Showing posts with label Marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marriage. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Book Review: The Marriage Manifesto

I'm now writing book reviews over at Quiet Publications.  I was just getting ready to cross-post my second review when I realized that I neglected to cross-post my first one.  Oops!

So without further ado, here is a link to my review of The Marriage Manifesto by Kelly M. Flanagan, PhD.  I'll provide a link to my second review in a week or so (though it's there now, if you want to read it).

http://www.quietpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Marriage-Manifesto.jpg

In his first e-book, Dr. Kelly Flanagan addresses how the consumerism that shapes modern life infects and damages marriages as well.  Using examples from his personal life and popular culture, Flanagan clearly outlines what the reader can expect in the preface and introduction.  His first two chapters frame his argument nicely and provide realistic expectations for people who are looking for help with their marriages.  He also provides advice for those who feel they are in abusive relationships, and recommends a course of individual—opposed to marital—therapy.  Flanagan is careful to affirm the inherent worth of the individual regardless of whether the marriage ultimately thrives or fails.

That affirmation of the individual’s inherent worth, along with a call for acceptance of one’s imperfections (both one’s own and one’s spouse’s) is the strongest message of the remaining chapters, even stronger than the threat from consumerism in marriage.  (Continue reading.)

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Cutting the Distractions

About a year ago I tracked my time for five weeks and reported the results in my post What Do You Do All Day?  I'm feeling the need to do that again, because once again I'm feeling slammed-to-the-wall busy while simultaneously wondering why I don't seem to be accomplishing anything.

I've been wanting to do this for a while, but it seems like there's always something 'special' going on that's going to skew my time in a misleading way.  For example, I don't plan to start until sometime after next week, because next week I'll be bringing my kids to VBS, which means four nights of not cooking supper (which I usually do) and of following a completely different routine from what we do every other week of the year.  Back in June there was the five-day retreat I took at a Benedictine Monastery, which would have totally skewered my numbers.

But looking over the post from last year, I can already see some areas where I'm going to fall down.  Mindless computer time leads that list.  I'm spending way too much time playing stupid Facebook games.  In preparation for my next attempt at better time management, I've gone ahead and disabled the applications platform on Facebook, which means not only can I not play the games, I can't even see the posts about my friends' game activity.  Sorry, friends, but something's gotta give.  I lost Bejeweled Blitz to the need to wear two wrist braces continuously, and I just don't have time for Bubble Safari or Hidden Chronicles anymore.  I'm also completely failing at exercise, so I'm going to try to pick that up again before I start logging my time.  Please believe me that I'm doing these things not to make my time logs look better, but because I'm genuinely trying to manage my time better, and I don't need a detailed log to know that these things have to change if I'm going to live my priorities.

So what are my priorities?

Taking care of my family still ranks first.  This means spending quality time with my husband and kids, individually and as a family.  It means preparing healthy meals for them.  It means having regular homeschooling sessions with my kids (I've been pretty haphazard about it so far).

Professional development as a writer ranks second.  Last time I did this I was talking about wanting to be a writer, but I wasn't really writing anything except this blog, plus editing some old sermons to send off to DesperatePreacher.com.  Now in addition to those two things, I'm writing daily devotions at Quiet Publications, plus entering several writing contests.  I'm also trying to reformat some bible studies I've written so I can make them available for sale at Quiet Publications, and I've got a couple of short nonfiction book ideas I want to develop for that site.  And then there's the novel.  And the memoir.  Realistically I know I can't possibly do all that, and I'm going to have to pick one or two things to focus on and put the rest on hold, but for now I'm trying to do it all so I can see which of these projects really inspires my passion.

Self care?  I feel obligated to put this one in my top three, but I don't have very high hopes for it.  Don't get me wrong; it's not that I don't want self care to be a priority, it's just that it seems like a luxury I can't really afford right now.  I realize that's short-term thinking, and if I want to achieve my long-term goals (or, more specifically, live to have long-term goals) I'd better make it a priority.  So there it is, and I'll do what I can.  For the purposes of this project, self care will include exercise, time with friends, and down-time (reading for pleasure or watching TV that I choose, opposed to what my kids choose).

The wild card is going to be my continuing education.  I've been accepted into a year-long unit of Clinical Pastoral Education, which is going to take up twelve hours a week from September through April, plus commuting time (about an hour each way).  It's part of my effort to become a certified chaplain, which is a long-term goal.  It very easily could push its way into my top three (most likely squeezing out self care), and I may eventually have to choose between it and writing.  I hope not, but it's a possibility I have to consider.  As much as I hate to admit it, chaplain is kind of my back-up plan in case writing doesn't start bringing in some money.  I want to be a writer.  I'm willing to be a chaplain.  If I have to start helping out with the bills (a real possibility in this economy) what I want to do may have to take a backseat to what I have to do.  I'm nothing if not pragmatic.  But it's also part of the reason why I'm putting such a push on writing now; I'd really like it to start paying some bills.  But in the meantime, I'm trying to pick up three more unites of CPE, one unit at a time.

