Where Does It Begin? How Will It End?

I had to wipe my tears with a crumpled-up napkin I'd found in the glove compartment.  I was driving to the mall so my kids could run off some excess energy at the indoor playground, and my son asked me why I was crying.  When I told him it was because of what I'd heard on the radio, he--quite sensibly--opined that "Maybe we shouldn't listen to this radio station [NPR] any more."  I smiled and told him that would make sense, but Mama had to know what was going on in the world.

And what was going on that made me cry in the car was the news that 20 elementary school children in Newtown, CT were dead, along with six adults from their school, and the shooter.  Since then it's been revealed that the shooter's mother was a teacher at the school, whom he'd also shot and killed at home earlier in the day.

I could only wonder what kind of person would do such a thing.  And what kind of world do we live in that produces such people?  Because this was not an isolated event.  Sure, the fact that it was an elementary school was a new twist, but earlier this week someone shot up a shopping mall in Oregon.  Two weeks ago a young man shot his father with a bow and arrow as he taught class at a community college in Wyoming (after fatally stabbing his father's girlfriend at their home).  A few months ago someone else shot up a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin.  And a month before that, someone else shot up a movie theatre in Colorado.  Why do so many people resort to indiscriminate violence as the solution to their problems?  Why are they so unaware or uncaring of the pain and suffering they'll inflict on people who are in no way responsible for the wrongs committed against them?

Not long after arriving at the mall playground, I saw part of the answer.  Three boys, all the same age or not much younger than the majority of victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School, were running around pretending to shoot everyone with their index fingers.  And laughing as they did it.  When one of them pointed his 'gun' at me and I shook my head 'no,' he yelled, "Bang bang!"  He was about six years old.  I informed him sternly that guns are not toys, and it's not a fun game to pretend to kill people.  His two friends overheard me and came over, pointed their index fingers at me, and opened fire, apparently now with semi-automatic index finger-guns.  Then they ran away, laughing.  The mother of the two boys who came later, who were apparently brothers, was sitting nearby and saw the whole thing.  She was smiling.

A little while later, after the boy who 'shot' me first had left, my son Spencer began playing with the brothers.  Very quickly I found myself having to give him the same lecture I'd given the first boy.  I told him that I understood he was playing with those other boys, but he wasn't allowed to play that game, and if that's all they wanted to do, then he'd have to find someone else to play with.  They began just chasing each other, sans guns.  I would have preferred him not to play with them at all, but he has to learn to pick his own friends, and he was obeying me.  I know this because I was watching.  Closely.  Unlike the other boys' mother.

After a couple of minutes, Spencer came over crying.  One of the brothers had pushed him.  I told him that if he did that, then he wasn't really a friend, and he shouldn't play with him.  But Spencer is forgiving (or at least really enjoys playing with other kids) so he went back.  The boy's mother either didn't know what had happened, or didn't care.  A little while later Spencer was crying again.  This time the boy had pushed him off one of the climbing structures, and Spencer had landed hard on the floor.  The boy's mother pulled him over to her seat and told him to "Go say you're sorry."  The boy refused.  His mother sat him down next to her and told him he couldn't play anymore until he said he was sorry.  I told Spencer that even if he did apologize, I didn't want them playing together anymore.  Spencer agreed.  The other brother came over and invited Spencer to play with "just me."  Spencer went.  The 'pusher' saw Spencer and his brother playing and got up from his seat.  His mother asked, "Are you going to say you're sorry?"  The boy said he was, so she let him go.  He went in the opposite direction of Spencer, clearly with no intention of apologizing.  His mother watched him go, shook her head, then went back to playing with her phone.  I watched the little hooligan make his way around the play yard back to the climbing structure, where his brother and Spencer were playing, now joined by my daughter Naomi.  And then I heard a banshee shriek I know very well.  This boy had now pushed Naomi off the structure, too.

The boy's mother made him stay with her this time, but kept him occupied with snacks while she gave her other son a few more minutes to play.  When it was finally (mercifully) time for them to leave, the boy who hadn't pushed my kids threw a temper tantrum, and only promises of pizza and ice cream (for both of them) could entice him to leave the play area.

That child probably won't grow up to be a mass murderer.  But what did he learn today?  He learned that after you push and hurt other children, you get pizza and ice cream.  He learned that bad behavior, even violent behavior, doesn't result in negative consequences. And he'll remember, when things get difficult when he's older, how much fun it was to run around and pretend to kill people, and how much easier life was back then.

What mothers do matters, but we're not the only ones who influence our children.  Sometimes we do our best to teach them proper behavior and give them plenty of love, attention, and guidance, and they still turn out to do these horrific things.

I'm noticing a trend.  It's too early to begin to speculate about motive regarding the Connecticut shooter, but we do know a few things about him.  He was 20 years old, and has been described as quiet, reserved, and highly intelligent.  He came from a loving home, and had no known criminal record.

The Oregon shooter was 22 years old, and was described by friends as being a really nice guy in high school, popular with the other kids, and having a heart of gold.  School administrators described him as having average talent and earning average grades, with no record of disciplinary issues.  The only trigger anyone can point to is the fact the he had recently broken up with his girlfriend, though he'd seemed to be dealing with that OK.  His dream was to move to Hawaii.

The Wyoming guy was 25, had a Bachelor's degree in Computer Engineering, a Master's degree in Electrical Engineering, and was working a low-end, blue-collar job for a utility.  He lived in a rooming house and was described as shy and socially awkward.  He also had Asperger's Syndrome, which he believed his father 'gave him.'  He had no criminal history.

The Wisconsin shooter was 40, and had a history of behavioral misconduct and affiliations with hate groups.

The Colorado shooter was 24, and had been studying for his Ph.D. in neuroscience until he withdrew from the program after failing his oral exams.  He was described as quiet, responsible, and nerdish, raised in an upscale section of San Diego and once worked at a summer camp for needy children.  He'd never given any indications of problematic behavior until his academic career began to fall apart.

With the exception of the Wisconsin shooter, they were all promising young adults.  Most came from loving homes.  They were all most likely raised to believe that they could accomplish anything they set their minds to, and were encouraged to pursue their dreams, expecting they'd be successful.  Two were well educated, but found that in real life, you don't automatically get on the team just because you showed up at tryouts.  In the adult world you have to work hard, and sometimes hard work isn't enough.  You still have to deal with disappointment, despite your best efforts.  And when things don't go your way, you don't get to throw a temper tantrum and have someone offer you a cookie to stop.  Two specifically targeted a parent.  Only one is still alive today.

