“Feeding the hungry is a greater work than raising the dead.” –St. John Chrysostom
I've talked before here about the poverty of inconvenience. Over this past year, we've had several opportunities to see some real poverty up close. We live in a small, rural town, so though there is plenty of poverty here, plenty of kids go hungry at night, and we are aware of that, it doesn't show up in the same way. Because people have friends and family that take care of them, because restaurants take extra food to those who are in need at their back door, our soup kitchens, food banks and senior centers are set up in such a way that, even though there are a lot of people who use them, it doesn't seem so in your face. In some ways, I wish it was more in our face, because our government welfare and food stamps makes the poor somewhat invisible to us. We no longer have long food lines that make poverty visible to everyone.

That wasn't a problem while we were in San Antonio. We saw more obvious, and lonely, poverty there than we have in a long time. Our first night there, we were walking around, trying to find a pizza place we'd read about, when we passed a homeless man on the street. He was friendly, we smiled, and he asked where we were headed, we told him what we were looking for and, though he couldn't help us find it, he had been given a pizza to eat, and he offered to share it with us. On the one hand we didn't want to take food from a man who may not see it regularly, on the other hand, we were so touched that this stranger would share what he had with us. We didn't take it, but we did remember him and pray for him.

The very next morning, on our way to church across from the hotel, we were met by a woman, Kim, who had been abused by her husband. She had burns on her leg that she showed us, and she showed us ID to prove that she wasn't scamming us. This is not a part of our normal life, needless to say. She needed money for a bus ticket to get to her mother's. Since the bus station wasn't open yet, and we were on our way to church, we invited her to join us, then we would walk her to the bus station and pay for the ticket. She was really reluctant to go in, seemed to feel she wasn't in the right clothes or position to be in the church. So, Rich asked her to wait outside for him, while he got me settled, then he would return to take her to the bus depot. As we went in, we told the ushers that there was a woman in need outside, who needed prayer and assistance, but when they went out, she was gone. I don't know if she thought we were lying to her, or if she was just uncomfortable. Rich went after her, though, and found her to help. We've been praying for her ever since.

Even one day there while Rich was coming to meet me for something, he ran into a man, Eric, who was just out of prison, had turned his life around, but was having a hard time finding a job. Rich talked to him as a man who hires people and tried to give him some hints and assistance with ideas for interviews and applications, and he took him to lunch. We normally do not run into this many desperate people in a year, let alone in less than a week. Poverty is not as openly displayed here.

When we went to Ballard this summer, there was a man playing piano in the park. I stopped there to listen and sing along and knit. As he played and sang, he talked about his life, and how he was once a resident of this rather posh neighborhood. But he was down on his luck and had been homeless. He now played piano for the city, who did pay him, but he was not allowed to take tips. The only way I could assist was to listen. So, I did.

Rich and I are more and more convicted of our duty to provide for the poor in whatever way we can. Time are tough for everyone, but for us, it means tightening our belts a little. We don't have a lot that is extra, and with hospital bills and whatnot, there really isn't any extra anymore, but it is always possible to cut something or cut back on something to provide for someone else. Homeschooling allows us to bring our children with us to food banks to work, or to assist at the church soup kitchen. Even our gleaning club, while it provides excellent produce for us, and allows us to cut our grocery bills considerably, first gleans for the food bank or senior center, then people glean for themselves. This weekend, Dominic went with Rich to glean huge, organic, butternut squash and red onions, and after gleaning for the food bank, and for our family, the farmer told the gleaning club that there was another group there gathering squash for another charity, and their volunteers didn't all show up, so up Dominic went into the bed of a semi while Rich was tossing squash up to him to stack in the bins. We want our children to grow up with compassion and generosity for the poor, rather than disdain.

We try to keep food in our car as snacks for the kids, and emergency rations should we get stuck somewhere, but also so we can give something to those who are at street corners begging. Even if they are drug users, they still need something to eat. We hope our children are learning that. So, on a recent trip to Fred Meyer, which requires a drive to another city now, I bought some rosemary bread and a roasted chicken to get a little lunch in me before I left. I saved the rest for the kids, so they could have a snack when I got home. However, at the light, there was a young couple, who were holding a sign asking for money or food. I was embarrassed to offer them my leftovers. But, I asked if they minded taking my leftovers, told them I had used a fork and knife on it, and they took it, rather gratefully.

Rich has an acquaintance that he met through his work who has had a terrible string of disasters. Some of his own making, which he will readily admit. But God keeps putting this man in Rich's path. He'll see him walking into or out of town as he's driving, and feels moved to pick him up and give him a ride. They talk, they pray. In fact, this man recently converted to Christianity, and came by Rich's office after hours while Rich was still working because he wanted to share that with him, thinking that Rich was one of the few men he knew who would care and rejoice with him. He said he appreciated how Rich had always been honest as well as compassionate, telling him when what he was choosing was wrong, as well as offering assistance, regardless of that.

I'm not sharing this to tell you how great we are. Or how we always get this right. We don't. I can tell you a story of a lost opportunity here in our own town that both Rich and I deeply regret. Near our home, there is a little parking area where people stop to walk, hike, hunt, play paintball, whatever. There was a motor home parked there for some time. Every time Rich went to work and back, every time I went into town or home, we passed them. At first we wondered what the deal was, and why they didn't leave. Then, we realized they were living there, probably because they had no other place to live. Rich wanted to stop and bring them something, but was worried that the woman might feel threatened by a man coming alone. I wanted to bring them something, but we were worried about my safety going to strangers in a relatively deserted area where there are lots of transients and not lots of witnesses. So, we kept waiting for a time we both could go. Until one day, they weren't there any more. We didn't listen to our consciences and make the time and we lost the opportunity.

We strongly disagree with most government programs to relieve poverty. Not because we oppose it, but because it is the job of the Church, and the government does it badly. St. John Chrystostom said:

For if you wish to show kindness, you must not require an accounting of a person’s life, but merely correct his poverty and fill his need. When you see on earth the man who has encountered the shipwreck of poverty, do not judge him, do not seek an account of his life, but free him from his misfortune. Charity is so called because we give it even to the unworthy.

Let us also do this, I beg you, without making any inquiry more than necessary. Need alone is the poor man’s worthiness; if anyone at all ever comes to us with this recommendation, let us not meddle any further. We do not provide for the manners but for the man. We show mercy on him not because of his virtue but because of his misfortune, in order that we ourselves may receive from the Master His great mercy, in order that we ourselves, unworthy as we are, may enjoy His philanthropy. For if we were going to investigate the worthiness of our fellow servants, and inquire exactly, God will do the same for us.

It is not that we should be contributing to someone's addiction or poor choices. It is that God does not give to us conditionally. It is important to know the root of someone's poverty, and alleviate that as well, but if we do not have any reason or ability to have an accounting of his life, it is simply our duty to give. It is not our business to go rooting around in his history to discover if he is worthy of our assistance. On the contrary, however, when government takes money from citizens to do this work, it is precisely their, and our, business to make sure the money is not being squandered. This is one reason it is better for such actions to happen with individuals and private organizations. Asking why a person is sick, poor, homeless, addicted, or otherwise in need does have value, but not in determining worthiness. The person deserves help because he needs it, and because God has called us to help our neighbor. He even clarified that our neighbor might very well be our enemy. By all means, if you have a relationship with the person in need, discover what contributes to their plight, but use that to help lead them out of the situation, which is an act of justice which, like charity, is a Christian obligation.

Labels: Culture and Politics, Faith and Morality, Family

I owe you a squash casserole recipe from a couple weeks ago. I will post it this week instead. Our schedule was shifted considerably the last couple weeks because of a sad development with a dear friend of mine. Please offer prayers for Kim, her husband Brian, and their four children, Caisey, Rebecca, Ana, and John Paul. We were gone, on an impromptu vacation to Arizona to visit a friend of mine who is in the last stages of brain cancer. Since we already had the vacation time planned, and Kim's health was deteriorating rapidly, we decided to change our plans and took a drive to Arizona and back.

On the way, we were able to visit some other friends, in Idaho and Utah, and while in Arizona, were able to visit my friend who lost her husband this year (though I didn't have her scarf finished to give her). Since we were so (relatively) close to our church's cathedral in San Clemente, Rich said we should try to go there on our way home, coming up through California, and worship there. It was beautiful and wonderful to share that with our children. Rich had been there twice, and I had been there twice, but never together, and the children had never been there at all. We were able to have lunch with some friends of ours who live in the Los Angeles area, and were going to visit some friends in the Bay area, but we were running late and then found out that the wife had bronchitis and had developed asthma, and we didn't want to burden them with the ten of us, when they also had a house full, with the eight of them.

