Did you know that the Latin word "liber" means both "free" and "book"? They are pronounced slightly differently ("lih-bear" for book; "lee-bear" for free). Despite the pronunciation difference, I can't get past the idea that the identical spelling is no coincidence.
In ancient times, free men were educated men. They received a classical, or "liberal" education. Being educated meant, among other things, that you could read a book. There is a freedom, a liber-ty, in being able to pick up a book and learn.
Today I hear about people reading in order to escape troubled circumstances in life. Libraries (see the "liber" there?) invite children to step into new worlds through reading. Poor, underprivileged students can "hit the books," work hard, and better their lives. These are all types of freedom.
In order to maintain freedom, a people must not neglect education. Books are portals to new realms, and education unlocks the doors. If children don't learn to read, they will inevitably be uneducated as adults, burdened with quite a handicap. But what about kids who learn to read, but don't learn to love to read? It's disturbing when people admit they never take time to read books. Freedom is linked to education.
Consider, also, the 1,000+ pages long bills rushed through the legislature which many members of Congress don't read entirely before voting on. The bills aren't read, and our freedom is chipped away.
The Romans were no dummies. The Latin words for "free" and "book" are intimately related, and we should take note of that today. Turn off the TV for a while, and pick up a book.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Why Ron Paul?
Adriane - Unbeknownst to me, Brody tried answering your question about Ron Paul. It turned into more of an essay, so he asked me to make it a regular post:
I didn't understand Ron Paul last year during the primaries. The Federal Reserve Bank, fractional reserve lending, and the gold standard were all Greek to me. However, one Great Depression-like financial crisis later, I am now completely in agreement with Ron Paul. These issues took a lot of time for me to understand and will be challenging for me to explain, but here goes.
This post will focus primarily on the harm done by the Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Bank (FED) is a privately owned, publicly/privately administered central bank with the power to print money. This bank distorts economic decision-making and misleads entrepreneurs into making unsound investments by manipulating the price of money. Interest rates are the price of money. In a capitalist market system, supply and demand would determine interest rates. For example, a relatively large number of "savers" in the economy with relatively few "borrowers" would cause relatively low interest rates, and vice versa. However, the Federal Reserve Bank price-fixes the value of money by controlling interest rates.
You may ask, why does the FED price-fix the value of money? This has to do with inflation targeting. The FED admits that they want to create 2-4% yearly inflation. Inflation occurs when the total number of dollars in the economy grows at a pace faster than GDP (the total amount of goods and services produced per year). Low interest rates entice people to borrow from the banks. Borrowing from banks, due to fractional reserve lending, increases the total money supply/total number of dollars in the economy. This happens because banks can lend out money they don't have, or have for only a very short term.
A bank can take a five-day checking deposit and loan it out for thirty years. Banks only have to keep a very small amount of their total loans in reserve, on demand for depositors. They create money out of thin air, money which is loaned out, gets deposited into another bank, and is then loaned out again, repeating the process. The more money borrowed from banks, the greater the number of dollars circulating in the economy. This increased money supply causes inflation.
Aside from the fact that the government and the banking industry are stealing the value of everyone's money at a rate of 2-4% per year, why does this matter? Every time economic growth slows down, the FED lowers interest rates. These low interest rates provide a (false)price signal to entrepreneurs that there is a large amount of unspent savings in the economy. This entices the entrepreneur into growing a few more crops, raising a few more chickens, building a few more shopping malls and houses. The lower interest rates also lure consumers to borrow and consume these items. This gets the economy growing again...why then is this so bad? Because it is a short-term solution which causes the problem to be worse in the long-run. The economy starts growing again, but the total debt levels go up faster than the economy grows.
The above chart is a few years old. Total private/non-governmental debt as a percent of GDP is now 375%.
If a business consistently increases its total debt burden 10% per year in order to grow its yearly income by 5%, it will eventually go bankrupt due to not being able to service that debt. In the same way, if a person borrows and mortgages everything he can at 10% in order to invest in a CD at 5%, he too would be considered foolish. This is basically what occurs to the country as a whole when the FED keeps interests rates artificially low.
Sadly, most politicians do not understand the issue, think only in the short-term (next election year), or actually want to enslave everyone to the banking interests (Proverbs 22:7). Ron Paul is different.