As parents, we want to protect our kids, but we also have to teach them how to cope with things not working out the way they want.  In order for them to learn to deal with disappointment, they need to sometimes be disappointed, and that means we have to let them fully experience it.  We can comfort them, but we can't fix it for them.  We have to let them know that some behavior is simply not acceptable, and punish them for it, even if it inconveniences us.  We have to let them know that they must meet certain expectations, and they don't get a prize or a passing grade just for trying.  The world doesn't really care about their self esteem once they're no longer children or teenagers.  Life can be harsh, it can be unfair, and we're doing them a real disservice if we lead them to believe otherwise.  And even when we do all that, we still have to help them navigate through childhood in a culture that expects absolutely nothing of them until they're 18 or 22, at which time they are expected to be fully-functioning adults.

In the days and weeks to come, there will be talk about gun control, increased security in the schools, zero tolerance policies, anything that might better protect us from the monsters who sadly aren't imaginary.  Those are worthy and useful conversations to have.  But what we really need to talk about is a culture that actively discourages children and teenagers from preparing for life as adults.  Take away the guns, and those who want to kill will use knives or bows and arrows.  Increase security at the schools, and the criminals will find ways to get to their targets, and everyone else will become accustomed at a young age to living in a police state.  Let's not waste too much time with the symptoms; we need to address the cause if we're ever going to end this.

All I wanted to do yesterday was hug my kids.  I know I wasn't alone in that.  I want to protect my kids from those horrors.  But I won't turn off the radio, even when it makes me cry, because that's the world we live in, and I have to know what the reality is if I'm going to live in this world, and prepare my kids for it.

Why Don't Domestic Goddesses Get Sick Days?

I've been sick for going on three weeks now.  It started as a simple cold, blossomed into bronchitis, infected the rest of the family, and is still stubbornly hanging on.

I've gone through all the prescriptions I've been given by my doctor, and am now trying to do the classic 'rest and drink plenty of fluids' thing.

But the thing is, I'm a Domestic Goddess by profession.  And Domestic Goddesses don't get sick days.

We just had to hunker down for a little Frankenstorm you may have heard of called Sandy.  Not knowing what to expect, my sick husband and sick me had to tag-team taking care of our sick children (who still--somehow--have disturbing levels of excess energy) and stock up on all the essentials in case we lost power for a few days.  It turned out to be unnecessary as we never actually lost our power, but we couldn't have known that beforehand, so we had to scramble around.

And the kids still need help getting ready in the morning.  Naomi needs a clean diaper and help getting dressed, and Spencer needs help reaching the big-boy-underwear in his top dresser drawer.  Cereal doesn't put itself into bowls, nor does juice pour itself into sippies.

Peanut-butter sandwiches don't make themselves, and proud announcements of "Mom, look what I just made with my blocks!" need to be responded to.  So do custody battles over those same blocks, which, apparently, aren't quite plenteous enough for two children to share.

Halloween doesn't care that I promised to make the kids' costumes back when I was feeling a lot better, so red shirts with large white circles labeled "Thing 1" and "Thing 2" needed to be sewn today.

Nobody's going to get better without a healthy diet, so the cooking had to be done.  And then the dishes because, even though Mommy's sick, so is Daddy, and of the two, Mommy's actually doing a little better.

And a certain two-year-old knows she's turning three in a week, and knows that birthdays include parties, cake, and presents, and I can't bear to disappoint her with the words, "Sorry, Sweetie, Mommy doesn't feel well."

Don't get me wrong; I'm not SuperMom.  I'm in my PJs right now not because I got ready for bed early but because I never bothered getting dressed this morning.  My dining room floor crunches when you walk near the kids' chairs, and I expect it to continue to do so until I spit-shine the house in preparation for whatever passes for Naomi's birthday party.  I called in sick to my unit of Clinical Pastoral Education last week, and I have no idea if I'll be able to make an appearance there tomorrow.  Whatever is not absolutely necessary is simply not getting done right now.

But that still leaves an awful lot.  The work to turn a house into a home never ends, regardless of how I feel, but that's my job.  And despite the occasional minor discomforts and struggles, living in a home where everyone knows they're loved and cared-for is well worth it.

Unexpected Teaching Moment: Prejudice

The other night I watched West Side Story with my kids.  I love the movie and haven't seen it in years (over a decade, at least).  My kids really enjoy movies with good music, especially when there's singing and dancing involved.  Especially Spencer.  He's also getting tired of watching and re-watching his usual flicks.  So I saw it as a win-win: Spencer got to see something new, and I got to watch something that wasn't made by Pixar.

Now, let me describe for you what it's like to watch a movie with Spencer.  My son is apparently unable to process a thought silently--he verbalizes his stream of consciousness.  And there's a lot to process when watching a movie (even after he's seen it three dozen times, he still processes it as though he's never seen it before).  He's constantly asking, "What just happened?  Why did he do that?  Why are they walking?  Where are they going?  What's going to happen next?"  And so on.  I usually respond with a steady stream of, "You were watching, you saw what happened.  Just wait, and you'll see.  Watch and you'll find out."  Until I finally resort to, "Just be quiet and watch the movie, Spencer!"

West Side Story started off with the expected questions:  "Is that a playground?"  Yes, Spencer, it's a playground.  "Why are those boys in a playground?"  Because they want to be there.  "Why are they dancing?"  They just are.

And then the questions began to get a little harder.  "What are they doing to that other boy?"  They're letting him know they don't want him there.  "Why not?"  Because they don't like him.  "Why don't they like him?"  And then, before I could come up with a four-year-old appropriate answer to that question, "Who are those boys?"  They're that other boy's friends.  "Are they fighting?  Why are they fighting?"  Because those two groups of boys are enemies.  "Who are the good boys and who are the bad boys?"  Uh, they're all pretty good boys.  "Then why are they fighting?"  Because they don't like people who are different from them.  "Why not?"  Because they just don't.  "Because they're mean?"  They're mean to the people they don't like, and they're nice to the people they do like.  "But why aren't they nice to everybody if they're good boys?"  Umm, some people are like that.  And then, "Why don't they want that girl around?"  Because girls aren't allowed.  "Why not?"

And this was the first ten minutes of a two and a half hour movie.

