Sex Ed series

I've been thinking about sex ed lately, both because of my kids beginning to ask questions and because of issues that friends are dealing with. This was one of the areas in which my own parents were very weak, and one which my husband and I have intentionally worked at with our children. It is so important that we teach them the physical stuff, as well as the emotional/relational stuff, (disease prevention, biology, contraception, consent, respect, intimacy, etc) and that we avoid turning limits of morality into shame. I came across the following series on another blog, and I thought I'd share. I don't agree with every minute detail here, (there are areas in which this blogger is probably a bit more conservative than I am) and I don't agree with everything else on her blog or that she links to, in case anyone is wondering. However, I thought it was generally very good, very balanced, and well worth sharing.


http://dulcefamily.blogspot.com/search/label/sex%20ed%20in%20a%20Christian%20home

The above is a link to all the posts (they're generally quite short) in the series. A few quotes:


"Perhaps the biggest distortion I see is the idolization of virginity.  So many portray it as the be all end all standard of sexual purity.  First of all, I think that sexual purity is just as important after marriage as before, and in fact, more so.  Furthermore, sexual purity isn't just lack of vaginal intercourse.  Such a narrow focus on outward behavior causes us to lose sight of the heart issue.  Some wind up doing everything except for vaginal intercourse, and have no idea of the possible consequences of things like oral sex, pornography, and other forms of sexual activity.  Others who do have sex feel that they are forever "second hand goods".  Both are terrible distortions of what sexual purity really means."


"I also find the double standard with gender that many adopt to be deeply disturbing. Sexual purity is for men as well as women, and the stereotypes of men as slavering beasts and women as cold manipulators are both inaccurate and degrading.  Both men and women are created with a strong sex drive.  That is a good thing.  And both are capable of self control.  That is also a good thing.  Women should be able to be themselves and dress comfortably without being consumed with worry about "causing their brothers to stumble".  Guys shouldn't be automatically viewed as predators simply because they have a penis.  Sex should never be seen as a commodity to trade in exchange for emotional security, and women shouldn't feel ashamed of wanting sex."


"Romance novels and romantic comedies have been called “porn for women.” It’s not just because some of the scenes can get steamy, but because of the unrealistic expectations they set up. Just as all bodies are perfect or airbrushed and exaggerated in proportion in a girlie magazine, all life is unrealistically centered on romance in those entertainments. The souls and emotions of the people portrayed in the pages and on the screen are no more real than the bodies enhanced with silicone, makeup, lighting and digital wizardry in a pornographic image or film.

These are not the messages I want my daughter to grow up with.

Not only does it objectify the male gender as a means to fulfilling romantic dreams, but for me at least, it resulted in a limited understanding of my own value as a human being, and a reduced ability to trust God with my romantic future. "


We teach our children about gender stereotypes from our first observations.  Do our girls hear that they are strong and powerful?  Do our boys learn that we value tenderness and sensitivity?  Our society is so proficient at marketing gender roles that by age three, most girls and boys know that pink is a girl color, and blue is for boys, that girls are princesses (passive and prissy) and boys are tough and active.  As toddlers, my little girl loved blue and Spiderman, and my son loved dolls and sparkly clothes.  Within just a couple of years, though, they were telling each other that blue was for boys and dolls are for girls. I believe that colors are gender-neutral, and that both sons and daughters grow up to be parents.  But we must speak up if we don't want our children to think there is something wrong with them.

"We teach our children about body image through our own.  Do they hear us putting ourselves down and criticizing our own bodies?  Do we point out our flaws or gripe about our weight?  Do they hear us make comments about other people and laugh at their appearance?  Each word nails in deeper the truth about our values, and what their own bodies are worth.

We also teach them about sexuality when they first begin to say no.  Comments like, "Give grandma a kiss or she'll be sad!" teach them to ignore their own body boundaries and give feigned affection to placate adults.  Acknowledging and respecting their right to say no to unwanted touches is vital.  It may mean intervening when relatives or friends try to bully them with unwanted hugs, kisses or tickles.  The message we send about their right to say no is far more important than a miffed adult."