I didn't understand Ron Paul last year during the primaries. The Federal Reserve Bank, fractional reserve lending, and the gold standard were all Greek to me. However, one Great Depression-like financial crisis later, I am now completely in agreement with Ron Paul. These issues took a lot of time for me to understand and will be challenging for me to explain, but here goes.
This post will focus primarily on the harm done by the Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Bank (FED) is a privately owned, publicly/privately administered central bank with the power to print money. This bank distorts economic decision-making and misleads entrepreneurs into making unsound investments by manipulating the price of money. Interest rates are the price of money. In a capitalist market system, supply and demand would determine interest rates. For example, a relatively large number of "savers" in the economy with relatively few "borrowers" would cause relatively low interest rates, and vice versa. However, the Federal Reserve Bank price-fixes the value of money by controlling interest rates.
You may ask, why does the FED price-fix the value of money? This has to do with inflation targeting. The FED admits that they want to create 2-4% yearly inflation. Inflation occurs when the total number of dollars in the economy grows at a pace faster than GDP (the total amount of goods and services produced per year). Low interest rates entice people to borrow from the banks. Borrowing from banks, due to fractional reserve lending, increases the total money supply/total number of dollars in the economy. This happens because banks can lend out money they don't have, or have for only a very short term.
A bank can take a five-day checking deposit and loan it out for thirty years. Banks only have to keep a very small amount of their total loans in reserve, on demand for depositors. They create money out of thin air, money which is loaned out, gets deposited into another bank, and is then loaned out again, repeating the process. The more money borrowed from banks, the greater the number of dollars circulating in the economy. This increased money supply causes inflation.
Aside from the fact that the government and the banking industry are stealing the value of everyone's money at a rate of 2-4% per year, why does this matter? Every time economic growth slows down, the FED lowers interest rates. These low interest rates provide a (false)price signal to entrepreneurs that there is a large amount of unspent savings in the economy. This entices the entrepreneur into growing a few more crops, raising a few more chickens, building a few more shopping malls and houses. The lower interest rates also lure consumers to borrow and consume these items. This gets the economy growing again...why then is this so bad? Because it is a short-term solution which causes the problem to be worse in the long-run. The economy starts growing again, but the total debt levels go up faster than the economy grows.
The above chart is a few years old. Total private/non-governmental debt as a percent of GDP is now 375%.
If a business consistently increases its total debt burden 10% per year in order to grow its yearly income by 5%, it will eventually go bankrupt due to not being able to service that debt. In the same way, if a person borrows and mortgages everything he can at 10% in order to invest in a CD at 5%, he too would be considered foolish. This is basically what occurs to the country as a whole when the FED keeps interests rates artificially low.
Sadly, most politicians do not understand the issue, think only in the short-term (next election year), or actually want to enslave everyone to the banking interests (Proverbs 22:7). Ron Paul is different.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Tea Party Protest
In the American spirit of liberty and free speech, Brody and I spent some time at the court house today protesting big government, tax hikes, socialism, fascism, stupidism, and plenty of other "isms." I had never been to something like that before. It was interesting talking to the people there, listening to the speakers, holding signs, and passing out literature. Just a bunch of good, old-fashioned, southern Missouri folk wanting to be heard.
After listening to a few speakers, I went to find some shade while Brody passed out some Campaign for Liberty flyers (yes, we are now Ron Paul supporters - who'd a thunk it?). The next thing I heard was, "Ok, our next speaker is Brody Smith..." Wait, what? Did he mean my husband??
Sure enough, Brody had the microphone, and surrounded by maybe 75 or 100 people, he said a few words about the government being for and by big financial institutions, their unfettered ability to print trillions of dollars, and how that steals money from our pockets. I was proud of him. :)
Now that I'm feeling all patriotic, an exhortation: please contact your U.S. representatives and tell them to vote NO on universal healthcare, NO on cap-and-trade, and YES on auditing the federal reserve bank. God bless America!