As exasperated as I was trying to answer these questions, I loved the fact that they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that my son doesn't understand prejudice.  He doesn't understand how people can decide to be mean or nice to someone based on their skin color or accent.  He doesn't understand why someone's gender would make them ineligible to join a certain group.  And when I tried to explain it to him, he gave me a look that clearly said, "Mom, that's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say, and that's saying something!"

And he's absolutely right.  It is stupid.  It's pointless.  It makes no sense.  And it's not a natural part of who we are.  Spencer didn't understand prejudice because he's never been taught prejudice.  He's never been taught to exclude others for arbitrary reasons, and he's never been excluded for arbitrary reasons himself (though I'm sure that day will come).  Children don't hate others until they've been told that they should, and taught how.  It may not be done intentionally, but they are very observant, and they will act the way they see the adults around them acting.  Too many adults don't think about what they're teaching the children who idolize them.

I wanted to introduce my son to one of my favorite musicals.  In doing so, I also began to teach him about the darker side of some human interactions.  He liked the music, even when I sang along.  He liked the dancing.  He thought the girls were pretty (both the Caucasians and the Puerto Ricans).  He didn't like that he had to hug me and pat my arm reassuringly at the end and say, "It's OK; everything's going to be all right" when I was crying hysterically because some people died for some really stupid reasons.  Why couldn't they all just get along?

I think we'll watch Fiddler on the Roof next.  Then I'll get to explain religious persecution to him, as well.  And sing along with more of my favorite showtunes.

Medical Restrictions and Deadlines

I haven't given up on the Biblical Definition of Marriage series, nor am I pulling back from this blog again.  But in the world of me there's always something, and this time the something is tendonitis.  In both wrists.

My doctor's advice was for me to take two wrist braces and call him in the morning.  Or rather, wear two wrist braces all day every day, not lift anything heavy, don't stress my wrists at all, and call him in a few weeks with an update.  Well, I've been doing this for a week now, so when his nurse called me today with the results of the x-rays I had last week (hence the diagnosis of the aforementioned tendonitis, which had previously been suspected and has now apparently been confirmed by the lack of arthritis in the x-rays--good news there, I guess), I told her I wanted to give an update now.  It's not working.  I told her I want to move forward with physical therapy or something, and get this fixed.  I need my wrists back.

See, my primary job is Mama.  And Mamas don't get sick days.  We can't use a note from our doctors to demand reasonable accommodations be made for us on the job.  Our kids don't care.  My daughter is two years old, thirty-five pounds, and still in diapers.  I can't exactly tell her that she has to stay in her poopy diaper because I'm not supposed to pick her up or do the wrist-twisting necessary to change her.  My husband's been great about taking care of that for me when he's home, but he's the one bringing in a paycheck, and that frequently requires him to do these obnoxiously inconvenient things like leaving the house and actually going to his job in order to keep doing that.

So I've gotten in the habit of checking all the bottles of juice and jars of peanut butter and jelly I'm going to have to use while he's at work, and giving them to him to break the seal for me before he leaves the house if they've never been opened.  But my bottles of Perrier that I drink during the day?  I'm on my own.

And then there's typing.  I traded in my mouse for a trackball and switched the buttons so I'm pushing down with my ring finger more than stretching my thumb, and got those annoying gel rests for in front of my keyboard and mouse, but it still really sucks to type while wearing two wrist braces.  I can barely do it at all with the good braces I bought last week.  Five minutes and I'm done, in pain, and my entire upper body is fatigued for hours.  I'm able to do better with the cheap braces I got a few years ago when I was pregnant with Spencer and had some wrist pain.  But I'm sure that the reason I can type better with those is because they're not giving me as much support, which probably means I'm aggravating my tendonitis with every keystroke.

But I'm trying to be a writer, and writers have to write.  I'm touched by and grateful to the woman at church on Sunday who offered to transcribe for me, but I can't write by speaking into a tape recorder, and handwriting is no easier on my wrists than typing is.  (Oh yes, I'm sure it was quite entertaining for the congregation on Sunday watching me try to preside at communion while wearing my wrist braces.  Thank heavens for a helpful worship assistant who spared me from having to pour the wine from the heavy flagon into the chalice!)  So I have to be selective about what I type right now, and anything with a deadline has priority.  I have new devotions being published daily over at Quiet Publications, so keeping up with that has been my number one priority.

My other priority this week has been a writing contest.  My friend Jenn (she blogs at Randomness and Lunacy and Writesy, and earlier this year published her first novel Ripple the Twine) posted a link to the Center for Writing Excellence's August Fiction in Five contest on Facebook a few weeks ago, and I signed up.  The way it works is they e-mail a prompt and the guidelines on a given day (this past Monday, to be exact), and the entrants have five days to write a story and send it in.  The deadline is this Friday night.  So by design the writing has to be done this week.  When I signed up, I had no idea typing would be such a chore for me this week.  But anyway, that's a hard deadline, so that's been getting a fair amount of my limited typing ability, as well.

And now I've squeezed out a blog post here, and my wrists are killing me.  But rest assured that I'll still be here as often as I can.  I just need to slow down for a bit.

Like I have time for that!

What Communion is All About

Look at the word.  COMMUNION.  It suggests community, something that brings people together around a common event.

But communion is one of those things that tends to separate more Christians than it unites.  Should it be restricted to members of one's own denomination or congregation, or open to all baptized Christians?  Should baptism itself be a prerequisite?  Should communion be celebrated with leavened bread or unleavened?  Grape juice or wine?  Individual cups or common chalice?  Should it be brought to people as they sit in their seats, served to kneeling parishioners from behind an altar rail, or handed out from the center aisle assembly-line style?  Should it be reserved for those who have a proper understanding of what it means?

It's easy to get caught up in the debate; after all, partaking of the body of Christ is not something to be done lightly or casually.  But all these questions serve to break down the body of Christ, rather than help knit it together.

This morning I was reminded of what communion is really all about by none other than my own not-yet-communing four-year-old son.  For once I wasn't preaching, and I had given my husband the morning off by taking both kids with me to church.  They both went up for the children's sermon, where they were treated to an object lesson about how communion is supposed to be a welcoming experience.  The pastor talked about how some people were allergic to wheat, and so couldn't share the communion bread, which wasn't very welcoming to them.  He passed out a bag of gluten-free crackers and invited each child to eat one, while he explained how some of those crackers were put on the altar alongside the bread, and available for anyone who couldn't eat wheat so they could still share in the Lord's Supper.  He also talked about grape juice being available in the same way, but by then he had lost the kids' attention, as they were busily and happily munching on their crackers.