On our way to Arizona, we took a wrong turn on the highway, which ended up being a blessing in disguise. Had we taken the correct turn, we would have been in the back highways with few towns or services when our van died. Which it did. In a canyon in southern Utah. Fortunately for us, we were only about 12 miles into the canyon, and Rich was able to coax the van back down the hill into the small town of Cedar City. He searched for a mechanic (thank you Lord for phones with internet!), and we found Miner's Auto Repair (you can read Rich's review there), which we can recommend whole heartedly. Not only were they honest, and inexpensive, but recommended a great place for us to eat while we waited. Rich had gone back to ask if they had a time estimate on the van, and called me to tell me to pray immediately and fervently. Everyone thought it was a fuel pump failure, but instead of just going with that and replacing it, which would have cost us multiple times more than we paid, Rick investigated, and found a cracked fuel filter, replaced it, test drove our van back into the canyon (further than we had driven) and had us back on the road in a couple hours. He even called us the next day to make sure we made it and the van was running well. If you are ever in or near Cedar City, UT, and need your car worked on or repaired, please go give Rick some business. We paid less than $100 for the repair, and though we weren't planning on spending any on a repair, given the symptoms the van had, we though we would be spending more like $800 - 1200, and his honesty and skill saved us all of that.

Heading up I-5 in California, we ended up stuck because of the Mt. Shasta fires. We were blessed that we were right on the beginning edge of them, because we were able to drive around some roads and get back on I-5 a little north of Weed, before Weed burned, and jumped across from 5 near Ashland to get back onto 97. It meant another night on the road, because of the extra time and the stand still on the freeway before the detour, but Rich was fortunate to have been able to get an additional day off of work, since we changed plans to go farther. We stayed at Homewood Suites in Arizona and in Sacramento, which we highly recommend for families. If you have a big family, call the local hotel, and see if they have the two room suite with a king bed in one, two queens in the other, and a pull out bed in the living room. The website often won't let you book for a family our size, but the local hotels will, if we explain our family size and the ages of our children. We had Rich and me in the bedroom with the king bed, Alexander and Elijah in the living room, Amira, Yasmina and Mariam in one queen bed, Dominic and Jerome in another queen bed, and Nejat in the pack-n-play. They have breakfasts, decent ones, every day of the week, and dinners Monday through Thursday. All of this for between $130 - 220 a night, plus tax. It is a great deal for families. And they have a pool and hot tub at nearly every location. The only down side is they still have p0rn on the televisions, unlike Marriot and Omni Hotels and Resorts (and Nordic Hotels in Scandinavia). We are commenting on that in our survey responses. Rich tried to turn on the television to find an animal show or kids' programming for the children to watch while we rested a little and said the main page started with ads and imagery for the smut, and so he just turned it off and unplugged the televisions. He found some Road to Avonlea on the internet for them to watch online instead.

On the home front, we have had multiple gleans and trades in the past week, so have a ton of red, russet and Yukon gold potatoes, onions, peaches, tomatoes, dill, apples, pears, and pumpkins. We are preserving! I'm working on peaches, blackberry peach jam with blackberries from our freezer and peach chutney, will try to get pears done this week, pear sauce and pear halves in syrup, and have been cooking and pureeing pumpkin for the freezers. The onions and potatoes store well - but not together! - and we are working our way through the tomatoes, with some plans to make some canned tomatoes and possibly sauce, and freeze whatever we can't can quickly. The apples we decided were best used in fresh eating and pies, because they were so delicious, but we have five of the large Jonagolds left over, and another apple glean, Galas I think, this week, so we may make some sauce as well.

We had already planned a later start to our term this year than normal, because of our trip that was scheduled. Now, I've moved it forward a little more, and taken away some of the days we normally take off to make up for it. Taking the longer trip, requiring over 45 hours on the road and spending time with Kim and seeing her losing her ability to communicate, when she was such an articulate, sharp witted woman, has really taken a lot out of us. On top of that, Kim had taken a turn for the worse the day before we arrived, and so only I was able to see her, Rich wasn't able to see Brian and our kids weren't able to see their kids, which left them heart broken. But we couldn't take the kids away from their mother when they didn't know how long they had left with her. So, even though they hadn't seen each other since before Kim and her family had moved to Arizona last summer, and even though we were in the same town, they had to miss out on seeing each other. That was hard. Kim has had at least one good day, after many days of deteriorating physically and verbally, but is entering her final week of radiation, so will need lots of rest and prayer to get through it. They are trying to prolong her life at this point, rather than save it. It is a hard path for their whole family.

• Sunday
  Breakfast: Scrambled Eggs with Cheese and Scallions, Toast, Sliced Peaches, Milk and Coffee
  Dinner: Lamb and Guinness Stew, Soda Bread (without the raisins)
• Monday
  Breakfast: Yogurt with Honey and Sliced Peaches, Leftover Soda Bread, Milk and Coffee
  Dinner: Cowboy Beans, Biscuits I decided that making the pies took priority, so we just ate bread with the beans, Sliced Tomatoes, Apple Pie
• Tuesday
  Breakfast: Polenta with Coconut Syrup, Fruit, Milk and Coffee
  Dinner: Gumbo with Rice, Scallions and Hot Pepper Vinegar, Leftover Apple Pie
• Wednesday
  Breakfast: Ful, Diced Tomatoes, Serranos and Onions, Toast, Mint Tea with Honey
  Dinner: Fried Fish, Baked Lemon Pasta, Tomato and Cucumber Salad
• Thursday
  Breakfast: Scrambled Eggs with Cheese, Toast, Sliced Tomatoes, Milk and Coffee
  Dinner: Barbecue Beef Casserole, Roasted, Barbecue Seasoned Potato Wedges, Steamed Green Beans with Butter
• Friday
  Breakfast: Challah with Apple Butter, Milk & Coffee
  Dinner: Dinner with Friends
• Saturday
  Breakfast: Breakfast with Friends
  Dinner: Dinner Out

What is on your menu this week? If you want a recipe, ask and I will provide it as soon as I can. If there are any starred recipes, I will follow up separately with a weekly recipe round up on Saturday.

Labels: Culture and Politics, Family, Homemaking, Homeschooling, Menu Plans, Prayer Requests, Tales from the Kitchen

Turn off my music at the bottom of this page to watch these next videos.

Regardless of one's opinion of either iconography or Harry Potter, this image is offensive, though I hold out hope that the artist didn't know quite how offensive. It is, of course, safe to offend Christians as they won't make death threats or riot in the streets over this, so you won't hear a peep from those who were so outraged at our European friends who offended another religious group by making a blasphemous (to them) cartoon of Mohammed. Look how brave this artist is! Slapping the people who are commanded to turn the other cheek and forgive.

This was going around the web for a while last month. People seemed to think it was clever and funny. I would be with them, if this were the opening of their reception.



Doing this during the actual wedding, in a church, is appalling and a scandal. Once more, I am so glad that our church did not allow secular vocal music during the ceremony nor pagan instrumental music (we couldn't use the Lohengrin March, which was fine with us). A Christian marriage in a church is a holy covenant, the wedding is form and matter through which the covenant is made. This is just as reverent and respectable as those messages written on the groom's shoes or the minister joking about s*x.

Contrast what this couple's actions said about themselves with what this next couple's actions say about them. Make sure you have tissues ready and are prepared for your heart to be broken. They are examples of Christian heroism, as Mark Shea has said. I pray for them and their son. Elijah saw this and wanted to make a card to send to them. Does anyone know of a way to contact them?

Labels: Culture and Politics, Faith and Morality

I have a couple frugality posts simmering in my mind, but it will be a little while until I can type them up and post them. In the meantime, this is something I've wanted to post about for a while.

Once upon a time, when I still had time to knit, I was part of a knitting group on usenet. It was a friendly group, straying from the topic occasionally, but usually getting back on track quickly.

Friendships developed between the members and people started posting more about their personal lives and other things not directly related to knitting or other yarn crafts. This was, overall, a good thing. It left room for some bad things, too, though.

For instance, someone posted one of those lists that she thought everyone would find funny. It was vastly inappropriate to the group topic. It was the one about if this country isn't a nation that was founded on Christian principles, then...

Well, it was the wrong group to post this list to in the first place, and it started a firestorm. One of the bullet points on the list was that this person wanted to receive postal mail on Easter. Someone who was not only annoyed at the list being posted, but evidently also very angry at religion, Christians and God and who was rather ignorant replied: You wouldn't get mail on Easter anyway. It's a Sunday.

I'll let you think about that for a moment.

Hmmm? I wonder why Sunday is a day without mail. Hmmm...

No work on Sunday, that came from Christianity. The whole day of rest thing, that was God's idea. So, if you enjoy the weekend, thank God and religious people.

