"Why has my pain been perpetual
And my wound incurable, refusing to be healed?
Will You indeed be to me like a deceptive stream
With water that is unreliable?
Therefore, thus says the LORD,
'If you return, then I will restore you--
Before Me you will stand;
And if you extract the precious from the worthless,
You will become My spokesman.
They for their part may turn to you,
But as for you, you must not turn to them.
Then I will make you to this people
A fortified wall of bronze;
And though they fight against you,
They will not prevail over you;
For I am with you to save you
And deliver you,' declares the LORD."(Jeremiah 15: 18-19)
My Lord came to me in a flutter of realization: the beautiful, powerful truth about Jeremiah and his heart-to-heart with God. Is that what I had been missing in my prayer life, oozing to my everyday life, all these years? My melancholy, my cynicism, my oft-repeated sorrows...was this the life I had built because I had refused to notice the heart of God saying, "extract the precious from the worthless, then you will become my spokesman?" Suddenly it all became clear: I, the complainer, had got it all wrong. God does listen, He does want to hear my heart, my troubles. But He is blessed--sing-out-loud, dance-for-joy blessed--when I choose to cling to the good words, even to speak the good words in His Book back to Him, for lack of nothing else sometimes. He doesn't require it, but He whispers it: "extract the precious from the worthless." So many words are worthless. So many, many of mine, worthless. And for me to speak them was self-administered poison; they hung in the air and clung to the pages, dripping self-pity, spinning a habit. Now extract the precious, "speak good words rather than worthless ones," and you will be His spokesman. To make leaders for the Kingdom of our children, we must teach them to speak the good words, declaring God's eternal virtues rather than their individual sorrows. The high road of words applies even to prayers. God is good. God loves to hear goodness!
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Sunday, January 9, 2011
breastfeeding "rights" activism
Recently, in one of my Facebook forums, there was a discussion about the "censorship" of breastfeeding pictures. Apparently there is a group on Facebook called "The Leaky B@@b," for "breastfeeding support."There was some discussion as to whether they should be allowed to continue posting pictures that in other circumstances would be censored due to inappropriate content. Here is my take:
To me, "the leaky boob" seems like a name that exists merely for shock value and... not very complementary to mothers or the lovely, intimate, nurturing miracle that is breastfeeding. as for breastfeeding photos in general, i don't see a reason that they should be on FB. Wouldn't it be nice if mothers stopped lobbying so hard to have the "right" to put up pictures of their breastfeeding babies and instead focused on changing the culture from the onside out--from the HOME? each of us have at least one, and many of us have more, little malleable minds in our home, and whether we have boys or girls, we can train them up into a better standard of modesty and respect than what the current culture has going. our children WILL be the next generation's leaders, ESPECIALLY if we pray for them, and train them NOT TO SIMPLY FOLLOW what is society's current norm. by that, i mean not to lash out disrespectfully, but to have the courage to live by God's standard. yes, it is unfair that people can have nappy mini skirt and see-through-shirt pictures up and nobody complains, BUT i think more than react to what is going on in the culture, we should seek God's eternal principles on how to behave, and take it from there with a joyful attitude.
If people are ostracizing breastfeeding women in society, that is something to perhaps attack with a bit more vigor, i.e. if women are getting kicked out of restaurants when they were modestly breastfeeding, but i don't see it worth it to fight for pictures on the internet so that we can have the same rights as people whose lifestyle we don't desire anyway... having a picture up that would cause some lude person to drool over your parts is really not something to be desired. consider this quote from joseph sobran in 'national review:' "the real problem is that sexual freedom has meant, for millions of people, a cluster of debasing addictions. we are offering human beings the kind of freedom appropriate to dogs." The fact is that we live in a fallen world, and we cannot eliminate the perversity in people's minds by feeding ourselves to them.
Secondly, i don't think that most men even feel turned on by looking at breastfeeding women. in my observation, it seems to make most men uncomfortable. they feel fine when a scantily clad woman walks into the restaurant and may be "all over" her, but will stammer and not make eye contact around a woman who is nursing a baby under full cover. this shows the perversity of what human nature has made breasts into. they are now seen primarily as men's "fun bags;" and breastfeeding has become secondary, even weird, when just by looking at the apparatus it is obvious that God made them primarily to feed babies. If we can start the revolution at home, educating our offspring to have a healthy perspective on the original purpose for sex, breasts, etc., we will do a lot better than to spend time arguing and elbowing for a spot in the display case with the rest of the world.
That being said, if you are in a country where women have always breast fed in public with no covering, i say go for it. that society probably will not do to you what this society will, because it still retains more of the perspective of original purpose. also, i think it necessary to have some websites up that show breastfeeding pics/ videos simply for the sake of tutoring other mothers, but they could probably be animated or at least show as little as possible of the rest of the breast!
To me, "the leaky boob" seems like a name that exists merely for shock value and... not very complementary to mothers or the lovely, intimate, nurturing miracle that is breastfeeding. as for breastfeeding photos in general, i don't see a reason that they should be on FB. Wouldn't it be nice if mothers stopped lobbying so hard to have the "right" to put up pictures of their breastfeeding babies and instead focused on changing the culture from the onside out--from the HOME? each of us have at least one, and many of us have more, little malleable minds in our home, and whether we have boys or girls, we can train them up into a better standard of modesty and respect than what the current culture has going. our children WILL be the next generation's leaders, ESPECIALLY if we pray for them, and train them NOT TO SIMPLY FOLLOW what is society's current norm. by that, i mean not to lash out disrespectfully, but to have the courage to live by God's standard. yes, it is unfair that people can have nappy mini skirt and see-through-shirt pictures up and nobody complains, BUT i think more than react to what is going on in the culture, we should seek God's eternal principles on how to behave, and take it from there with a joyful attitude.
If people are ostracizing breastfeeding women in society, that is something to perhaps attack with a bit more vigor, i.e. if women are getting kicked out of restaurants when they were modestly breastfeeding, but i don't see it worth it to fight for pictures on the internet so that we can have the same rights as people whose lifestyle we don't desire anyway... having a picture up that would cause some lude person to drool over your parts is really not something to be desired. consider this quote from joseph sobran in 'national review:' "the real problem is that sexual freedom has meant, for millions of people, a cluster of debasing addictions. we are offering human beings the kind of freedom appropriate to dogs." The fact is that we live in a fallen world, and we cannot eliminate the perversity in people's minds by feeding ourselves to them.
Secondly, i don't think that most men even feel turned on by looking at breastfeeding women. in my observation, it seems to make most men uncomfortable. they feel fine when a scantily clad woman walks into the restaurant and may be "all over" her, but will stammer and not make eye contact around a woman who is nursing a baby under full cover. this shows the perversity of what human nature has made breasts into. they are now seen primarily as men's "fun bags;" and breastfeeding has become secondary, even weird, when just by looking at the apparatus it is obvious that God made them primarily to feed babies. If we can start the revolution at home, educating our offspring to have a healthy perspective on the original purpose for sex, breasts, etc., we will do a lot better than to spend time arguing and elbowing for a spot in the display case with the rest of the world.
That being said, if you are in a country where women have always breast fed in public with no covering, i say go for it. that society probably will not do to you what this society will, because it still retains more of the perspective of original purpose. also, i think it necessary to have some websites up that show breastfeeding pics/ videos simply for the sake of tutoring other mothers, but they could probably be animated or at least show as little as possible of the rest of the breast!