Because You Can Never Have Too Many Cute Kid Moments....

My oldest, Mr. 6 1/2 yr old, just joined the Cub Scouts. He is excited- well, that's actually an understatement. He is already planning badges to earn and projects to do. My second child, Mr. 5 yr old, can't be in Scouts for another year due to his age. Mr. 6 was very worried that his little brother would feel left out, so they got up early a couple of mornings ago and Mr. 6 made Mr. 5 a shirt, hat, bag, "handbook," and "sash" out of construction paper. Mr. 6 then proceeded to come up with "badges" that Mr. 5 could earn, and they spent most of the day going through them. The "badges" were cute- little circles made out of construction paper, taped to the sash- but the activities were the best. There was a "building with legos" badge, a "geography and touring" badge, (for that one, Mr. 5 had to visit every room in the house) a "crafting with paper" badge, etc, etc. They had such fun, and watching them run around "doing badge stuff" with all the attendant whispering and giggling was simply delightful. (We aren't starting the homeschool semester until next week, so they had time for all this.)

More Than Mommies

To all the stay-at-home mommies and daddies who talk about more than your children and diapers and crafts when we full-time or part-time parents get together- I salute you. I love being around you. You are a breath of fresh air in a world of (admittedly darling) childish mundanities. Parenting is an all-consuming job at times, but it is so important to remember that we are more than mothers or fathers. Some of us are doctors, nurses, teachers, musicians, engineers, and a host of other interesting things. Some of us have fascinating skills, some have travelled, some have lived and learned the most interesting things- why should we restrict our conversation to our kids or to boring small talk when we get together? Particularly if we already know one another, and we are past the point of learning about each other's life stories, etc. We are no less capable now of serious intellectual engagement than we were before we had kids. We have not forgotten literature, theology, science, politics, or the other varied things we love. I personally find it excruciating to be with intelligent, interesting men and women who talk of nothing but babies, teething, school schedules, recipes, pregnancy, and backpack sales. Not that we can't share those things, but I think that gatherings of mommies and/or daddies, in playgroups, at those interminable children's birthday parties, or otherwise, can be a valuable resource for our collective sanity and fight against mental stagnation. A half hour spent discussing theology or current events or great books energizes me and gives me strength to deal with the days with little interaction with people over the age of six in ways that a half hour of comparing teething stories never could. I seriously doubt I'm the only one. :) I don't think it makes us bad parents to remember, cherish, and keep alive who we are outside of parenting- it makes us better. And we should remember that these busy years won't last forever- we'll have decades after our littles grow and leave. Parenting may seem like the end-all of our lives now, but it's relatively short-lived and it's only a part of who we are.

This is why I sometimes find mommy playgroups tedious- we end up a group of intelligent women sitting around talking about poop and school and mundanities. Not important things like "how much socialization does a kid need" or "should we vote CSCOPE out of TX curricula" but rather subjects like "what is your kid doing in school? Is your kid teething? I wish kids would pick up their toys." I find myself sitting there, thinking- "seriously, ladies. Why not talk about something besides mothering once in a while? I happen to know you are well read, fascinating, have travelled, know lots of fun theology, philosophy, etc- why can't we talk about some of that? I could learn a lot from some of you, and we could have us some FUN. Forget about kiddie crafts and enriching activities- put the babies in the floor with some toys, crack open the wine and the coffee, and let's get to it!"

It's also why I find some groups, of mommies or otherwise, so delightful. Lively discussion of interesting topics/stories of the experiences of bright, interesting, or unusual people (which I am very lucky to be able to say that most of my friends are!) are to repetitive small talk what great cuisine is to McDonalds, at least in my world.

So, next time you're at playgroup, or at a party, watching the kiddies and gearing up for another polite exchange of your kids' basic developmental info- just stop, and start talking about Syria or Cloning or the Trinity or whatever you're passionate about. If I'm there, I'll join you, and I'll be eternally grateful.