The Romans and Greeks are not who invented the weekend. And yes, though there are many things the west has in common with non-western societies, because it turns out they are made up of humans as well, the reality is that our society is not based on those, but on western civilization. The day of rest comes from western culture directly through religious people and God's commands. If we had a strictly secular society, if somehow we had been able to throw off the yoke of religious "oppression" in the west, we would have much more to do with utilitarianism and less to do with rest.

We are coming up on a weekend with lots of fun activities in our area, then Labor Day weekend after that. Many people will take that time to rest, enjoy the outdoors, shop. All of that free time, just another great idea from God.

Labels: Culture and Politics, Faith and Morality

It is Holy Week, a time when millions and millions of Christians of all stripes around the world are preparing their hearts and homes for the resurrection of Jesus by remembering and meditating on the events of the Passion and crucifixion. So, what is the secular world doing? The same thing they do every year: Putting out stories about how false Christianity is and how dumb Christians are!

You can mark your calendar by it, come Holy Week or Advent there will be, in the media, stories about how the virgin birth is a lie (not just false or mistaken, a lie), stories of these Christian experts (usually dissenters who are either excommunicated, discredited or far outside the mainstream of any branch of Christianity, but they don't mention that - and hey, they're wearing that funny collar so they must be legitimate!) who tell you that Christians are really wrong about the person of Jesus and His miracles and the entirety of Church history, scripture and tradition, stories about how the resurrection is a great hoax, etc. Occasionally, you see this treatment of faithful Jews around Passover, even rarer around Channukah. Usually, the target is orthodox Christianity, though. You'll notice a conspicuous absence of a third monotheistic religion in these exposes, however, which shows exactly how cowardly these "brave, outspoken, truth tellers" are. It is much easier to attack someone who has been commanded to turn the other cheek and then congratulate yourself on how courageous you are to stand up to them than to actually stand up to tyrants who are intent on killing you.

I linked to a commentary on the article, because I didn't want to give the article any hits, but you can see the original article from the link I posted. I love how the author can't even get basic facts of Christianity correct. He says, in the first sentence, that Paul was the first Christian. That would be an interesting bit of information to Paul (and the established Church he was sent to visit). This makes me doubt either his credentials of having grown up a Baptist minister's son or his true knowledge or understanding of anything that was taught him.

One of the comments on Mark's blog really struck me:

But when such faith is lost, as in my case, what am I left with? I'm left with the teachings of Jesus...

Why? If you've obviously concluded that Jesus was a liar about a number of important things (son of man raised from the dead, temple destroyed and rebuilt in three days, etc.), then why listen to anything else? And if you're sure that the Christian account of history is so very wrong about the thing that matters most to it, why should it be trusted on the lesser issues?

Why indeed? It always amazes me that these purveyors of the "true" Christianity put any stock in any of the claims of Jesus or the Church or the Bible. If they believe the Church, the apostles, Jesus to be such liars, why would they believe anything else they taught? It is no wonder that the heterodox churches are the churches that have clergy shortages and dwindling membership. Why would anyone join an organization that required getting up early on a Sunday morning, time commitments, financial support and that carried a stigma in the West (of being one of those religious types) for something that you can get from NPR, CNN and Hollywood? Why would men sacrifice money, freedom and (in the case of Roman Catholic priests and Orthodox bishops) marriage for the same old political clap-trap that can be found in the world with a bigger paycheck and fewer demands? There are two directions for the people in these churches: orthodoxy or atheism. Both of which lead them out of those churches. Sure, the atheists will still identify as Christian (usually in the brand they knew, Episcopal, Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, etc), but they don't actually attend church, believe the bible, believe Church teaching, have any regard for the Church or her members, they are shocked, shocked I tell you!, when the Church stands firm in her beliefs and rules, even more shocked that the Pope is Catholic and in many cases (like a woman who called herself Catholic once told me) identify more with pagan and nature based religions than Christianity.

You might ask why they would call themselves Christian at all, rather than coming up with their own religion. I think it comes from a desire to still have a connection to a community and a realization, somewhere in them, that there is a legitimacy conferred by a major religion that cannot be found in one's own made up faith or an attachment to a fringe religion. Mind you, even the "spiritual" people, who claim to follow Native American religion or "Eastern" religions don't actually adhere to their beliefs, practices or teachings, it's simply a way to appear avant garde without requiring anything of the "believer," more like visiting a quilt show than being a quilter. As for those who are taking over churches in the West, I think it is far more sinister than that. I think they think of each communion as a brand of Christianity that they can use to destroy from within, leaving it a shell that is decayed and empty, which can then help to, finally, kill Christianity, as the secular prophets have been prophesying for many centuries (it flummoxes them as to why believers - in any god - persist in believing in this imaginary God of theirs). It's not as if people in the west are unable to create their own religion, but they would rather use the money, buildings, vestments and credibility of established faith traditions.

So, back to our "authentic" Christian. He's ignorant of the (basic) teachings of the Church, thinks Jesus is a liar at least part of the time on some pretty important things, thinks that the Church is a fraud, but he has somehow discovered the truth out of their web of deceit. How again is he a Christian at all, let alone a "true" Christian?

It reminds me of the brou-haha over Dan Brown's book. Here was a work of fiction parading itself as secret truth which got such basic facts about Church history so wrong that all it would take is an outdated encyclopedia to correct him, and yet people, and sadly people who called themselves Christian (a woman I know who was a so-called Catholic was amazed at the secrets uncovered in this book), bought it as a work of legitimate research.

The self-loathing evident in these people is much like the self-loathing many in the West have about our culture. You will not find this self-hatred among other cultures. You should not find it in theirs or in ours. How can anyone truly appreciate another culture if they cannot first appreciate the good in his own?

The year before we were married, we attended a cathedral in Seattle for Sunday morning church. It was a waste of time. They mentioned the name of Jesus right at the beginning, to get it out of the way I imagine, and then went on a political stump (you know, the kind that is allowed, not anything that is socially conservative or endorsing a libertarian candidate, the other kind) about taxes and a particular local candidate. It was still the Christmas season, and they were preaching that what baby Jesus really would have wanted is more taxes. We could have slept in and had a more spiritual morning. The cathedral wasn't even a beautiful building, so we could lift our eyes and spirits to the beauty of God and His creation by reading the salvation story in the images and art work. It was built in the 70s, I think, when people forgot that God commanded the Israelites to use their best for the house of God and evidently decided that the scratch and dent concrete and metal they could get to make this monstrosity was the best God deserved. They preach the gospel of Barney and expect it to be life changing (the feeding of the 5000 men wasn't a miracle, no, it was an exercise in sharing!), then wonder why their churches are emptying out. I fear their churches are emptier than the tomb on resurrection Sunday, but without the hope of rebirth.

We can only hope that these "true" Christians will spare everyone the Easter sermons on bovine flatulence.

Labels: Church Year, Culture and Politics, Faith and Morality, Holy Week

Rich and I were blessed to be poor when we were first married. I know that sounds a little odd, but we are thankful for our time of relative poverty. It wasn't the kind of poverty that you read about in the inner city, or hear about in far off lands. Rich was a student, I was a part time dance instructor and we were early in our marriage. We usually didn't notice our finances until we did our taxes and realized what in what bracket we fell! When we had Alexander, times got a little tighter, and there were about six to 10 months when things were really tight, but we still never felt poor and always had what we needed. Ever since I read this, it has been on my heart to write on this subject.

That first year with Alexander was hard, we learned a tough lesson about getting promises in writing which resulted in us not having any health insurance during the last month of my pregnancy and Alexander's delivery. We went to the hospital not knowing how we would pay the doctor and hospital for the largest part of the pregnancy expenses. I was no longer working outside of our home and we figured we'd be paying about $50 a month until Rich got a full time job. When we arrived home, we found a letter and check in the mail from some friends who said that since we were so far apart (we were living 2000 miles away from "home" at the time), and they missed the baby shower, they wanted to give us a gift to help with the raising of a new child. The check was written for $1500, which was about half of our hospital and doctor bills. We learned how to give without expectation in a great part from them. We have made it a practice never to loan money to people because of that, and only give if we can fully afford to, but when we do, we give it. We never ask for the money back.

Our first Thanksgiving after Alexander was born, we had a rather humbling experience. Our church had a year round food pantry for the poor, but around holidays would call on the parishioners to put together holiday meal packages for families in need. Rich and I picked up one of the Thanksgiving bags with the list on it and went to the store to buy the things to fill it. We knew we didn't have as much in the way of material wealth, but we certainly could help a family that needed to eat, so we did what we could. The Monday before Thanksgiving, a lady from our home group knocked on our door and brought us one of those meal packages. It was a shock to us, but we thanked her. We were embarrassed that the people of our church thought that we were poor, that we needed help. Fortunately, we knew another family that was having a hard time of it, so we told them what happened and offered to share Thanksgiving with them. We are still friends with that family and with the woman who brought us that package.