Saturday, January 1, 2011
the purpose for families
My friend had a cousin who got pregnant out of wedlock while she was still living at home with her parents. Instead of telling her parents, she decided to hide the pregnancy, which she managed to do, living under her parents' roof, eventually privately giving birth to a baby in her own room, and cutting the cord with craft scissors. Her dad was none the wiser until he heard a baby crying. Is something wrong with this picture? perhaps the reason this girl got so few HUGS at home was one of the factors that led her to seek physical fulfillment elsewhere in the first place. Families can be so discombobulated nowadays! I believe that the main reason is that people have simply lost the vision for what a family is supposed to be.
When God created the world, He decided to perpetuate the race through FAMILIES. He could have made children grow on trees and a special kind of animal that herded them around until they were able to take care of themselves. He could have made each person to "hatch" from a pod, as a complete, ready-made adult. But what he chose to do was to create units called families, where the young would be nurtured and taught by the older. Where the older would have that supreme opportunity for that kind of sacrifice which gives wisdom. Where there would be incentive to learn to get along with those of other ages and stages in life. Families were also the primary avenue that God would use to pass on His ways to subsequent peoples: "from generation to generation." (Not churches, Sunday schools, foreign missions, Christian concerts, Christian books, or youth groups.)
And He chose to create these families, as C.S. Lewis put it, through a "curious process, involving pleasure, pain, and danger. a process you would never have guessed." (Mere Christianity) There is something sacred in the way that sex works because it is God's way of allowing us to 1) mirror Christ's intimate relationship with the church, and 2) step into the miracle of creation. No other physical activity is so rich in its eternal potential. the modern world, having lost all sense of Christ, has of course, lost all sense of sex as a picture of God's intimacy with us. But even the majority of the Christian world has lost the idea of the second point, being allowed to and called to participate with God in creation. For some reason, whether you are Christian or not, sex has become "just for fun," and is separated most of the time from the idea of babies. God did not create it like this. He did not intend for the act to be done for its own sake, but rather to have a very deep purpose, a mystery, and to involve a giving up of self: giving up your body to one's spouse, and giving up control to God for the decision to open the womb or close it, to create another person or not. In my view, this is one of the primary reasons the purpose for families has been lost: because first the purpose for sex was lost.
Here are the elements about a family that make it distinct from other groups of people: one father, one mother, and one womb with a limited time for potentially bringing forth children. God's desire for families is that they should perpetuate a godly seed (Malachi 2:15), reflect who He is (Christ/church: husband/wife; God/Christians: parents/children), and be a powerful cell group that ministers to each created person in an individual way, and also blesses the rest of the world through its activities. God created the family structure the way He did because it was the best way for human relationships to bring Him glory. People may believe that this has changed, or that the role of family is now replaced by the church. But there is no such indication in the New Testament. In fact, one of the main functions of John the Baptist was to "turn the hearts of the Fathers back to the children." He did this in order to prepare people for receiving the Lord (Luke 1:17); I think that is very telling.
It seems to me that many evangelical circles are missing this major element of emphasis on family; there seem to be a lot of organizations and groups formed around purposes, sometimes effectively replacing that core group: the family. there is nothing wrong with forming evangelistic groups around noble Christian purposes, but it is absolutely essential that the family does not get shoved to the background. Even in the assemblies where they used to read the law to the people, God made a point of it that ALL the people should attend the assembly: men, women, infants, toddlers, guests, and foreigners who were living among them. (Deut. 29:10-12, 31:12, Josh. 8:35, etc.) I wonder how we got the idea that sending the children off to "age-appropriate"sunday school programs would be a better way? This segregation of age groups in spiritual matters follows the world's pattern of doing things (especially when parents "need a break") and assumes that parents are not fit to teach their children, nor children able or fit to stay in the large assembly. Both of these attitudes contribute to family separation and the further disjunction of the family in general. The idea that young children can't be trained to sit quietly is more and more prevalent because of the lack of opportunity or need to do so. In reality, the Bible has God giving the command to pass on His ways directly to parents several times; they are to speak of His ways to their children all day long (Deut. 6:7, 11:19) . Not send them off somewhere else to hopefully learn a bit of his ways from someone else whom the parents don't even know.
Let us honor God by accepting our important role as families! Let us lead our children in the Way uncompromisingly, talking of God with them all day long. God has amazing fruit for the family that is willing to function in the way He created! We must be willing to step out of the cultural "norms" and believe there is a better, more enduring way. May His wisdom and power be with you as you lead your family!
When God created the world, He decided to perpetuate the race through FAMILIES. He could have made children grow on trees and a special kind of animal that herded them around until they were able to take care of themselves. He could have made each person to "hatch" from a pod, as a complete, ready-made adult. But what he chose to do was to create units called families, where the young would be nurtured and taught by the older. Where the older would have that supreme opportunity for that kind of sacrifice which gives wisdom. Where there would be incentive to learn to get along with those of other ages and stages in life. Families were also the primary avenue that God would use to pass on His ways to subsequent peoples: "from generation to generation." (Not churches, Sunday schools, foreign missions, Christian concerts, Christian books, or youth groups.)
And He chose to create these families, as C.S. Lewis put it, through a "curious process, involving pleasure, pain, and danger. a process you would never have guessed." (Mere Christianity) There is something sacred in the way that sex works because it is God's way of allowing us to 1) mirror Christ's intimate relationship with the church, and 2) step into the miracle of creation. No other physical activity is so rich in its eternal potential. the modern world, having lost all sense of Christ, has of course, lost all sense of sex as a picture of God's intimacy with us. But even the majority of the Christian world has lost the idea of the second point, being allowed to and called to participate with God in creation. For some reason, whether you are Christian or not, sex has become "just for fun," and is separated most of the time from the idea of babies. God did not create it like this. He did not intend for the act to be done for its own sake, but rather to have a very deep purpose, a mystery, and to involve a giving up of self: giving up your body to one's spouse, and giving up control to God for the decision to open the womb or close it, to create another person or not. In my view, this is one of the primary reasons the purpose for families has been lost: because first the purpose for sex was lost.
Here are the elements about a family that make it distinct from other groups of people: one father, one mother, and one womb with a limited time for potentially bringing forth children. God's desire for families is that they should perpetuate a godly seed (Malachi 2:15), reflect who He is (Christ/church: husband/wife; God/Christians: parents/children), and be a powerful cell group that ministers to each created person in an individual way, and also blesses the rest of the world through its activities. God created the family structure the way He did because it was the best way for human relationships to bring Him glory. People may believe that this has changed, or that the role of family is now replaced by the church. But there is no such indication in the New Testament. In fact, one of the main functions of John the Baptist was to "turn the hearts of the Fathers back to the children." He did this in order to prepare people for receiving the Lord (Luke 1:17); I think that is very telling.
It seems to me that many evangelical circles are missing this major element of emphasis on family; there seem to be a lot of organizations and groups formed around purposes, sometimes effectively replacing that core group: the family. there is nothing wrong with forming evangelistic groups around noble Christian purposes, but it is absolutely essential that the family does not get shoved to the background. Even in the assemblies where they used to read the law to the people, God made a point of it that ALL the people should attend the assembly: men, women, infants, toddlers, guests, and foreigners who were living among them. (Deut. 29:10-12, 31:12, Josh. 8:35, etc.) I wonder how we got the idea that sending the children off to "age-appropriate"sunday school programs would be a better way? This segregation of age groups in spiritual matters follows the world's pattern of doing things (especially when parents "need a break") and assumes that parents are not fit to teach their children, nor children able or fit to stay in the large assembly. Both of these attitudes contribute to family separation and the further disjunction of the family in general. The idea that young children can't be trained to sit quietly is more and more prevalent because of the lack of opportunity or need to do so. In reality, the Bible has God giving the command to pass on His ways directly to parents several times; they are to speak of His ways to their children all day long (Deut. 6:7, 11:19) . Not send them off somewhere else to hopefully learn a bit of his ways from someone else whom the parents don't even know.