These are my priorities.  When I log, I'm going to pay attention to mindlessness (mindless games, mindless websurfing, etc) because I don't really get a benefit from those things.  That's not to say that all my self care has to be intellectually challenging; rereading the entire Harry Potter series is on my short-list of things to do, and I certainly don't consider that to be challenging.  But it's not mindless, either.  Escapist fiction that I intentionally sit down to read is a lot different from random websites that distract me from whatever it is I should be doing.

It will be interesting to see if I'm living according to my stated priorities.  It will also be interesting to see where my time is going; I really don't feel like I'm accomplishing much most days.

Thursday, August 2, 2012

The Biblical Definition of Marriage, Part 2: Adam and Eve (Genesis 1)

Any discussion about the biblical definition of marriage must begin with Adam and Eve.  They were, after all, the first people created by God, and their story is most frequently invoked as how God defines marriage.  And there you read about one man and one woman, joined together by God.  End of story.

But what exactly does the story say?

First it depends on whether you're looking at the story that's told in Genesis 1 or in Genesis 2.

Genesis 1:26-28 tells this story: "Then God said, 'Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.'  So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.  God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." (NRSV)

Let's forget for a moment that we're looking for a biblical definition of marriage, and consider what the text does and doesn't say.

In the order of creation, humankind* alone is created in God's image.  God's intent in creating humanity was to establish us as caretaker of all the rest of creation.  Men and women were both entrusted with this task equally, as both were created in the image of God.  After they came into being God first blessed them, then commanded them to "Be fruitful and multiply."

One might infer that God just created marriage here, but nowhere in all of Genesis 1 do the words 'marriage,' 'husband,' or 'wife' appear.  To understand this as the establishment of marriage is reading more into the text than is there.  This is the story of how God established humanity as stewards of creation.

The only suggestion that this is a marriage is in God's command to "Be fruitful and multiply."  As I mentioned before, it was the first thing he said to them after blessing them.  But if we're going to read Genesis 1 as the establishment of biblical marriage, then we must also accept that the primary purpose of marriage is to reproduce, and therefore any marriage that does not produce biological offspring is contrary to God's definition of marriage.

More likely, Genesis 1 is not talking about the institution of marriage, but of the primacy of humanity over all other creatures of the earth.  Procreation does require one man and one woman, but as we are well aware, procreation can and does occur outside the bonds of holy matrimony.  God is commanding procreation not as the primary purpose of marriage, but as the way in which humankind is to maintain its dominion over the earth.

But this is all an academic exercise, because few if any point to the Genesis 1 story of Adam and Eve as God's intention for marriage (it's way too egalitarian for many, what with men and women being created equal and equally charged with managing the world).  The Genesis 2 story is much juicier!



*The literal translation is actually 'man,' not 'humanity.'  A more literal rendering of verse 27 would read, "So God created man in his image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."  Since the final stanza specifically includes both men and women as being created at this time and in this way, I'm going to continue to use the gender-neutral term 'humanity' here, as that is clearly the intent of the original text.

Part 1

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

The Biblical Definition of Marriage, Part 1: Introduction

Comments made by Dan Cathy, President of Chick-Fil-A, recently brought the debate over gay marriage back to the forefront.  Again.  As usual, most people split into one of two camps: those in support of legalizing same-sex marriage, and those in support of "the biblical definition of marriage," including restricting legal marriage to those who fit that definition.

The term "biblical definition of marriage" is bandied about with great authority, but every time I hear it, I also hear the voice of Inigo Montoya saying, "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

In popular usage, the "biblical definition of marriage" appears to be shorthand for "marriage between one man and one woman."  That's the definition that some want included in a constitutional amendment addressing the issue.  However there are some who also include the submission of wives to their husbands, the restriction of women to the traditional roles of homemaker and mother, as well as an absolute prohibition of divorce in the "biblical definition of marriage."  In a land of majority two-income households, where more women are graduating from college than men, and where roughly half of all marriages end in divorce, I can't see a whole lot of public support for those aspects of the "biblical definition of marriage."

So what is the actual biblical definition of marriage?

Sadly, when I went to my concordance and looked up "definition of marriage," nothing came up in the entire bible.  Of course the answer's not that easy.  So this can't be answered in a single post, even one of my marathon-length ones.  But it's important.  The issue at stake, as Dan Cathy puts it, is whether or not we're "shak[ing] our fist at [God] and say[ing], 'We know better than you what constitutes a marriage.'"  The issue, simply put, is whether or not we are redefining marriage in direct opposition to how God has defined it.  Therefore, this is the beginning of an ongoing series in which I'm going to explore the bible and see what it really says about marriage.  I don't expect these posts to settle the question once and for all, but I do hope that those of you who read them will think about your own assumptions, and be willing to think critically about what you believe and why.

My intention is not to attack or ridicule those who are earnestly trying to live according to biblical principles.  I myself am a faithful Christian trying to live according to biblical principles.  I'm doing this primarily because I believe there is a lack of knowledge and understanding about the bible, especially among those who use it to justify their own political positions.  Perhaps I'm about to join those ranks, but I'm tired of having a vocal minority define for the world what my faith is.  If we're going to use the bible to defend our positions, let's take a look and see what the bible actually says about those positions.