Most of what we considered poverty was inconvenience. It was uncertainty. It was pride. We still had a little savings, never went without what we needed, though if our car had gone out, paying for repairs would have been a huge burden. The Lord was so good to us in that time. We had a good friend and fellow student pilot with Rich at school who looked like a little troll, had fat fingers, and could make any mechanical thing run with the skill of a surgeon, using those fingers as delicately as any concert pianist. He would fix our car if it needed it for no other cost than the parts, and half the time he wouldn't let us pay for those. He drove the car with Rich across the country when we moved out here and that mechanical knack was a huge blessing as they drove through snowy places like Wyoming and Rob got out of the car to fix it so it would make it to Oregon. Our mechanic now is similar, though he's French, swears like a sailor and smokes like a chimney. Both of these men felt like they owed us and were repaying our kindness or what they saw as favors to them.

When we moved here for Rich's first flight job, it was just about the worst time to be starting as a flight instructor. The weather was bad, Rich hadn't built up enough students to have instrument students, so when the weather was bad, he didn't work. We moved with something like $4500 or $5000 to our names. If you counted student loan debt, we didn't even have that. We used to joke that our family of three brought the per capita income down, by itself, in our rather small, affluent town. That money we brought was enough to pay the first and last month plus deposit on our rental duplex, get our utilities and phone up and running and for us to pick up groceries and fill up the tank in our car. We had about another $3000 in checks that were supposed to arrive pretty soon after we did, last paychecks, our deposit from our former apartment, thinks like that. They didn't arrive. At the end of our first month month, we had $30 left. We started to worry that we wouldn't have enough to pay our second month's rent and that we'd be using that last month's rent payment as our last payment. Two out of three of our checks showed up on the day our rent was due, along with Rich's first paycheck. We paid our rent, got our bills taken care of and took care of the incidentals we needed to with that money, leaving a little financial breathing room for us.

God provided miraculously in so many ways. It was through that that we learned to depend on Him and that He was our provider, not Rich's job or whatever else, though of course God used that and still expected us to work. It was that knowledge that has allowed us to trust God when we have to make financial decisions. This was a time of great growth and learning for us, Rich and I learned what it meant to willingly sacrifice out of love during that time. My opinion and admiration of my husband grew a great deal during that time, as I watched him give up what he wanted so he could serve and be available to our family, but that is a story for another day.

Most flight instructor jobs do not provide any kind of health care benefits. Rich managed to work at the only FBO which did. This was handy, because it turned out that by the time we moved, I was pregnant with Dominic. Rich had taken a second job at night, one that he hated, but that kept him close to home, so he could come home and see us at dinner, rather than miss out on his family. It turned out to be a huge blessing, since he was also available when we found out I was pregnant, and we didn't need to worry about his being too far away if I went into labor.

When Rich applied for this job, we prayed and did not consider the financial benefit or cost when we were determining if we should take it. That seems odd, as without the job we wouldn't be doing as well as we are now, but it was because we knew money couldn't be the determining factor, but discerning what direction God had for us was. If we had never been poor, I don't think we ever would have learned how to apply that discernment to any decision, let alone financial ones.

While we never were as poor as is described here (please stop to read this, her story puts a lot in perspective), I do remember what it felt like to tell my little sons that something was too expensive for us to buy while we were at the grocery store. Things that we can afford now as a treat or even in every day circumstances, were a luxury we could not afford then. It was the only time I felt poor, telling my sons no when they wanted something simple.

We are rarely inconvenienced now. Each year, we are better off than the year before, each child has brought with him a raise in our paycheck. We run a tight ship, financially, as any family of eight has to, especially if a parent does not work for pay, and even more so if they are paying for their children's education either in homeschooling or at a private school, but we are not poor. I can buy fruit out of season each week if I want, though now I choose not to so we can buy better produce and more that is locally grown. We can afford the little treats and niceties that were once difficult to save for, even. We live in relative comfort and ease. I have not forgotten, though, how we got here, nor how to live should that change.

It is easy to forget that others do not live as well as you do. We notice that when people make comments about how we can afford to live as we do, while we see them spending far more lavishly than we do, but we do it as well. We live, as I have said before, in a rather affluent town and within that, a rather affluent neighborhood. Even the inner city, a town over from us, isn't that tough or poor. God has given us opportunities to serve the poor there and I am grateful for the reminders. We should be pricked in our consciences that it is not enough to provide for ourselves and that others do not have the comforts we do.

I didn't know whether or not to blog about this when it happened, because I didn't want to expose the persons we were blessed to help, but I think enough time has passed that nobody would be able to identify them, and perhaps, God willing, they do not remember that it was us who helped them. Several months ago, someone on an online group I belong to asked for some food. Not money for food, or to help with bills, or anything else. I have always considered that someone who is hungry should be fed, regardless of their decisions which may have brought them to that circumstance. I also thought that if someone was asking for food from strangers, chances were that they needed it. We have a lot of that around here, so I offered some to this person. God got to prick both mine and Rich's conscience through that experience.

I packed up a rather large box of food to give this person and worked out how we could meet. This person did not have steady access to the internet and no phone access at all. So, we arranged a meeting place and time. I packed up the box, my children and drove across a toll road to deliver it. I was stood up. I waited for an hour, stalked the meeting place asking random strangers if they knew or had seen this person and essentially made an idiot of myself. I came home frustrated and annoyed that this person had wasted my time (and the cost of the toll) in that way. I am ashamed of how easily I despised the poor. I called Rich and told him how I had wasted our afternoon (and the toll!) for someone who couldn't even be bothered to be there when I was trying to help.

I came home and e-mailed this person to ask if there was another time or way we could meet, I was at least conscious enough not to let on that I was frustrated. Rich told me he was going to have to be in that area the next day, so if this person was comfortable with a man bringing the food, he could do it. I asked, the person was, and this time I got the home address, since I wouldn't be going with children and possibly trying to either pass off the food with them in the car or try to bring them all into the house/apartment while carrying the box and keeping track of everyone. That day, this person was able to borrow a friend's phone, so I gave Rich's cell phone number and had him call to make sure everything was on schedule.

Now, the reason that Rich was going to be in that area was that he had an important work meeting. This person called him two or three times during the meeting, so much so that Rich got annoyed. He is a man of his word, if he says he's going to do something, he does it, so he was frustrated and found himself thinking "Look, I'm doing you a favor, can't you just wait? I said I'd come." When he arrived with the food, he says God straightened him out right away. The reason the person was calling so much was because of an empty stomach. He said as soon as he saw this person's eyes, he saw hunger. He came home a chastened man.

A couple months after that, another family asked for formula for their newborn child. I said that I didn't have formula, but because of the hospital selling our name, we had tons of coupons and we could bring those if they would help. While we were out shopping, I just had an urging from the Lord to buy the stinking formula and give them the other coupons for formula and diapers and such. We drove to the apartment, which turned out to be a tenement in a rather bad part of town. There were people out front keeping guard or keeping watch for drugs and definitely keeping their eyes on me. I walked in to a dingy, poorly lit, depressing place. The apartment where this family lived was cramped and looked rather squalid. Still, there was the mother and father and their little baby. I wanted to cry when I saw them. I told them about our new little baby and cooed over their child. I walked out thanking God that our children never knew this life, praying for that family and wanting to teach our children never to look down on people who did not have what they had. It had been a long time since I had seen squalor, or thought about it being so close to home, and we have never known it. We have never known real poverty. I still pray for those families.

This month, our Laudate group has taken on several service projects in our area. I was blessed to be able to serve with them on one at the beginning of the month. We did such simple work, cleaning floors and dishes and serving food at the rescue mission. Most of the people there are men, most are alcoholics or drug users, but there were some women and some families. One of the hardest parts was seeing a former neighbor. I saw him in the parking lot while I was waiting for the rest of our group to arrive. We chatted and he made up a story about how he was visiting a friend there, which I knew wasn't true. I know it was hard for him to see me serving in that line. I saw a family with two daughters who seemed too embarrassed to take food for all of them, no matter how much I pressed them to take more. There was a mother with a son, who wouldn't take anything but coffee, until we pressed her to at least take something for her son. I saw a father with a son the age of Amira, both of them so polite. It broke my heart to see them. It should break our hearts. Those brief hours of service reminded me of what our Lord commands us, it reminded me not to despise the poor for their poverty.

It is our job to care for the poor. That does not mean that poor are entitled, or always right, or somehow more noble, but we have been entrusted with their care. Scripture warns against both favoring the wealthy for their wealth and regarding poverty as righteousness. There is many a wicked poor person and many a righteous rich man, but neither state indicates the state of either heart. It is only in caring for the poor (and the sick, and those in prison, and the hopeless) that we can help them grow rich in spirit. God will demand an accounting for our works when that day comes to meet Him. I pray to meet Him having served Him in the least of all men, rather than having to explain how I never saw Him so how could I have served Him.