Let us honor God by accepting our important role as families! Let us lead our children in the Way uncompromisingly, talking of God with them all day long. God has amazing fruit for the family that is willing to function in the way He created! We must be willing to step out of the cultural "norms" and believe there is a better, more enduring way. May His wisdom and power be with you as you lead your family!
Monday, October 4, 2010
It is He who has made us...
i have been thinking about and questioning recently my motives and logic in the position i take on family planning, because i keep having conversations with my friends, and the general opinion seems to be, 'if you feel convicted to do that, that's fine, but it has to be an individual calling.' i also hear much of 'some people just can't handle having that many.' and then i try to challenge myself by reminding myself that now that i am not pregnant anymore, i am very likely to get pregnant again. would i be eating my words if i became pregnant right now? ...no. i can honestly say, God has brought me to such a point of faith in Himself as the Author of Life that i would gladly receive another from Him, even right now.
i had a revelation the other day: when i stand before God at the end of the ages with my nine--or however many--children, what will He say to me? will He say, "badly done, doris! these first three are ok, but those last six should never have existed! i wish your first three had had nicer stuff and paid-for college educations instead!" NO! GOD is the One who creates life. He delights in LIFE. the Bible says in psalm 100:3, "it is He who has made us, and not we ourselves." people may think that reproduction is just a human thing that the Lord has given us "stewardship" over, but this psalm would suggest otherwise. He is the active initiator of the conception and creation of each life. He allows us to participate in creation, but He has made the process perfect. why do we feel that we have to tweak and adjust it, whether by unnaturally timing our relations with our spouse to avoid pregnancy (ironically called "natural" family planning), or by ingesting artificial hormones to make our bodies think we are already pregnant? (the pill, by the way, has three functions, and one of them is aborting the fertilized egg if its other two mechanisms fail... something your doctor will never freely tell you. read more about it in randy alcorn's "does the birth control pill cause abortions." ) are these actions not rooted in the belief that we ourselves make children?
once we realize that God is the One who is making each child, how dare we try to cut Him off, even for the sake of "stewardship" or "ministry"? does He not know the details of our life, does He not have control over it, can He not provide for it, even if we have more children? i have been reading about the arnold pent family in a wonderful book called "ten p's in a pod." this family had eight children. did that stop them from ministry? were they looking only inwardly, creating inward-focused, ministry-incompetent children? no. they spent their lives traveling by car across the country ministering all together, preaching, singing, and giving the Word. it IS possible. yes, they dealt with uncomfortable beds at times, old clothes, and very little discretionary spending money, but is that why we are really cutting off our offspring? because we are afraid to wear old clothes and have no cash? we all say that money is not important, and yet we live as though it were. GOD WILL PROVIDE. it is just that we are afraid of what He will provide, aren't we? we know He will provide for our sustenance, but we also know He might not provide for our idea of what a good life is: matching curtains and toys at christmas, a mortgage, and air conditioning in the car. so we forget the high road of faith and tell ourselves that we need to be good stewards and create a good life for the children we already have.
before i got married, i thought i could not handle having children. but God gave me one anyway, and i adjusted my thinking and priorities according to what He was calling me to. when i had one child, i thought i could only handle one. but God gave me another one. and i again had to adjust, and as i did, God gave me the strength for each day, and i became a better mother. i become better with each new child. If you are in bold faith before the Lord, will He give you more than you can handle? NO! He will give you one at a time (usually!) and the grace to do it well as long as you continue to rely on Him and rely on Him and rely on Him.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
blessed motherhood (originally written october 2009)
i am so blessed by these amazing children. i am truly not worthy to be their mother. but that's what God made me! i know it is who i am. i am fully embracing motherhood, LOVING motherhood, not just loving my children, and there is a difference. i have been hugely changed recently by the "Above Rubies" ministry. a few tidbits of what i've learned that is transforming me to peace in motherhood:
-did you know that "El Shaddai" means almighty breast? yes! "shad" in hebrew is the word for a woman's breast! see, God's beautiful mother-heart is there, too, and women have such honor before God. i am mother, and i believe it is a calling for every woman to embrace motherhood, whether married or not, with children or not. we must get back to how God made us at the beginning.
-speaking of the beginning, when eve was named, she was called "woman," which MEANS... womb-man! our WOMB is THE defining characteristic about us! that is what God wanted to define about us, how can we reject our own womb? i am tired of society belittling mothers and motherhood, and tearing down the honor of the place in the home.
-give me children! was the cry of the Biblical women. oftentimes we reject the many godly offspring God wants to give us, with the excuse of "good stewardship first" (but who placed the priority on stewardship while giving up the natural function of the body to accomplish it?), and then we wonder why our society has gone downhill. we simply don't have the numbers to sustain a christian society! that is not the reason we should try to have a lot of children, however. i don't think we should all try to have as many children as humanly possible. but i have come to see the beauty in completely surrendering your fertility and womb to the one who made them, for those who can accept this. (elizabeth from "raising godly tomatoes" has some good words on this as well.) the Bible warns about exchanging the natural function for that which is unnatural in Romans 1:26, which says,
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural"
in this passage, the word for "women" comes from the root word for "breastfeeding." and this is one of only five places in the Bible where that word, thelazo, is used for "woman" instead of the one that means simply "wife." Wow!
as you can see, i've been pondering these things, and all i can say that it is SO freeing to give up all of myself to the Lord! in deuteronomy 28, the Lord promises to bless israel with offspring FIRST, and then he speaks of blessing the fields and the livestock, to provide for those He has given.
4"Blessed shall be the offspring of your body and the produce of your ground and the offspring of your beasts, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock. 5 Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl."
that is a beautiful promise to me. may the Lord give us all patience, grace, and infinite, deep, sweet GOLD in our mothering and fathering.
-did you know that "El Shaddai" means almighty breast? yes! "shad" in hebrew is the word for a woman's breast! see, God's beautiful mother-heart is there, too, and women have such honor before God. i am mother, and i believe it is a calling for every woman to embrace motherhood, whether married or not, with children or not. we must get back to how God made us at the beginning.
-speaking of the beginning, when eve was named, she was called "woman," which MEANS... womb-man! our WOMB is THE defining characteristic about us! that is what God wanted to define about us, how can we reject our own womb? i am tired of society belittling mothers and motherhood, and tearing down the honor of the place in the home.
-give me children! was the cry of the Biblical women. oftentimes we reject the many godly offspring God wants to give us, with the excuse of "good stewardship first" (but who placed the priority on stewardship while giving up the natural function of the body to accomplish it?), and then we wonder why our society has gone downhill. we simply don't have the numbers to sustain a christian society! that is not the reason we should try to have a lot of children, however. i don't think we should all try to have as many children as humanly possible. but i have come to see the beauty in completely surrendering your fertility and womb to the one who made them, for those who can accept this. (elizabeth from "raising godly tomatoes" has some good words on this as well.) the Bible warns about exchanging the natural function for that which is unnatural in Romans 1:26, which says,
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural"
in this passage, the word for "women" comes from the root word for "breastfeeding." and this is one of only five places in the Bible where that word, thelazo, is used for "woman" instead of the one that means simply "wife." Wow!
as you can see, i've been pondering these things, and all i can say that it is SO freeing to give up all of myself to the Lord! in deuteronomy 28, the Lord promises to bless israel with offspring FIRST, and then he speaks of blessing the fields and the livestock, to provide for those He has given.
