The Fine Line Between Complaint and Grief

I recently heard a talk that left me wondering "is there a difference between complaining and grieving?"  The speaker was sharing both how the Lord had brought her through very difficult trials (which was a real blessing to hear), and also how we as fellow Christians could minister and be mindful of the trials of another.  The second part was what led to my questions, my musings, and what (I hope) the Lord is teaching me. Here goes... they kind of build on each other, but are interrelated.  Hopefully it is somewhat coherent. :)

1. Grief is real.  It's a part of this life, sure as breathing.  For Christians, suffering is guaranteed, even escalated, because of our faith.  But it's also redeemed, given purpose, given a Presence.  We are comforted in our suffering by the One who knows us best and loves us most, we are assured that this suffering is doing wonderful things in us, and that it will make us happier in the long (eternal) run.  Our Savior picked up every bit of leftover bread when He fed the multitudes-- would He ever waste our sufferings?

2. We are commanded to share each other's joys and griefs.  That is, there will be times when someone else is crying when we feel like laughing, and we are supposed to put aside our desire to whoop and holler and try to enter into their grief, as if it were our own.  There will be other times when our pain is so deep that we wonder how anyone anywhere could even smile.  In those times, we are to give thanks for another's blessings, and rejoice with them.  WOW!! I remember reading something that Richard Wurmbrand, who was tortured for 14 years in Soviet Romania for his confession of Christ and continued preaching of Him, wrote-- something along the lines of "I remembered that somewhere, some believer was full, some believer had his children around him, some believer was worshiping God freely, and so I could rejoice for them, with them, even in my prison cell." (Read his description of the priest who taught him this here.)  Talk about humbling. 

3. The Biblical command to 'do all things without complaining' is not a gag order on grief.  We CAN grieve without complaining, but we have to watch ourselves!  Picture this:  an obviously-pregnant woman enters a room, sweating in the July heat, ankles swollen and face tired.  She immediately begins bemoaning how uncomfortable she is, how hard being pregnant is, how she just wishes the baby would hurry up and be born.  That's complaining, and it probably isn't exactly "helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it might benefit those who listen." (Eph. 4:29)  As my mom often chided us, "That's the sort of talk that got Israel wandering in the desert for 40 years!"  Picture another scenario, though:  the same obviously- pregnant woman comes into the room, and at the question "how are you?" she says, quite seriously "I am having such a hard time being pregnant right now.  I really could use your prayer-- everything hurts and I haven't slept a solid night for 5 months now."  That's not complaining, that's grieving (at least as I see it), and any one who hears that-- man, woman without kids, woman with 5 kids, woman wishing she had kids-- can and should acknowledge that her grief is real, and do what they can to ease it, whether it be with encouraging words from Scripture, with reminders that something beautiful will come of this pain, prayer, a glass of cool water, or a big hug. But expressing our pain, our emotion, our questions, our confusion, can be a part of grief, an asking for burden-sharing, even of worship-- just check the Psalms!-- and doesn't need a Phil 2:14 "do all things without complaining!" slapped onto it.

4. Different kinds of grief are... different, but all potentially equally painful.  Suffering naturally turns us inward and make us so selfish.  When I hurt deeply, it is all too easy to let that pain become the lens through which I interpret everything around me.   "How could she share her struggles? Can't she see that MY pain is the worst? How dare he laugh around me?  Doesn't he know I'm suffering?"  You get the idea.  But that's just not Biblical.  If I'm a Christian with a chronically painful back, and my sister in Christ is crying because she didn't get accepted into the study program she wanted so badly, we can both validate each other's grief.   We can put our arms around each other and say "we're both hurting-- let's take our pain to Jesus together."

Two areas I've felt this and seen this at my stage of life are singleness v. marriage and infertility v. child-rearing.  I've heard things like "Don't complain about how hard your marriage is to your single friends.  They don't want to hear it."  Similarly, I've heard "If you're having a hard time being pregnant, only talk about it with people who are 'like you' (as in, people who are not infertile)."  I think both of those are dead wrong. Of course, I don't think that complaining is ever right, especially not about one's husband, whom we have vowed to honor and are commanded to respect (Eph. 5:33), BUT to say that one can only share one's sufferings with one who has suffered the same sorrow kind of defeats the point of verses like "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the Law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2).  It doesn't say anything about only sharing burdens like the ones we already carry.   That would imply that our pain is more valid than another's. Honestly, I think it's very helpful for singles -- who so often are tempted to make an idol of marriage-- to hear the struggles and heart-aches that marriage can bring.  Similarly, it is a good reminder to the one who is overwhelmed and weary from day-and-night childcare to hear that others would give anything to have a child.  And the converses are true.  Other griefs act as great perspective checks.

5.  It seems the best way to share grief is to first just listen, probably hug, too, and then offer to pray (possibly right then & there).  However, hearing a litany of "what not to say" is only so helpful.  If we rather start at the point that everyone has hurt, and probably means to comfort, we'll be way better off-- less offended for sure-- than expecting everyone to walk around eggshells around me because "I'm suffering."

So back to the beginning, and also the conclusion... everyone has hurt.  I read Proverbs 14:10 as a depressed and confused 6th grader and was struck by its truth "Each heart knows its own bitterness, and no one else can share its joy."  We are all the walking wounded, despite the smile and clean clothes.  For some, the hurt is clear and public, perhaps painfully obvious:  the broken engagement, the death of a child, the sudden loss of a job.  Their grief is easy to spot, so easy that these grieving are likely to crave anonymity instead of sympathy.  For others, the pain is buried deep, darkly shrouded, the despair so often borne alone:  the spouse addicted to pornography, the dream that must be buried yet again, the secret hope so long deferred, a long loneliness that wears down the soul.  Talk to anyone long enough, though, and you will find a fellow sufferer.  Our challenge in Christ is to extend a hand, then put our own shoulder gently under the other's burden, and together face the Light. I like how the ESV puts that verse-- "The heart knows its own bitterness, and no stranger shares its joy."  Let us not be strangers!

I guess the one-liner swirling through my mind after typing and thinking and praying a bit on this is: let's SHARE our burdens, without complaining, yet without guilt.  What are your thoughts?  Anything to add or share?

So What About that Burning Bush?

A few years ago I wrote a post on teaching kids about God's holiness.  It came to mind as I explored this topic of "what do we let kids read?" so I've dusted it off and tweaked it a bit, and voila. Here it is. :) As always, your comments are welcome!

One more thing many parents struggle with is perhaps the most frightening, and definitely the most important area of possible "restriction." I'm not talking about monsters, nor bad examples. I'm talking about the terrifying reality of God's pure holiness. Our kids, like us, know deep down just how sinful they are. Until God saves them, they automatically feel guilt when they disobey, steal, lie, or sin in other ways. Before my daughter was one, I saw it in her big blue eyes-- as she looked at me in the rear-view mirror immediately after pulling off her hairbow as she was instructed not to do. Mention "sin" in a preschool classroom and you immediately get blame-shifting; stories of how bad their brothers and sisters are... so Garden of Eden. Our kids know that they are guilty sinners.

When you start talking about God hating and punishing sin... that has the potential to cause huge fear in a child. Have you ever had to think about this? The plain ol' fact is that "holy God + sinful us" equals our doom! To some, this seems too harsh or frightening to teach to children. Being a preschool teacher and curriculum developer, it's something I DO think about... a lot. It's hard to know what kids can understand, what is beyond them but good to start teaching anyway, and what is unbalanced. The holiness of God, and how that interacts with us is one especially touchy issue in our culture these days. But, if it's in the Bible and if it's necessary to salvation, it must not be kept from a child! Yes...it is frightening. But if we do not first know our own damnation, we will never be desperate for salvation. And it is only the self-admitted "sick" who get the Doctor. (Mark 2:17)

One word picture is that of a fire. God is holy and perfect, and anything less than holy and perfect is incinerated in His presence. I know many people immediately assume "hellfire and brimstone!" with this word picture, but that's not primarily what I mean. Feel free to tell me what you think of the following:

YHWH (Biblical name for God in Hebrew-- usually pronounced "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" in the King James Version) is a consuming fire, as Hebrews (12:29) emphasizes, and those who have sin inherent in their being will be consumed by that Glory, by that holiness. Adam & Eve were sent away from the Garden as punishment (Gen 3:22) and because now they faced the possibility of eternal corruption, but later we see that it was in mercy, too. Had they stayed in God's presence in their sinful state, they would have been utterly consumed. They passed on this inability to face God uncovered to all humans (Ex. 33:20). That's a crucial part of why why Moses had to function as a mediator for the people of Israel (Dt. 5:24-25), why the sacrificial system was instituted-- the sacrifices were literally "burnt up" so that the people didn't have to be.