Of course my son had to ham it up.  When it was his turn to reach into a bag and take a cracker, he did so with a huge smile on his face and, before the pastor (and, more importantly, the pastor's microphone) got out of range, he took a bite and said, "Mmmmm, yummy!"  Of course this was picked up and broadcast over the sound system.  But given all the other things he could have said into the microphone (we've recently begun distinguishing between 'grown-up words' and 'words Spencer can say'), I just laughed along with everyone else.

The smile never left his face, and he asked his sister next to him if her cracker was yummy, too.  She nodded that indeed it was, as crumbs decorated her lips and chin.  The sermon ended, and the kids came back to join me in the pew.  As Spencer approached I noticed that he still had a piece of cracker in his hand.  This kid has already established that he is one of the world's slowest eaters.  But before I could tell him to hurry up and finish his cracker, he reached his hand out to me, cracker pinched between his thumb and forefinger, and he said, "Here Mama.  I saved this for you."

You could have knocked me over with a feather.  I noticed several women nearby grinning with their eyes shining, and I realized that their expressions probably mirrored my own.  I said to him, "The pastor gave that to you.  Don't you want to eat it?"  He replied, "I saved it for you.  Eat it, it's yummy!"

What could I do?  I took the bit of cracker and ate it.  I gave him a big hug and thanked him, and tried not to cry.  It was definitely one of those moments when you forget all the temper-tantrums and the time-outs and the messes, and you're just so grateful and proud to be Mama.

It wasn't communion per se; the words of institution weren't said, and there was no prayer or ritual.  It was a gift shared among a group, and even as Spencer relished its goodness, he wanted to share it with someone who wasn't there to receive a portion of her own.

Does Spencer understand the Lutheran understanding of the 'real presence of Christ' as distinct from the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation as distinct from the Calvinist understanding of eucharistic symbolism?  Most assuredly not.  But does it matter?  Did the disciples have to pass that test on the night in which Jesus was betrayed?

Spencer received a gift, and he enjoyed and appreciated it, and he knew it was too good to keep to himself, so he shared it.  If that's not what communion is about, then what is?

Picture of Pastor Mama

Apparently someone at the Moms and Kids retreat got a picture of me preaching with babe-in-arms.  Not very flattering of me, but I never like the way I look in pictures.

Pastor Mama

Ever since I first discerned my call to ministry I have been concerned about my ability to maintain dual roles.  To what extent would I be able to have friendships with people within my congregation, especially if I'm serving in a small town and my opportunities for friendships outside of my congregation are greatly limited?  In the community, is everything I do seen as the Pastor of Such-and-Such Lutheran Church endorsing this or that, or are there times when I can just be Karen doing what she likes?  If I ever get married (much to my surprise, this actually did happen), to what extent will my married life be on display?  To what extent does my husband have to fill the traditional role of 'pastor's wife'?  How can I protect my kids' right to be themselves and make their own mistakes?

Over time I worked out the answers to most of these questions.  My internship was in a very small town, but the congregation understood itself to be training a not-quite-yet pastor, so there was never any question about my authority (I had none).  That made it easier to make friends within the congregation, as they were able to see me as a person rather than THE PASTOR.  The congregation where I served my first call was in a good-sized suburb just outside of Baltimore, and there were plenty of opportunities for me to make friends outside of the congregation (the fact that I didn't was my own fault).  However, when I did do something in the community and was seen by someone in the congregation, my activities and behavior were analyzed and subjectively judged by various members based on how they believed a pastor should spend her free time; that was an ongoing problem for as long as I was there.  My husband was allowed to define his own role as THE PASTOR'S FIANCE at the congregation I was serving when we became engaged, as well as at the congregation where I served my next interim (though by the second interim he had graduated from fiance to full-fledged PASTOR'S HUSBAND).  Both interim congregations saw me as THE PASTOR, though they also both recognized me as a human being with a life of her own.  I've come to realize just how rare and valuable a trait that is in a congregation.  The last congregation I served believed it was their right and privilege to define my role as pastor, my role as a a person in the community, my husband's role as pastor's wife, and our role as parents.  I think the only reason my kids were allowed to be themselves was because my son was less than two years old and my daughter was a newborn.  That call didn't last long, and is the reason why I'm unlikely to ever serve in another congregation, and my husband wants nothing do to with church at all.

At the second interim and my last call, I was both PASTOR and MAMA.  But at all times, when I needed to be the pastor, someone else was there to take over the kids.  And when I had primary responsibility for the kids, I could usually put being the pastor on hold.  I've never had to be both PASTOR and MAMA fully and simultaneously.

Until this past weekend.

A few months ago I was asked to serve as Chaplain for Camp Calumet's Moms and Kids weekend retreat.  For some insane reason, I agreed.  So there I was Friday night, showing up late for the retreat because my GPS put me on the wrong side of the lake from the camp.  I'd had to call my husband on my cell phone and ask him to look up where I was on Google Maps and guide me verbally to where I was supposed to be.  This took nearly thirty minutes of me driving a manual transmission one-handed down unfamiliar dark, windy, hilly roads while juggling a skinny little smart phone (no hands-free technology available) with two freaked out kids in the back seat because mama gets a little scary when she's really stressed out.

Needless to say I was not in a good state of mind when we finally made it to the camp, and I was really hoping I was late enough to have missed the devotion I was supposed to lead, because I didn't think I could possibly guide everyone through a calm, relaxing, meditative experience of centering prayer right then.  Unfortunately I hadn't missed it.  Fortunately we did about an hour of get-to-know-you games first.  Usually I hate those games, but this time I was grateful that they allowed me the time to pull myself together enough to lead the centering prayer.

Of course, I didn't get to do any centering prayer.  All the other kids were older and able to at least sit still and quietly during the extended silence; I learned the next day that some of the 9 to 13 year olds actually did the exercise as I'd instructed, and got something out of it.  My kids, however, were 2 and 4, super-excited about being in a new place with new toys and new people, happy to be out of the car after a 3 hour drive, and up well past their bedtime.  I had my hands full keeping them quiet enough to not completely disrupt the prayer.  The fact that this was a group of moms praying probably helped; they're used to tuning out that kind of noise.

The kids were doing a separate activity the next morning when I was leading the bible study, so I was able to be PASTOR with no distractions.  The rest of the day I got to be exclusively MAMA, since our evening devotion got redefined as the call to worship Sunday morning due to a conflict of geography and technology.  (I needed an audio file on my laptop to help with the devotion, which was impossible once a critical mass of moms insisted that the devotion be moved from the room in the conference center where is was originally scheduled to on the beach, tacked on to the end of the campfire.)