Labels: Culture and Politics, Faith and Morality, Family

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.
Mother Teresa

Today is the 36th anniversary of two Supreme Court decisions, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, which have resulted in over 50,000,000 deaths of American babies alone.

I grew up learning that it was my right to kill any life in my body for any reason. I bought into the my body my choice rhetoric (even though at least half of those "body parts" are male and all of them have unique DNA separate from the mother's). I believed all the lies about only a clump of cells (until I saw actual development of a baby in utero). I didn't think twice about the inconsistencies in the pro-choice argument, such as insisting that a woman had no ability to think ahead to the results of her actions, so could not be held responsible for them, but a man always did and should. This was why a woman was not responsible for her actions in an unplanned pregnancy and should be able to abort, but a man should have thought ahead if he didn't want to pay child support, and was therefore mandated to do so, even if he didn't want or plan the pregnancy (I will point out that the moral principle here upholds a man paying child support - at least - regardless of his plans, I am only pointing out a logical inconsistency). I thought that the very rare occasions of pregnancy from r@pe or inc*st, and the even rarer preservation of the life of the mother justified changing the law to affect every other circumstance, including a conflict in schedules or a desire to preserve her figure. And did you know that in every state prior to Roe, saving the life of the mother was already provided for in law. I did not see the oddity of referring to the pregnant woman as a mother, but considering the fetus inside her not to be a baby. Or a human. Or a person. I believed the leaders when they said they wanted abortion to be legal, safe and rare. Though they've dropped the rare from that list in this past year. I believed that if women had access to abortion, there would be no more unwanted children, child abuse or poverty. I believed that we should not legislate morality.

I was wrong.

I went from this view of abortion on demand being a right every woman had to thinking maybe it was a necessary evil, but one that I could not personally support or do myself, to realizing that if what was inside a woman when she was pregnant was, in fact a human person, then it was not lawful to kill him or her. Make no mistake. When someone reaches the point of being active in the pro-life movement, it is because of these realizations.

Science determines that the conceptus/zygote/embryo/fetus is human, distinct from her mother. So much for keep your laws off my body. The virtue of prudence says that we can not do an evil act to obtain a good end. There goes necessary evil. Logic reveals that one cannot base law on exceptions, otherwise we'd get rid of theft laws since there are some people who only steal because they are starving. We legislate morality in every law we have. Tax law is part of morality.

The year I was married, there were several headlines about girls who delivered babies only to wrap them in plastic sacks and go back to the prom or to their normal life. People were horrified. The reality is that we already had enshrined their acts into law. If they had simply done it a minute earlier, it would have been protected by the highest law of this nation. It is the logical outcome that people would not care for newborns if they do not care for the baby in the womb. We see this in President Obama's opposition to the Born Alive Act. If a baby has the audacity to survive an abortion, hospital policy was to put that child in a plastic sack with the biohazard material. The same hospitals had NICUs to help save the lives of babies the same age or younger. A man who only managed to vote present most of his tenure took the effort to vote against a law that would oblige these hospitals to care for these failed abortions. Not for the woman to go home with a baby, but for the hospital to extend medical care. This is what our soldiers are obliged to do on the front. Even if you shoot to kill an enemy combatant who was trying to kill you, if he survives, you are obliged to give him medical care. Not so for a child, in our president's opinion, who thinks that children are a punishment to women. Legalizing abortion does not eliminate unwanted children nor child abuse, it extends it. If we do not value a fetus because it cannot survive on its own, why would we value a nine month old who also cannot. If we say that it is legal to kill a fetus who will make our life much more difficult, how does that make our born children any more wanted when they also make our lives much more difficult?

There are two people who have taken me from being pro-life as a matter of conscience to being active in the movement. One was one of my best friends in college who was pressured into an abortion by her boyfriend who had always said that he would marry a woman if he got her pregnant. I still remember her voice when she told me that he couldn't even think of marrying her. I remember her depression afterward.

The second person who influenced my choice to become active in the movement was:


We were fortunate in that none of our medical team ever once suggested that we consider the "choice" of killing Elijah. It turns out that is rare. We have gained some recognition in the world of parents with children with tumors. We have had people referred to us, people contact us after reading my birth story about Elijah and, with only one exception, each one had to not only deal with the issue of the tumor, but had to begin by battling a doctor who told them that they should abort. The first time someone asked me how we fought our doctor I was shocked. It never occurred to our doctor, nor our midwife, that they needed to suggest that to us. We live in a world where it is legal, and if I wanted to do so, I could, regardless of anyone (including my husband's) wishes. They didn't have to tell us we (I, really, Rich had no choice) had that choice. That these doctors push it on their patients shows how little they care for their calling to heal.

I do not think that it is lawful to kill a child in the womb if he is going to die anyway. However, in our case and in the cases of all these parents I have had communication with, it was not so. I have known one of these children to die after surgery, and there have been several who have had complications, but not to even give them a chance? When the surgery is available? I cannot fathom the thought process. Nor can I understand the doctor who would push it on parents who are already trying to handle a hard diagnosis.

This is the boy those doctors would rather not have seen given a chance:


He is the punishment that President Obama imagines when he says that he wants abortion available to his daughters. Our president has said that he would help to kill his grandchildren if they came at a bad time or out of bad circumstances. Circumstances much like those surrounding his own birth and life. He is not the only grandparent to think this way, as I have the misfortune to know more intimately than some others might.

Today, President Obama overturns the Mexico City policy, sending millions of dollars to help kill brown children in other countries at a time when our economy is low already. He has pledged to pass the ill named Freedom of Choice Act, which would remove the choice of voters in each state by overturning laws passed by them putting restrictions on abortion. This is a scandal to the republic and goes against the federalism on which our nation was founded. Regardless of anyone's opinion on the abortion argument, this is bad law, because it takes away the state's right to make its own laws.

Please, contact your senators and representatives and tell them not to support FOCA. Each state should have the right to make their own choice.

There is so much more I could say, but I will not make this any longer than it is already. I will close with another quotation from Mother Teresa:

If we can accept that a mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?

Those in the peace movement ought to think on that.

I am leaving comments open, but they are moderated. If you feel the need to make ad hominem attacks, use vulgar language or are in any way abusive, I will not publish your comments. However, I may quote you as an example of "tolerance."

Labels: Culture and Politics, Faith and Morality

Turn down my music player and watch this.



Abortion is the enemy of hope.

Labels: Culture and Politics

Oregon has a "Death with Dignity" law on the books. That is a euphemism for assisted suicide, which itself is a euphemism for murder by medical care worker. Well, surprise, surprise, it turns out that it is a choice for you if you are paying for your own medical care, but if the state is they choose death for you. There was plenty of evidence around the world that this would be the kind of approach such a law would permit and encourage, look at the Netherlands, for example, but people here seem to think that it will be different for us. Or perhaps they just don't want to foot the bill to help patients with cancer, alzheimer's or other long term diseases.

There is a bill here in Washington which would do the same thing. When the petitions were going around to get it on the ballot, most of the petitioneers (those people with the paper and clip board) didn't even know what the law was about. They hadn't read it. When I told them that there was no provision that protected the choice of the patient to seek medical treatment to prolong life (from insurance companies wishing to maximize their cost effectiveness, from hospitals who wanted to clear beds for the next patient, from government medical plans which would try to save the tax payer money by offing those they deemed unworthy of life), most of them were shocked.

You think medical decisions aren't influenced by pressure from insurance companies, hospital accounting boards and bureaucrats in government agencies? Change the medical issue and see if that is true still. They sell these laws on a vague concept of choice and freedom, but in the end, it is someone else's freedom and choice that determine your end. The proposed law says that it can only be used for a patient whose doctor has predicted that the patient has six months or less to live. How often are doctors wrong about this? Do we expect them to be prophets and God all rolled into one? Surely, someone has figured out that it wouldn't be hard to get a doctor to "predict" something like that for a patient who is depressed enough to wish suicide, or for a patient whose case is particularly complicated and would take a long time.

If you are in Washington state, I encourage you to vote against this ill thought out and dangerous law. Vote no on Washington Initiative 1000. For anyone else, be vigilant in watching your own state government's movements toward such a thing.

Also, get a Will to Live or Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care. Rich and I both had our lawyer draw up the paper work for our health directives to reflect that we wanted not only basic nourishment and hydration (which is increasingly being considered an extraordinary measure of care), but also pain medication and lifesaving care. We each have given durable power of attorney to the other, and specifically we each also have durable power of attorney for health care. We both know where our Church draws the line on extraordinary care, we both share the same beliefs and values and we both would approach such a decision with prayer, study and good counsel from godly medical professionals as well as spiritual leaders. Since we know there isn't a judge in our state (and probably in our country) who wouldn't overturn our legal requests should one of us insist on it, we figure if it really comes down to it, and there are truly extraordinary measures being taken to prolong one of our lives, then the other would get the legal document overridden. Until that point, we do not want a doctor, hospital budgeting board, insurance company or a government agency making the decision to end our lives.