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Mummy Madness
Last year I got this crazy idea to incorporate a really hands-on project with my 13 first and second graders during a unit on Egyptian mummies. It was several months into school, so I had already learned from previous, less involved art projects that you can never be overprepared. I resolved to complete a sample project myself, have all the materials ready, and even write out my own list of step-by-step instructions so the whole thing would go smoothly in the classroom.
Yeah, right.
The project: Making a cat mummy inspired by the real thing.
(real thing)
Procedure: I found a book at the library with instructions on making a cat mummy using old socks stuffed and tied, strips of fabric from old t-shirts, and tea bags. My mom got in on the fun, too. She helped cut and dye the fabric, partially stuff the socks, and draw little faces on the poor departed felines.
We ran into our first problem at home. Most people would have torn the fabric, dyed it in tea, dried it in the dryer, then tied the strips together for bandages. We do things differently in the Ozarks. My mom and I tore the fabric, tied the bandages into roughly 10-ft-long strips, dyed them in the sink, and then brilliantly threw the whole gigantic, enormously confused heap into the dryer. And oh, the monster that emerged. It took the two of us an hour to navigate through that maze. We might have been hallucinating by the end of it.
Perhaps I should've taken that as a sign and dropped the whole silly project. But nooo. I just had to keep going.
The plan was to have the mummy heads prepared so the students could stuff the bodies, tie the ends with my help, and then wrap the bandages. Simple enough. I was prepared. Nothing would catch me off-guard.
When the time rolled around, I explained to the children what they would be doing and they could hardly contain their excitement. Their very own cat mummy! To take home and show Mom and Dad! COOL! So I triumphantly unveiled the example I had prepared:
(cute, huh?)
The sight was met by a satisfying mix of oohs and aahs, until one little girl said, "It looks like the baby Jesus wrapped in swaddling clothes!" How do you keep from laughing at something like that?
When I pulled out their mummies, it was apparent that the body was made from socks. "Stinky" socks, they thought, since the tea had made them so dingy. I passed one out to each student, instructing them to leave the socks on their desks until everyone had one. Here was an interesting display of the difference between girls and boys. All the girls picked up their partially-completed mummies and began rocking them in their arms, cooing at their imaginary babies. The boys turned theirs into weapons. If they weren't bludgeoning each other with stuffed cat heads they had them turned upside down to use as punching bags. Different, yes, but alike in that none of them left the sock on their desk as they were told!
Once I regained control of the room, I passed out old newspapers for the kids to tear up and begin stuffing. Boy, did they love that. I was trying to do damage control as paper went flying when I noticed one first grade girl sitting quietly with her paper opened, trying to read one of the articles, oblivious to the mayhem surrounding her. It was the oddest thing to discourage her from reading and tell her to be destructive instead.
Finally, the bodies were stuffed, the feet were tied, and it was time to pass out the bandages. It seemed straightforward enough with a neat little bag for each student. I think some kids might ahve been trying to mummify themselves instead of their cats.
The wrapping was tricky, though not much more than I had anticipated. Thankfully I had a parent volunteer to help with finishing up the project. But it was still chaos. I had the students sing through their review songs just to control the noise level as we adults walked around to help as needed.
At last, we were finished. All the trash was thrown away, and sitting atop each student desk was a quirky, one-of-a-kind, homemade cat mummy. I orally quizzed them about the why and how of Egyptian mummies to reinforce why we did that project. Yes, their minds were on ancient Egypt. My efforts were a success, of sorts.
As the students packed up, one second grade boy showed me how the bandages were coming loose over his mummy's face. "Mrs. Smith," he said excitedly, "mine's a wounded Civil War soldier!" Then he made his mummy/soldier hobble around on his desk, groaning from the pain of his battle scars.
Did I say ancient Egypt...?
Monday, July 13, 2009
Finding the Trinity in Music
I was introduced to this fascinating illustration of Jeremy Begbie's while listening to a presentation by the very gifted Mr. John Hodges. Let's see if I can do it justice:
We are visual creatures. We understand things visually. This, in part, makes the Trinity - one God, three Persons - so difficult for us to comprehend. How can two or more things occupy the same space without losing their distinction? It's basic physics!
Most of us have seen the baseball diamond-looking picture that is meant to help us with this concept.
We are visual creatures. We understand things visually. This, in part, makes the Trinity - one God, three Persons - so difficult for us to comprehend. How can two or more things occupy the same space without losing their distinction? It's basic physics!