(of course, it could be that I just don't like small talk. I think it's a function of my personality in general, and in no way would I attempt to make everyone else exactly like me. I do wish, though, that mommies always remembered that they are more than that, and that their individual passions still matter, very, very much.)

Not Another Feel-Good Mommy Post

Something's been annoying me lately- namely, all the "mommy blog" posts which are flitting around the internet, patting moms on the back for whatever they do, however they do it. Don't get me wrong- I think that being a stay at home mom is a hard job, an incredibly important one, and deserves oodles of encouragement; however, if a pat on the back is going to actually mean something to me then I'd prefer it be more than a celebration of the barest adequacy.

An example of some things I would find helpful would be, instead of "you're awesome, forget the laundry, go hug your kids:" "Getting All The Stuff done is really hard. Here are some ways you can do it more efficiently" or "how to evaluate whether being a stay-at-home parent is right for your family" or "how to prioritize and balance work and home more effectively" or "In praise of mom X, who rocked it like a boss and did X."

Encouragement is great, but it should be about praising great actions, carefully cultivated traits, and focused effort- the bare minimum of adequacy shouldn't elicit an ode, and when it does, the veracity of the source comes into question for me. How much is approbation really worth when I did nothing to earn it, and how cherished can a medal for participation really be? When praise is a given despite results, I think that it's meaningless.

One of the hardest things, for me, about not working full time/not writing/composing/performing much, is that there is very little measurable sense of accomplishment on a day-to-day basis. Yes, I know that raising smart, kind, humble, successful, Jesus-loving, Church-loving, feminist sons is the most important job in the world at the moment and that it has monumentally far-reaching effects on my kids, their kids, and their world. I understand the concept, but it's still difficult to stay focused and keep a vision for what I'm doing when so much of it is boring minutiae. This makes the things that I can turn into measurable achievements all the more important to my general sanity. I don't want to hear that getting the laundry done doesn't matter- I want to be pleased that I got it done faster today than I did yesterday. I want to know that my work is important, and that doing a good job with it is important. I want to up my productivity and streamline my routine and spend time with my kids, homeschool, keep a fairly tidy home, eat healthily, and pursue my career. This, this "work and mother" path, is a difficult path, and "moms who limit their facebooking and discipline their internet time so that they can clean the house and work on a freelance project and take dinner to their pregnant friend and make it to choir practice on time are The Greatest" just sounds better than "Don't worry about the house or the other stuff- cuddle with the kids and relax." Relaxing is great, but uncompleted work makes me stressed and less productive. (That, and cutting everything from my life but my house and my kids would make me go stark, raving mad. :) ) I'm not saying that stressing out about perfection is healthy, but that setting priorities and goals and striving for competence and self-improvement is far superior to accepting the status quo as my only option and accepting my current level of performance. I know my worth to God and to my family isn't based on my performance, but I'll be darned if I wouldn't go a bit bonkers without a bit of friendly competition with myself from time to time!

Also, I sometimes think that people are making the avoiding of evaluative judgements into an art form. While diversity is great, and the same parenting/housekeeping/professional strategies won't work for all of us, there is such a thing as doing a bad job, an ok job, and a great job. (And yes, while there is a scale, it is somewhat subjective, depending on our specific goals and priorities) We shouldn't be harsh or unkind to those who are lower on that scale than we are, but we should be ready to help if we're asked and to give genuine, constructive encouragement. In the same way, we shouldn't make fun of moms who have laser-like focus and who are extremely disciplined and efficient- we should ask them for some helpful tips. Genuine, well-earned encouragement makes my day and gives me strength, but a pat on the back for something that should be a given, or a celebratory endorsement of mediocrity, is just depressing.