4"Blessed shall be the offspring of your body and the produce of your ground and the offspring of your beasts, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock. 5 Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl."
that is a beautiful promise to me. may the Lord give us all patience, grace, and infinite, deep, sweet GOLD in our mothering and fathering.
Monday, July 12, 2010
another challenge from the pulpit (originally written on Oct. 25, '09)
the content of today's sermon had to be absorbed, fully absorbed, by squirming little me sitting in the pew without my Bible or notebook (forgot them in the car!); i could not get buried in copious note taking! there was talk of Jesus as flesh, fully man, and then it came around to the fact that the church, we, should look like Jesus. and a very interesting thing was pointed out, which was that Jesus was not out to change the political climate. he chose a politically oppressed time to come into the world, but he operated amazingly well from the margins and did not strive to conquer in political avenues, as the people had expected the messiah to. three common mistakes of the church were pointed out to us in this nice little package:
1. cocoon
2. combat
3. conform
right? sometimes we cocoon ourselves, try to hide from the world, just have a nice clean churchy atmosphere, hedge in our children. sometimes we combat in a way that is not like Jesus. we fight political and intellectual battles. we think we can win people over with logic. we think we can change the climate of our country by convincing enough people of the "right" politics. sometimes we conform to the world, not looking any different than the rest of society at large. all these are wrong.
so here's the one that hit home the most for me: COMBAT. NOW it makes sense why my pastor has been (eerily, i thought) silent on the subject of our so obviously anti-christian president. i, on the other hand, have not been silent. i like to get agro about it, because it upsets me, frankly, that he seems to be on a fast track to bulldozing the best ideals that any country could hold, as outlined in our constitution. i realized awhile ago that it does no good to merely change laws, if people's hearts are still inclined toward wickedness. that is like forcing a child to act good but not addressing the heart, attitude, and needs. however, it grieves me immensely that many Christians voted for this man who openly supports abortion, thinks it a priority to speak on the virtue of leaving abortion-survived babies out to die alone, and is taking our country in a direction opposite of the freedom-championing land we have been for so long. i still think it is a priority to oppose this kind of politics, for the sake of our children. a comment the pastor spoke today was that once the church started operating out of the framework of "christendom" in constantine's time, that led us into the dark ages, and that the church has always operated most powerfully from the margins, as did Jesus. well... i wouldn't go so far as to say that the dark ages were caused because the church held influence over politics. on the contrary, it was because the church ended up submitting itself to politics. francis schaeffer points out that every time a new society is formed on inspiration from the Bible, it is a society that is freer and fairer, and has a higher standard of living than the old one. so it is not bad at all to have a Christian-based society, as it ends up being better for all people in it, whether they believe or not. and THAT is exactly why it is so hard to see it go under the current administration. so, i don't think it is bad to try to stem the political tide, it is just not our primary goal. heart-change, grassroots change from the inside out in obedience to the Lord's commission, is. without alienating people or shouting or frowning. when people encountered Jesus, they didn't feel they had to walk on eggshells. they fell at his feet! (i have a feeling, however, that some people will take this sermon to mean that christians should not vote or become politicians because Jesus was not a politician. which is NOT a proper way of thinking! Jesus was also not a husband or father, yet we don't say it is bad to be a father or husband. the point is not so much the avenue we take in life, as the attitude: humility.)
coming home from church, i realized that this sermon is for once enormously relevant for me as a woman, a stay-at home mom, because ALL of these points can be and should be primarily lived out in the context of home and family. (side note: i have lately found that church preachin' doesn't often hit home in the life of the stay-at-home mother. no, it can be super resonant and good, but the fact is that male pastors don't truly KNOW the soul and marrow of a woman's life. Which is why the Bible instructs older women to teach younger women. i have been so much edified recently by a cd series by nancy campbell, called "God's Grace at My Place." wow, those talks get me going and amped about my life and calling as i listen to them while chopping vegetables, stirring soup.) so this sermon, though the pastor did not necessarily mean for it to translate like this (hee hee!) was directly for mothers. the three common mistakes the church makes are first failures in the families that make up the church, and here i will take more time to explain.
cocooning--we all know the Christian parents who overly shield their children from the world... it is a sad sight, and stunts their development into responsible, critically-thinking Christians, as well as insulting their intelligence. however, let me make it clear that home schooling is not necessarily borne of overprotection. as the pastor was talking about cocooning, i specifically examined myself and what i have learned about culture, christianity, homeschooling, and education in general. parents need to choose their child's school environment based on what is BEST for the child. i personally believe that in the early years, anyway, children are designed to be CLOSE to their mother, until their worldview is established and the Biblical framework can be engraved into the little heart. also, so that they may have constant supervision in learning good behaviors without too much interference from outside sources at a tender age. i believe this tender age can vary from child to child. sparrow definitely still needs a few more years at home next to me! i may be ready to send her to a good school in several years, depending on what is available. however, judging from the crowd-control that public schools tend to spend so much wasteful time in, i would rather choose a private school of some sort. and since... we probably will never be able to afford that, at THIS point, i believe that homeschooling is truly going to be the environment that offers the most opportunity for my daughters' growing, thirsty minds.
i believe in a "liberal" education, however: that they should be introduced to different ideas and people, so that they might learn to think, and to think critically. i am NOT going to saturate these little ones with exclusively Christian workbooks and curricula, but will seek the BEST materials in every subject and allow their minds to handle all sorts of ideas. for all truth is God's truth, and excellence glorifies God. Not to mention that they will likely get bored with excessive Christian lecturing. the world and life God meant us to experience is EXCITING! and they should experience the richness of all of His creation, not feel as though they are being hedged in by paranoid, predigested drivel. When they come into contact with God's word directly, they will respond to it. i have been reading susan schaeffer macauley's "for the children's sake," and completely agree that we should not set up too many interpreters between God's word and the child himself. not only is it condescending, but it can be distracting, or even mundane. God's Word LIVES, and it will speak for itself.
i think that many Christian parents of today make the opposite mistake: sending their children TO school outside the home as a reaction to "churchianity," or even believing that they need to send their little ones out there to witness, to "see what the real world is like," or to "get socialized." it is equally wrong to send your child to a school just because you think they should be out in the world for some reason or other, as it is to keep them at home as a reaction to the evil in the world. one MUST choose the BEST education for the individual child. speaking of socialization, the idea that little ones won't be emotionally healthy unless they are frequently in large groups of other children--is bunk. this does not come from the Bible, nor from proper research. children, as they grow older, may come into contact with all kinds of people at their parents' dinner table or at extracurricular activities. but to think that a toddler needs to be socialized! i have been reading laura ingalls wilder with sparrow. did that family feel the need to go live in a city so they could socialize their children? No! but look at how amazing those girls turned out, along with many, many other home-taught families over the years, who had no access to daycare or preschool, but instead had firm, loving, God-fearing parents. healthy social interactions and habits are grown out of a good home life first of all, with a strong family dynamic in a secure environment where healthy communication habits are emphasized, and preference for others is taught by living it out on a daily basis.