Knowing all this about Who God Is really prepares us to marvel at the Incarnation; that God would put on flesh SO THAT we could see His glory without being consumed (2 Cor 4:6). I'm not advocating trying to push Hellish images on our little ones, but rather to give them the same word pictures that the Bible uses for God; including that of a fire. Only when we are in Jesus are we like the Burning Bush: on fire but not consumed. Certainly I don't want to over-emphasize any one attribute of God (His holiness) at the expense of another (for example, His mercy...which interestingly enough is the attribute He called out as He covered Moses with His Hand)... but we also want to give a real enough picture, according to Scripture, to instill in our children a "holy fear of God." Then calling Him "Abba," and knowing that HE made promises to US to make a way for us to be NEAR Him again is so much more marvelous and incredible!! That's the message I start teaching in week 3 with the promise God made to Eve (Gen. 3:16), and which we keep teaching until the last day of school, with the possibility of being like Jesus.

To make it a little more personal, it was fear of my own sinfulness in the face of God's holiness which first awakened my three-year-old soul to my need for a Mediator, and which finally led me to Christ. It wasn't until I was 9 or so and God opened my eyes more fully to my main sin of pride that I actually ran to Him for Grace, but all along that holy fear kept me from a lot of sin, and kept me knowing I needed Jesus.

The truth is that children CAN come to Jesus. Likely, they know deep down inside that they do need salvation; a sense of guilt seems quite natural, a merciful product of our Image-bearing. They still need to be taught, to be given the knowledge that will lead them to Jesus. We are commanded not to hinder them-- oh let us urge them to run!!

I hope this is good for thought-fodder... it has helped me better love my Savior!

So What About that Scary Ghost?

I especially remember my first preschool class. Precious, sweet kids... lots of them, full of energy!  One day we were sitting and reading a familiar fairy tale, and one of the little girls flipped out at the word "witch."  This was a "good witch," mind you, not a scary or evil one.  She wasn't scared, just concerned because she "wasn't allowed to say witch, or to talk about them."  Hmmm... ok.  This was my first encounter with this particular family's standards on what their kids were allowed to hear, see or say. Ghosts, witch, fat, stupid... all were on the "taboo" list.  Wolf in the Three Little Pigs? Nope. "Mommy doesn't want me to see anything scary."  As a teacher, of course you never want to undermine the parent, but it was also getting pretty impossible to read any fairy tale or even describe "same and different" without an alarm bell going off in this little girl's mind (saying "this crayon is fat, and that one is skinny" was what got me into trouble over saying "fat.").  She was a real sweetheart, and it got to the point where she knew if she felt that her mom wouldn't want her hearing something-- say an audio-book kids were listening to in center time-- that she'd just go do something else.  And we made it through the year both unscathed.

I've since thought a lot about her. Don't get me wrong- she was from an amazing, supportive, fun family whose parents were some of my greatest encourager and cheerleaders.  I know her mom had reasons to be so protective of her little eyes and ears, one being her tendency towards bad nightmares.  I wonder, though, if she'd been allowed to experience "frightening" things as frightening instead of as forbidden, and then freely discuss them, if she'd have been better able to deal with her fears.

Children in ages past were expected to confront a lot more fears than ours are.  Have you ever read Grimm's original fairy tales?  Totally gory.  Yuck.  Kids back then usually saw death firsthand; they either lost a grandparent living with them to old age, or a relative to war, plague or an accident.  Certainly they watched animal death regularly as their parents butchered chickens & hogs and hunted fowl and deer.  They lived through natural disasters and actual dangers.  What would they think of our reluctance to let our preschoolers read about monsters?

I've thought about this on and off for the past several years. As parents, is it wise to let our children see, hear, or read about "scary" things?  What does Scripture say about this?  The Bible is plenty full of scary situations-- not from pretend creatures like ghosts and goblins, but from very real-life evil men and angels.  Fear in children is natural.  As G. K. Chesterton put it,

“Fairy tales are more than true – not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us dragons can be beaten.” 

Some of you might be at this point shaking your heads, thinking "what the heck is she saying? Dragons do NOT exist, and the LAST thing I want is to fill my child's head with a new fear over something that doesn't even exist."  Think about it this way:  to a child, so many things are frightening, most of them involving potential physical harm.  They're scared of stuffed cows, of quick-moving dogs, of strangers, of the dark.  One day they'll outgrow all those fears by bullying or avoiding them;  they'll learn that they are bigger than those things, or that they're so improbable that they don't need to think about them.  But unless they've been taught not just to avoid or bully fears, but to face them, they'll "graduate" to fears of other things-- fear of failure, of rejection, of humiliation, of being alone, of being wrong.  Christ calls us to face those fears head on, and to fight them-- not in our own strength, but with His.  We are to stare them down and cry "you can do everything you threaten me and more, but you cannot take my Father's love!"  His love sets us free from fear. "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love." (1 Jn. 4:18)

There are other things to fear in this world-- wicked men with evil thoughts, wild animals ruled by hunger, uncontrollable forces, the unpredictable sin of others, and even celestial enemies.  Those, too, need to be faced, wrestled, and put down, not merely by pulling out a bigger gun (literally) and playing by all the rules (seatbelts, speed limits, airplane security checks), but by putting our faith in a sovereign and ultimately just God.  We stare down those dragons and whisper "you can kill my body, but you cannot harm my soul, and one Day I will eat at the Table prepared for me in the presence of you, my enemies, and I will laugh with Joy in the Presence of my Lord."

Please don't misunderstand me-- I'm not about to park Eowyn in front of Star Wars 3 where Anakin murders children in their beds and talk about it with her.  Nor am I going to pull out Grimms fairy tales and read every frightening bit every night to her.  (Though at this point she wouldn't even know enough to be frightened; she's only 1)  We are always called to use discretion, and to help our children to think about "whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things." (Phil. 4:8)  All of our parenting speech should be "only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear" (Eph. 4:29).  You know your child, what would be good for them, and what would be exasperating or tempting to your particular child.  That said, don't shy away from hard conversations!  Letting our children experience scary things vicariously through story is one way to talk them through "scary" things.

I was recently asked by some men working on our (hundred-year-old) house if I was ever afraid at night.  Thinking of the neighborhood in which I live, and the fact that my husband was out of town, I admitted that, sometimes, yes.  To my surprise, he then asked, "of ghosts, and all that, right?  Do you believe in ghosts in these old houses?"  I almost laughed, but caught myself, because you know, there really are scary supernatural forces at work, and my confidence isn't in just saying that "ghosts aren't real."  I answered instead, "well, even if they are real, I believe that my Jesus is stronger, so I don't need to be afraid."  One of the other workers immediately grinned and started nodding, and I wonder if one day we'll remember our conversation in Heaven.  As I said goodbye to the workers and shut the door, I realized that my fear regarding the all-too-real rapists and thieves who live in our city (as in all cities), was gone, too.  My Jesus is stronger, indeed.

Prescription v. Description

In America, we hear a lot about things being "Bible-based," "Biblical," or "God's way," whether it's child-rearing, gender roles, diets, education, preaching style, church government, taboos, or guy-girl interaction.  It can be overwhelming!  Many use this as sort of a trump card, and it's hard to argue with it.  "If it's in the Bible, well, I guess I HAVE to do it?"  I mean, how can you argue with the Bible?  This post is an attempt to help us remember what is fair use of the term "Biblical" and what isn't.  Some of you might wonder "why in tarnation is she going into this?"  I guess because this is something I've been chewing on in my mind for the past year or so, as I discuss various topics with friends... I'd think "I know that's not quite right...but why?" and think about it some more, talk to Ryan & others... The results of those questions and self-examinations have turned into this little post.

First, what I call "fair trade usage." =D  Ok... how about just fair.  We can call something Biblical when it's an issue clearly addressed in Scripture.  Many (most even) aspects of morality, church government, familial structure, and gender roles aren't vaguely mentioned in Scripture.  They are clearly explained, with examples given of those who followed wisely, and those who followed foolishly.  There are clear commands, clear expressions of God's opinions on the topic, rewards promised and punishment or discipline warned about.  We call passages like that "prescriptive."  Like a prescription a doctor writes, which says "Take this much of this drug for this problem for this long," there isn't too much interpretation needed.  Saying that the Biblical position on stealing is that it's wrong is obvious.  So is saying that God's way for children to be raised is in loving families, not state-run daycares.  The Biblical position on human life is that it's sacred because humans are made in God's Image.  It's also clear in Scripture that life begins at conception.  Therefore, murder is wrong... even if that murder occurs in the womb (abortion).  Now, there are differences among Christians about how to interpret Biblical teaching or even what the words mean, but the face-value is pretty clear.  For example, we might disagree on what baptism means, but we all agree that Christians are supposed to be baptized!