Most of us have seen the baseball diamond-looking picture that is meant to help us with this concept.
We may be able to articulate the idea of the Trinity, but the imagery is still problematic for us.
This is where Begbie has a wonderful insight. He suggests that music can benefit theology by better illustrating audibly what is so limiting visually. We're talking more than appropriately matching words to music, though that is certainly of great importance.
Take the doctrine of the Trinity, for example. The most basic chord is called a triad, and it is made up of 3 notes (tri - triad - Trinity...just checkin'!). Take away one note, and it is no longer a triad. To play the chord, all three notes must be played at once. It is one chord, but it is made up of 3 distinct notes. You don't hear one note, and then another, and then another. This wouldn't be a chord, but an arpeggio, or broken chord. You don't percieve one note in the chord to the exclusion of the other two, either. Three equal notes, one triad.
In Begbie's own words from Beholding the Glory:
"What could be more apt than to speak of the Trinity as a three-note-resonance of life, mutually indwelling, without mutual exclusion and yet without merger, each occupying the same ‘space,’ yet recognizably and irreducibly distinct, mutually enhancing and establishing each other? To speak of three strings mutually resonating instantly introduces a dynamism ... far truer to the trinitarian, living God of the New Testament.”
So simple, yet so amazing, isn't it?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Crafts, Toys, and Lousy Technology
Last Friday my mother-in-law and I took a trip to Springfield to hit as many craft stores as we could in an afternoon. I came home excited to show off my goodies only to find out that I couldn't upload my pictures! I tried again, and again, but the error message kept popping up. So today I've been sorting through the pictures saved in the program in order to move them and delete the program. After cutting and sorting and moving and deleting, with only 2 folders left to go, I found 3 copies of all the pictures I had downloaded. I think my computer is trying to drive me insane...
Doesn't it look inviting?
I found some goodies for my husband, too, who is ever a boy at heart.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Letter to the Editor
A letter my husband wrote to the local newspaper:
A Healthcare Consumer Right: Prices
President Obama is making an overhaul of the healthcare industry a major priority of his administration. Most Americans agree that we spend too much money on healthcare. Obama favors the approach to solving this problem which is taken by most of the countries around the world. His approach combines universal coverage with government rationing of healthcare. Rationing is the only way to significantly decrease the total amount of money spent yearly on healthcare.
However, there is a better way to ration healthcare than the arbitrary will of corruptible government central planners. There is a way to ration healthcare which would allow individuals liberty to decide what kind and how much healthcare is right for them. This form of rationing, this most basic form of capitalism, is called PRICES. Consumers ought to be able to compare the price of healthcare services before they consume them.
When was the last time you visited the doctor's office, underwent a procedure, or stayed a night in the hospital and knew what it was going to cost before you went? When was the last time that you shopped around for the least expensive health care providers? Would you buy a car or house without shopping around? Upfront pricing would force medical providers to compete with each other for customers based upon price, and competition always leads to lower prices.
Please help bring upfront prices back to healthcare! Demand that your local healthcare provider present a pricelist before you use their service; and contact your government representatives to ask them to bring forth antitrust legislation mandating that healthcare providers publish a pricelist of all their services in an easy to understand format. Help bring prices back to healthcare!
Brody Smith
West Plains, MO
A Healthcare Consumer Right: Prices
President Obama is making an overhaul of the healthcare industry a major priority of his administration. Most Americans agree that we spend too much money on healthcare. Obama favors the approach to solving this problem which is taken by most of the countries around the world. His approach combines universal coverage with government rationing of healthcare. Rationing is the only way to significantly decrease the total amount of money spent yearly on healthcare.
However, there is a better way to ration healthcare than the arbitrary will of corruptible government central planners. There is a way to ration healthcare which would allow individuals liberty to decide what kind and how much healthcare is right for them. This form of rationing, this most basic form of capitalism, is called PRICES. Consumers ought to be able to compare the price of healthcare services before they consume them.
When was the last time you visited the doctor's office, underwent a procedure, or stayed a night in the hospital and knew what it was going to cost before you went? When was the last time that you shopped around for the least expensive health care providers? Would you buy a car or house without shopping around? Upfront pricing would force medical providers to compete with each other for customers based upon price, and competition always leads to lower prices.