Here is my (slightly) tongue in cheek will to live. Edit it as you see fit for your own use.

Labels: Culture and Politics

I'd like to say that we've been boycotting the Olympics because of principle. That I didn't want to watch a competition which celebrates individual achievement in a socialist nation. That we disagreed with participating in an international event in a tyrannical, communist, dictatorial regime, what with the forced labor, the forced abortions and the family planning enforcers, with the people who brought us Tianamen Square and Chairman Mao.

The reality is that we are bored by them. Over the past 20 years, they have become less and less interesting. There have been more events added that aren't really worth it, in our opinions, and then there's the whole thing of this being an amateurs' competition, but then allowing professional athletes on some team sports. That's not even touching the ridiculous scandals.

We barely even registered the Olympics this year. Have you been keeping up with the Olympics?

Labels: Culture and Politics

I am breaking one of my rules about discussing politics on this blog. If you know you have a huge disagreement with me about politics, it may be best for you to go look at posts about cooking or our family or knitting or some other blog right now and return when I'm not talking politics anymore. Also, re-read my disclaimer above.

I have been watching the interviews from the Saddleback Forum, and reading (and re-reading) the transcripts to try to get an understanding for what was said without being influenced by body language and facial expressions. And can I just say right off the bat that Rick Warren sounds like he's campaigning to be the presidential pastor?

Obama says that he is convinced that there is a moral element to the abortion issue and debate. Wow. I'm assuming he also is convinced that the sky is blue, water is wet and fire is hot. I'm sure there are people who found this to be a profound statement and a deep concession to the opposing side, but it was simply a general stating of the obvious, regardless of which side one takes.

He also repeated the trope that abortion has gone up during the Bush administration. This is demonstrably false. The Guttmacher Institute's own findings (the research arm of PP) are what show that the abortion rate is dropping.

He says that he wishes to reduce abortions and has added that goal to his party's platform, yet he is the only Democrat who voted against a Born Alive Act. I believe he is the only senator period who voted against it. He has lied about that, and now his own campaign is admitting that they put out incorrect information, but they are still focusing on how others are pointing out his record and how mean and unfair that is, rather than the fact that he has tried to hide his record, lied about his vote and the wording of the bill he voted against and the laws of Illinois at the time. He accused the NRLC of lying about him when they presented his voting record. He owes them an apology. Regardless of one's views on abortion, an infant born alive after an abortion attempt surely counts as a person according to the law and common sense. He, in fact, voted to protect an infanticide that is recognized as such by people on both sides of the issue, yet, he is the one insulted? Even Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi voted for the Born Alive Act in the senate. Even NARAL did not object to these bills!

I imagine for a lot of the people watching, hearing that there have been over 40 million abortions since Roe v Wade was a shock. Considering that number doesn't include any multiples (ie, if there are more than one in the uterus, it is still considered one abortion), or selective reductions, that number is not high enough to be accurate. His statement that he thinks America's biggest moral failure is not living up to Matthew's teaching [sic] (it was Jesus' teaching, actually, but nice job looking up a bible verse online) of doing unto the least of these as we do unto the Lord does not square with his aggressive commitment to the sacrament of abortion. He has consistently had NARAL's 100% rating for his voting record. Apparently, there are some least of these who aren't as least as others.

edited to add: Now there's the issue of his half brother in Kenya(in case you don't like/trust the other source). Another least of these that doesn't count, I guess. Apparently, we are supposed to help the least of these, unless they happen to be related to us and require us sacrificing our own money. Why is it that those most likely to ask us to dig deep into our pockets for higher taxes to help the poor almost always seem so reluctant to do anything themselves to help the poor in their midst, personally? If he didn't speak out on the importance of everyone spending more to help others, it would really be his own account (and between him and his God) whether he helped his half brother or not, but we're supposed to shell out for all sorts of questionable results programs while he doesn't even get held accountable for not helping a family member. Unbelievable. And please spare me the Cindy McCain argument, her sister was being raised in a middle class home, this is less than $1 a month folks, in a shanty, and Obama is the one campaigning on how much we should help the poor. They have met before, twice, once two years ago, and Barack Obama does not deny that this is his half-brother. I'm beginning to think that his greatest moral failing as a nation answer was a confession.

It turns out that both the candidates knew what the first two questions were going to be, and that Obama actually was given one more question (the one about an emergency plan for orphans) ahead of time than McCain was (the Saddleback people never got to tell McCain about that one) and both were given the broad themes of the interview. It seems bizarre to me that Obama wasn't able to answer these questions better. Surely, especially in a forum taking place in a church, he would know what to expect in terms of social policy and moral issue questions? He seemed ill prepared for those. Does that mean there is nobody in his entire campaign who thought to vet those issues? The McCain people basically said there wasn't much there that they didn't expect, and that they had actually prepared him for a few more issues than were touched on in the forum. (Incidentally, I think the question about which justices they wouldn't have nominated was an unfair question, though Obama's saying that Justice Thomas didn't have enough experience shows an intense amount of chutzpah, given his own level of political experience. Also, the no repercussions questions was dumb, because, obviously this was not the case.)

So now the Obama camp and his supporters are trying to accuse McCain of cheating. This is becoming kind of a standard operating procedure for when liberals don't get the outcome they like. There is much less evidence of McCain cheating than there was for the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Hmmm. As for the cross in the dirt story, there is evidence from other POWs that this is what happened, and that McCain told them about it long ago. Evidently, Chuck Colson has a similar story. Are we to believe that he also is now being accused of cribbing from the Gulag Archipelago? And this is supposed to discredit McCain. The people who are saying that are showing, yet again, a great lack of knowledge about Christian symbolism. The cross, that is the major sign for Christianity. The reason there are so many similar stories has more to do with that, than any plagiarism. Just like in the early Roman persecution, Christians made the symbol of the fish in the dirt to let people know they were Christians/where the next church meeting was to be/etc. That there were so many incidents of it wasn't because all the persecuted church was just making up stories. That people are using this to discredit McCain shows that they cannot find anything else with which to discredit him.

I just don't buy the newfound religiosity of the left. Obama's references to religion and faith seem like he looked up "how to speak like an evangelical" on google. His pastor, who he has chosen to be under for over 20 years, who he has spoken of as a moral model and spiritual advisor, who speaks publicly and politically, seems to spend more time on politics than on the gospel. Please don't get me wrong, I don't mean that he has no right to speak about politics, but when his sermons are stump speeches, and hateful ones at that, it makes me question his knowledge of the scriptures and church history. He doesn't speak about political principles one can find in scripture, he speaks about politics, period. And a particularly bizarre version of it. Yet this is who Obama chooses to look to for spiritual guidance. The denomination itself is moving further and further from orthodox Christianity toward universalism and secularism. It certainly has the right to do that, but to represent it as traditional Christianity and Christian thought is misleading at best.

So, frankly, I don't believe Obama's religious talk, anymore than I believed either Clinton's rediscovering the faith of their youths when their ratings got low, or Howard Dean's sincerity and depth of faith when he said that his favorite book in the New Testament [sic] (it's in the Old Testament) was Job, but that there was a difference of opinion about the ending - he seemed to think was punitive rather than redemptive. They try to sound like they have deep faith and knowledge of faith, but instead sound phony. I am more likely to trust a person's faith (regardless of religion) is sincere even if he has failed or is deeply misguided, if he at least knows the basics without stumbling or relying on cliched religious speak, even when I disagree with the conclusions he may draw. This isn't about a difference between private faith and wearing it on one's sleeve, this is basic 101 knowledge and understanding. It's elementary level, not graduate work. Nobody is asking any candidate to be a theologian. The verse from Micah Obama referenced is a good one, but walking humbly with our God means that we submit to His rule, not find a way to make our rules His. A priest I know says that a text without context is a pretext, and that is what I see from the social left (to distinguish them from the people who are further left with regards to fiscal policy or foreign policy, but not social policy).

So, when people who are so dedicated to secularism and are so opposed to traditional religion try to put it on like a jacket it rings false. It also shows that they think that religious people are too stupid to realize that they are trying it on like a costume. When Obama made his infamous gaffe about people clinging to God and guns, it wasn't just that he made an extremely insulting statement, it was that it never occurred to him, to his staff, to his speech writers, to his entire campaign that it would be seen that way. It is normal for them to think and believe such insulting things about religious people. They believe it so much that they believe everyone else does, too. Then, they add a few God bless yous and references to prayer and hope people won't see their contempt for traditional religion. Also, I just don't believe, based on his track record so far, that he truly wants the American people to know him. I also don't believe that he trusts the American people, based on his statements so far. He has a serious credibility issue, as far as I am concerned, and that does not give me confidence that he is the right man for the job.