OK...  That was the easy part.  There's a very incorrect way to interpret Scripture, and that is to take all as prescription when some is description. According to Princeton's online dictionary, description is "a statement that represents something in words."  I describe something to you when I tell you what I ate today, or what sort of houses I saw on my drive.  The Bible is full of these sorts of things. When I tell you I saw a family outside their two-storey brick, am I implying that you should buy one?  Not unless I start talking about how it's better than any other home, or explicitly tell you to buy one-- then it's prescriptive, not descriptive.  (You might be thinking "duh," but hear me out.)  I've heard so many people go from saying "this is described in the Bible" to saying "thus, we should all do it."  Let me give three somewhat "duh" examples, just to make my point.  The Bible talks about houses with roofs, as well as living in tents.  We don't imply that the "godliest" forms of houses are roofed or are goat-hair Beduin tents.  In the Bible, most of the children have Hebraic names. Does that mean that you are more "in line with God's way" if you name your kids Hebrew-derived names?  Well, no.  Isaiah 25 refers to a shroud being used in funerals.  Does that mean we HAVE to be buried in a shroud in order to be "biblical?"  No. 

Why does this matter?  Because there are some really serious weights that can be laid on people, and I want us to be able to spot them and then steer clear of them. For one, there's the idea that the "betrothal" method of "dating" (where couples are formally betrothed before beginning a relationship at all) is "most Biblical" because it is the only method mentioned in Scripture.*   I'm not saying there couldn't be valid reasons to choose a betrothal model of relationship if you're in a situation where that'd work for you.  I am saying that doing it "because it's the only model in the Bible" is a bad reason.  As a last "case study," I'll give a concrete example, from this article.  I almost don't want to link to it, it's so awful, but... otherwise you might think I was making it up.

The article says that the only way to be a godly, Bible-keeping mother is by not only breastfeeding, but by nursing on-demand all night long. In short, I found the article to be one of the saddest excuses of exegesis I've ever seen.**  What's wrong with this article?  Every Biblical text is ripped from its context (most aren't even full verses), but most importantly, none of them are texts mandating any mother-child relationship at all! They aren't prescriptive texts!!  Every one of those statements assumes something about the mother already, so they could very well be cultural expectations.  I think there's something to be said for inferring from oblique references, but we have to be very careful to not turn these into hard and fast rules, which this article does.  We can't turn description automatically into prescription.  Doing that places a burden on people that Scripture doesn't place. 


* This post isn't meant to deal with dating in-depth.  I think the Word of God DOES clearly give principles for guy-girl (and all human) interactions, and personally espouse the "courtship" model (a la Joshua Harris). The betrothal model can work in some (rather unique) situations, I've seen it with my own eyes, but I don't think it's any better because it happened to be the cultural norm 2000 years ago (in a very different society).  Scripture doesn't ever condone or promote it.

**Superseded in horror only by one video on the text "them that pisseth against the wall" (totally not kidding, sadly), and closely followed by an article on why women should wear head coverings:  as a badge against Satan's angels who like to come and rape women who don't wear headcoverings... again, not kidding!

Thoughts stemming from "Proposition 8"

This is the bill defining marriages recognized by the state of California as "one man, one wife." It was recently deemed to violate the 14th Amendment by a California judge. It will be appealed and will probably eventually be heard before the Supreme Court.

As is so often the case, I appreciate Al Mohler's view on the topic. As he points out, this isn't just a cultural statement regarding the normalization of homosexuality. It reflects a root misunderstanding of both marriage and gender.

I found the judge's statements saying that procreation has never been a main goal of marriage to be appalling...and historically completely false!! My Catholic friends could easily point this out (it is still the MAIN goal of marriage, to many of them), as could anyone tracing the history of European monarchs who wed for the sole purpose of producing an heir. In discussing the issue with friends who rejoiced to see this bill knocked down, I kept reverting back to the Bible's view on marriage and gender. The judge's statements reveal that he was definitely thinking of gender roles when he issued this ruling. “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals,” he stated. To him, recognition of homosexual marriage is just a logical extention of the blurring of distinction between the sexes. I see how he gets there. Once manhood and womanhood are interchangeable in role --he says 'equal' though he leaves no space for them being 'different'-- it's just a logical step to say that any human can now marry any other, because we are all the same. Wow. What a step towards a unisex society.

Please check out The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood's website for wonderful resources with a Biblical view of the sexes-- respecting and valuing our God-given differences, while rejoicing in our equality before God as co-heirs and fellow Image-bearers.

I got into a pretty long Facebook discussion on this topic, in which my "opponents" brought up polygamy in the Bible, God being Love, and so that meaning we cannot condemn love in any form, as well as the place of religion in politics. Here are a few of my thoughts from that...

-- The main problem with anything besides man+woman is that the New Testament clearly teaches that marriage is a dim reflection of the union between Christ, the loving, sacrificial, leading Head, and the Church, helping, joyfully submitting to him and helping fulfill His plan for the world. That's why God brought Eve to Adam all those years ago, as a helper like and different from him. It was something Paul calls "a mystery;" something only explained at Christ's coming and Resurrection

-- on polygamy: I think it's telling that the first polygamist is Lamech, one of Cain (a bad guy)'s grandsons, and a violent murderer WORSE than Cain. Polygamy also differs from homosexuality because despite its abberations, there still is a man and a wife, twice. Two women, both married to a man--in this case, the same man. Never has anyone said (as far as I know) of a polygamous union that both women were "married" to each other! It's always heterosexual, even in cases where a woman might have had two husbands. (I'm pretty sure that three-way anything would be called some sort of perversion in any tradition.)

--on "God is Love": it's a big jump to say that because God embodies Love, we can do whatever we want. I sure love my daughter, but there a great many desires of hers I forbid her to do... she doesn't like it at all, but I do it because the things she wants (very deeply at times!) aren't good for her. Shouldn't we trust our Creator and Father (who IS love, as you pointed out), to tell us what is and isn't good for us? IN other words, we have to let God, as Love, define "lawful" love. He says there are some things, some ways, some practices we must not "love." We aren't free to do anything we want just because we feel "loving" while doing it, or say that we "feel love" in a certain way. Because God is the fountainhead of love, we have to let Him direct our love.

--on morality & the Gospel ("Good News"): everyone seems to have clear ideas about what is "right" and what is "wrong." I'd urge you all to consider where those standards come from, and to realize that the Bible claims to be the story of how God Himself condescended to our human level to tell us exactly which way is up and which is down. His Rules (morality) DO transcend culture, and as you read through Scripture with an eye to the One Story of Redemption that it tells, you'll see that. Much of what was hinted at and unclear in the Old Testament is made clear and explained redemptively in the New Testament, including God's model for marriage (before Christ came, it was a "mystery" remember? After He comes, He Himself in Mt 6 & 19 explains what it was always supposed to look like, and later Paul by the Holy Spirit explains even more explicitly what it was meant to be, in Eph. 5. From the beginning (and I mean since the creation of man in Gen. 1-3), God has had to speak into our world to explain rightness and wrongness-- that is, morality. Ultimately, He used a Final Word-- the God-man Jesus Christ incarnate. "In the past, God spoke to our forefathers ...in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son...the Son is the radiance of God's glory, and the exact representation of His being." (Heb. 1-3) Jesus the Christ perfectly fulfilled God's righteous requirements of the Law, yet died a condemned death, and was confirmed as having paid the price for the immorality of everyone who trusts in Him for salvation, by being raised from the dead. He did this "in order that the righteous requirements of the Law might be fully met in US." (Rom 8:2) Christians are serious about sin and being free from it because that's exactly what Jesus came to do: set His people free from the consequences of sin (God's own judgment) and bondage to it.


When it comes down to it, the crux of the matter is whether or not we will submit to God. As one of my FB "opponents" put it, "the Christian's version of Yahweh forbids homosexual and polyamorous love for the same reason that the Jew's version of Yahweh forbids tattoos -- that is, for no good reason at all except the pointless exertion of control over people's bodies and minds.... I owe nothing to a fictional dead human or his mythical metaphorical father, with whom I have had no dealings. " How different from David's "against You, and You only, have I sinned, and done what is evil in Your sight" (Psalm 51:4), and Paul's "in Him we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17:28)

Thankful that His dealings with me are all mercy,
--Christina

Footnote: The Bible very clearly teaches that a lifestyle given over to homosexuality (as a homosexual "marriage" would be), is sinful and a perversion of love (The attraction is not sinful, as far as I can tell, but giving oneself over to it without any self-control is.). Any sexual activity outside of man-and-wife-marriage is called "fornication" very clearly by Scripture, and is over and over said to be wrong. Homosexual lust is the same as heterosexual lust... both are wrong and offensive to God. Romans 1:18-32 clearly discusses homosexuality. Revelations 21:8 and 22:15 make it clear that those living in unrepentant sexual sin are not among the Redeemed of Heaven. My favorite passage dealing with homosexuality is 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, because it says that some of the Corinthian Christians once did live in such sin, and since coming to know Christ now are "washed" and even made HOLY!!