I welcome you to join the discussion in the comments section.  As always, please keep it civil.

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Good vs. Evil

I really didn't want to go here.  I really didn't want to get into the whole Chick-Fil-A thing.  I really wanted to just join Jen Hatmaker in her wonderful-sounding basement, and wait for this whole thing to blow over.

But I can't.  Because I'm tired of all the vitriol and venomous accusations.  And I'm particularly tired of one side (pick whichever one you want--both are equally guilty) assigning motives to the actions of the other.

Chick-Fil-A uses some of its profits to support organizations that oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage.  Personally, I disagree with the aims of those organizations; given the fact that we do not live in a theocracy (nor do I want to, even as a faithful Christian), I cannot see any legitimate reason to deny same-sex couples that right.  The Jim Henson Company also disagrees with the aims of those organizations, and they decided to end their partnership with Chick-Fil-A and donate the proceeds they'd enjoyed from that partnership to GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation).

All of that is fine.  Chick-Fil-A can use their profits as they see fit, and so can the Jim Henson Company.  And both can choose to partner with whomever they want for whatever reasons they want.  Or not to partner.  They have that right.

But the owners of Chick-Fil-A have been described as hateful, evil bigots who only want to deny rights to those who don't believe as they do, and are trying to use their money to establish theocratic rule in this country.  I don't think that's fair, and it certainly isn't supported by facts.

Yes, they hold to a 'biblical' definition of marriage (though that claim itself is dubious, given the fact that there are many definitions of marriage in the bible, many of which are not considered acceptable in this day and age.  But that's a whole other post.)  Yes, they support organizations that work to make their accepted definition of marriage the only legal definition of marriage.  But that's not all they support.

Let's look first at the partnership with the Jim Henson Company.  The Jim Henson Company has never masqueraded as a biblically conservative company.  As they proudly stated on their Facebook page, "The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years."  Their commitment to diversity and inclusiveness was not hidden from Chick-Fil-A, yet Chick-Fil-A still chose to enter into a business partnership with them.  Yes, they stood to benefit financially, but if they were willing to compromise their principles for the sake of profits, then they'd be open on Sundays, so I dismiss that as their primary motivation.  Basically, despite the difference in politics, Chick-Fil-A wanted to be affiliated with the values that the Jim Henson Company stood for.  How does that fit in with their image as hateful, evil bigots out to mold the world into their own narrow conservative image?

I also know that they donate a sizable amount of money to the Public Broadcasting Service.  How do I know this?  Because between the shows my kids watch on PBS they are subjected to a few non-commercial commercials for Chick-Fil-A (as well as Earth's Best Baby Food--since when are there commercials on PBS??!!).  If you haven't watched the children's programming on PBS recently, let me assure you that it's not advocating conservative Christian values to the sippy-cup set.  Those shows advocate the same diversity, inclusiveness, and tolerance that the Jim Henson Company does.  Yet Chick-Fil-A believes enough in their mission to give them lots of money, despite their different politics.

Chick-Fil-A also funds college scholarships, foster homes, summer camp programs, youth leadership programs domestically and abroad, as well as marriage preparation, enrichment, and crisis intervention programs.

I don't agree with everything they choose to do with their profits, but they're clearly not the hate-mongering bigots they're accused of being.

Neither the right nor the left are all good or all evil.  Can we please stop assigning motives that make it easier to dehumanize each other?  If you don't like how Chick-Fil-A spends their money, they by all means exercise your right to boycott.  But don't demonize them, or the people who support them.  They don't deserve it, any more than you do.

Monday, April 9, 2012

Christian Families, Motherhood, and Womanhood Series, Part Two: Biblical Womanhood and the Proverbs 31 Wife

Any serious conversation about Christian motherhood and womanhood must begin with Proverbs 31:10-31.  Bibles that use section headings call this “Ode to a Capable Wife,” “The Wife of Noble Character,” “In Praise of a Good Wife,” “The Virtuous Wife,” “Description of a Worthy Woman,” and the like.  In the original Hebrew, these verses are written as an acrostic poem, with each verse beginning with the successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet.  (For an example of this in English, see my post A Modern Psalm of Lament from a Former Pastor.)

The Proverbs 31 wife is the gold standard of Biblical Womanhood.  Biblical Womanhood is a movement within conservative Christianity (including Quiverfull) that emphasizes the role of women to be primarily (if not exclusively) that of wife and mother, often of as many children as God sees fit to give them.  They homeschool their children, are submissive and obedient to their husbands, and if they earn money, it’s through a home-based business that utilizes a traditional homemaking skill (such as sewing, soap or jewelry making, baking, or writing blogs or e-books that help other women to be better wives, mothers, housekeepers, and homeschoolers).  Every woman who keeps a Biblical Womanhood blog, and every woman who regularly reads one of those blogs, can tell you all about the Proverbs 31 wife, and how they aspire to be one.

So let’s start off by seeing exactly what we’re talking about.