Sharing God With The Little Ones

I was reading the evening bible stories with my little guys in Mr. 6 yr old's room, when Mr. 4 yr old asked me, "Mama- if Jesus is right here with us, is he in this blanket? And if he is, why does it feel like a regular blanket? Is he so tiny that he fits between the threads so we can't feel him?" So I talked with him about what omnipresence means, and that while God isn't the blanket, and isn't part of the blanket, God is still here and we can see God in the blanket and let the blanket remind us of God and God's gentle presence and remind us to thank God for soft, warm, and gentle things. After I finished, Mr. 6 yr old said "Mama- how can we see God in a blankie and in pointy sticks? How can God be gentle and warm and also sharp and sticky?" So we talked about God's strength and protective power, and God's righteous anger and God's justice. I think their theology cup was officially full, because when I was done, they were back to giggling and joking and trying to read science books in their rooms without their parents noticing. I love those little guys, with all their mischievousness, their laughter, their frustrating antics, and their simple faith. Children are, truly, a blessing from God.

Giving Corporations Too Much Credit

Husband and I were watching a youtube video the other day which was critiquing various advertising/commercials as being sexist or racist, and our thought was- "wait. Yes, that ad was sexist/racist/classless. But- why do ads like that work?" I think ads like that work because they are a reflection of a society that  still has sexism, racism, classless, demeaning crudities, etc embedded very deeply. I truly think that corporations' advertising strategies have one goal, and one only- money. They want to sell something. Yes, they can be very unscrupulous and irresponsible in the way they go about selling, and it would benefit society if they tried to counteract social ills instead of reflecting them. However, ad campaigns are reflective of what successfully sells a product, and what appeals to certain demographics within society, so I see one really sure way to combat them- change society. That, and boycott the campaigns, companies, and/or products being marketed inappropriately. We as consumers are not helpless pawns in some corporate game; they do what they do because they believe we want it/it appeals to us. If we can demonstrate that that is not the case, we can effectively eliminate objectionable advertising, whether it's sexist girls' lego ads, beer commercials that objectify and stereotype, or ads that set up straw men to denigrate races, religions, socioeconomic classes, or geographical regions. We should be critically analyzing and both our own actions and prejudices, and those in the media we expose ourselves to.



When it come to children and advertising, it is very important that we as parents realize that we, not the corporations that shower our children with a barrage of media, are the most important element in shaping their worldviews. My children don't really watch tv, so we haven't had to deal with this much yet, but when they do watch we watch with them, discussing what we see and what assumptions and representations are being made in the media in question. It's also important to realize how much our choices in the toys we purchase for our children affect the toys that will be produced and marketed to them. If parents did not purchase or steer their children toward toys, movies, etc that represented inappropriate assumptions about gender or race, for example, I sincerely doubt whether those products would last long. Yes, I find many commercials very offensive. But rather than censor the messages advertisers are allowed to send, I'd rather advise society to 1. Critically evaluate the media to which we are exposed, 2. Critically evaluate our worldview, assumptions, and how our consumer choices reflect those things, and 3. Limit our children's and our own interactions with the constant barrage of advertising most Americans deal with. I think this is one instance in which "ignore them and they'll go away" is actually appropriate- I think that's exactly the way to deal with annoying, sexist or racist advertising.

Gender Representatives

My husband and I were talking yesterday, and I expressed chagrin at feeling like I had "something to prove" every time I ventured outside the stereotypical behavior for my gender, and at feeling sometimes like any misstep I made was going to be attributed to my gender as a whole, not to my bad day, or flawed humanness, or specific ineptitude. More specifically, in my observation women, particularly those who either call themselves feminists or egalitarians or who want to be socially and professionally on an equal footing with men, are under a good deal of pressure. If a man does something illogical, people say "wow, he did something illogical." If a woman does something illogical, people say "wow, women are illogical." As a woman, I am very uncomfortable expressing certain emotions or opinions in public because to do so would earn me a pat on the head and a "well, women are just like that. What do you do?" I really, really hate being patronized or having my gender as a whole dismissed because I, only one of millions of different incarnations of my gender, said a certain thing or behaved a certain way. Then, of course, if I appear too cold and calculating, people are turned off and repulsed by me because I am flouting an order of gender roles people find familiar and comforting, and in some cases a prerequisite for True Christian Womanhood. So, I feel that I must always be perfectly logical, correct in my opinions, in complete control of my emotions, sensible, rational, and measured in everything I do or say- (Which is really what I tend to be anyway, being as INTJ as I am; I don't like being put in a box, though!) and also nice, charming, and non-confrontational. What's a girl to do? :)