Why and How I Blog...

It's been a while since I had time coupled with internet connection to do some serious blogging. :) The book review site is underway, in the hopes that many parents, teachers, and readers will find it useful! Both Ryan & I are quite excited about it and will be working like little ants on it in the background...

Until then, there are several things I've had smoldering on back burners of my mind. Yes, I know, some of your smoke alarms are probably screaming right about now. (how's that for an extended metaphor!?) I thought I'd like to post first explaining how I think through issues and how you can expect me to present them. Pretty much everything I post on here is controversial (except maybe our travel adventures) in the sense that some group of people somewhere disagrees with it, be it a health topic, parenting, theological, or political. Even our traveling could be controversial, I guess, if someone felt strongly that we should spend more money on missions and less on it, or whether or not we should take our daughter with us, or whether the places we visit are appropriate or not... Anyway, you get my point.

When an issue comes up in my mind, the first things I do are gather as much information as I can on the topic-- articles, perspectives from leaders I trust, direct quotes, books on the topic, and of course asking Ryan, if he has an opinion on the matter. I try to form as complete a picture of the issue at hand as I can. Then the way I analyze all that data is to take it both backwards and forwards. I take it "backwards," meaning I try to discern its originating worldview- without assuming too much or making giant leaps. I try to line these basic underpinnings with what Scripture says, or for unclear issues, to what basic principles Scripture provides. Then, I take it "forwards" meaning I try to see where reasoning along the lines of the presented issue will take us. Again, I try to line these up with Scripture. Lastly, I put all the pieces together and present them on this blog.

I put "stuff" on here in order to both save and create work for my readers. I want to spark people to think for themselves. In a culture where we are bombarded with information at such alarming paces, it's difficult and totally counter-cultural to slow down and pick that information apart and test it. So I present my own reasoning in long-hand to allow anyone interested to see how and why I reached my conclusions. I love it when someone tells me that they found a post really helpful, even when they reach a different conclusion than I did! That's why I try to post a lot of links to my info sources, so that people can check it out for themselves. If someone reads what I wrote, thinks it through, and ends up agreeing with me 100%, great!! Of course I love convincing people!! But if someone else reads what I wrote, and as he thinks through it realizes exactly why he disagrees with me, then I am just as happy. I probably would continue to press that person, as I allowed them to press me-- but if in the end they are thoroughly convinced after thoughtful examination, I still consider my work done. :) That's why I had such rich fellowship with Presbyterians all throughout high school and college-- we knew exactly where and why we disagreed, teased each other about it at times, but never had to question our differences more than that.

I want to be clear: just because I lay my pre-suppositions out and reach a certain conclusion, I am not implying that the ONLY conclusion that could be reached from those suppositions is mine. I know that someone can start at the exact same place I do and end up 180 degrees different. Two examples: one friend of mine keeps her sanity by forcing herself to do a small load of laundry every day. I keep my sanity by forcing myself to do ONLY 2 large loads of laundry two days a week. Another, more serious one: in book club we once asked whether we'd send our children away in the hopes of keeping them safe during war, or keep them with us if we were unable to leave. One club member said "because I believe in the Sovereignty of God, and that He appointed me to be responsible for my children, I'd keep them with me, so that I could continue to love on them and teach them through the war." I busted out laughing, because my answer was: "because I believe in the Sovereignty of God, and that He appointed me to be responsible for my children, I'd send them away, and trust that God would provide for them, comfort them and teach them while I was praying for them at home." Same two starting points, totally opposite conclusions.

As CS Lewis envisioned a saint in glory one Day exclaiming,

“We’ve all been wrong! That’s the great joke! There is no need to go on pretending one was right. After that, we begin living.”

Come soon, Lord Jesus!

The Flesh & the Law

For several months now, there's been an ongoing dialogue, both internal and external, on what Romans 7 is talking about. Romans chapter 7-- I urge you to go read it!- comes after the Apostle Paul has outlined the Gospel fully, starting with us as all condemned, no matter what our background, be it religious, pagan, or just ignorant (chapters 1-3). He explains that Jesus had to die in order to allow God to be both just and forgiving (you can't just let people do awful things and not be punished-- we kick judges like that out of office) (chapter 3-4). And he outlines all the amazing things that are ours in Christ (chap 5). Then in Romans chapter 6, he starts showing how being given a new nature- Christ's nature- makes us able to stop sinning, instead of being bound by it. I grew up thinking that Romans 7 was Paul's autobiography as a Christian, wanting to do what he knew was right, but unable to do so because of his flesh, and then struggling on to get to Romans 8, which is all about the victory we have in Christ and the joy of His Spirit. Then I encountered a new take on the chapter here in Louisville, which said that no Christian would ever be bound like that, and so this chapter must refer to Paul before he was converted.

So I wondered... is Romans 7 about a believer, or about a non-believer? Why does it matter? I cared because I'd always resonated with this struggle (vs. 15-17): "I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me." How else do I explain why I so often do what deep down the newest, best, Christ-given part of me hates doing? As a pastor friend of mine said,

The debate about Romans 7 can sometimes be academic, but sometimes has big implications. In my opinion, refusing to see it as applicable to believers "can" lead to some major problems, and an inability to see the renewal dynamics of the Gospel. The process of Law and Gospel, wrestling between unbelief and belief, is, I believe, part of the sanctification process and renewal dynamic of the Christian life, forcing us to live each day in light of Christ. To me, the change in verb tense in the middle of the chapter clearly describes Paul's own present experience. As I said, Romans 7 describes the believer, but doesn't allow the believer to stop there, but pushes you on to ch.8.

The subject came up in conversation with my older, far wiser sister in the faith, Sina. She had recently read Charles Leiter's book, Justification & Regeneration, which treats Romans 7 as describing a non-believer, and had come to embrace that position herself. She found great liberty in viewing herself as now able to defeat sin, and pointing out verses 14 & 17 (in the present tense, so what I thought described Paul as a believer): "I am of the flesh, sold under sin [...] I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out", she asked me: "How could those verses describe a believer? All of chapter 6 has been about believers- us- having VICTORY over sin. How could Paul describe it as binding us, as anything leaving us unable to conquer it-- What about the Holy Spirit that's all over the rest of the book?" She also mentioned how the view of Romans 7 as being a believer had at times made her feel trapped and hopeless, even angry at God for not delivering her (or others she was watching struggling). I knew what she meant, had felt it myself.

So, to sum up the implications: if Romans 7 describes a believer, we run the risk of viewing ourselves as hopelessly bound to sin, powerless to shake it off, even tempted to anger at God. If it describes a non-believer, we run the risk of losing any category for ongoing struggle with sin. Hmmm.

Ryan & I were discussing the issue at home, and when we read the chapter through, we boiled it down to 2 "problem" verses, one for each "side." If it's a believer, how do we explain vv. 14 & 17, as Sina pointed out? "sold under sin... the desire to do right, with no ability to do it." If it's a non-believer, how do we explain vv 16 & 22? "Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being..." My friend Val asked, "is a non-believer even able to delight in God's law?" Either way, it seems a strained interpretation.

Ryan pointed out that he could see a religious Jew looking at the Law (as in the Old Testament, especially the first 5 books) and seeing its value, and actually delighting in keeping it, without being born again. I can see that interpretation in one sense, but what about the present tense? It seems like Paul's describing himself before he was saved (past tense), then switches to a present-day (saved, apostle) struggle. Saying that the whole chapter describes a non-believer seems to violate the flow of the passage, if you start in chapter 6 and read on through to chapter 8.