speaking of healthy family life, this brings me to my next point: the "combative" problem as arising out of improper home life. not only the obvious point that if one's family models arguing and negotiating, the child will learn to be argumentative and try to negotiate his way through life. this, i believe, also happens when the child is given too much free reign in the home, where mother tries to cater to every desire as far as she is able instead of using the home as a training ground for learning self-control and submission. (i was one of these mothers! perhaps still am too much, if i think about it.) it IS right for the child to learn the benefits of submission by submitting to parents "because this is right" (eph. 6:1). they can experience God's blessing this way, and when they interact in the real world, not feel like they always need to conquer by arguing or striving. personally, in my home growing up, i know we were allowed to get away with much too much back talking and arguing our position. and i KNOW that being combative is still one of my biggest challenges. in fact, when i got home from church, i facebooked two friends in particular with which i have displayed this attitude in politics recently, and apologized. i had to get humble, knowing the Bible is right: you cannot win hearts by striving, even with pristine logic.
as for the conformity problem, the family and home is also the best place to stay that tide. a child wholly accepted, known, and loved for who he is at home obviously feels less need to go find his identity in the world somewhere. however, even many lovely Christian homes and families these days are modeling conformity to the world, not only in their time spent at the TV or sending mother out to work. but i'd like to ask this question: what about our fertility? why has the Christian world followed the secular world when it comes to family planning? if true social change is to be from the bottom up, grassroots, heart-change, can you imagine the kind of impact we could have had by now if we had all allowed the Lord to give us the families He wanted us to have? We would be sending out many more warriors equipped to show Jesus to their peers! perhaps the reason why only 15% of non believers think that the Christians they know are significantly different from anyone else is because we have followed society in what they have decided about how a family should be planned, limited, controlled. this matter affects everything in your life! when you say "yes" to God, not knowing how many children he might give you, or when, it forces you to live in a much more dependent way, with urgent faith for God to provide for those He gave. (and He WILL provide, that is a scriptural promise. first he blesses the offspring of the womb, THEN the fruit of the field and livestock...) You give up control. Life becomes a daily mission of self-sacrifice, and self-sacrifice is THE characteristic the Lord wants to build in us, is it not? (God give me grace in this!)
So go my thoughts in recent sermons...
1. cocoon
2. combat
3. conform
right? sometimes we cocoon ourselves, try to hide from the world, just have a nice clean churchy atmosphere, hedge in our children. sometimes we combat in a way that is not like Jesus. we fight political and intellectual battles. we think we can win people over with logic. we think we can change the climate of our country by convincing enough people of the "right" politics. sometimes we conform to the world, not looking any different than the rest of society at large. all these are wrong.
so here's the one that hit home the most for me: COMBAT. NOW it makes sense why my pastor has been (eerily, i thought) silent on the subject of our so obviously anti-christian president. i, on the other hand, have not been silent. i like to get agro about it, because it upsets me, frankly, that he seems to be on a fast track to bulldozing the best ideals that any country could hold, as outlined in our constitution. i realized awhile ago that it does no good to merely change laws, if people's hearts are still inclined toward wickedness. that is like forcing a child to act good but not addressing the heart, attitude, and needs. however, it grieves me immensely that many Christians voted for this man who openly supports abortion, thinks it a priority to speak on the virtue of leaving abortion-survived babies out to die alone, and is taking our country in a direction opposite of the freedom-championing land we have been for so long. i still think it is a priority to oppose this kind of politics, for the sake of our children. a comment the pastor spoke today was that once the church started operating out of the framework of "christendom" in constantine's time, that led us into the dark ages, and that the church has always operated most powerfully from the margins, as did Jesus. well... i wouldn't go so far as to say that the dark ages were caused because the church held influence over politics. on the contrary, it was because the church ended up submitting itself to politics. francis schaeffer points out that every time a new society is formed on inspiration from the Bible, it is a society that is freer and fairer, and has a higher standard of living than the old one. so it is not bad at all to have a Christian-based society, as it ends up being better for all people in it, whether they believe or not. and THAT is exactly why it is so hard to see it go under the current administration. so, i don't think it is bad to try to stem the political tide, it is just not our primary goal. heart-change, grassroots change from the inside out in obedience to the Lord's commission, is. without alienating people or shouting or frowning. when people encountered Jesus, they didn't feel they had to walk on eggshells. they fell at his feet! (i have a feeling, however, that some people will take this sermon to mean that christians should not vote or become politicians because Jesus was not a politician. which is NOT a proper way of thinking! Jesus was also not a husband or father, yet we don't say it is bad to be a father or husband. the point is not so much the avenue we take in life, as the attitude: humility.)
coming home from church, i realized that this sermon is for once enormously relevant for me as a woman, a stay-at home mom, because ALL of these points can be and should be primarily lived out in the context of home and family. (side note: i have lately found that church preachin' doesn't often hit home in the life of the stay-at-home mother. no, it can be super resonant and good, but the fact is that male pastors don't truly KNOW the soul and marrow of a woman's life. Which is why the Bible instructs older women to teach younger women. i have been so much edified recently by a cd series by nancy campbell, called "God's Grace at My Place." wow, those talks get me going and amped about my life and calling as i listen to them while chopping vegetables, stirring soup.) so this sermon, though the pastor did not necessarily mean for it to translate like this (hee hee!) was directly for mothers. the three common mistakes the church makes are first failures in the families that make up the church, and here i will take more time to explain.
cocooning--we all know the Christian parents who overly shield their children from the world... it is a sad sight, and stunts their development into responsible, critically-thinking Christians, as well as insulting their intelligence. however, let me make it clear that home schooling is not necessarily borne of overprotection. as the pastor was talking about cocooning, i specifically examined myself and what i have learned about culture, christianity, homeschooling, and education in general. parents need to choose their child's school environment based on what is BEST for the child. i personally believe that in the early years, anyway, children are designed to be CLOSE to their mother, until their worldview is established and the Biblical framework can be engraved into the little heart. also, so that they may have constant supervision in learning good behaviors without too much interference from outside sources at a tender age. i believe this tender age can vary from child to child. sparrow definitely still needs a few more years at home next to me! i may be ready to send her to a good school in several years, depending on what is available. however, judging from the crowd-control that public schools tend to spend so much wasteful time in, i would rather choose a private school of some sort. and since... we probably will never be able to afford that, at THIS point, i believe that homeschooling is truly going to be the environment that offers the most opportunity for my daughters' growing, thirsty minds.
i believe in a "liberal" education, however: that they should be introduced to different ideas and people, so that they might learn to think, and to think critically. i am NOT going to saturate these little ones with exclusively Christian workbooks and curricula, but will seek the BEST materials in every subject and allow their minds to handle all sorts of ideas. for all truth is God's truth, and excellence glorifies God. Not to mention that they will likely get bored with excessive Christian lecturing. the world and life God meant us to experience is EXCITING! and they should experience the richness of all of His creation, not feel as though they are being hedged in by paranoid, predigested drivel. When they come into contact with God's word directly, they will respond to it. i have been reading susan schaeffer macauley's "for the children's sake," and completely agree that we should not set up too many interpreters between God's word and the child himself. not only is it condescending, but it can be distracting, or even mundane. God's Word LIVES, and it will speak for itself.