Proverbs 31:10-31 (NRSV)

Ode to a Capable Wife

10 A capable wife who can find?
   She is far more precious than jewels.
11 The heart of her husband trusts in her,
   and he will have no lack of gain.
12 She does him good, and not harm,
   all the days of her life.
13 She seeks wool and flax,
   and works with willing hands.
14 She is like the ships of the merchant,
   she brings her food from far away.
15 She rises while it is still night
   and provides food for her household
   and tasks for her servant-girls.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
   with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
17 She girds herself with strength,
   and makes her arms strong.
18 She perceives that her merchandise is profitable.
   Her lamp does not go out at night.
19 She puts her hands to the distaff,
   and her hands hold the spindle.
20 She opens her hand to the poor,
   and reaches out her hands to the needy.
21 She is not afraid for her household when it snows,
   for all her household are clothed in crimson.
22 She makes herself coverings;
   her clothing is fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the city gates,
   taking his seat among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them;
   she supplies the merchant with sashes.
25 Strength and dignity are her clothing,
   and she laughs at the time to come.
26 She opens her mouth with wisdom,
   and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.
27 She looks well to the ways of her household,
   and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children rise up and call her happy;
   her husband too, and he praises her:
29 ‘Many women have done excellently,
   but you surpass them all.’
30 Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain,
   but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
31 Give her a share in the fruit of her hands,
   and let her works praise her in the city gates.

(Scripture quotations are from New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.)

Let me attempt to restate this vision of a capable wife into modern terms verse by verse (this is an off-the-cuff restatement, with no Hebrew exegesis involved at all):

10.  She is highly valued.
11.  Her husband trusts her, and benefits in every way from being married to her.
12.  She takes care to consider her husband and his needs in everything she does, and makes sure nothing she does is detrimental to him.
13.  She looks for the finest materials for her household and willingly works to make her house a home.
14.  She looks for a variety of healthy foods to feed to her family.
15.  She gets up early to make breakfast for everyone and to organize the daily duties—if she has a housekeeper or other household servants, she plans their agendas.
16.  She has her own money and makes her own investment decisions.
17.  She works hard.
18.  She knows her work is of good quality, and continues to work hard.
19.  She works hard.
20.  She is generous to the poor and needy.
21.  She’s not afraid of hard times, because she knows her family is well cared for.
22.  She takes care of her appearance and dresses well.
23.  Her husband is a leader in the community and well-respected.
24.  She earns her own money with the work of her own hands.
25.  She is strong, dignified, and confident about the future.
26.  She is intelligent and kind, and teaches others those virtues by modeling them herself.
27.  She is constantly seeing to the well-being of her household and isn’t lazy.
28.  Her children and husband love and respect her, and recognize that she is happy.
29.  She receives praise for being who she is.
30.  She knows that her blessings are from her relationship with the Lord, and not from physical beauty or charm.
31.  She enjoys the fruits of her hard work both materially and by being recognized for all that she does.

There’s a lot I can get behind in that.  I think it’s a wonderful vision for a modern wife and mother to aspire to.  But I have a problem with the way it’s often practiced in fundamentalist circles.

The first problem arises from the belief among conservative and fundamentalist Christians that the bible is the literal and inerrant word of God.  While that problem goes well beyond the interpretation of this fragment of scripture, I’ll sidestep the whole debate (for this post, anyway) and simply point out that if Proverbs 31:10-31 is God’s literal and inerrant description of a capable wife, then it is no longer a vision to be aspired to but a command to be obeyed.  And failure to live up to any part of this description is a violation of God’s command, which can have dire consequences for a woman’s hope for salvation and understanding of God’s love.

From there, one must recognize just how hard it is to be a capable wife according to this proverb.  She gets very little sleep since she stays up working late into the night (v. 18) and gets up early to make breakfast (v. 15), and never has downtime during the day (v. 27).  Again, as an ideal model of industriousness it’s fine, but as a command that must be practiced exactly, it leads to exhaustion and hopelessness.

Most conservative and fundamentalist Christians focus on the hard work and domestic activities of the capable wife.  She cooks her meals from scratch, makes her own clothes, keeps her house clean, teaches her children herself, supports her husband in all that he does, and whatever money she might make from a home-based business goes to help support her family.

But a lot of the benefits that the proverbial capable wife enjoys are overlooked or ignored, frequently because of other biblical passages that emphasize a wife’s submission to her husband, and the husband’s headship over his wife.  These, too, are considered the literal, inerrant word of God, and therefore commands that must be obeyed.  (Don’t ask me why obedience to those commands is apparently more important than obedience to the beneficial commands here—that would get me on a rant, which I’m trying to avoid in these posts.)

I’ve been following some of the blogs written by women in the Biblical Womanhood movement (or, if they don’t believe themselves part of a ‘movement,’ they at least aspire to be Proverbs 31 wives), and some of the references they make to their relationships with their husbands in the ‘About Me’ sections are troubling to me.  One, when stating that she most likely won’t respond to comments that question something she posted directly from the bible, suggests this for women who have questions about the bible:  “I do encourage you to bring it to your husband though, and follow his leading.”  I have no problem with talking it over with your husband (if you happen to have one), but the fact that he’s a guy doesn’t qualify him to lead in biblical interpretation.  I was amused by this statement in the ‘About’ section of the Ladies Against Feminism website:  “LAF is under the oversight of Stanley Sherman, minister of the Lancaster Church of Christ in Junction City, Oregon.”  Apparently ladies who oppose feminism cannot do so without the oversight of a man, or else they might be accused of being feminists themselves?  The one that bothers me the most is the blogger who proudly announces, “This blog is written and carried out under [my husband’s] oversight.”  By her own admission most of her posts are about “marriage, femininity, homemaking, homeschooling, children as blessings, virtuous maidenhood & boyhood and the importance of family discipleship and cultivating a generational vision for the family.”  While her husband may have some legitimate input on a few of those topics, it is clear that this blog is not written cooperatively.  He is overseeing her blog, which is written by a woman for other women, including her posts on femininity, homemaking, and virtuous maidenhood.