Why do I bring this all up? Because another talking-session with Sina, who'd done some more digging, brought a very helpful breakthrough, courtesy of Tom Schreiner, a prof at Southern. What if the point of the passage isn't the "salvation status" of Paul at all? What if the point is rather the effect law has on the flesh-- "flesh" meaning what is natural in each of us? Going back and re-reading the chapter yet again, it seemed like a total "duh!" What if Paul intentionally leaves it murky, so that anyone- saved, not interested, or desperately wishing to be saved- can apply the struggle to himself? When ANY of us encounters law, we have the reaction of sinning more, not less. "For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me." (vv 8-10)

Law only ever produces guilt! Laws are, were, given to show us the boundary, and in the case of God's Law, to show us when we inevitably CROSS that boundary, marking ourselves as transgressors. That's what "transgression" means: crossing the line. We sin because we are sinners-- deep down. One day, those of us Christ has redeemed won't sin, won't be sinners, anymore. Until then, the only thing that can ever give us the courage, the strength, the energy, the joy, even the plain ol' "want to" to do what is right is GRACE, not Law. As Romans 8:3-4 puts it, "For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. " Jesus already ultimately fulfilled the Law- perfectly. God looks at that, and for those of us in Jesus, that's all He sees. He looks at me, Christina, and sees perfect Law-keeping, and is pleased. In the down-and-dirty of my life now, I have the same Spirit, the very same One Christ had, and He enables me to obey those same Laws that once only condemned me and made me want to sin even more. I noticed just how absent the Spirit and Grace are in Romans 7... I think that's the point. Anyone who's sitting there, looking at the Law and at himself, will inevitably fall into the hopeless mire of Romans 7. We've gotta look UP! Whoever we are, wherever we are, saved, unsaved, caring, uncaring, we ALL must cry out "Wretched man that I am!! Who will rescue me from this body of death!?? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! ... There is now NO condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus!"

Look to Jesus, not to the Law. If you're trying to knuckle down and duke it out, looking only to the Law as your guide and your judge, good luck. It's about all you have going for you.

Still Within

Éowyn Grace is still keepin' us waiting. Praise the Lord, I am sleeping better at night, which means I can bear the waiting better.

I'm running out of projects, though, lol. I guess I might make some pillows for my pre-K classroom, and then there's that French narration I need to do... And maybe going ahead and buying/mailing for all the birthdays in September & October. Mom & I are about to head out to Kohl's, the mall & Stein Mart. Anyone who wants to tag along, give me a call!

I have a lot of thoughts to blog, mostly coming from Care Group. They revolve around these 7 songs, as a sneek peek. =D These songs are so beautifully done that it's hard to only use their words, when the music makes the points as much as the bare text... if you have time and desire, I recommend listening to them. They are each so beautiful, powerful, and poignant.

1. I Asked the Lord that I Might Grow, John Newton (Indelible Grace 4)
2. The Silence of God, Andrew Peterson (Love & Thunder)
3. Pensive, Doubting, Fearful Heart, Gadsby (Red Mountain Church the Gadsby Project)
4. Cave of Adullum, Sara Groves (Conversations)
5. Holy is the Lord, Andrew Peterson (City on a Hill 3; The Gathering)
6. Kingdom Comes, Sara Groves (Add to the Beauty)
7. Lover, Derek Webb (She Must & Shall Go Free)

Fireproof

You know I liked it a lot when I saw it a few months back, and here is a blog post by pastor & author Douglas Wilson that kind of explains why.  

One quote: If I set myself to think of couples in marriages that I think would be greatly helped by watching this movie, I would run out of fingers inside of a minute. I can also think of Christians who would be offended by the schlock, but many of them would be those who know more about how a movie ought to be made than about how a woman ought to be treated. And they would rather watch a movie about a woman being abused so long as the movie was made right than to have the woman treated right in a movie that offended their refined sensibilities. So which is the altar and which is the sacrifice? Makes me think of Augustine's comment about rhetors who cared far more about avoiding grammatical misuse of the word man than they cared about their actual treatment of actual men.

[BTW: The comments following the blog post are interesting and in some cases, unbelievable!  I know I can get hung up on what my friends & I used to call "TCPC crap" (theologically correct politically correct), but some of those commenting take it to a whole new level.  Yikes!  As if people who are used to a counterfeit finding a common jive in the real somehow indicates that the real is deficient... (I mean the allegation that if a Mormon isn't offended by it, the movie must be awful)]

I personally enjoyed a movie with no sex, no nudity, no profanity, and lots of hard real-life love, real "this is so stupid but I still am going to fight with you about it" husband-wife moments, humor, and a clear Gospel presentation.  I LOVED being able to leave feeling only encouraged, without any phrases or scenes to try to block out of my head.  I hope more such movies are made, and that they get better and better and better!  I guess the best way to make that happen is to promote these initial tries (which ARE getting better style-wise), and keep encouraging improvement!

Addendum to the Defense

Ryan pointed out to me that some concerned parents might see a child confusing "pretend magic" with the all-too-real version: the occult as far more dangerous- damning, even- than confusing superpowers with well... gravity.  One could result in life-long or eternal slavery to evil, while another could result in very serious, but temporal, physical injury.  

Remember that any fairy tale your child reads will have magic of some form in it, be it a genie, a fairy, a dryad, a god, a talking creature, or a magician.  If you are to be consistent, you must either A) forbid your child from reading, hearing or seeing any story with any amount of magic in it (including all Disney movies and The Nutcracker), or B) have a conversation with your child about magic early on.  I think it's obvious which one is preferable, and better for your child!! :)  

Having had many such conversations with various children already, here's what I've found most helpful:  "Now, in this story, there are ____ (talking creatures, let's say), aren't there?  Are there really ____ in our world?  No.  God made people in His image, so only they can really think and talk like that.  In stories, sometimes people or animals use magic.  It's just pretend, but it sure is fun to imagine, isn't it!?  In the real world, in our world, there is not magic, but there is Power.  Real people who try to use magic are actually trying to use the power of the Devil or his angels.  Do you think that is pleasing to our God?  No! He is the One with all the power, and if we trust Him, we don't need to try to use the devil's power- that would be wicked."  It's really not that hard for a child to grasp the difference between real power and pretend magic- they pretend to be princes and princesses all the time, or monsters or animals, and they know full well they're none of those things. If you don't make it a huge deal, then they won't either. You'll be able to tell when your child is ready to hear about pretend magic.  Just start talking EARLY, and don't stop!  (this could also come up from the "other side" of real power, when you read about the Witch of Endor in 1 Samuel, or a New Testament deliverance from demon oppression)

This can be followed up later with conversations about power-users in our world and how that is something God hates and which is wicked.  Talks about ghosts and spirits should be handled as they come up-- talks about where souls go after death-- not to haunt the earth but to either love and enjoy God in Heaven or to be consumed by endless regret in Hell...  All these will come up readily, especially if your child is a thinker, a story-spinner or an imaginer... a.k.a. a preschooler. :)

Defense, Cont.

All right. Hopefully I've convinced any doubters about the lack of inherent evil in Harry Potter. There are "bad guys" in Harry Potter, for sure, and there are parts where evil is portrayed as very real. Because of that, it may not be suitable for your youngest readers. The later books deal with teen romance, with (hilarious!) guy-girl misunderstandings and interactions.  VERY helpful and insightful for your older child,  but probably not suitable for your preteens, or not without parental guidance and input. Because of this (and just general good writing) these are great read-aloud books, giving you a chance to guide thinking and discussion of the book, and allowing the entire family to enjoy the same story.  Always, JK Rowling's bad guys are clearly bad, and bad actions are clearly bad actions. Don't get me wrong; the characters are complex, realistically so. Even the "good guys" do bad things, and there are many characters whose goodness or badness is questioned for a time-- but the good comes out in the end and is lauded as good. There is very little moral confusion within the stories.  Rowling herself has said that each book has one or more particular "moral lessons" in it, and they are woven throughout the series. More on this later.

But why would I care enough about these books to defend them? Well, you can go read my big passionate reasons in the previous post... but just because something isn't all bad doesn't mean I want to spend my time defending it. I defend these books in particular because they have so much to offer our children, and all who read them. These books are well-written. They get children in the habit of reading for understanding. Children who wanted hints as to what happened next have been known to re-read the entire book, searching for clues and making predictions. That's critical thinking for you! Mrs. Rowling is without a doubt an amazing story-spinner, and her work shows layer upon layer of thought, planning, meaning, and false leads. Once you've read all 7 and go back to read the first, you'll be amazed at how many "seeds" are there which completely pass undetected. But beyond that. I mean, Dune is a lot like that, but I wouldn't care to spend time defending it and encouraging its reading, especially by children(that's just me personally-- nothing against a book in both my dad & husband's top 10).

What has Harry Potter got, then?  Let's start with the moral lessons:

The true nature and power of love; Harry's mother died to save him, and he must be willing to himself die for his friends to save them.  Lord  Voldemort (the ultimate villain)'s undoing is due to his lack of ability to love.  The preciousness and sanctity of human life, no matter the person's family or background.  The wrongness of racism.  Dedication to truth.  A need to be discerning of what hears or reads in the media or popular culture.  The lack of fear in death for the righteous.  Loyalty to friends.  The need to stand up for what's right, no matter the cost.  Courage-- even to stand up to your friends and tell them what they do NOT want to hear.  The value of family.  Respect for parents and adults (though Harry & his friends do disobey or mouth off at various points (again, realistic) they are expected to take their punishments, and they do.  The family dynamics within the Weasley family are hilarious, and wholesome.  The children are expected to obey their parents, and even the oldest boys quail under their mother's wrath or instantly obey their father's quiet command.)