i think that many Christian parents of today make the opposite mistake: sending their children TO school outside the home as a reaction to "churchianity," or even believing that they need to send their little ones out there to witness, to "see what the real world is like," or to "get socialized." it is equally wrong to send your child to a school just because you think they should be out in the world for some reason or other, as it is to keep them at home as a reaction to the evil in the world. one MUST choose the BEST education for the individual child. speaking of socialization, the idea that little ones won't be emotionally healthy unless they are frequently in large groups of other children--is bunk. this does not come from the Bible, nor from proper research. children, as they grow older, may come into contact with all kinds of people at their parents' dinner table or at extracurricular activities. but to think that a toddler needs to be socialized! i have been reading laura ingalls wilder with sparrow. did that family feel the need to go live in a city so they could socialize their children? No! but look at how amazing those girls turned out, along with many, many other home-taught families over the years, who had no access to daycare or preschool, but instead had firm, loving, God-fearing parents. healthy social interactions and habits are grown out of a good home life first of all, with a strong family dynamic in a secure environment where healthy communication habits are emphasized, and preference for others is taught by living it out on a daily basis.
speaking of healthy family life, this brings me to my next point: the "combative" problem as arising out of improper home life. not only the obvious point that if one's family models arguing and negotiating, the child will learn to be argumentative and try to negotiate his way through life. this, i believe, also happens when the child is given too much free reign in the home, where mother tries to cater to every desire as far as she is able instead of using the home as a training ground for learning self-control and submission. (i was one of these mothers! perhaps still am too much, if i think about it.) it IS right for the child to learn the benefits of submission by submitting to parents "because this is right" (eph. 6:1). they can experience God's blessing this way, and when they interact in the real world, not feel like they always need to conquer by arguing or striving. personally, in my home growing up, i know we were allowed to get away with much too much back talking and arguing our position. and i KNOW that being combative is still one of my biggest challenges. in fact, when i got home from church, i facebooked two friends in particular with which i have displayed this attitude in politics recently, and apologized. i had to get humble, knowing the Bible is right: you cannot win hearts by striving, even with pristine logic.
as for the conformity problem, the family and home is also the best place to stay that tide. a child wholly accepted, known, and loved for who he is at home obviously feels less need to go find his identity in the world somewhere. however, even many lovely Christian homes and families these days are modeling conformity to the world, not only in their time spent at the TV or sending mother out to work. but i'd like to ask this question: what about our fertility? why has the Christian world followed the secular world when it comes to family planning? if true social change is to be from the bottom up, grassroots, heart-change, can you imagine the kind of impact we could have had by now if we had all allowed the Lord to give us the families He wanted us to have? We would be sending out many more warriors equipped to show Jesus to their peers! perhaps the reason why only 15% of non believers think that the Christians they know are significantly different from anyone else is because we have followed society in what they have decided about how a family should be planned, limited, controlled. this matter affects everything in your life! when you say "yes" to God, not knowing how many children he might give you, or when, it forces you to live in a much more dependent way, with urgent faith for God to provide for those He gave. (and He WILL provide, that is a scriptural promise. first he blesses the offspring of the womb, THEN the fruit of the field and livestock...) You give up control. Life becomes a daily mission of self-sacrifice, and self-sacrifice is THE characteristic the Lord wants to build in us, is it not? (God give me grace in this!)
So go my thoughts in recent sermons...
Sunday, June 27, 2010
proverbs 31 woman dissed by pastor
we walked into the church with blues music rocking the sanctuary from a band onstage. the church seemed fairly empty and it was time for service to begin, but the music kept on playing. finally they transitioned to worship songs. people kept filing into church during the worship time until there was a good-sized scattering of people in the sanctuary. worship was lively. finally the pastor got up to speak about the Word. ...but we were never asked to open the Word. there were movie clips shown from "braveheart" and "everybody loves raymond." plenty of stories and jokes. encouragement to "text" our answer to "who is your favorite warrior princess?" to the pastor as he began to speak. a sermon outline provided with the church program had some NLT verses written out to help support the pastor's points. all of this i could grit my teeth and deal with, but when the pastor began disparaging proverbs 31, my jaw almost dropped to the floor and i thought i would have to walk out!
"you are a princess. you are beautiful and worthy. your heart is what's most important. i know you're all thinking that starting a series on women, i'm going to have you all go to proverbs 31. listen, i'm sure the proverbs 31 woman is ok and all, but when i read proverbs 31, i think, 'that sounds like one tired lady!' i mean it says her lights never go out at night, which means, guys, if you are married to a proverbs 31 woman, you aren't getting any..."
i could barely focus on anything else he said for the whole 20-minute sermon, because of the offensiveness with which he treated the Word of God in that statement. first of all, to do a series on being a godly woman yet refusing to look at all the counsel of scripture on that subject is very unwise. it seemed as though he thought of himself too "hip" and "original" to be bothered looking at the "traditional" texts on the subject. instead he chose piecemeal verses from the NLT Bible regarding guarding the heart, fleeing the devil, etc. it was all rather vague, if you can imagine. "guard your heart!" "flee the devil!" "guys, make sure you help her guard her heart! make sure you value your woman! she can be so fierce if she has to be! God made women with that fierce, protective instinct. value that!" then he showed his "everybody loves raymond" clip, where the wife was getting all feisty to some friends, and used it to show that women have a good protective instinct! what?! everybody loves raymond is a terrible show for family life. do we HAVE to see that in church? goodness, whatever protectiveness and fierceness God made in women and mothers is NOT exemplified in a good way by deborah from "elr," certainly! this pastor has apparently NO idea the JOY and FREEDOM that come with confronting the scripture head-on, for exactly what it is, and exactly what is says. this is why i appreciate ministries such as "above rubies" so much: they encourage always the high road, not lying that it will be easy, but exhorting and uplifting you to do the thing scripture calls for, reminding you of the rewards and God's great honor upon you.
secondly, what kind of pastor jokes about sex when talking about the scripture?
needless to say, we won't be going back there.
"you are a princess. you are beautiful and worthy. your heart is what's most important. i know you're all thinking that starting a series on women, i'm going to have you all go to proverbs 31. listen, i'm sure the proverbs 31 woman is ok and all, but when i read proverbs 31, i think, 'that sounds like one tired lady!' i mean it says her lights never go out at night, which means, guys, if you are married to a proverbs 31 woman, you aren't getting any..."
i could barely focus on anything else he said for the whole 20-minute sermon, because of the offensiveness with which he treated the Word of God in that statement. first of all, to do a series on being a godly woman yet refusing to look at all the counsel of scripture on that subject is very unwise. it seemed as though he thought of himself too "hip" and "original" to be bothered looking at the "traditional" texts on the subject. instead he chose piecemeal verses from the NLT Bible regarding guarding the heart, fleeing the devil, etc. it was all rather vague, if you can imagine. "guard your heart!" "flee the devil!" "guys, make sure you help her guard her heart! make sure you value your woman! she can be so fierce if she has to be! God made women with that fierce, protective instinct. value that!" then he showed his "everybody loves raymond" clip, where the wife was getting all feisty to some friends, and used it to show that women have a good protective instinct! what?! everybody loves raymond is a terrible show for family life. do we HAVE to see that in church? goodness, whatever protectiveness and fierceness God made in women and mothers is NOT exemplified in a good way by deborah from "elr," certainly! this pastor has apparently NO idea the JOY and FREEDOM that come with confronting the scripture head-on, for exactly what it is, and exactly what is says. this is why i appreciate ministries such as "above rubies" so much: they encourage always the high road, not lying that it will be easy, but exhorting and uplifting you to do the thing scripture calls for, reminding you of the rewards and God's great honor upon you.
secondly, what kind of pastor jokes about sex when talking about the scripture?
needless to say, we won't be going back there.