Compare that to the Proverbs 31 wife.  Her husband trusts her (v. 11).  That means he lets her do her own thing without his explicit oversight or control.  This is evidenced by the fact that she manages the household virtually on her own, using her own judgment and discretion (v. 13-15).  She has her own money and makes her own investment decisions (v. 16, 20, 24), and gets to spend at least a portion of her hard-earned money on herself (v. 31).  All her husband does is value her (v. 10), trust her (v. 11), is respected in his own right in the community (v. 23), and praises her (v. 28-29).  Overseeing her is never mentioned.

Verse 12 makes it clear that she only does her husband good and never causes him harm.  That aspect is highlighted in modern interpretations, but what is ignored is the fact that much of what the Proverbs 31 wife does has no real impact on her husband at all; they are neutral.  In other words, while she might only do her husband good, she doesn’t only do good for her husband.  She can and does engage in many activities that have absolutely nothing to do with him, so long as they don’t cause him harm.  And it’s assumed that he’s a mature, independent man who isn’t threatened by his wife’s obvious success, and is as supportive of her as she is of him (he wouldn’t be praising her efforts in verse 29 if he wasn’t supportive).

And as for the hard work, let’s not ignore the fact that she has servants (v. 15).  One thing I’ve not yet seen on a single Biblical Womanhood blog is mention of a cleaning lady.  A Proverbs 31 wife today is supposed to be some kind of ultimate superwoman, but the real Proverbs 31 wife had hired help.

Finally, what’s most significant is the fact that the Proverbs 31 wife is happy and fulfilled in her life.  She is strong, dignified, and is confident about her future (and looks great, too!)  She is wise, kind, and generous.  While I’m sure she has her bad days, for the most part she’s playing to her strengths in her life, and this is evidenced by the fact that she knows her value, and her husband, her children, and her community all recognize her worth.  Not every woman is called to this lifestyle.  I know that I’d like to be, and I’m aspiring to be a Proverbs 31 wife, but I also know that I fall far short, and there’s a good chance I’ll never get there in all respects.  I’d like to cook all of my meals from scratch, make my own clothes, have a clean house, homeschool my children, support my husband in all that he does, and make money from a home-based business.  Here’s how I’m doing so far:

  • Most of my meals actually are made from scratch.  I make my own bread (with the help of a breadmaker), all my own baked goods, my own soups, my own tomato sauce, and I’m planning on planting a vegetable garden next year.  We eat very little in the way of prepackaged or processed foods.
  • I’d like to make clothes for myself and my daughter (my husband and son will probably continue to wear store-bought—girls’ clothes are just easier to make).  I just bought a new sewing machine, a new pattern for my daughter and the fabric to go with it, and I have a bunch of old patterns for me that I plan on using soon.  Of course, I still have to make the curtains I’ve been planning since before Spencer was born nearly four years ago, which are now destined for Naomi’s room.  So there’s definitely room for improvement there!
  • Total fail on the clean house thing.  I keep up with laundry and dishes, and the house is usually more or less picked up, but it’s not ‘clean.’  I aspire to hiring a cleaning lady.  In the meantime I triage, and I have a schedule/checklist I try to follow to help me at least keep things from getting too gross.  It sort of works sometimes, but not really.  Like I said, total fail here.
  • I’ve already begun homeschooling my kids, though at ages 2 and 3, we’re taking it pretty slow and relaxed.  I’m beginning to look into curricula, will pick up the pace over the next year, and start in earnest when Spencer’s 5 and Naomi’s 3.  But as of right now, Spencer can recognize upper and lowercase forms of all letters, is beginning to learn the sounds they make and how to put them together, and can count to 13.  Naomi is beginning to recognize her letters, and can also count to 13.
  • I like to think I support my husband in everything he does.  I believe he’d tell me if I weren’t.
  • My home-based business is writing and blogging.  And except for a few old sermons I’ve sold to DesperatePreacher.com, I haven’t made a dime.  So far it’s just been a time-suck, though I’m hoping that the launch of my new Quiet Publications website in a month or so will change that.  Again, definite room for improvement.

And all this is a struggle for me.  I can’t say with certainty that I’m playing to my strengths by taking this path.  But I’m taking it because I want to and because I believe it’s best for me and for my family, not because the bible tells me that this is how I have to live or else I’m disobeying God’s command.  When I beat myself up for falling short of the ideal Proverbs 31 wife, it’s not because I fear for my salvation, but because I have a really nasty perfectionist streak.  I have to keep reminding myself that God (and my husband, and my kids) will still love me even if I don’t clean the bathroom today.