  I could go on, but it'd be a pretty exhaustive list.  One quote that has gotten me through hard times: "It does not do to dwell on dreams, Harry, and forget to live."  Good ol' Dumbledore.

One of my favorite parts of the story is its portrayal of politics and how they usually work (or don't).  Kids reading this book come away with a healthy doubt of politicians, the dangers of the press, the need for freedom of the press, and a reality-check on bureaucracy.  When Lord Voldemort returns, the government's response is to refuse to admit it because of the effect on public morale and their own popularity.  Denial becomes the official policy, and any who doubt are punished and/or taken for fools.  One particularly nasty faction is portrayed --chillingly Pharisaical-- obsessed with "obeying the rules," making more rules, promoting racism and elitism, and glad to inflict severe punishments mercilessly on rule-breakers.  Harry and his friends are taken aback, because these are supposedly the "good guys," on their side against Voldemort.  Harry goes to his godfather for guidance, and I thought Sirius' answer was right on: "Harry, the world's not divided into good people and Death Eaters (Lord Voldemort's followers)."  He goes on to explain how many are just as wicked and wrong, just masquarading behind a facade of "righteousness."  True rightness is seen in justice tempered with mercy, in willingness to forgive and befriend, and ultimately, to die to defend.  

THAT's the kind of stuff I want my children reading, thinking, and talking about.

In Defense of Magic

(cross-posted to my other children's book review website)

Well, I've finally had enough "pushes" to actually do this, something I've contemplated for the past ... goodness... a long time. :) Here I am going to walk all who care to read through a defense of Harry Potter, and of fantasy literature in general. Here goes! Why do I care so much? Because I am passionate about two things: first) leaving people's consciences free where Christ has not bound them, and second) encouraging strong imagination in all people everywhere. There's a third reason, too. I love old stories, the myths, legends, histories so embellished they leave us wondering what actually happened, and those who so vehemently oppose Harry Potter logically have to throw those out, too. The story-teller in me just cringes at the thought of that happening.

The most-launched criticism of Harry Potter is along the lines that it "flirts with the occult," or "takes what is inherently evil and dresses it up in nice clothes that would confuse any child reading it." Scripture is clear in us avoiding even the appearance of evil, so if either allegation were true, I'd have to say "yup. Chuck the books, and don't encourage any child you know to read them."

Before I truly delve in, I'd like to ask a separate question: is any book with any bad character in it "an imitation of evil"? Well, obviously not! The Bible is full of examples of both truly wicked men, and men who made truly evil choices, though they themselves were not wholly given to evil. What the Bible does in every situation, though, is to clearly label sin as sin, and condemn it as evil. We are very seldom left to wonder God's opinion of any action His creation has done. So "bad guys" in stories cannot be inherently dangerous. Princes always have to save the Princess from SOME dangerous foe, right? (of course parents have to exercise caution and not expose their children to things that will unduly scar or terrify them) What is dangerous and unedifying is a story wherein "good" & "bad" characters were unclear or confused. 

Now on to this idea of HP being an imitation of evil. Most people jump to that conclusion because they've heard that the books are about kids learning to practice witchcraft. If I were a mom and I heard that, I'd want to take a second look, too! But that's if you understand "witchcraft" as it exists in the real, factual world. Here, witches and sorcerers seek contact with real spirits-- either demonic or dead-- and seek to manipulate real, existing spiritual power. We call this "invocative magic" because it invokes a being of supernatural power. As a Christian, I know that there are indeed powerful forces at work in our world-- forces of the Devil and his minions. Real-life witchcraft is not something to play at; it is something to hate as opposed to my Father and Savior. Real-live witches and wizards are seeking to play god, and they are immersing themselves into waters deeper than they understand. Is Harry Potter about that kind of witchcraft? Anyone who's read it will say emphatically, "no!" Just like any fiction, the author has freedom to re-write the laws of his/her book's world. In some books, animals can talk. Are those animals possessed by demons or evil spirits? No. It's just a different "thing that is" in that book's world. In other tales, beans grow to the sky and there are geese who lay golden eggs. Are those beans operating by demonic forces? No. It's "magic." Think about all the fairy tales, legends and myths you have ever heard... 1001 Arabian Nights... Grimm's fairytales... Greek/Roman myths... Egyptian spinxes... Irish myths of faeries and the dangerous shape-shifting sidhe... Rapunzel... Superman... pretty much ANY culture's "fairy tales" deal with magic in some way, shape or form. There are genies, dryads, enchanters, fairy godmothers, and magical creatures (centaurs, dragons, fairies, pixies, unicorns, pegases). Are these operating by evil powers? Well, it all depends on the "rules" in their homeworlds. Those fictitious worlds have different laws, sure and abiding as gravity. It's just "the way things "are."" That's how the magic is in Harry Potter. It's part of a whole fictitional system JRR Tolkien has created, including broomsticks, wands, dragons, giants, spell words, potions and the usual ingredients of any good fairy tale. Harry and his friends don't learn to do magic by invoking the powers of demons; they learn do "do" magic. That's it. This is known as "incantational magic"- where no being is being invoked, but rather certain words (incantations) have certain effects.  Nothing else about it. It's a skill that they have to hone, sure as real-live human children have to work to write, work sums and reason. So, to those of you who say "magic can't be separated from the occult," I say it can. And if you hold that it truly can't, I think you'd better start getting rid of your fairy tale books, your mythology, your legends, and all your superhero comic books.

One argument I've heard is that children can't tell the difference between the harmless "it is because it is in that world" magic of HP and Wicca. Well, my friend John tried to leap off his porch at the age of 5- wearing a bedsheet - because he thought it would make him fly like Superman. Clearly, he hadn't differentiated fact & fiction. Does that mean Superman is inherently dangerous and evil. No. It means he wasn't old enough to process it without parental guidance yet. So don't throw it out... maybe just wait until he's 9 to let him see it.

Far MORE dangerous to your child (or your)'s moral compass are shows like Avatar (which I love in spite of this...), with its clear Buddhist worldview, or Star Wars, whose Force belies a thinly disguised Buddhist/ New Age worldview. Another clear risk is Pullman's The Golden Compass, despite its original story line and very cool armored bears. Its author set out to write a story teaching children that God is dead and that the church is the source of our societal problems-- and as one who has read this story, it is clear within the series. That is a story I would keep children from reading, and would allow teenagers who wanted to read it to read it only with discussion and guidance from godly adults (aka me & Ryan as their parents).

All right, I've more to say but I need to leave the computer now. More tomorrow! 'Til then, go enjoy the imagination God gave you and some very talented story-weavers! :)

Currently reading...

- The Man in the High Castle, Philip K. Dick (interesting for sure-- our book club selection; I'll be sure to keep you posted on this one. Basically it assumes that the Nazis & Japanese won WW2, and goes from there.)
- The Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth, Henci Goer (very helpful & HIGHLY reccomended for all you moms, grandmoms, or moms-to-be!)
- Spiritual Midwifery, Ina May Gaskin (a little "out there" mystically-- obviously influenced by Zen Bhuddism-- but not to the point of discrediting the medical aspects, and the overwhelming evidence in her favor that her methods work: over the past 30 years she's delivered 2,028 babies at home, with a total of 8 infant mortalities including fatal anomalies (no maternal deaths), with only 5% of the births needing any transport to a hospital, and only 1.95% needing any intervention, i.e. Cesarean, forceps or vacuum extraction. Oh, and NO pain meds needed, not even in the breeches or big babies she delivered...obviously for the Cesarean they had to.)
- What to Expect When You're Expecting, Arlene Eisenburg, Heidi E. Murkoff, and Sandee E. Hathaway & its accompanying Eating Well When You're Expecting, Heidi Murkoff --this I just refer to occasionally, because it is rather TMI and I'm not a worry-er anyway.
- Because He Loves Me, Elyse Fitzpatrick ...AMAZING. I think I could give it to EVERYONE I know!!!
Just finished: The Maker's Diet, Dr. Jordan Rubin --very helpful. I couldn't stick to the diet for too long pregnant, though, because of how incredibly hungry I am-- we just can't afford for me to always fill up on proteins and fruit, especially with my dietary restrictions, and food aversions these days. But it was great while it lasted, and highly recommended to everyone! (even skeptics feel they should give Rubin's work some credit)
The Tale of Despereaux, Kate DiCamillo
Crispin: the Cross of Lead, Avi (yes, those last two are children's books-- Newberry Award Winners, to be precise)
On request at the library: Baby Bargains

As a "birthmom"...