Please help bring upfront prices back to healthcare! Demand that your local healthcare provider present a pricelist before you use their service; and contact your government representatives to ask them to bring forth antitrust legislation mandating that healthcare providers publish a pricelist of all their services in an easy to understand format. Help bring prices back to healthcare!
Brody Smith
West Plains, MO
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Exercising Restraint :)
In an effort to show that I'm not always insanely long-winded, I'm announcing that I have officially begun organizing my craft room. Results to be revealed soon!
Picture 1: homeless things, 2: craft tables, 3: many, many, many books to be organized
(See? 50 words or less and no one was hurt...)
Thoughts on Christian Education
***WARNING: RIDICULOUSLY LONG POST AHEAD***
Lately I have been wrestling with the implications of certain Christian theologies for education. I consider myself a staunch orthodox Lutheran, but I work at a non-denominational classical Christian school with heavy Reformed influence. I commend their commitment to Christian education (reflections on the "classical" aspect are for another post). But I question their line of argumentation it in favor of pulling kids out of public schools and sending them to private Christian schools or homeschooling.
They begin with the premise that Christian parents have an obligation to provide their children with a Christian upbringing, which would include a Christian education. Agreed. Not many Christians would argue with that one.
Next they point out the anti-Christian nature of the public school system (conceding that there are, in fact, committed Christian teachers in the public school setting) as well as its declining academic quality. Ok, no problem there.
Christians therefore need viable, academically rigorous alternatives for their children. Indeed!
The next step is often to point out how Christian children who receive a Christian education will grow into adults who influence the world by "taking dominion" of creation. Now I'm starting to get uncomfortable, but I'm still listening.
They say Christians are to "transform the world through the power of the Spirit."* This seems to stand in opposition to the Lutheran understanding of the two realms, the same understanding which some Reformed actually "blame for the rapid secularization of the West."* I am now on the alert for a path of escape.
Finally, some Christian education proponents argue, "if Christians remain faithful in influencing their world with the gospel, actions of the ungodly will be eliminated."* What?! No more sin? Does this mean Christian education will lead to Heaven on earth? As appealing as that sounds, I need to find the exit! (And no, the eschatalogical influence here has not escaped me.)
*Note: I'm leaving the sources for these quotes unnamed, but I will provide them privately upon request.
Analysis:
I realize that not all Reformed follow this admittedly simplified line of reasoning. I also know that not all who argue in this fashion would label themselves as Reformed or be accepted by others who call themselves such. My point is that the argument taken as a whole would likely not be adopted by an orthodox Lutheran, at least, not this orthodox Lutheran. We have therefore moved beyond "mere Christianity" into terrain that divides Christians. If we are divided, then the secularists have won.
It has been hard for me to put my finger on the fundamental differences. I'll point out the one difference that has become clearer for me in the last few days. Using H. Richard Niebuhr's categories, I think that a "Christ transforming culture" approach and a "Christ and culture in paradox" approach will often look very different when it comes to the why and how of Christian education. Yes, the Christian is transformed, we might say regenerated, in Christ. What's missing is the acknowledgement that the Old Man still exists even within the most devout believer. Simil iustus et peccatur. Simultaneously saint (justified) and sinner. The tension between these two natures is the paradox Lutherans point out. The Old Man must daily be drowned and die, but he is with us until we are with Christ.
So what's the big deal? It's not as if the Reformed are saying we are no longer sinful once we come to faith. But I think it is a big deal. I think the Gospel is at stake. Focusing all our energies on transforming the culture with the expectation that we will, invariably, see the good fruit of our labor takes our eyes off of the cross and our desperate need for forgiveness. "But of course we still need forgiveness," a Reformed educator may say. At least, that is what my headmaster will say. And yet he would not hesitate to admit that the knowledge of Christ crucified for our sins is typically taken as a given, that the Christian already knows he is forgiven for Christ's sake, so let's get on with our sanctification...