Friday, June 18, 2010
two modern fears
yesterday as i was meeting people in a church Bible study, the question came to me in small talk, how many children i would like to have. i answered, "...it's up in the air. i think God should decide." immediately i saw a bit of a defense go up, and then i received two reasons my new friend didn't think quite as i did...
1) in Bible days they had far more extended family around them to help take care of their children, and
2) she personally would have died in childbirth if it weren't for modern technology and hospitals.
here are my personal responses upon reflecting on these issues:
1) i must say, it is true that the communities in Biblical times were closer knit, and there was more immediate help for mothers with babies. partly this is due to the fact that polygamy was more common, so often there would be two or more wives or concubines, and it seems that they would all help take care of the group of children. (not the most desirable way to have a family, in my opinion!!)
the other part of having extended family, and large families to help take care of children is actually HAVING CHILDREN. how can one have a large, close-knit family around if one refuses to HAVE a large family? it has to start somewhere, why not with me? there were only three of us siblings growing up together in my family, and extended family was far away in germany, but the truth is that none of the extended family was very prolific in offspring either, and they were also somewhat spread out. the mindset in today's western cultures emphasizes independence and "every man for himself." my own observation of larger families is that they tend to create their own little "village," especially when raised by loving, strong parents. many of the children desire to stay nearby to be near one another and to take care of their parents in old age. so my question is this: would it not be possible today to have extended family nearby to help take care of offspring? and if the husband's job or other circumstances make it impossible to stay near family, surely the modern conveniences of washing machines, dishwashers, etc. lighten the work load enough to make it possible for a mother to thrive with many children even far away from other family.
what about the fact that children themselves get older and become a great help in the home? i think many people imagine the craziness of having ten toddlers about them with no one to help, when in reality, it is usually possible only to have one or two toddlers at a time. older children are benefitted by learning house work and the care of little ones, family solidarity is built when everyone has to pitch in just to make things work. i think sometimes the parents of a few children imagine that their many children would be just as unhelpful and disrespectful as the ones they have raised already, but i believe God made large families possible knowing that the larger the family, or the potential, the more the parents will be spurred on to train their children up to listen, work, and be respectful. there is simply no other option unless one wants chaos to reign! let us also remember susanna wesley and the many other godly mothers who submitted to God's decisions about their family and became stronger as they did so, having no other option but to press into God, and raised many mighty warriors for His kingdom!
one more point about extended family, is that we might find a church that lives the "family" life! there are churches with close-knit communities, churches who understand and promote the blessings of family, where older girls from the church might even come over to learn from and help mothers of young children. i think that even in this modern age, if we are determined first to obey, God will bring the help that we need day by day.
2) the fear about the dangers of childbirth i must be careful to consider, for i have been blessed to have two easy labors and fairly easy pregnancies, and i know that that aspect has made it much easier for me to surrender to the prospect of more. however, the more i read about modern hospital birth, the more i am convinced that this is a nation duped into dependence on hospitals and doctor-run births which are actually made more dangerous by their very interference, and treating childbearing as an abnormal/unhealthy occurrence. now i don't know what my new friend's specific situation was, and i know there are definitely cases where maternal death could happen unless there is medical interference, so i don't want to judge. i would rather like to help re-educate the many who believe that they could not have had children in a natural setting, when in reality it was the many interferences of medical devices that made the births dangerous in the first place.
it seems that our society has come to fear birth, and girls are scared from an early age; this of course contributes to real problems when they are actually giving birth. how can a woman have an easy, efficient, strong birth when she is paralyzed with fear and thinks that she can't do it? i recommend watching "the business of being born" or reading ina may gaskin's "guide to childbirth" as a start to how deceptive modern hospital birth has become. also note that statistically the US has the worst hospital infant death rate of the industrialized nations. much worse than home birth infant death rate, in fact. it is time to re-examine our blind faith in the medical industry. let us have blind faith in God! if God really told adam and eve to be fruitful and multiply, that being God's very first words to the human race, and reiterated again after the flood, if He told us that it is a GOOD thing to swarm over the earth like a great multitude, then He will certainly take care of us in our time of childbirth. let us live out of faith, rather than fear! God can't do many miracles in a generation that does not believe Him, takes care of their own problems, and always keeps it safe.
Lord, give women today the courage and faith to accept your high calling to be mothers surrendered to you. give families the knowledge of your perfect orchestration of each child. and give me the grace to be an encouraging, strong example in the life of FAITH you are calling me to lead as a matriarch in the making.
1) in Bible days they had far more extended family around them to help take care of their children, and
2) she personally would have died in childbirth if it weren't for modern technology and hospitals.
here are my personal responses upon reflecting on these issues:
1) i must say, it is true that the communities in Biblical times were closer knit, and there was more immediate help for mothers with babies. partly this is due to the fact that polygamy was more common, so often there would be two or more wives or concubines, and it seems that they would all help take care of the group of children. (not the most desirable way to have a family, in my opinion!!)
the other part of having extended family, and large families to help take care of children is actually HAVING CHILDREN. how can one have a large, close-knit family around if one refuses to HAVE a large family? it has to start somewhere, why not with me? there were only three of us siblings growing up together in my family, and extended family was far away in germany, but the truth is that none of the extended family was very prolific in offspring either, and they were also somewhat spread out. the mindset in today's western cultures emphasizes independence and "every man for himself." my own observation of larger families is that they tend to create their own little "village," especially when raised by loving, strong parents. many of the children desire to stay nearby to be near one another and to take care of their parents in old age. so my question is this: would it not be possible today to have extended family nearby to help take care of offspring? and if the husband's job or other circumstances make it impossible to stay near family, surely the modern conveniences of washing machines, dishwashers, etc. lighten the work load enough to make it possible for a mother to thrive with many children even far away from other family.
what about the fact that children themselves get older and become a great help in the home? i think many people imagine the craziness of having ten toddlers about them with no one to help, when in reality, it is usually possible only to have one or two toddlers at a time. older children are benefitted by learning house work and the care of little ones, family solidarity is built when everyone has to pitch in just to make things work. i think sometimes the parents of a few children imagine that their many children would be just as unhelpful and disrespectful as the ones they have raised already, but i believe God made large families possible knowing that the larger the family, or the potential, the more the parents will be spurred on to train their children up to listen, work, and be respectful. there is simply no other option unless one wants chaos to reign! let us also remember susanna wesley and the many other godly mothers who submitted to God's decisions about their family and became stronger as they did so, having no other option but to press into God, and raised many mighty warriors for His kingdom!
one more point about extended family, is that we might find a church that lives the "family" life! there are churches with close-knit communities, churches who understand and promote the blessings of family, where older girls from the church might even come over to learn from and help mothers of young children. i think that even in this modern age, if we are determined first to obey, God will bring the help that we need day by day.