The next morning was when my two roles collided.  I was leading Sunday worship on the deck outside of the conference center.  Hymnals, sermon, communion, the works.  My kids had taken a real shine to another mom, who was there with her mother and her 8 year old son, and they graciously agreed to keep my kids with them while I led.  Spencer was fine with that, especially once he realized that this other mom was happy to entertain him, rather than make him sit still in church the way I do.  I decided to just be grateful for the help and not try to make her hold him to my (very-high-but-still-achievable) standards.  But Naomi was having none of it.

The retreat director had found several volunteers to serve as assisting ministers, so after I led the order of confession and forgiveness and the prayer of the day, I got to sit down in the front row for a bit while other people did the readings.  Naomi spent much of that time on my lap, occasionally getting down to go see what Spencer was doing, then coming back to my lap.  She happened to be with her brother when the time came for the gospel reading and my sermon.  I was ten seconds into the gospel reading when Naomi appeared before me with her arms up and a look on her face that told me she knew very well that I couldn't give her a time-out right then, and she was prepared to throw as much of a temper-tantrum as she needed to in order to get what she wanted.  What could I do?  I picked her up and continued to read the gospel as she laid a very contented head on my shoulder.

That head didn't remain contentedly on my shoulder for long.  I was barely into my sermon when I was interrupted by a devastated wail right in my ear.  I looked behind me and saw Teddy Bear (which is actually a pink lamb with a felt flower sewn onto its hand, but Naomi calls him 'Teddy Bear') had managed to launch himself off my shoulder, over the deck railing, and into a prickly bush on the ground below.  The deck was low, but not low enough for me to reach Teddy Bear.  Naomi was demonstrating just how much capacity her two and a half year old lungs had.  I turned back to the somewhat bemused congregation and asked for a volunteer to go get Teddy Bear.  Several of the older kids raced to the stairs, and the one who got there first continued down and around to the bush, retrieved Teddy Bear, passed him to me through the railing, then returned to his seat.  I found where I'd left off on my sermon manuscript and continued on, Naomi once more contently resting her head on my shoulder and holding on very tightly to Blanket and Teddy Bear.  (I think she believed me when I whispered to her that if Teddy Bear fell down again he was staying down, though I know I couldn't have stopped other people from embarking on another Teddy Bear Retrieval Mission if they'd deemed one necessary.)  I preached an entire fifteen minute sermon holding my daughter in my arms behind the lectern that was serving as a pulpit.  While everyone else stood for the hymn of the day, I sat, Naomi on my lap (until she got down to see what Spencer was up to again) shaking my sore right arm vigorously.

She reluctantly stayed with the other mom while I did the communion liturgy, but made herself something of an obstacle during the distribution.  People coming to me for the bread had to step a little to the side and lean over her, because she was standing directly in front of me with her arms up again, wanting to be picked up.  This time it wasn't going to happen.  I can preach and turn the pages of my sermon manuscript one-handed--not so with ripping off small pieces of bread from a larger loaf and handing them to people one at a time.  Eventually I paused in the distribution, put one hand on her head, and gave her my standard blessing for children and others not receiving communion, with a slight deviant addition: "May you always know God's love and care in all that you do.  Now go stand over there please.  Amen."  And it actually worked!  She went and stood over where I told her to.  Ten seconds later Spencer was cutting the line and received the exact same blessing, word for word.  It worked for him, too.

Mercifully the service ended shortly after that.

I am a textual preacher, and the text on Sunday never mentioned Mother's Day.  I never mentioned Mother's Day, or mothers in general, in my sermon.  But what better day to have the preacher preach with her child in her arms?

For all that I've struggled with dual roles, the final verdict is that I am KAREN.  Sometimes I'm a whole host of other things, too.  But on Mother's Day, 2012, at Camp Calumet, New Hampshire, I was PASTOR MAMA.  And I'm good with that.

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 21^st 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.

Did You Fall Off the Planet or Something?

No, actually I didn't.  Though with my last blog post being nearly six weeks old, I can understand how one may have come to that conclusion.

So what have I been doing?  Well, first off, my husband and I went into overdrive looking for a new home, so I was checking the MLS rental listings daily and Craigslist several times a day.  Not expecting much (good thing, too!) I also checked in to see what was for sale in southern New Hampshire, and only received further confirmation that the housing market is still delusional.  We went to look at several (rental) properties, most of which left us thinking, "Yeah, it could probably work," but pretty unenthusiastic overall.  However Craigslist did come through for us, and we found a beautiful home in Nashua that met all our requirements.  Office space for Tom, playroom for the kids, two-car garage for Tom, even space for me to have an office/craft room!  Walking through it with the then-tenants Tom quietly asked me what I thought of it, and I answered without hesitation, "I love it--I want this house!"  Tom apparently felt the same way, because he transmitted our already-filled-out-and-scanned rental application to the owner from his phone before we even left the house.  We were approved (cats and all), and then had to pack up the old house and plan our move here, which we accomplished nearly two weeks ago.  We're still moving the last of our crap valuable belongings here, and I think settling in is going to be a months-long process.  But we've got a home now, not just a house, and one with a fenced-in backyard which has enabled me to experience the joy of saying to my kids, "Just go out and play!"

On the writing side of things, I've been spending most of my time and effort keeping up with my Quiet Devotions blog, which is a daily devotional based on one of the lectionary readings for that day.  The key word is 'daily,' and, with the move especially, it's been all I can do to keep up with it.  I'm also planning on moving that blog over to the Quiet Publications website, which I'm still building and where I'll eventually be publishing other articles and selling bible studies, worship resources, and perhaps some books I've written (will write).  So yes, I've been spending time building the Quiet Publications website, too.

I'm also stealing some time here and there writing one of those bible studies that will eventually be offered for sale, but it's a priority right now because the idea for it came from the women's retreat I attended last November.  Some of the women and I were talking one day, and one of them went on a bit of a rant about John's gospel, which led to me making an offhand comment that they all found fascinating, which led to a brief conversation about why the gospels were written, which led to them informing me that I had to teach a bible study on that, which led to me writing a bible study called 'Gospel Agendas,' which I'll be teaching at my church sometime after Easter.

Oh yes, I've also been the primary caregiver for a two- and a three-year old.