...since becoming pregnant with my first baby, I appreciate mothers even more. Especially amazing to me is the love and sacrifice of birthmothers who carry a child for 9 months, and then willingly place that child they have carried into another woman's arms. There is no way you could ever label that "giving away your baby." There is no way that any woman could carry a child for 9 months, give birth, and not do all of it out of love. Wow. Talk about self-sacrificial love. This song makes me cry every time, because it is so beautiful.

The singer & songwriter is Mark Schultz, and he is singing his own story. Just as we often have very little idea of the sacrifice birthmothers make in adoption, so many birthmothers have no idea how amazing a chance they are giving their child. Who knows what each adopted child will become? Only the One who knit them together in their birthmothers' wombs, and selected the places and times they would grow up and live.



That song is my great-grandmother, who did an amazingly brave thing years ago, and gave life to my grandfather, and through him, to my father and his siblings, and to me, my sisters, and all my cousins, and even now her gift of life is ongoing as a new life grows in me. She missed her baby boy for 50 years, and when he found her again and we all got to know her, I think everyone was amazed-- truly our God brings beauty from ashes. And what a sweet, godly woman she was. I'll never forget the kindness complete strangers showed to my sisters and I when they found out whose "grandbabies" we were. Alzheimers took her from us years before she died, and now Heaven has even more of an appeal to me. I can't wait to hug her and thank her and rejoice together at the feet of the One who saved us both. Amen!



To all mothers, be they natural, birth, or adoptive, may you receive the thanks and honor due you for bringing us life and love... for sacrificing so much for us. May the Word to you be "well done, My good & faithful servant. Come and share your Master's happiness."

Snow Days Are a Teacher's Best Friend

I was a little concerned last night around 11, when nothing was falling from the sky at all, and I was feeling very very tired.  

Let me explain...  Lyle went with us to Moe's, then tux-fitting (we talked- about weddings, of course,- while Ryan got all measured), and then to Best Buy.  There he picked up Wall-E, I think as a very belated Christmas gift for his dad (Lyle's dad, if you are somehow reading this blog, I am so very sorry I just ruined it for you. :/).  Once we got home, the boys somehow convinced me to stay up and watch it with them, reassuring me with weather forecasts and satellite images that we WOULD have enough snow and ice to warrant school being cancelled Tuesday.  Wall-E was very much enjoyed-- it's amazing how much they are able to convey without dialogue; just electronic beeps, chirps, and grrrs as well as emotion wonderfully depicted with posture and eye shape.  I was very impressed.  I also loved the Hello Dolly clips interspersed throughout the movie-- Nicole, I thought of you & I trying to sing those songs.  We got the melodies right, at least... :)

So that led me to being still awake at 11 (barely), and wondering what I'd wear to school in the morning... which was looking very dark and soon.

I was a little concerned last night around 11, when nothing was falling from the sky at all, and I was feeling very very tired.

Well, by the Grace of God, we DID have a snow day, as Ryan assured me when my alarm went off at 6 am-- "Don't get up, Babe.  There's no way you have school today.  Don't even bother checking your email."  I believed him, figuring that at the worst Sina would call to tell me she was on her way and I'd have to drive myself.  

So, we've spent the day indoors, resting.  I worked on school stuff, got to read lots of the Bible in Ryan's new ESV Study Bible with the WONDERFUL footnotes, and am now finishing the last of my wedding thank-yous.  Yes, I know.  It's been 18 months.  But I WILL finish them!  (sorry if you still haven't gotten yours.  It's probably coming.)  Ryan's trying to kick a cold, so he stayed home (out of the freezing rain and ongoing snow), slept all morning and is now working a bit from home.  I made a pot of Cooped-Up Soup (that means anything that you have on hand and that would taste good heated up together)-- today that meant onion, garlic, tomato, brown rice, a bay leaf, rosemary, and salt simmering in homemade chicken bone broth.  Ryan says it's yummy and I'm about to try it out.   I love cold days when I'm allowed to stay home and inside! :)  

Diagramming...

Just two days ago I tried to diagram words to help them make sense to me... I know that might sound weird, but I am quite a visual person for all my auditory skills.  Anyway, the result was pretty cool (at least in my mind)... maybe someday I'll post it here.  I'm sure SOMEONE else out there has used word/idea-webs or graphic organizers to study or explain something... 

I just was reminded that this isn't a "new idea" with me-- I found this, which I did I believe my junior year of high school... maybe my senior year-- whenever I read CJ Maheney's The Cross-Centered Life for the first time, and had my world re-rocked.  I'd forgotten about this diagram, though-- just came across it now that I have most of my old files back from my resurrected PowerBook...  thank you again, Heath!! :)

Just thought I'd share!

Andrew Peterson CD

Does anyone else really really really want to buy the CD "Behold the Lamb of God" (Andrew Peterson's Christmas CD), but hasn't had an extra $15.00 lying around? If that's you, I just found out that if they are ordered in bulk, they are only $10.00 each! (if we order 5 at once. If we order 10, then they're only $9.00).

Let me know if you'd like one and I will gladly order it with mine.

As a plug, this album is by far my favorite Christmas album... maybe my favorite album ever. It's amazing. Talk about "redemptive history," talk about great story-telling... talk about the whole Bible sung in 12 tracks... it's soooo good!!! Like Handel's Messiah, except not choral, not symphonic, not Baroque... you get the idea. ;)

Listen to the album online here.

The Ones You Leave Behind, the final version =D

Being back in Greenville, especially for church services at Grace, is fun in that I get to reconnect (briefly) with people I've loved for a long time, and who know me well. It's sad, though, too. Why? Because of a problem that's systemic around here. Grace Baptist of Taylors has long been a large church, regularly adding members. So why hasn't it ever really grown? Because people are always leaving. Every few years there's a new church on the block that comes into vogue and several families leave to go there (I could name 3 such churches off the top of my head). There are SO many families that "used to go to our church," most still living in Greenville, and still naming the Name of Jesus. I'm not talking about people who were just attenders, either, I'm talking about people who had applied for membership, testified in front of the entire body, read the church confession of faith and constitution and gladly agreed with them, willingly put themselves under the guidance and oversight of the pastors and deacons, and been in regular fellowship with other members for several years. Yet they leave. For diverse reasons, they just walk away, most without ever so much as a peep as to why, nor efforts to resolve anything.

Every time I come back to Greenville, I am grieved anew at this. Christians, let me plead with you: don't leave your church! As I hope to expound in this post, it is (usually) un-Biblical, and always always hurtful-- to you as the leave-er, and, as I have experienced first hand, to those whom you are leaving behind. It hurts. A lot. To the point that I struggle with bitterness towards those who have left, the mere thought or sight of them bringing all those negative feelings back up.

So, why stay? First of all, because, if you're a Protestant, you've made a covenant with those people in that particular local church. A church isn't primarily a set of doctrines, nor a set of traditions, nor even a set of pastors/deacons/leaders (or the main preaching pastor)--it's certainly not the building. (When Paul wrote to the church in Corinth he was writing to the group of believers in Corinth.) When you leave a church, you may be leaving because of a disagreement with church leaders, or because of a deficiency in the preached word, or because you aren't feeling like your gifts aren't being used adequately, but you aren't leaving any of those things. When you leave, you are leaving your fellow members. Just as a divorce severs one human from another, so leaving a church rips apart christians joined by a covenantal bond.  My dad put it perfectly into words when he said, rather sadly, "I can't help feeling that they're just walking away from... me... from all my family.  And that hurts."
-----------My apologies for leaving this so long unfinished.  I now have my computer back after a long absence, thanks to my cousin Heath's kindness, his electrotechnical prowess, and a rather sizeable dose of daring (he disassembled and reassembled a Powerbook on his own)!  Anyway, I'm back now.---------------

The church is often compared to a Body (Eph. 4).  In one sense we CANNOT leave The Body, ever-- the Church Universal is made up of all believers, no matter their denomination or age.  It will be united and whole in Heaven, but is only seen in glimpses here.  The local church is how we worship now.  [Aside: Unfortunately, there is division, which is necessary because there is error, much of it heretical, and truth naturally must divide from error when error refuses to be corrected.  There are also differences of understanding, which make everyday church life detrimental rather than helpful.  SO yeah, I understand why we have denominations, and why these probably won't go away until Heaven.]  The local churches are like mini-bodies.  In our world, can hands just rip themselves off of one body and transfer to another body, without careful preparation, re-attachment, and a high risk of infection? Yikes, no!  So leaving one local fellowship must be approached- carefully, slowly- no matter the reason, even a positive one.  Just walking away isn't "seeking peace with all men."  It's a cop-out.