...and that is precisely the problem. I work in a Reformed setting, I have been to two national conferences for Reformed Christian education, I have read many education books by Reformed authors, and I still have to whip out the geiger counter for a trace of the Gospel. "You are forgiven," I tell my students. "Jesus died on the cross FOR YOU!" They know it, but they still need to hear it. I know my husband loves me, but I still need to hear it. Constantly.
I believe in Christian education. I support efforts to persuade parents to take their children out of the public schools and offer them something better. I think Christian academics have a shining legacy in the history of western civilization. But I know that Christian schools are staffed by sinners, and attended by sinners. I do not harbor any illusion that these noble efforts in a broken world will result in anything other than a world that is still broken. And yet, we are forgiven in Christ. In that forgiveness, we can move forward, free to continue in our imperfect efforts, with the sure knowledge that Christ has already conquered.
Lately I have been wrestling with the implications of certain Christian theologies for education. I consider myself a staunch orthodox Lutheran, but I work at a non-denominational classical Christian school with heavy Reformed influence. I commend their commitment to Christian education (reflections on the "classical" aspect are for another post). But I question their line of argumentation it in favor of pulling kids out of public schools and sending them to private Christian schools or homeschooling.
They begin with the premise that Christian parents have an obligation to provide their children with a Christian upbringing, which would include a Christian education. Agreed. Not many Christians would argue with that one.
Next they point out the anti-Christian nature of the public school system (conceding that there are, in fact, committed Christian teachers in the public school setting) as well as its declining academic quality. Ok, no problem there.
Christians therefore need viable, academically rigorous alternatives for their children. Indeed!
The next step is often to point out how Christian children who receive a Christian education will grow into adults who influence the world by "taking dominion" of creation. Now I'm starting to get uncomfortable, but I'm still listening.
They say Christians are to "transform the world through the power of the Spirit."* This seems to stand in opposition to the Lutheran understanding of the two realms, the same understanding which some Reformed actually "blame for the rapid secularization of the West."* I am now on the alert for a path of escape.
Finally, some Christian education proponents argue, "if Christians remain faithful in influencing their world with the gospel, actions of the ungodly will be eliminated."* What?! No more sin? Does this mean Christian education will lead to Heaven on earth? As appealing as that sounds, I need to find the exit! (And no, the eschatalogical influence here has not escaped me.)
*Note: I'm leaving the sources for these quotes unnamed, but I will provide them privately upon request.
Analysis:
I realize that not all Reformed follow this admittedly simplified line of reasoning. I also know that not all who argue in this fashion would label themselves as Reformed or be accepted by others who call themselves such. My point is that the argument taken as a whole would likely not be adopted by an orthodox Lutheran, at least, not this orthodox Lutheran. We have therefore moved beyond "mere Christianity" into terrain that divides Christians. If we are divided, then the secularists have won.
It has been hard for me to put my finger on the fundamental differences. I'll point out the one difference that has become clearer for me in the last few days. Using H. Richard Niebuhr's categories, I think that a "Christ transforming culture" approach and a "Christ and culture in paradox" approach will often look very different when it comes to the why and how of Christian education. Yes, the Christian is transformed, we might say regenerated, in Christ. What's missing is the acknowledgement that the Old Man still exists even within the most devout believer. Simil iustus et peccatur. Simultaneously saint (justified) and sinner. The tension between these two natures is the paradox Lutherans point out. The Old Man must daily be drowned and die, but he is with us until we are with Christ.
So what's the big deal? It's not as if the Reformed are saying we are no longer sinful once we come to faith. But I think it is a big deal. I think the Gospel is at stake. Focusing all our energies on transforming the culture with the expectation that we will, invariably, see the good fruit of our labor takes our eyes off of the cross and our desperate need for forgiveness. "But of course we still need forgiveness," a Reformed educator may say. At least, that is what my headmaster will say. And yet he would not hesitate to admit that the knowledge of Christ crucified for our sins is typically taken as a given, that the Christian already knows he is forgiven for Christ's sake, so let's get on with our sanctification...
...and that is precisely the problem. I work in a Reformed setting, I have been to two national conferences for Reformed Christian education, I have read many education books by Reformed authors, and I still have to whip out the geiger counter for a trace of the Gospel. "You are forgiven," I tell my students. "Jesus died on the cross FOR YOU!" They know it, but they still need to hear it. I know my husband loves me, but I still need to hear it. Constantly.
