope that my own children grow up in a world where it's not even an issue, because everyone knows that's just how babies are fed naturally!

As far as it being potentially inappropriate for children to see maternal breasts, from Scripture it would be almost impossible to say.  However, kids were weaned around age 3 in Biblical times, kids were plentiful and in many families there were multiple moms in a household.  It is a stretch to think that kids would grow up watching their parents & other women nurse?  

What are your thoughts on this topic of modesty/feminine Image of God intersecting with breast-feeding?  Do you think of nursing as an aspect of feminine nurturing, as a mere biological process, or what?

**Please note:  this article is not trying to assess whether or not Christian women who are able SHOULD breast-feed or not (nor in what manner they choose to do that), but rather examining the question of how nursing fits in with our view of Christian feminine modesty.**

Home Birth, A Safe Option?

Two articles have recently come to my attention (see, you think that I'm all on the ball and a researcher type, but REALLY, I just have great friends who send me this stuff =D) regarding the safety of home birth.

The first I read is from England, and it compared midwife-attended home births, midwife-attended center births, midwife-attended hospital births & doctor-attended hospital births.  The findings were fascinating:  for first-time births, midwife-attended center births are safest overall; fewer C-sections & other interventions risky to the mom, as well as low infant mortality & morbidity.  Midwife-attended hospital births were next, followed by doctor-attended hospital births. Home births were marginally less safe (we're talking under 1% difference).  For all later births, there was no difference in harm to the baby.  However, as far as "normal" birth is concerned (meaning one without interventions like forceps, and episiotomies), home birth is the clear winner.  Here's how the percentages stack up for normal births:  90% home birth, 83% freestanding midwife unit, 76% hospital midwife unit, and 60% hospital obstetric unit.

This Oxford University research raises fundamental questions about maternity care in the UK. Nine out of 10 babies are born in medically-led obstetric units. There has been a trend to centralise this into fewer and larger centres to guarantee consultant cover. Many of the decisions have taken place without definitive evidence about the safety for babies and the experience for mothers. This study provides that.

It reveals an unexplained difference in the rate of normal birth between units run by midwives and those run by doctors. The disparity on emergency Caesarean sections is particularly striking. It suggests a different culture in the way midwives and doctors see birth, with doctors concerned about risks and midwives focused on normality.

The second article is on a similar study in Canada, though from 2000-2004 (published in 2009).  It compared midwife-attended home births, midwife-attended hospital births and doctor-attended hospital births, and revealed "the mortality rate per 1,000 births was 0.35 in the home birth group, 0.57 in hospital births attended by midwives, and 0.64 among those attended by physicians."  This article continues:

Women who gave birth at home were less likely to need interventions or to have problems such as vaginal tearing or hemorrhaging. These babies were also less likely to need oxygen therapy or resuscitation, the study found.

The authors acknowledge that "self-selection" could have skewed the study results, in that women who prefer home deliveries tend to be healthier and otherwise more fit to have a home birth.

Good stuff to think about!

Just as a note, it's enlightening to read the same UK study reported with a different "spin."  While it's clear from the actual study that the risk to the babies was all under 1% (4.5 per 1000 to 9.3 per 1000), this study spins the data to say: "First-time mothers who opt for a home birth are almost three times more likely to have a baby who dies or suffers brain damage"!  Sounds much more scary when it's put that way, doesn't it!?  This just highlights why it's important to look at actual data, not just the way a newspaper reports them! (Here's a link to the actual medical journal article.)