Now, don't take this to mean that I am all over McCain. I disagree with him on several issues, I think he's wrong ideologically on some specific issues, I don't like his moral past with regards to his marriage, though I respect his war procedure more than the current administration's, and his voting record reassures me a little on some things.

I'd really rather vote no at the polls in two and a half months than elect either of these men. Maybe we should just try four years without a president and see what we get? There were three candidates I could get behind when the campaign started back in 1995, but one by one they dropped off. However, when one has at least some connection to my political, social and fiscal values, and the other guy is on a different planet than mine, well, I guess I know who I'll vote for - though, I may be holding my nose when I do it.

Labels: Culture and Politics

Our friend Mike is the new legal contributor to the online Washington Examiner. Check out what he's saying here.

He and another lawyer at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation also recently published To Protect and Maintain Individual Rights: A Citizen’s Guide to the Washington Constitution, Article I., which Mike graciously brought over when he and his family brought dinner to us. He handed it to us saying that eventually we would need to teach civics to our children and he thought the book might help.

Last year, Mike got to go to the Supreme Court because of the work he had done on a case on behalf of the teachers in the WEA.

We are very proud of Mike here. He and his wife are also godparents to Jerome, so we love them very much. Go check out what he is writing about and buy his book!

Labels: Books, Culture and Politics, Product Recommendation

These first three are more philosophical and theological in nature. The last three are mostly for homeschoolers or those who are looking into it.

I was really touched by this article by Elizabeth Foss. It captured the emotions behind being open to life so well. Although I have to say, I would have added another reason as to why I didn't just keep my husband away from me (though I never would have said it out loud). There are a lot of practical and theological reasons that we practice NFP, and why we are open to all life in our marriage, but usually people aren't interested in them when they ask questions like these or make comments, and this article really hit the reasons that most people get.

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus gave a moving closing speech at the National Right to Life Committee which he has graciously offered for the public to read at First Things. As someone who became pro-life as an older teenager and adult, this speech also captured some of thought process that moved me there.

A post at Mere Comments discusses the displacement of the Father in even Trinitarian churches. This is the heart of the dispute between the East and the West on the filioque clause of the Nicene Creed (on which both Rich and I are firmly Eastern).

Now for the homeschooling stuff.

I recently found out about Homeschool Freebie of the Day from another mother on a homeschooling list. There are all sorts of neat resources there. They are serious about the of the day part, though. Generally speaking, you need to download whatever the freebie is on the day it is posted, as it will expire the next day.

Over at Mom and Kids at Home, there are some neat free science resources

Footnote is a great resource for American history. It's just plain interesting, too. You can see the actual historical documents for things like the seven million two hundred thousand dollar check for the purchase of Alaska. They have items from the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI, WWII, U.S. Presidents, historical newspapers and naturalization documents. It is a very cool site.

Labels: Culture and Politics, Faith and Morality, Family, Homeschooling

These are words that just about every homemaker hates. You know what? I've never heard them from a man.

I recently read a book about cooking contests, specifically the Pillsbury Bake-Off. The book was interesting, except in the places where the author thought she had to defend women's reputations. She talked about how men generally denigrated traditional women's work (which is a dubious claim, though I can see how it was taken for granted, much the way women take for granted the hard work and paycheck earned by their husbands), then proceeded to do so in a far worse manner. After explaining that the contest was initially geared toward homemakers, she then went on to justify the contestants by saying that these women weren't "just housewives," they were doctoral candidates, neurosurgeons, authors, etc.

It seems that just being a housewife wasn't good enough for this woman who thought men denigrated traditional female roles so much. Why is it so much more significant/better that these women were these other things? Why does it matter that they weren't just housewives? Doesn't it feed into the stereotype that women's work isn't valuable enough when these statements are made? Isn't this buying into the "masculine" idea that women's work isn't valuable enough on its own?

Interestingly enough if a woman is a fabulous cook at home for her family it doesn't bring the same respect as if she's a caterer or chef. Martha Stewart built her empire on marking up and yuppifying traditional women's work and crafts. Wives and mothers used to make table settings, arrange flowers, make interesting meals, decorate their homes, make pillows, work in their gardens without spending all that money. That was supposedly what they all wanted to be freed from, but now, so long as they buy the expensive magazines, marked up craft supplies and wealthy suburban luxuries, it is a worthwhile endeavor. Or maybe only for Ms. Stewart who makes a paycheck off of it.

When I was only a knitter, the general public seemed to think it was a quaint thing I did. Traditional. Matronly. When I was published, then it was a serious thing. I always wonder why my work with my hands gained so much meaning from a simple paycheck. The first thing people say when they see what I make or taste what I cook is "You could sell these!" They mean it as a compliment, so I don't comment, but they show an ignorance of what kind of pay would be required for handmade/homemade work, and imply that the worth is in the cash.

I do not see it that way. When academics fight so hard for quilting/knitting/sewing to be recognized in the academy, I see it as pandering to the stereotypical male view that women's work only matters if it matters to those on high. Why do they need the validation of the grey headed men on their work? I know that my work is valuable to my family and to me. It extends to our community, our church, our friends and family, and, in some way, to the outer world as well, but my self-worth is not tied to my employment or earnings.

I have a good friend who was looking for work that would be flexible enough for her to set her own schedule so she could be a mother to her son. She thought of doing housecleaning. Nearly everyone she worked with tried to talk her out of it, because it was menial labor, because it would be hard on her feet and back, etc. They then suggested she get a job as a waitress or bartender. She was astonished that they didn't see their own prejudices. Restaurant work is just as menial, and certainly as hard on the body, but one was seen as respectable work (at least in the interim) and the other was seen as lower class and less worthy. In this case the hierarchy was such that it was worse to be paid for housewifely work than for outside work.

In my experience, and that of the women I know who are in traditional roles, it is women and not men who are patronizing and denigrating. They are the ones who sneer about our luck to be able not to work, who make snide comments about our pride in our families, who shriek in disbelief about our having FOUR CHILDREN! (as happened at one of Rich's work parties - imagine what she'd think now?), who accuse us of setting back women's rights and betraying the "sisterhood." It always makes me think of Animal Farm and how the pigs rallied the animals against the farmers and their injustices and ended up looking, and behaving, just like the farmers by the end of the book.

Amazingly enough men do not seem as threatened by my choice to work for my family instead of a paycheck. You could argue, I suppose, that it is because they benefit from it, or see it as my rightful place, but that has not been my impression or experience. It comes from men who gain nothing from my work, and who are quite comfortable with women in the workplace. These men are also the first to help out, ask to learn more about, and praise the kinds of things homemakers do. So often, it is the women who dismissively say they don't have time for things like cooking, that they'd get bored all day with nothing but children to talk to (and so would you, if you had as much intelligence as they did), that their outside interests are so much more important than keeping a home relatively clean. I especially appreciate the assumption some make that women who work as I do must do it because of pressure from their husbands. I've far more often met women who stayed in jobs they hated because their husbands insisted they keep working so he could afford more things. There was a time when a man worked harder himself to be able to purchase more, and thought his job was to support a family, rather than making his wife feel like she ought to earn her keep.

I am by no means a perfect housekeeper, I don't cherish every diaper I've changed and I do actually read books and talk to other adults without feeling guilty or being upbraided by my husband. This idea that women who do traditional women's work are somehow lower or lesser is insulting, but particularly when it comes from other women. One of our friends, a priest's wife, told how she hid her goals of becoming a wife and mother when she was in school in the 70s, because of how much flak she got for betraying the women's movement. The priest who married us told the story of how he pushed his wife out the door to work because he had been so convinced that no woman was ever fulfilled in the home, and he didn't want to be a chauvinist, keeping her chained to the stove. It apparently took quite some time for her to convince him that she wanted to be home, and that her degree and intelligence weren't being compromised by her being a homemaker. So, it is especially frustrating to read a woman spouting the same trope about how men didn't value women's work, then making sure the reader knows that the women who were doing women's work weren't wasting their time just being housewives, they had jobs and talents, educations. Not like those housewives whose work we value so much.

Labels: Books, Culture and Politics

A few weeks ago, I needed to deal with a doctor's bill which we weren't sure whether we had paid or not. Rich had had an appointment and went without his wallet, so he couldn't pay the co-pay, but he said something about calling in to pay it, and I didn't know if he'd ever gotten around to it. So, I checked our online statements and saw that something had gone out to that medical group, but I wasn't sure if it was for this visit or a different one. The lady wouldn't tell me about the billing, even though I was trying to pay the bill and not asking why he had gone to the doctor (which I already knew anyway), unless Rich got on the phone and said it was alright for me to get this confidential information about a $15 co-pay. Rich had just walked in the room at this point, so I said here you go and handed the phone to him. He said it was okay to talk about his bills or anything else with me and handed the phone back so he could get back to what he was doing. The lady then proceeded to check the account and tell me where the other co-pay had been applied and that we did indeed need to pay this one, which I did. The stupidity of this, of course, is that I could have handed the phone to any man at all, or made my voice sound deeper, and that would evidently be enough of a confirmation that it was okay for me to deal with this private information. Evidently as long as we all play the stupid little game, then our privacy is secured.