I believe in Christian education. I support efforts to persuade parents to take their children out of the public schools and offer them something better. I think Christian academics have a shining legacy in the history of western civilization. But I know that Christian schools are staffed by sinners, and attended by sinners. I do not harbor any illusion that these noble efforts in a broken world will result in anything other than a world that is still broken. And yet, we are forgiven in Christ. In that forgiveness, we can move forward, free to continue in our imperfect efforts, with the sure knowledge that Christ has already conquered.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Mommies and Aunties
I am going to be an auntie. I am already an aunt through marriage. But in five short months I will be auntie - that's what we say on my side of the family. My little sister and her husband will have their very own baby boy, Carter. I'm excited for them!
Yet for all the joy that a new child brings, I have cause for complaint. The questions, the comments, the nosy busybodies who presume to have insight into my reaction to my sister's pregnancy. They are my complaint.
Don't misunderstand; I'm not bothered by questions from those who know where I'm coming from. My husband and I married with the agreement that children will always be welcomed in our home. After nearly four years, there is, of course, frustration and disappointment that we have yet to be so blessed. I find comfort in the understanding of those who have taken the time to know me that well.
But there remain those who assume that we approach having children as our culture approaches it - as something to be controlled and postponed until we decide that we are ready. (Honestly, is anyone ever truly ready?) Ladies at church have jokingly commented about me being jealous of my sister. Some freely ask when my husband and I plan to follow suit, once again assuming that we view having children as purely under our control and of our own power. You know what they say about people who assume.
Yes, I am very happy for my sister. Am I jealous? I don't think so. At any rate it isn't a conscious struggle. Even if it were, could anyone really blame me if they knew the situation?
To those who make such thoughtless comments, I want to point out the shallowness of their worldview and their false assumption that I share the same flippant attitude toward having children. Instead, I point them to Christ. "It will happen in the Lord's time," I say. And I truly believe that. Whether with medical intervention or not, whether by conception or adoption, I do hope one day to be called "Mom." Until then, I am glad to be "Auntie."
Carter
Yet for all the joy that a new child brings, I have cause for complaint. The questions, the comments, the nosy busybodies who presume to have insight into my reaction to my sister's pregnancy. They are my complaint.
Don't misunderstand; I'm not bothered by questions from those who know where I'm coming from. My husband and I married with the agreement that children will always be welcomed in our home. After nearly four years, there is, of course, frustration and disappointment that we have yet to be so blessed. I find comfort in the understanding of those who have taken the time to know me that well.
But there remain those who assume that we approach having children as our culture approaches it - as something to be controlled and postponed until we decide that we are ready. (Honestly, is anyone ever truly ready?) Ladies at church have jokingly commented about me being jealous of my sister. Some freely ask when my husband and I plan to follow suit, once again assuming that we view having children as purely under our control and of our own power. You know what they say about people who assume.
Yes, I am very happy for my sister. Am I jealous? I don't think so. At any rate it isn't a conscious struggle. Even if it were, could anyone really blame me if they knew the situation?
To those who make such thoughtless comments, I want to point out the shallowness of their worldview and their false assumption that I share the same flippant attitude toward having children. Instead, I point them to Christ. "It will happen in the Lord's time," I say. And I truly believe that. Whether with medical intervention or not, whether by conception or adoption, I do hope one day to be called "Mom." Until then, I am glad to be "Auntie."
CarterAnd so it begins...*enter spooky music*
I have long admired those who so clearly and consistently express their thoughts, ideas, emotions, and whatever else they fancy through the comfortable - yet somehow foreign- medium of the internet. I unfortunately lack the gift of writing, and any who read will soon find that this is not false humility. Still, it is flattering to think that anyone might stumble across my unassuming corner of cyberspace and spend a moment or two scanning through my ramblings. It would be no insult to me if so-called regular readers, should they ever exist here, were to trickle down and fade to nothing. I don't write to entertain; I am not an entertainer. I don't write to educate, though ironically I am a teacher. I am merely a simple woman with deep convictions. This is nothing more than my personal experiment which may or may not last beyond a few meager posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)