Hopefully things will stabilize a bit here soon, and I'll get back to writing the next installment in my series on Christian Families, Motherhood, and Womanhood.  Until then, though, thanks for sticking with me, and watch for news about Quiet Publications.

Christian Families, Motherhood, and Womanhood Series, Part One: Government, Contraception, and the First Amendment

I’ve been spending a lot of time lately reflecting on what it means to be a Christian wife and mother in 21^st century America.  Partly this is because I am a Christian wife and mother in 21^st century America, and partly this is because I’ve been doing a lot of research on the Quiverfull movement for a novel I’m writing.  Watching the political battles unfold in the media have also contributed to this, as once again the candidates’ religious beliefs are being used to condemn, divide, and further alienate much of the electorate who seem to fall on the wrong side of something or the other.

As a result of all this reflecting, I’m going to be sharing several posts on the general subject of Christian families, motherhood, and womanhood, beginning today.  I hope you’ll stick with me, and as always I welcome your comments, whether you agree with my opinions or not, but I do ask you to keep it civil and respectful.  In return, I’m going to put considerable effort into keeping these posts as opinions rather than rants.  So without further ado, here is my Christian Families, Motherhood, and Womanhood Series, Part One:  Government, Contraception, and the First Amendment.

There has been a lot of outrage recently about the Affordable Care Act being managed by Health and Human Services (HHS).  (You can read the original press release announcing specifics of the Act here.)  Specifically the outrage is about the mandate that all employer-sponsored health insurance plans offer FDA-approved contraceptive services without cost-sharing, i.e. free of charge to the women who want them.  The Act does allow a narrow exemption for religious institutions to opt out of the contraceptive mandate, however that exemption did not originally include religious hospitals, universities, or other non-worship specific religious organizations.  At the time of this writing, the Obama Administration has indicated that it intends to recommend a compromise which would extend the exemption to those religious entities, and instead put the onus of free coverage on the insurance companies themselves, requiring them to contract with the covered individuals of exempted employers directly to provide contraceptive services for free.  (You can read the White House Fact Sheet on the compromise here.)

This article published by the National Catholic Register nicely summarizes many of the objections made not just by Catholics, but other Christians and even some Jewish groups.  This quote appears early in the article:  “But all see a major unifier in the mandate’s violation of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion and protection of conscience.”  Some other quotes are:

• “We … call upon HHS Secretary Sebelius and the Obama administration to rescind this unjust ruling and to respect the religious freedom guaranteed all Americans by the First Amendment,” [the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America] stated.
• [The National Association of Evangelicals] noted that freedom of conscience is a “sacred gift from God, not a grant from the state.” It also said, “No government has the right to compel its citizens to violate their conscience. The HHS rules trample on our most cherished freedoms and set a dangerous precedent.”
• The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’s [Matthew] Harrison believes with this “secular assault on those of us who hold traditional Christian values … we have a responsibility to stand up and confess in the face of this opposition. It never has been more the time to stand up than now."

The first problem I see is with the appeal to the First Amendment.  Just as a point of reference, the text of the First Amendment reads as follows: “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.”  There is no mention in the First Amendment of “protection of conscience.”  In fact, there is quite a bit of precedent in the legal history of the United States that state (or Federal) laws that abide by a “neutral law of general applicability” (i.e. the law uniformly applies to everyone and does not single out a certain religion or religious practice) can interfere with the religious liberty of an individual if there is a compelling state interest.  (For an excellent discussion on this topic, read this summary by Richard S. Myers, Law Professor at Ave Maria School of Law.)  In this case the compelling state interest is equal access to medical care for women regardless of where they work.

In regards to the claim that this mandate violates the free exercise of religion (wording that is explicitly included in the First Amendment), this mandate does not require that women must obtain and use birth control that may be contrary to their faith.  To the Orthodox Bishops, HHS and the Obama Administration do respect the religious freedom of all Americans, including those who choose to refrain from birth control, and those who object to religious controls over their access to birth control.  To the National Association of Evangelicals, the government is not compelling its female citizens to violate their consciences (not-for-profit religious organizations do not qualify as citizens).  And to the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, there is no secular assault on traditional Christian values; there are safeguards, however, to prevent a religious assault on non-Christian women who hold secular values.

I like the compromise that the Administration is recommending, because it achieves the public goal of providing free access to all women regardless of where they work, and it keeps religious organizations completely out of that arrangement.  The objection I’m anticipating to this compromise is the (probably correct) assumption that insurance companies will increase their rates across the board in order to pay for the women who contract directly with the insurance companies, thus making religious organizations pay for these services indirectly.

Yet the truth is that religious organizations pay for these services indirectly anyway, no matter what.  When a Catholic priest fills a prescription for the antibiotic Amoxicillin, he and his insurance company are giving profits to Teva Pharmaceuticals, the company that currently owns Plan B, which is considered by many conservatives to be an abortion-inducing pill.  Neither the Catholic Church nor any other church can dictate to Teva how they choose to use profits earned on products such as innocent antibiotics, nor can religious organizations dictate to insurance companies how those companies are to use the money they receive on insurance premiums, beyond providing the specific services required by their existing contracts.  So the ‘indirect payment’ argument is a nonstarter.

The fact is that while this country does respect the free exercise of religion, that freedom cannot come at the expense of public wellbeing, and at the moment, the availability of free birth control to women who have employer-sponsored health plans is considered necessary to public wellbeing.  (Whether it should be is a whole other debate, and will most likely be covered in a future blog post in this series.)

All that said, I do believe that there were some valid points made in the National Catholic Register article.  In particular I agree with John Stonestreet, national programs director of BreakPoint, a part of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, who said the following: “The language of (HHS Secretary Kathleen) Sebelius’ release treats pregnancy as a disease that needs to be prevented. That’s bad news. Despite different stances we (Catholics and evangelicals and Protestants) have on birth control, that language is unacceptable and opens the door to a whole bunch of evils.”

I agree.  Sebelius’ exact words in the HHS press release were “The Affordable Care Act helps stop health problems before they start.”  That quote came immediately after a list of benefits, ending with “contraception without charging a co-payment, co-insurance or a deductible.”  That combined with the title of the press release—Affordable Care Act Ensures Women Receive Preventive Services at No Additional Cost—leaves little doubt that HHS considers pregnancy a health problem that should be prevented.  Interpreting the language that way is not a stretch; what is a stretch is interpreting it any other way.