My husband, I learned as we chatted, often feels the same way, though in different areas. People expect him to dump a lot of the childcare on me, to need an excuse when he wants to hang out with his friends, (he doesn't- if he wants to play poker with the guys, he'll say "Hey, babe, I'd like to hang with the guys. Do you have to work that night/do we have any prior plans I'm forgetting? No? Ok, cool. I'll be back later." You know, like two grownups who love each other and want each other to pursue friends and interests outside our marriage would normally talk to each other.) want time away from me, be terrible at housework, and generally incapable domestically. Well...... that's just not my husband, and I love that about him. I love that I can take a flying trip or a weekend gig out of town, leaving him to parent solo, and not worry about the kids being neglected or the house getting totally trashed. Also, my husband feels the same sort of pressure I mentioned above when he steps out of his traditional role- when he is the one to cook a dessert for an extended family potluck, or bake a wedding cake, or when he's the one who has more culinary skill than I do and I defer to him, in public, in kitchen-related things. When he cooks or bakes, it has to be just right- if a woman bakes a cake and messes something up, it's because she had an off day or whatever, but if he messes up a dish, well..... "men are just not as good at/geared towards that."



I really, really wish our society could find it in our collective hearts to end this "divinely created gender role" nonsense, once and for all. It doesn't help those who fit the stereotypes, and it hurts those who do not. God did not use two cookie cutters, one blue and one pink, to create humanity. God made us like snowflakes- no two exactly alike. Can we generalize, based on physiology or hormones or statistical tendencies? Sure..... but 1. I question the accuracy of much non-physiological data, because it is so hard to define, report, and accurately quantify, and 2. A statistical probability does not equal a moral certainty or even a scientifically provable norm. I, at 5'2" and not terribly athletic, absolutely fit the "physically weaker than men" stereotype. But.... guess what? I am not pursuing a career in the military, security, or as an athlete. This does not mean that my gender is incapable of those things- it means that I am incapable of those things, or at least not geared towards them. I am generally a rational, logistically proficient, practical person. That does not mean that all women are that way, or that all men are and I'm a factory reject as a woman and less of a woman because of those traits, or that all cats are pink or that testosterone makes you turn orange or any other inaccurate statement of causality. Really, when we as Christians or as American society in general check our critical thinking and data evaluation skills, unpleasant things happen. Simple, predictable causal relationships and easy lists to check off simply aren't reality, and that's a fantasy we should really collectively retire.

My Kids' Dad

Tomorrow is Father's Day, and this post is in honor of my favorite father, the father of my children- my husband, Nathan.


I'm really glad my kids have Nathan as their dad. I'm glad they have a dad who adores them, who loves to spend time with them, who plays games and builds and flies kites and runs errands with them, and who wants to partner fully with me in raising our little guys. Nathan snuggles, prays sings, reads, and does science with them- he involves them in his projects at home, and never complains when he has to parent solo for a few hours. He really enjoys being a dad, and this comes across loud and clear to the littles. He makes our little guys feel loved and special, and they return his affection with little dimpled grins, emulation ad infinitum, hugs, and crawling or running to meet him when he comes home. (If you've never seen a ten month old hear his daddy's voice and make a giggling run for him, I'd recommend it- it's cuter than kittens in teacups.) I'm so thankful that I can be perfectly comfortable leaving my kids with their dad for a day or two when I have a flying trip to take, knowing that he'll kiss boo boos, feed, bathe, and discipline just as well as I would. Nathan can apologize to his kids when he's wrong, and discipline them without anger. I knew before we married that one of his life's goals was to be a great dad, but my dear man has exceeded my expectations of his parenting in almost every regard. I hope my boys will be as capable and happy in fatherhood as is their dad. Happy Father's Day, my love.