2) the fear about the dangers of childbirth i must be careful to consider, for i have been blessed to have two easy labors and fairly easy pregnancies, and i know that that aspect has made it much easier for me to surrender to the prospect of more. however, the more i read about modern hospital birth, the more i am convinced that this is a nation duped into dependence on hospitals and doctor-run births which are actually made more dangerous by their very interference, and treating childbearing as an abnormal/unhealthy occurrence. now i don't know what my new friend's specific situation was, and i know there are definitely cases where maternal death could happen unless there is medical interference, so i don't want to judge. i would rather like to help re-educate the many who believe that they could not have had children in a natural setting, when in reality it was the many interferences of medical devices that made the births dangerous in the first place.
it seems that our society has come to fear birth, and girls are scared from an early age; this of course contributes to real problems when they are actually giving birth. how can a woman have an easy, efficient, strong birth when she is paralyzed with fear and thinks that she can't do it? i recommend watching "the business of being born" or reading ina may gaskin's "guide to childbirth" as a start to how deceptive modern hospital birth has become. also note that statistically the US has the worst hospital infant death rate of the industrialized nations. much worse than home birth infant death rate, in fact. it is time to re-examine our blind faith in the medical industry. let us have blind faith in God! if God really told adam and eve to be fruitful and multiply, that being God's very first words to the human race, and reiterated again after the flood, if He told us that it is a GOOD thing to swarm over the earth like a great multitude, then He will certainly take care of us in our time of childbirth. let us live out of faith, rather than fear! God can't do many miracles in a generation that does not believe Him, takes care of their own problems, and always keeps it safe.
Lord, give women today the courage and faith to accept your high calling to be mothers surrendered to you. give families the knowledge of your perfect orchestration of each child. and give me the grace to be an encouraging, strong example in the life of FAITH you are calling me to lead as a matriarch in the making.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
arranged marriage
in ancient hebrew culture, parents would arrange their childrens' marriages, sometimes long before they were old enough to be married. when i think about my own children and how much i want the best for them, it is unfathomable to me how i could ever decide on their spouse without even knowing what this person is going to be like as an adult. and then i realized: you ARE supposed to be able to know what that person will be like! you look at their parents. in ancient days, if the parents were righteous, worthy people, it was generally a given that they would produce and raise up righteous, worthy sons and daughters. in today's culture, that is absolutely NOT a given. you can have some beautiful, loving, dedicated Christian parents who often end up with rebellious or unbelieving children. but it IS and SHOULD be possible to predict reasonably well how the grown children will be. why is this no longer so? I believe it is because satan has deceived parents into thinking they have little control over how their children turn out. the Bible clearly says that rebellion happens if a child is not properly trained in the fear of the Lord, respect, and obedience. The parents are also the ones responsible for seeing that this happens, not sunday school or youth group or Christian school. (see eph. 6:4) yet today many Christian parents have either never learned how to properly train up a child in the fear of the Lord, or understood the parental-responsibility mandates in the Bible to be as far-reaching as they were in ancient days. Or they believe that the current world view on child rearing makes more sense and overrides the "outdated" ways of the Bible. then unbelief happens in the offspring, because they see that their parents are not properly modeling the life submitted unto the Lord; they are hypocrites. the book of Proverbs has some amazing advice on child rearing, and i believe it comes with some promises:
"foolishness is bound in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." prov. 22:15
this is one of the main Biblical principles: man is born into a sinful, "foolish" nature. parents are to use the rod for discipline in order to correct the child, and as they do so, the foolishness will be driven out. (also see prov. 20:30.)
"correct your son, and he will give you rest; yes, he will give delight to your soul." prov. 29:17
the promise is of rest and delight coming from the child who has been corrected. psychology-derived current theories in this modern world say that it is stifling or "crushing" to correct a child, and they even admonish parents to avoid using the word "no." but scripture says that a child who turns into a trustworthy, godly adult has parents who are correcting him. they correct him until he gets it right, they don't simply make a breezy comment and fail to follow through. and how are we to correct our children?
prov. 14:17 says, "a quick-tempered man acts foolishly, and a man of wicked intentions is hated." this warns us not to be angry when we are disciplining, and never to discipline out of personal retribution, but when we are calm, and able to have the good intention for the child in our heart.
proverbs 15:4 says, "a soothing tongue is a tree of life, but perversion in it crushes the spirit." this is a release for parents who are afraid of crushing their childrens' spirit by limiting their choices or correcting their behavior. the Bible says that what really crushes the spirit is a harsh tongue. yet if we speak always soothingly and sweetly to our children, even during discipline, we will plant a tree of life in them!
find parents who are unafraid to keep their children close in order to correct them and train them in the love of the Lord, and you will find the family that produces the kinds of children to whom you would give your own.
"foolishness is bound in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." prov. 22:15
this is one of the main Biblical principles: man is born into a sinful, "foolish" nature. parents are to use the rod for discipline in order to correct the child, and as they do so, the foolishness will be driven out. (also see prov. 20:30.)
"correct your son, and he will give you rest; yes, he will give delight to your soul." prov. 29:17
the promise is of rest and delight coming from the child who has been corrected. psychology-derived current theories in this modern world say that it is stifling or "crushing" to correct a child, and they even admonish parents to avoid using the word "no." but scripture says that a child who turns into a trustworthy, godly adult has parents who are correcting him. they correct him until he gets it right, they don't simply make a breezy comment and fail to follow through. and how are we to correct our children?
prov. 14:17 says, "a quick-tempered man acts foolishly, and a man of wicked intentions is hated." this warns us not to be angry when we are disciplining, and never to discipline out of personal retribution, but when we are calm, and able to have the good intention for the child in our heart.
proverbs 15:4 says, "a soothing tongue is a tree of life, but perversion in it crushes the spirit." this is a release for parents who are afraid of crushing their childrens' spirit by limiting their choices or correcting their behavior. the Bible says that what really crushes the spirit is a harsh tongue. yet if we speak always soothingly and sweetly to our children, even during discipline, we will plant a tree of life in them!
find parents who are unafraid to keep their children close in order to correct them and train them in the love of the Lord, and you will find the family that produces the kinds of children to whom you would give your own.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Biblical motherly rest
Proverbs 29:17 says, "Correct your son, and he will give you comfort. He will also delight your soul."
the mothers of the world are partially right! we DO need to be rested in order to fully enjoy our children and be the best mothers we can be. however, what should our rest look like? do we need to take time "for ourselves"? do we need to pamper ourselves? do we need to get away from our family, spend money, and unwind, in order to recharge before we get back to the bedlam? no! what does the Bible advocate? what does the passage above suggest? that our children are the ones that BRING us rest, comfort, delight! a mother of eight should be the most joyful, restful person! but notice what has to happen in order for children to provide such delight and rest for us: correction. discipline. the Bible speaks clearly about using the rod of correction. (see prov. 10:1, 10:13, 13:24, 17:25, 19:18, 20:30, 22:15, 23:13-14, 29:15) there should not be a dispute among Christians there. Do we choose to believe God in what He says, committing to train and discipline our children lovingly and consistently until they bring us the promised rest? or do we choose to discard God's word in preference of Parenting magazine's suggestions?
the mothers of the world are partially right! we DO need to be rested in order to fully enjoy our children and be the best mothers we can be. however, what should our rest look like? do we need to take time "for ourselves"? do we need to pamper ourselves? do we need to get away from our family, spend money, and unwind, in order to recharge before we get back to the bedlam? no! what does the Bible advocate? what does the passage above suggest? that our children are the ones that BRING us rest, comfort, delight! a mother of eight should be the most joyful, restful person! but notice what has to happen in order for children to provide such delight and rest for us: correction. discipline. the Bible speaks clearly about using the rod of correction. (see prov. 10:1, 10:13, 13:24, 17:25, 19:18, 20:30, 22:15, 23:13-14, 29:15) there should not be a dispute among Christians there. Do we choose to believe God in what He says, committing to train and discipline our children lovingly and consistently until they bring us the promised rest? or do we choose to discard God's word in preference of Parenting magazine's suggestions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)