Clearly I’m in favor of providing free access to contraceptives, but I strongly oppose characterizing pregnancy as a health problem to be prevented.  Pregnancy may not always be a delightful, mystical bonding experience of a mother and her child (morning sickness, gestational diabetes, excessive swelling, back pain, etc. are all medical issues associated with pregnancy that often need to be addressed proactively), but categorizing pregnancy as a health problem that needs to be prevented is the same as categorizing aerobic exercise as a health problem because it results in increased heart rate.  Both pregnancy and aerobic exercise need to be done carefully and wisely, but neither is a health problem to be prevented.

Does the wording really matter?  Yes.  All words matter.  I teach that to my kids all the time.  If you tell a person that they’re ugly, stupid, and worthless, eventually they’re going to believe it.  If the major health service agency of the United States government characterizes pregnancy as a health problem that needs to be prevented, then that too will enter into the public consciousness.  (In some ways it already has, but again, that’s a whole other blog post.  See why I have to make this a series?)  I don’t mind contraception being part of the Affordable Care Act, but I’d really rather it not be included under ‘preventative’ services.

The other point well taken in the National Catholic Register article is the one made by Nathan Diament of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.  He stated, “Most troubling is the administration’s underlying rationale for its decision, which appears to be a view that if a religious entity is not insular, but engaged with broader society, it loses its ‘religious’ character and liberties. … The administration’s ruling makes the price of such an outward approach the violation of an organization’s religious principles.”  At the core of Christianity, Judaism, and (I believe) Islam is the understanding that the faithful must be actively engaged with the world, particularly in regards to charity.  Retreating into safe, private enclaves and ignoring the needs of your neighbors is simply not an option.  Yet the narrowly defined exemption requires exactly that.  (This is somewhat mitigated by the Administration’s compromise, which came about after the National Catholic Register’s article was written.)

In all, I think there’s overreaching by the Administration, and I think there’s overreaching by religious conservatives.  It’s going to take a lot of hard work and humility on both sides to recognize that the United States of America is not a theocracy, however it does need to respect that fact that it has a lot of people who live by strict religious principles.  Let’s try to figure out a way to respect both the religious and the non-religious, and not fight a Holy War over sexual morality.

Which is another topic I’ll be posting on soon.

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!

Proud to be an Authoritative Parent

Motherhood, like everything else, has its ups and downs.  There are days when my kids make me happier than I ever thought I could be, and there are days when I have to fight the temptation to just leave them at the first Safe Haven I can find.

But there is one downside to motherhood that caught me by surprise, and it's probably the aspect of being a mother that I despise more than any other: having to deal with other mothers.

Mothers are the most judgmental, arrogant, and vicious people I've ever met (and that's saying something when you remember I'm a former pastor!).  Not all of them are like that, but enough of them are that I'm dreading the day my kids start to make friends, and I'm going to have to start dealing with those friends' mothers.

Most mothers (myself included) are convinced that their method of parenting is the best.  That's obvious; why would anyone choose a parenting method they felt was substandard to another method they were aware of?  The trouble comes when they encounter a mother who shares that level of conviction, but subscribes to a different method than the first mother.  Rather than recognize that different people have different philosophies, mothers tend to view any difference in parenting approach as a judgement on their own method, and, by extension, on their own abilities as a mother.  Therefore anyone with a different approach must be exposed as a bad mother before she can expose you as one.

From what I've seen and read, the parenting philosophy most in vogue right now is "attachment parenting."  I find not only the philosophy problematic, but the terminology as well.  Since I'm not an attachment parent, does that make me a detachment parent?  Someone who is actively trying to separate from my very small children, rather than enjoy a close relationship with them?  I don't think so.  I don't think attachment parenting is necessarily bad; I just don't think it would work for my family, and I don't believe that it's the only way to raise "secure, joyful, empathic children."  I don't believe that not following the attachment parenting strategies will harm the connection and trust between me and my children, the way attachment parents claim it will.  Can attachment parenting work?  I'm sure it can, and I'm not going to condemn anyone for subscribing to that particular philosophy, especially since the social pressures to do so right now are huge.  But I don't.

Especially with how I've observed it being used in practice.  Attachment parenting is very child-centered, but according to Attachment Parenting International's website, it's not 'permissive' parenting.  However, from what I've seen from other moms who appear to subscribe to the attachment parenting philosophy, they very much engage in permissive parenting, and it's become just as much a social norm as attachment parenting.  (The fact that Attachment Parenting International felt the need to draw the distinction on their website indicates to me how much the two have become conflated.)

Generally speaking, there are three primary parenting styles: permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative.  Permissive parents show lots of love and affection, accept their children as they are, and make very few demands on them.  Children of permissive parents are often spoiled with little or no self control, expect to be spoon-fed physically and emotionally throughout their lives, and are less likely to grow into independent, socially successful adults.  Authoritarian parents set rules and standards without any flexibility, emphasize obedience, rarely (if ever) show warmth or affection, and feel it's important to exert power over their children.  Children of authoritarian parents usually either rebel and escape their homes at a relatively early age (whether they're ready or not), or else remain dependent on their parents throughout their adulthood.  Authoritative parents set rules and guidelines that they expect their children to follow, but can be flexible when such flexibility is appropriate.  They exercise control over their children without being controlling, and often show love and affection to their children without fear that such expressions will diminish their ability to discipline.  Children of authoritative parents usually grow up to be independent, socially successful, and respectful of authority.

I strive to be an authoritative parent.

Attachment parenting, when done exactly as Attachment Parenting International lays it out, is also authoritative.  However, as I mentioned before, I've usually seen adherents to the attachment parenting model unable to exercise appropriate discipline and/or set boundaries.  Because attachment parenting places such an emphasis on not doing anything to damage the trust and connection between child and parent, many parents fear doing exactly that if they tell a child 'no' and refuse to accept inappropriate behavior.  This makes permissive parenting the social norm and expected default.

And woe to anyone who deviates from the norm.