In all, Proverbs 31:10-31 is a fantastic model for how to be a Christian wife and mother in 21st century America, but it’s not the only model.  My thanks go out to the practical advice I’ve received on several of those Biblical Womanhood blogs (the housekeeping schedule/checklist is one of those), but I just can’t get behind some of the theology they embrace.  Not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, however, I still check in with them from time to time, and I do feel encouraged by them (when I’m not deeply offended by them, that is!).

But my hope for all Christian (and non-Christian) women, Proverbs 31-inspired or not, is that they will be strong, dignified, confident about their futures, wise, kind, and generous.  Such a woman is truly blessed by the Lord, whether she recognizes it right now or not.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Priorities

A couple of weeks ago I blogged about my daily schedule, and where all my time goes.  In that post I expressed my desire to better manage my time, make some positive changes, etc.  While I haven't yet begun keeping a new timesheet to monitor my progress, I do know one thing: it's not working.

There simply aren't enough hours in the day, and I'm trying to do too much.  I want to be a good wife, a good mother, a writer, take time to exercise regularly, and still give myself some free time to just relax and recharge.  We're planning on moving again, once we can get out of this lease, so I have to start organizing things in the house to make that a little easier when the time comes.  Much of what I'm doing I can't let go of.  My marriage--like everyone's--need's work.  My kids are very young, and need a lot of attention.  Exercise is very important for my continued existence on this earth, and I'll suck at everything if I reduce what little down time I have now.  Which leaves writing.

I've always wanted to be a writer.  I wrote my first poem and my first short story when I was six years old.  I wrote my first novel in high school.  (None of it's ever been published, and that atrocious novel never will be.)  I have a number of nonfiction books I'd like to write, and a new novel is living fully formed in my imagination.  But I don't have time to sit down and write any of it.  I've found that what little writing time I do have is going towards this blog.

I started this blog on a whim, and it's been fun.  But it's taking more time than I believe it's worth.  I'm not completely giving up on it, but I'm going to switch to posting on it only when I feel inspired, rather than every Tuesday morning (or, lately, afternoon) as I originally intended.  If you've been following me regularly, thank you, and please continue to do so, but also please be patient if it's a while between posts.

Until we meet again!

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

What Do You Do All Day?

Back when I was single and working a full-time job, I used to dream of getting married and 'just' being a full-time mom.  Aside from the obvious desire to share my life with someone and raise children, I really liked the idea of just staying home all day.  All the things I'd be able to do then!  All the books I'd read, the crafts I'd make, and the fun things I could do with my kids--if only I could stay home all day.

Well, now I'm married and home with my kids all day, and I can't figure out where the time goes.  I feel like I'm super-busy, but I can't really point to anything I've accomplished at the end of each day.  My house isn't as clean as it used to be, I have less time for reading, almost no time for crafts, and TV is something the kids watch when I really need to get something else done.

I really wanted to know where my time was going, so I ran a little experiment.  Starting in late June and going throughout July, I kept a log of everything I did each day for five weeks, divided into fifteen minute increments (yes, I really am that anal).  Unfortunately it was a handwritten log, and I didn't try to do anything with the data until I had it all.  It's taken me nearly two months to find the time to do my data entry and analysis.

But anyway, here we are, and the first thing I have to say is: thank goodness for multitasking!  I kept track of when I was doing something with all my attention, as well as when I was doing multiple things at once.  When I added up how much time I spent doing things, I came up with a total of 1,066.75 hours of activities.  There are only 840 hours in a five-week period.  That means I actually did six weeks, two days, ten hours, and forty-eight minutes worth of activities in five weeks.  That averages out to needing 30 hours and 28 minutes to do what I need to do each day.  No wonder I'm tired all the time!

At first glance, it looks like I spend 637 hours, or 59.7% of my time, doing one thing at a time, and 429.75 hours, or 40.3% of my time multitasking.  But that's misleading, because by definition one can't sleep while multitasking, and I spent 264.5 hours (or 24.8% of my time) sleeping or trying to sleep.  (I'm a chronic insomniac, so much of that time was spent trying to sleep, but it's impossible to break out how much time was spent trying, and how much time was spent actually sleeping.  If I had to guess, I'd say at least a quarter of that time was trying to sleep.)  If you just look at my waking hours, I spent only 372.5 hours (or 34.9% of my time) doing one thing at a time.  Without multitasking, I'd be lost.

So what did I spend all my time doing?  Well, we already know that sleeping or trying to sleep accounted for 24.8%.  That wasn't what I spent the most time doing, however.  Taking care of my kids took up 24.9% of my time, and spending time with my husband came in third at 19.3%.  But it's interesting how those numbers broke out.  Of the 265.25 hours I spent with my kids, 174 of them (or 65.6%) were spent multitasking, while the other 91.25 hours (or 34.4%) were spent doing nothing else but taking care of them.  On the other hand, of the 206.25 hours I spent with my husband, for 126 of them (or 61%) my attention was entirely on him, and I only multitasked for 80.25 hours (or 38.9%) with him.  So while my kids get more time with me overall, my husband gets more focused time with me than they do.