Marriage Lessons from Crunchy Pasta

Being married to my husband for nearly nine years, I have discovered that we have a few differences, one of them being the way we like our pasta cooked. He didn't mention it at first, but several years in when he was confident that doing so wouldn't provoke a negative reaction, he very gently told me that I over-cooked the pasta. Every time. (He likes it quite al dente.) Well.....I wasn't offended, naturally; we do have different tastes in some culinary minutiae and it isn't an oddity for us to disagree on what constitutes perfectly prepared food. (Lesson 1a- Don't sweat the small stuff. Does it harm anyone, upset anyone, or cause sin, angst, or discomfort? If not, who cares if we disagree? In this case, particularly- it's freakin' pasta. It doesn't mean one of our tastes is "right", necessarily- we just have different preferences. And that's fine. Lesson 1b- Even if it had been a case of doing something wrong vs doing something a little differently, I still would not have been nonplussed. Why? Because I don't find my identity in cooking perfect pasta. I find my identity in very few things, and they're either not performance related, or they're something I do very, very well. Choose the entities to which you tie your identity and self-worth very, very carefully. Lesson 1c- personal growth/ improvement/ achieving a better understanding of something should come before needing to be Right. Always.)



I first asked him to show me how he liked it cooked, and finding it personally palatable, asked him what methods he used to achieve this pasta perfection. (Lesson 2, and a chapter from Egalitarian Marriage 101- if one person cares very much about a thing, and the other person really doesn't, the preferences of the person who really cares should win out. My husband cares about the done-ness of his pasta far more than I do, so in light of my ambivalence I try to honor his wishes.) Basically, he likes to time the pasta exactly, rinse it immediately, put butter in it, (ewww- this I don't do for him. Because I care much more about keeping butter out of my pasta than I do about how done it is) and serve it as soon as it's ready.



One thing I've discovered- when my husband cooks, that's usually all he's doing. When I cook, I am often doing other things as well. (spooning up pureed squash for Mr. 9 mo-old, doing dishes, teaching math, et c) If I'm not actively engaged in multitasking, I'm off in my own head listening to music, or arranging a song, or imagining a hypothetical scenario, or whatever. So..... perfectly done pasta is easier said than done for me. Because I'm off in la-la land, I'm usually thinking about More Important Things than perfect pasta, and because I really don't care exactly how done it is as long as it's neither mushy nor overly crunchy, I've always been ok with this. Now, if I'm to cook the pasta the way he likes it, I must consciously amend my procedure. It's taken some getting used to, but I now uniformly pay more attention to the pasta, and have even been known to Use a Timer. (Lesson 3- knowing your individual personalities and tendencies is very helpful. I know I tend to be in my head and not paying close attention to the mundane tasks I'm doing, and I've learned how to fix my attention on a particular (boring and mundane) thing if need be. I simply turn it into a problem to be solved, a thing to be conquered, and all is well. It's actually fun sometimes.)



When it's just the kids and I, I still make the pasta a wee bit softer. So now, when we're having pasta, the kids sometimes request "mommy pasta" (soft) or "daddy pasta." (crunchy) It's a running joke in our family- cooking pasta, under- or over-. (Lesson 4- humor is a wonderful thing. If you have the choice to get pissy about a disagreement or make a running joke out of it, always choose the latter. It's much more fun.)  I want to teach my kids to resolve conflict well, not back away from it, but I also want to teach them that not everything has to be right-or-wrong, and disagreements and differences of opinion can be amicable and even fun. It's ok to have their own preferences, and they should know how to express them graciously and without fear of offense. That's really what good family is- a place where you can be yourself, agree or disagree, and still have a good laugh over some crunchy pasta.

Birth Control and the Blessing of Children

Children are a blessing. From their downy heads to their precious toes, they are miracles and gifts. I have three, and they are some of my greatest joys. But..... this doesn't mean that I want to have 11 of them. You can have too much of a good thing! It would be wrong of me to sacrifice my health, my ability to parent those I have, or my ability to feed and clothe those I have in order to have more, would it not? Would it not also be wrong of me to knowingly sacrifice a calling of vocation or service so that I could have 12 or 15 children when that is not my desire or what I believe is the right path for my life? I've often wondered- why is it that so many conservative Christians believe that birth control is wrong?