It was the same way when we were doing our taxes a year and a half ago. We knew that we had paid a ton into medical bills because of the c-section for Jerome and all his deductibles and whatnot. So, Rich went online to our insurance company's website to see what had been our responsibility over the year and found nothing about me. When he called them, the insurance people were confused until they remembered that it was because I was over 12. The lady apparently huffed something about HIPA (is that the right acronym?) and made it clear she thought it was a bureaucratic idiocy also. The lady said it was kind of odd that the age was 12 rather than, say 18, and Rich replied that it was probably because that was the age that girls were starting to be able to get pregnant. She made the connection, and was of the same opinion as Rich was over that one. This insurance policy, mind you, is in Rich's name, through his work, and we are married. But, he was not supposed to be allowed to see what procedures I'd had done, how much money I had owed, etc. So, again, the high security that had to be fulfilled was that Rich went online, started a separate account that was tied to my name so he could look up the information so we could get our taxes done. He e-mailed me the account and password as well as the one for him.

Our children's godparents ran into this when their (then) 12 year old son had his tonsils and adenoids out. The bill came to their son's name. He came home earlier than they did, got the mail, saw stuff from the hospital that didn't really make sense to him and threw it in the garbage. Repeatedly. Then, they started getting collections calls. Arthur said something to the effect of we didn't see any bills, and asked his son, who said that yeah he'd gotten some weird paperwork from the hospital and thrown it away. So, he explained that to the collections people and tried to get it sorted out. They wouldn't discuss it with him because it was in his son's name, and Arthur had no right to know what his son had had done. I believe Arthur told him that they then had no right to collect the money from him and to try to get it from his 12 year old. I don't think it took too long for them to decide he had a right to access his son's records.

Labels: Culture and Politics

So, the first Hollywood celebrity has come out saying that she will leave the country if John McCain wins. Presumably, Susan Sarandon will take Tim Robbins with her as well.

If only these people would actually act on their promises. I think half the reason that Bush won the last election is because people thought that by voting for him they might have a chance to get rid of Alec Baldwin and the others who all swore they'd defect. Oddly enough, only Robert Altman (I think that's his name) actually went. Yet another campaign promise broken. Maybe they found out how much taxes are in the other countries they were considering and were advised against it by their financial advisors.

Since I don't particularly care for any of our candidates, most of the people I liked were knocked off early in the game (you know, about six years ago), voting for someone to get rid of pompous celebrities seems like as good a reason as any. I think McCain should make it part of his campaign: Vote for me and get rid of Hollywood whiners.

Labels: Culture and Politics

Even though I have no time today, and should be cleaning house, I had to post this.

Evidently it is a-okay to teach Buddhist religious practices to elementary and middle school children in the public schools, but it's really dangerous and bad to allow high school children to have student led prayers, wear crucifixes or mention Jesus in their graduation speeches.

Reason 4,738,915,206 to either homeschool or put your kids in a private school of your choosing.

Labels: Culture and Politics

I found this story linked on another site today. You may have to register to read it. It is about a family with five children. The mother is 30. It was a timely reference, because I had a positive comment at the post office today, while I was there with my five children.

The gentleman behind me in line tapped me on the shoulder and said that he wanted to tell me how beautiful and well behaved my children were. Who wouldn't love this man instantly? He then related how he and his wife had had five children, and now have 13 grandchildren. He talked about all the idiotic comments they got from people, and we laughed about some of the more common ones:

"Are all of them yours?!" (Actually, no, I just found these poor urchins on the street and couldn't believe that nobody was taking care of them, so I brought them into the store with me).

"Are you done yet?" (Well, you know everything is cheaper by the dozen! We have a deal with the surgeon now, and the sixth one is free!)

"Don't you know where babies come from?" (Actually, yes - thanks for checking, though.)

"I'm glad I don't have that many!" (Me, too!)

One of my personal favorites, though, "You know you don't have to have one every time!" (If they think this was every time, well. I'm sorry for them is all I'll say about that.)

These are almost always said in front of my children (the gentleman remembered that, too). I am too polite to say what I really think to most of these people, and wouldn't want to be a bad example to my children, but I have all sorts of answers for them. This man in the post office said, after we laughed a little at the stupid people who don't know what is coming out of their mouths, "You probably hear that you're using up all the resources from those environmentalists nowadays." I smiled and said those people don't even talk to us. They avert their eyes or glare, depending.

To be fair, most of the comments we get are positive. People are so amazed at our childrens' manners, politeness, kindness. Even the most clueless usually end up saying something to the effect that obviously people like me/us are the ones who ought to have all these children. I try to remember that most people don't mean to be intrusive, rude or cruel. I also wish they would stop acting like we asked them to babysit and loan us $50 just because we have the children. That is something I've said to a few people, we aren't asking you to pay for them or take care of them, so why do you care? It is amazing to me how people who have never met you, don't even know your name and have no moral, financial or emotional responsibility over you will feel free to comment about a private choice. I had a woman in a public restroom screech all sorts of assinine things, again in front of three of my children, even though she didn't know me from Adam.

So, we work at teaching our children that they are blessings. That children are blessings. We tell them that having children isn't fun every second, that it is hard work, and that it requires that you do what is necessary, regardless of what you feel like doing at that moment (and when they tell me they don't feel like doing their chores, I point out that I don't feel like changing diapers, and cleaning up spills and doing eleventy billion loads of laundry a day, but aren't they glad I don't let that get in the way of my doing it), but that it is worth it and that the joys and rewards are much greater than the effort and work. We are also grateful that we are friends with several large families, our church family is welcoming to large families, and is excited at the prospect of a new child, rather than repulsed that the Western standard of below replacement level fertility isn't being upheld. I hope it softens the blow when they hear some moron spout off about how there are too many of them. They take it for granted that a large family is good, and plan for our next baby. I am encouraged by that. I also take comfort in the knowledge that most of the boorish low population crowd is dying out without having replaced themselves. They have either one child or no children, and their tribe is decreasing.

One day I will work up the courage to ask one of these people to let us know which one we shouldn't have had, or which one we should kill. It probably won't shame them, but it might shut them up.

Labels: Culture and Politics, Family

I've seen this on several mommy blogs. Reality is that if you are, you know it, and if you aren't, you know that, too. The quiz is more interesting because of how feminism is being framed, as well as the condescension that isn't even masked if you don't rate high as a feminist. I think that perhaps if the makers of this quiz went out of their little coterie of co-religionists and met the majority of women who don't identify themselves as feminists, they might get a bit of an education.

You Are 35% Feminist

No one would consider you a feminist. You believe women should hold on to traditional gender roles. Well, that's not the world we're living in anymore. Time to wake up to the 21st century!

I especially liked this question, as it gave you a little glimpse into the mind and world view of the person/people who put together the quiz:

Men and women should be held to the same se*ual standards. If men can sleep around without judgment, women should be able to as well.

Evidently, these are our only options. I agree with the first sentence wholeheartedly, it's the second one I have a problem with. Since modern feminism seeks to bring women to equality with the basest of men, rather than the most estimable, and certainly won't hold men and women to an equally higher standard, this is the highest expectation anyone is thought to meet. We're equally pigs? No thank you.

Labels: Culture and Politics

While looking around online for some information about education in Washington state, I found a co-op (a couple actually, but one to which I am referring) dedicated to secular homeschooling. That's cool, I like that we have a state that is friendly to homeschooling, and everyone has the right to do so here, (although, I kind of figured that the public schools were where you went to get a secular education, they certainly aren't getting a religious education there). What I found perplexing was that after making statements about not wanting any religious dialogue, being free from Christian homeschool programs especially, I scanned down and saw that they met weekly at - where do you think? - a church!

Yes, I understand it was probably a matter of needing a place they could use weekly for little or no money. That actually makes me think even less of them. Have the courage of your convictions, folks. If you are so affronted by religious, and especially Christian, influence and want a strictly secular educational system, at least don't use the church. As it is, they are selling out their own so-called values, and using a Christian church (no, it wasn't Unitarian), to promote exclusion of Christian thought and influence in education. If it's nefarious for kids to mention God in graduation speeches at public high schools, why is it innocuous to promote excising Christian teaching from homeschooling in a church?

I also wonder at a church permitting this group, whose purpose clearly states that they wish to keep Christian teaching, homeschool materials and influence out of their co-op and discussion, meet there.

Labels: Culture and Politics