Taking care of my family and trying to sleep accounts for 69% of my time.  Self care (the combination of personal hygiene, reading for pleasure, personal 'alone' time, attending worship, spending time with friends, and exercising) accounts for 6.9% of my time.  Professional development (research and writing) accounts for 6.2% of my time, and I waste (watching TV or mindlessly surfing the web) 5.3% of my time.  Some of that is a little misleading, because I'm sure some of the time I called 'research' really should have been categorized under 'mindless web surfing.'  Also, nearly half the time I logged as 'exercising' (9.25 hours) was actually spent driving to and from the gym.  That leaves me with 12.6% of my time to cook, clean, eat, run errands, manage the household finances, manage my husband's company's finances, and do crafts, plus write sermons and lead worship if I'm called to fill in for a vacationing pastor (which I did four of the five Sundays included in my log).  That's three hours and fifty minutes per day of my 30 hour, 28 minute long days.

It's been interesting to see if how I spend my time matches up with my stated priorities.  Overall, the answer is yes, because my family is my top priority, and I spend 44.2% of my total time (or 58.8% of my waking hours) engaging with them.  On the other hand, I see some areas I need to fix.  I don't have enough hours in the day to waste 5.3% of my time on mindless web surfing or TV.  And I'd like to be able to spend more time writing.  While 6.2% might be the best I can do right now, that was two-thirds research to one-third writing.  I think much of my 'research' is just an excuse, and I need to reverse that ratio.  I also need to spend more time on self-care.  You can't see it in the averages, but a lot of my personal time was grouped together in large blocks every few weeks, because I just burned out and shut down, and had to hole up while my husband took care of the kids.  I need to be more intentional about taking time for me and doing something that I find enjoyable (like reading for pleasure) rather than mindlessly wasting time.  I've already begun to exercise a lot more.

I think I'm going to run this experiment again.  In addition to the changes I want to make or have already made, some things are different now than they were in June.  For one thing, now that the fall programming has begun, I'm no longer being called for pulpit supply nearly every week, so I actually get to worship again.  However, this does cut down on my personal time, because I was taking some time for myself after church rather than going straight home.  Now I've got the kids with me at church.  Also in July, my husband and I attended Readercon 22, which resulted in two solid days where I didn't interact with my kids at all, and my husband got a lot of one-on-one time with me (my 'research' category got a bump, too).  That kind of weekend is extremely rare.  Another change is that my son no longer naps in the afternoon, and I'm experimenting with bringing my daughter down to one nap.  Additionally I've begun homeschooling my son, so he's getting more one-on-one time than he was over the summer.  All of this conspires to take away more of my self-care time, which I really can't let happen.

I'll keep a log for four or five weeks again, and see how it compares.  I think the only real change I'll make is that 'driving' will become it's own separate category, since that adds anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour and a half to whatever I'm doing outside the house, and inflates the amount of time I log exercising or worshiping.

It is a bit tedious keeping the log (and even more so analyzing it) but I highly recommend doing this if you feel like you're not getting anything done, or if you're not sure if your actions agree with your stated priorities.  And as for getting all that time to read, make crafts, and do fun things?  I guess now I'm looking forward to being an empty-nester.

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Gay Marriage in America

New York has now joined Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington DC in allowing gay couples the right to marry.  As expected, the reactions to this range from jubilation to rage, from optimism to cynicism.

This is not the first time this drama has played out in a state legislature and on the national stage, nor, I imagine, will it be the last.  What fascinates me is why this is an issue at all.

Its importance as an issue to those who support homosexuals' right to marry is obvious: marriage affords legal benefits, protections, and legitimization that cannot be achieved any other way, not to mention the emotional and psychological benefits of having a publicly recognized union (this list of reasons is in no way intended to be exhaustive).  That these benefits exist for some but not others seems to be inherently unfair and inconsistent with living in the Land of the Free.  That's all obvious.  But what's less obvious to me is why people want to restrict the freedom of gay couples.

The first and most obvious is the religious objection.  Many organized religions define homosexual behavior as sinful, and those who engage in it sinners.  Catholics and evangelical Christians have been the loudest religious voices in this debate.

Let me first speak to those whose faith permeates all aspects of their lives.  I recognize that you are not voting or speaking out of hatred, malice, or bigotry, but rather that your understanding of God's will for you personally and for all of humanity is your guiding principle.  I understand that when you vote, you vote your conscience, and that this nation allows you the right to voice your opinions and influence others in an effort to shape the society in which you live.  But please understand that the United States of America is not now nor has it ever been a Christian theocracy, and Christian definitions of sin and morality cannot and should not be our nation's rule of law.  Ignoring for the moment the existence of other religions in America, which Christian belief system could we all agree on to set the laws for the rest of us?  Catholics?  Evangelicals?  Seventh Day Adventists?  United Church of Christ?  Each one has a set of principles or practices unacceptable to other Christians, let alone to people of other faiths or of no faith.  The price of living in a place where we are free to practice our faith as we choose is that we cannot assume that our faith and practice is the rule and norm for all.  The law allows divorce, interfaith marriage, and, in some places, marriage between two consenting adults of the same gender.  But the law does not require any person whose faith rejects any of the above to get divorced or marry someone they find objectionable.  These laws allowing people to do things that your faith and understanding of God's will reject don't interfere with your practicing your faith.  (I understand that there is debate over whether nonprofit religious institutions can 'discriminate' against those who don't adhere to that religion's moral code, and let me state clearly that I fully support and defend those institutions' right to do so.  The acceptability of homosexuality within Christian communities is an entirely different discussion, to be addressed at another time.)  Bottom line: the first Amendment of the Constitution of the United State of America guarantees that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  Legally denying the freedom to marry based on your religious beliefs is tantamount to establishing your religious beliefs as law.  You are welcome to proclaim your beliefs and teach them within your churches, but they cannot be codified in law.