The bible doesn't specifically say so; the only argument I've heard there is the story of Onan and Tamar, found in Genesis 38:6-10. In this story, Onan was obligated to impregnate his brother's widow to fulfill the levirate marriage customs and give her a son to support her in her old age. Onan is intimate with Tamar, his sister-in-law, but he ejaculates on the ground instead of doing his familial duty, and God strikes him dead. In my study of this story, he was clearly punished for neglecting his duty, not for having sex without procreation. The idea seems a bit ludicrous, to be honest. Look at the family sizes in scripture. There are some notable exceptions, but 2-6 children is common. More than 12 is almost unheard of. Yes, some of that may be due to infant mortality rates, but not all I think. Moses' parents only had three. We have historic evidence that birth control has been practiced throughout recorded human history; a plant became extinct in the 2nd century because it was so valuable as a contraceptive.



In the creation story, God tells Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it." My questions are these: 1. Does that mean that they must have as many children as possible, without any birth control being allowed to space things out, and 2. Is "fill the earth" still a primary command to us? In answer to number one, no. There is no mention of just how much multiplication is necessary. While the bible likens children to arrows in the hand of an archer, and blesses the man with a full quiver, there is no prescriptive designation for exactly what constitutes a full quiver. In answer to my second question: while the earth is by no means "full," we have a sizable enough population that our extinction is not exactly imminent. When God spoke to Adam and Eve, they were the only humans, and were commanded to basically start a civilization. Mission accomplished, I think. :) It is logical to assume that the injunction for humans to rule our planet as wise stewards is still very much in effect; it is not logical to assume that the same requirements for procreation and multiplication of humans are needed now that we have a population in excess of 1 Billion as were needed when a single sterile couple could doom the human race. Nowhere in scripture is birth control prohibited. In fact, in the prophecy of the end times in Matthew 24, we are told that it those times of great upheaval and distress it is a bad thing to be pregnant or nursing. There are times when even the blessing of children is a curse.


Part of the issue, I think, is something I've heard referred to as the "idolatry of the family." Basically that is a disproportionate emphasis on family relationships and responsibilities as Christian duty- think "women's chief goal is to be a godly wife and mother." I'm not saying that having a family is a bad thing, (it's not) or that once you have a family you should neglect them. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7 that while being married is not wrong, serving God in undistracted singleness is a very good thing. Our primary purpose, men and women, is not to procreate but to live as followers of Christ. In my mind, the great commission is as important as birthing and raising children. Having a family is a good thing, but it would be a mistake to link that life purpose, one of several possible life paths, to holiness and Christlikeness. If being married is not the end-all for believers, neither is having children. And if being single can be a positive thing  for the Kingdom of God, so too can childlessness. The same arguments that make a case for celibacy as a lack of distraction in Christian service could be made for childlessness. Of course, sometimes being married or having children is the best option and the best way we can serve God and fulfill the longings and callings God's given us. But that is a personal choice, between us and our Lord, and not a moral decision.

Mother's Prayer

This is beautiful, and it reminds me of my own Mama. It also echoes my own prayers for my three Little Men. I thought it worth sharing. :)

Stuff My Kids Like

1. Mr. 6-yr-old's lego WallEs

2. Star Wars toothbrushes

(Yes, those are light-up toothbrushes that look like lightsabers.)

 


3. The Explorer bible
Mr. 6-yr-old likes this even better than the Action Bible, and that is high praise indeed.
It was a gift from his Grandma, and he treasures it.
 