From the perspective of a permissive parent, someone who is using authoritative methods appears to be authoritarian or even abusive.  Authoritative parents set clear boundaries and high - but reachable - expectations for their children.  Violating those boundaries or not meeting those expectations has consequences.  Most of the time it's pretty non-dramatic.  For example, my husband and I are very polite in our conversations with each other and with our children.  "Please" and "thank you" are regularly spoken by us.  My three and a half year old son (and my almost-two year old daughter, for that matter) has been hearing this his whole life.  When we ask him to do something we include the 'please' and follow it up with 'thank you.'  He knows what's expected.  When he wants something and he demands it ("Push me in!"), we ignore him.  Most of the time he'll adjust his tone and his words on his own ("Excuse me, Mama?" "Yes?" "Will you push me in, please?"  "Of course.")  If he doesn't do this on his own, after ignoring a second demand or sitting too long in silence, we'll prompt him ("How do you ask?"  "Please."  "Please what?"  "Will you push me in, please?"  "That's better.")  It's very simple, and it's pretty non-confrontational.  If he wants something, he needs to ask politely, or he doesn't get it.  We don't expect as much from our daughter, who is just beginning to use one or two word sentences, but we're still setting high but reachable expectations.  ("More!"  "How do you ask?"  "Please!")  More often than not her initial request is "More please!"  We started this at different times with our kids, depending on where they were developmentally; we don't expect more from them than they can do, but compared to so many children of the same age whose parents expect nothing from them, we seem harsh and demanding.

Often the expectations and consequences are negotiated between me and my son (my daughter needs to get a little more verbal before she can enjoy this experience).  If he puts all his toys away after lunch, I'll read him his favorite story.  "But I want to go to the mall playground."  "You would rather go to the mall playground than hear your favorite story?"  "Yes."  "We can do that, but you have to eat your lunch quickly.  If you take too long, we won't have time to go.  So if you eat your lunch quickly, and put all your toys away quickly, then we can go to the mall playground."  "OK!"  He's never not eaten and put his toys away quickly enough for me to not take him.

Such interactions require both of us to be calm and rational.  While very small children are more capable of this than many parents believe, they are also prone to temper tantrums, which is a clear violation of the established boundaries and expectations of this authoritative parent.  Simply put, I don't negotiate with terrorists, especially pint-sized ones who call me 'Mama.'  When my kids throw a temper tantrum, not only do they absolutely not get what they want, they are given to the count of five to shut down the tantrum or they go in time-out.  Both my son and my daughter do standing time-outs facing the corner (for different lengths of time, accounting for the differences in their ages and temperaments), and have been for quite a while.  Once the time-out is over, I tell them why they went in time-out, and how to avoid that in the future.  By this time they're more calm and rational, and they understand that the punishment is over now, and they're more willing to interact in an appropriate manner.  They still don't get whatever it was they were demanding; that ship sailed once the temper tantrum started.  My son rarely has to do a time-out in public anymore, because he's already learned from experience that Mama can find a time-out corner anywhere.  He's also pretty philosophical about his time-outs.  Once he's in there, the only way out is to be quiet, because he knows the clock doesn't start ticking until the screaming and crying end.  My daughter is still learning both these truths, so I'm still faced with the miserable experience of giving her time-outs in public.

My daughter is almost two.  I realize that many parents don't even try to discipline children this young, so the fact that I do is shocking and horrifying to them.  She is also extremely stubborn (she gets it from both her parents) and has a pretty vile temper.  So when she throws a temper tantrum in public, permissive parents who would probably deal with her by hugging her, kissing her, and giving her a sippy of juice and a cookie to calm her down see me instead tell her to "shut it down" and then count to five in my sternest 'Mommy-voice.'  If she doesn't shut it down (she has been more often lately, but she still usually doesn't), I then pick her up under the arms, carry her without holding her close (partly because I don't want her to think she's being cuddled and partly because I'm trying to stay out of range of her wildly kicking feet) and plop her down in the nearest boring corner I can find, facing the wall.  Permissive parents who can't stand to hear a baby cry see me forcing her to stand in time-out while she's screaming bloody murder.  Since their default is to assume every cry or scream is a sign of genuine distress and must be stopped by hugs, kisses, and affirmation, they don't see discipline; they see child abuse.

The way I see it, there are only three possible ways to deal with temper tantrums: appease them, ignore them, or punish them.  I will not reward such behavior, even if appeasement usually is the most expedient way of getting them to stop, because it also guarantees many more of the same once the child figures out that throwing a tantrum will get her what she wants.  For a while I tried ignoring them, but that's not really an option in public, and at home they can last a very long time if merely ignored.  I also want to be consistent, and have the same response at home as I do in public.  Punishing them sends the message much more effectively that this behavior is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.  I use time-outs because I don't believe in hitting, I don't see much point in a screaming contest, and making her tell it to an empty corner is the best way I can think of to get her to understand that no one wants to hear it.  If my kids have a complaint they can tell me about it, using words.  My three and a half year old son is not shy about telling me "I don't like that" or "I don't want to."  I don't put him in time-out for that.  If it's reasonable to change whatever it is to something he does like or is more willing to do, then I change it.  If such a change is not reasonable, I tell him something along the lines of "I'm sorry, you don't have to like it, but you do have to do it" and I tell him why.  And he accepts that and does it and moves on.  He doesn't usually throw temper tantrums to protest something anymore because he knows it's only going to get him put in time-out, and he has a much better chance of changing something if he talks to me about it instead.  My daughter is still learning this.

I'm not looking for the approval of other moms.  But I don't think it's appropriate to let toddlers call the shots.  Personally, I think giving children too many choices or too much control is abusive, because life is stressful, and that's too much responsibility for a two or three year old (or four, or eight, or twelve--you get my point).  Some choice and control is appropriate--my son chooses his breakfast every morning: Cheerios or Kashi.  He picks out his shirt after I tell him whether he has to pick from the long-sleeve or the short-sleeve side of the drawer, and then he picks from two or three pairs of pants or shorts I've selected that more or less match the shirt he's chosen.  My kids have choices that are appropriate to their age, and they're learning that they have some say in the world in which they live, but they don't have total control.  Vegetables are a part of supper whether they like them or not, ice cream is a nice surprise every once in a while but never an earned reward, and temper tantrums get you put in time-out.  As they get older, they'll learn more of life's lessons, but this is a good start for now.

So if you're a permissive parent who doesn't believe that toddlers are capable of self-control, understand that while that may be true of your toddler, it's not true of mine (though if you've never expected it of your toddler, how would you even know?).  Please learn the difference between authoritative parenting and authoritarian parenting (and abusive parenting).  Also consider what you're teaching your child about how the world works, and whether or not they're in for a really rude awakening at some point.

And know that when you threaten to call Child Protective Services on a mother who's enforcing a time-out for her almost-two year old in a corner of the mall playground, you're coming across as a judgmental, arrogant, vicious ignoramus who doesn't know how to handle her own children.  (Yes, that really happened to me last week, which is why this rant is so long.  My apologies to everyone who does recognize that different parents have different philosophies, and thank you for your tolerance.)

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.