Let me now speak to those who raise religious objections to gay marriage but who don't themselves routinely darken the door of a house of worship or allow their faith and the bible to guide their own relationships, behavior, leisure activities, or spending decisions: knock it off!  You're giving the rest of us a bad name!  If your religion isn't strong enough to compel you to give more to charity than you spend at Starbucks, then you don't have the right to use it to dictate to someone else whom they can or cannot marry.  Quit hiding behind the easy objections and try to figure out what's really bothering you.

Removing theology (and theologically-based morality) from the question leaves us with a few more objections I've heard.

1) Marriage is a sacrament of the Catholic Church, and the First Amendment protects from government interference in church practices.

2) Homosexuality is against nature.

3) Gay marriage contributes to the 'normalizing' of homosexuality in the media and especially in state-run (i.e. public) schools.

4) Gay marriage is a slippery slope that could lead to the abolition of the age of consent and the legalization of bestiality and polygamy.

First regarding marriage as a sacrament of the Catholic Church:  The institution of marriage existed long before the Catholic Church, and still exists for non-Catholics.  I've not been Catholic for over two decades, and my husband has never been Catholic, yet we still had to apply for a marriage license from the state.  Just because the Catholic Church has chosen to understand marriage as a sacrament doesn't nullify its non-Catholic forms.  Allowing gays the right to marry does not impact the way the Catholic Church practices the sacrament, as the Catholic Church is still permitted the right to refuse to marry those who don't meet their criteria (just as laws permitting divorce do not compel the Catholic Church to marry individuals who have been divorced).

Regarding the claim that homosexuality is against nature:  Um, what are you basing this on?  Whether this behavior has been observed in the animal kingdom?  (Do we really want to take our lead from animals?)  If so, what about the two male penguins at the Bremerhaven Zoo in Germany who tried to mate with each other and then raised an abandoned chick together?  If you're basing it on the idea that sex is for procreation, then you're claiming that all sexual acts performed for pleasure and not for procreation are unnatural, which includes all sex performed by infertile couples, childless-by-choice couples, elderly couples, and anyone who uses birth control for any reason.  If you're referring to--to put it delicately--logistics and mechanics (insert your favorite nut and bolt analogy here) then you're claiming that all forms of oral or anal sex are unnatural, which puts a large number of married heterosexual couples committing these same unnatural acts which you want to ban.

Regarding the normalizing of homosexuality in the media and in schools:  Who decides what's normal?  'Normal' in society is an ever-changing idea.  Most middle-class families currently have both parents working outside the home.  That didn't used to be normal, but now it is.  It used to be contrary to 'normal' society (and illegal, for that matter) for couples of different races to marry.  Is that something we should be returning to?  It's only been in the last hundred years or so that adolescence has emerged as a distinct stage of life; before that it was normal and necessary for society to function that boys learned a trade at an early age while girls learned how to tend house, and once they were past childhood (anywhere from age twelve to seventeen) they married and assumed the responsibilities of full adulthood.  Again removing theologically-based morality (as well as the vague and unhelpful protest that "it's just wrong"), society is not harmed by showing healthy relationships between two adults of the same gender.  Personally I find the behavior normalized in most reality TV shows far more damaging to us as a society, but that, too, is an entirely different post.  And as far as not wanting it taught in schools, well, it's not the public schools' responsibility to uphold some groups' religious or moral beliefs.  There is nothing stopping you from homeschooling or enrolling your child in a private school more to your liking.

And finally there's the slippery slope.  Here there may be legitimate cause for concern.  While I don't believe there is much risk that the age of consent will be abolished, or that bestiality will be legalized (both involve 'entities' that are understood to be incapable of giving informed consent), this may open the door for a discussion about polygamy, polyandry, and other group marriages.  However, the issue before us at the moment is marriage between two people of the same gender, and I believe that we should consider that issue on its own merits.  Not doing so because we don't want to have a different conversation at a later date is simply illogical.

Most of the arguments against allowing gays to marry are weak and/or faulty.  The religious objections may be more solid, however they simply do not apply given the very intentional separation of church and state that the founders wrote into our governing documents.  There are some very serious problems facing this nation.  Can we please just allow gay couples the right to marry across the board, and refocus our energy and resources on addressing poverty, hunger, immigration, the economy, and the environment?  Please?  Pretty please?  With sugar on top?