Secondly, there isn't any Scriptural basis for leaving.  You want a really awful church?  Take the one in First-Century Corinth.  you've got factions (1 Cor. 1-3) , disagreement over the authority of the apostles (chapter 4) gross sexual immorality (5-incest/adultery; 6-promiscuity), people suing each other (6), people with weird ideas about celibacy (7), gluttony & discrimination in Communion (10), chaotic worship services (14), and even doubts about the resurrection of Christ!! (15) All this to the point that God was putting church members to death in loving judgement (11:13)!! I find it so striking that Paul nowhere commands the faithful to leave and start another church.  NOWHERE!  On the contrary, he exhorts them to be unified, to stop sinning and embrace righteousness, and then -as a unified body- to discipline those in their midst who insisted on persisting in sin.  Nowhere do we read anything like "but if these issues seem disturbing, you should leave these so-called brothers of yours and quietly begin worshipping in the house of a faithful man.  I will send another pastor to shepherd you there soon."  Granted, there wasn't "First Church of Straight Street of Corinth," competing with "First Modern Church of Corinth--"  they were all house fellowships, probably meeting in different locations as persecution came and their numbers grew, yet still in fellowship and communion with each other-- so it's not like they could really leave a church in the same way we can now (which I believe is a travesty!).  Instead, Paul had the confidence that I do: that the work of the Holy Spirit, through the Word spoken and read, will transform a church rife with problems and DEAL with those problems.  I am NOT advocating silently letting Jesus' church do things utterly dishonoring to Him.  Paul doesn't tell people to just stick it out without a peep-- on the contrary, he rebukes them, and urges church discipline!  In other letters he does the same to other churches.  So does Jesus in Revelation 2.  If you've see an issue in a church, and after much prayer you still see it, it's probably there!  So do you just leave?  Is that the Biblical thing to do?  Is that the God-glorifying-est option? If we can't easily answer those questions, we can certainly answer this one:  is it the most loving, others-serving thing to do?  As one of those left behind, I can painfully say, "no."  It sure isn't loving to leave someone in their sin, ignorance, misunderstanding or struggle; neither is it loving to leave a group of people similarly set.  Talk to us!  Tell us what you think and what you see!  Oh how I grieve when I imagine how strong and joyful Grace Baptist would be if all those who had left had stayed.  Such godly people!  Such diversity, such strength there would be!  Oh, why did you leave!?  I plead with you who haven't left yet (and if you've just left, come back!), instead of leaving, work to BE a part of the solution.  SERVE us if we are weak.  That's how Jesus dealt with the 12!  He was so far above their petty arguments over who was the Greatest, and He didn't leave them.  On the contrary, He washed their feet and died for them.  Don't walk away in your "strength" and leave us in our weakness.

Thirdly, whoever you are:  you are a sinner!!  What does that have to do with anything?  It means I KNOW you will never find a perfect church:  wherever you go, YOU will be there, so it WON'T be perfect.  Gospel-embracing churches, made up of Gospel-embracing people, are beautiful precisely because they are embracing the Gospel-- that means they are loudly proclaiming that it took the death of God to pay for their God-offending sin, and that they STILL need His grace every single day!  The best churches are ones full of self-acknowledged sinners... meaning that even the best churches will still be flawed.  The excuse "I wasn't growing anymore, so I left" is one that is waaaay over-used.  And that is your pastor's fault how?  Is it ever valid?  Quite likely.  If the Word is not being faithfully taught and given as food, the people will be hungry.  But again, is the answer to immediately, quietly, leave?  NO!!  The problem might be you!  Are you resisting growth?  Are you being lazy in your pursuit of personal holiness, and then blaming a preacher or a teacher for not pulling you along?  Are you being open and honest, confessing and confronting sin to/in your friends, or are you remaining isolated, surface-deep, and blind?  You will not grow if you are not pursuing the means of grace.  "The godly are easily encouraged," as one man said.  If you are honestly pursuing growth and it is not coming, or if you see a deficiency, then speak up!  Go humbly to your brother and share your burden for his good, your good, and the good of all your neighbors.  Your pastor may not be the best preacher, but he probably loves you. If you see a lack of clear teaching, be open to modeling good teaching.  If you sense shallow "fellowship," invite a few out for coffee and try to be open with them (do a book study on "Because He Loves Me," "The Cross-Centered Life," "Gospel Transformation," or "A Gospel Primer" for great starters).  PRAY.  The Lord might use YOU to be the agent of grace in the church where you are struggling.  Look around at the people you're thinking of abandoning, and think "wouldn't I rather be used to encourage them?"  God has you where you are for a reason.  It probably isn't to just stop growing spiritually, whimper and then slink out.

Lastly, you are hurting yourself, and setting yourself up for blindness and sin.  Leaving a church always hurts you, even if you don't expect it to.  When you leave those who know you best, and start over somewhere else, you lose the accountability you had.  You open the door to sin and blindness-- because who's gonna know you there?  Who will love you enough to speak the truth in love?  You are likely taking a shortcut, the easy way out, and we all know that isn't how God's Grace works. He saves us all at once (justification), but then He keeps saving us (sanctification) for long agonizing joyful years.  He doesn't infuse us with patience; no, He gives the testing of our faith which PRODUCES patience (James 1:2).  That means He gives us hard medicine that tastes yucky, to work a beautiful cure.  That might include bearing with a church that's not perfect, and working lovingly, humbly with them THROUGH those imperfections, both teaching and being taught.  Maybe you feel like your church isn't letting you live up to your full potential.  Maybe that's because you think too highly of your potential.  The one who skips all that and walks away is taking the easy way out.  We shun quick fixes like diet pills... why do we think a quick fix of a church change will be any better for our spiritual health?  I've seen people leave because they were having marital problems, because they just broke up, because their children were rebelling, and shame drove them away.  "What would people say if they knew?"  Yikes!  You NEED those who love you and will speak the truth and listen in love, more than ever.  You of all people, stay!  Let us love you! Yeah, it will hurt, and it will be hard... but it's still good.  Slightly differently, I've heard people leave because they were newly weds and/or new parents and wanted to start out on their own or find a church that could better serve them at that new stage.  The same applies to you!  You are not as strong as you think you are.

One last word to those who want to leave a fellowship for entirely other reasons- maybe a passion for a certain people group, maybe a gifting that's duplicated within your church fellowship.  Those gifts are given you by God TO SERVE HIS CHURCH.  First of all, talk to your church leaders- don't just "inform" them that you are leaving and why.  Let them be a part of it-- they are your authority and can give guidance you need.  Then talk to your fellow church members, at least some of it.  Don't they deserve an explanation, if not consultation?  Do they see how you could plug into the church?  If they agree that your leaving is advantageous to the Gospel, and your passions & gifts can't be incorporated into your church body as it is, then by all means expand your church!  Start a new ministry.  Move to that other neighborhood, or city, or country.  If it just isn't feasible to stay at your church, make it a matter of expansion and growth, not disunion and stunting.  Gather people around you, watching your back, holding you accountable, and praying for you.  At the very least, be honest.  Wouldn't you rather be sent than just leave?

I write this so thankful for those who have stayed at Grace.  I have watched you grow as you've stayed and pressed on.  I will testify of how it has done you good; how you have been rewarded for your steadfastness, patience, and willingness to be wronged.  Your faces flash across my mind, and I'm afraid to name you, because I know I'll leave someone out, but I also want to honor those deserving of honor. ... remember that I'm typing this from 450 miles away, and be gracious to me. :) Glenn & Helen, Mark & Cheryl, David & Kimi, Bruce & Jean, Jamie & Lydia, Ed & Miriam, Lou & Sally- you've been there since before I was. Ben & Denise, Ryan & Lydia, Craig & Ashley- you've stayed when many of your age left.  Blaine & Wendy, Jack & Janice, Jim & Robin, Mark & Kathryn, Seth & Katie, Victor & Ellen- you put your hand to the plow and haven't turned back.  Chad & Melanie, Glyn & Jo Lin, Doug & Beth, Mike & Linda, Todd, Ravonda, Pene-- you came and haven't left.  Of course there's my parents, Bart & Karina.  And Bob & Cathi, Aaron & Rachel, we know you love us and are so glad you're back.  

Please know that I write this in all humility, out of deep love for the honor and good of Christ's Bride-- He values her, thus so should I!--and especially my brothers at Grace, who have been hurt again and again.  May God in His mercy strengthen you and use you to do great things!

--Christina