The Ring

I wear two rings- three, if you count the wedding/engagement rings that are now soldered together as two rings. The Ring that is not wedding related is a garnet ring with a simple gold setting.
As it happens, my four year old is fascinated with ”mamma's gold ring.” I have no idea why, but he is.
So, today we were sitting the couch and he was looking at it. Unbidden, he very solemnly asked me if he could have it. Why, I asked? Because, he said, I want to give it to the mommy that I marry someday. She would like it. I told him that yes, he could have it someday for such a purpose. He was quite excited.
That ring has a story to it- a story involving two brothers who saved their yard mowing money for a summer to buy their older sister a ring she liked. So, while it is worth little monetarily, it is quite valuable to me sentimentally. Still, I can think of no nicer end for it. :)

Daughters in Law

I've been thinking, lately, about the sort of woman I hope my sons will marry someday. It's a little early, I know; my oldest is all of six. But, you, know, be prepared, know thine enemy, etc. (tongue in cheek there!)
While I'm well aware that I won't have any say in the person they marry, nor truth be told would I wish one, I will have a great deal of say in the sort of women they grow up hearing about, seeing, and hopefully one day searching for. I have a list, a very short list, of qualities that I hope they prioritize; not over faith or personal integrity, because I would hope those would be a given, but qualities that in some circles might not be as universal or intuitive as they should be. If given the chance, I'd advise my sons to look for:

1. A woman who loves;
Unselfish, gentle, kind, fierce, strong, tenacious love. Who shows empathy and compassion, bravery and honor.

2. A woman who thinks;
Who uses her brain, who is good friends with logic and reason, who reads.

3. A woman who won't ”play” them. Ever.
Who thinks ”manipulate” is a dirty word, and who thinks that the closer a relationship is, the more crucial is a commitment to open, honest, uncomfortable, vulnerable communication. Who can confront graciously and boldly and be confronted.

4. A woman who is big enough to admit it when she's wrong;
Who doesn't find her identity in a pedestal of perfection, who knows that she and others are imperfect and human and in need of truthful grace.

5. A woman who is independent;
Who wants them more than she needs them, who could survive, financially and emotionally, without them, who values the riches of personal responsibility, who faces life with them as a team but who neither needs nor wants to be controlled or coddled.

As I ponder the things I want to teach my sons to value and to search for, I feel very challenged- because, of course, it would be unfair to hold my future daughters to a standard that I cannot meet myself. Also, if my sons are to value those qualities, they should see them reflected in me, their first female influence. Some of these are definitely easier than others for my personality; I'd say gentleness, compassion, and empathy with others don't come as naturally to me, nor do meekness or unselfishness. I have my work cut out for me, indeed! Do I ever....

And lest you think my standards for women are impossibly high, it really boils down to this: I want my sons to marry an emotionally and spiritually healthy, thinking woman of personal integrity, responsibility, and loving, intimate, relational faith. Yes...... That's all. :) The women my sons marry need not be beautiful, it even a perfect specimen of physical health. They need not have a certain amount of education, or be intellectually brilliant. They need not be wealthy, have a glamorous career, polished manners, or dazzling social skills. They need not want children, know how to cook or ”manage a home”, be a spotless housekeeper, or be conversant in the ”womanly arts” like sewing, knitting, et c. They need not be smart or musical, though I'd love it if they were. No- all of those things are good, but most of them can be attained by study, practice,  or hiring good people. :) With a deep and personal faith, integrity, love, and love of logical thought, anything else is either gravy, as they say, or can be added later.

CSCOPE, Homeschooling, and Appropriate Regulation

I came across a very troubling article the other day, about a curriculum called CSCOPE that is being taught in many public schools in Texas, my home state. The article alleges some shocking content/lessons, everything from an open-ended discussion of hijab, which suggests that the hijab is “freeing because it prevents others from making them into sexual objects,”or that “women need to be obscured so as not to arouse male desire” (what? don't get me started- as if a burqa prevented objectification! What the heck are they thinking?) to calling 9-11 hijackers freedom fighters instead of terrorists, to calling Christianity a cult while simultaneously glorifying Islam and neglecting to mention  the many human rights violations common in Islamic countries or in Sharia law, to calling the Boston Tea Party an act of terrorism. The curriculum also allegedly glorifies communism/socialism without also discussing their negative aspects or any negative results of their implementation in societies so far, and allegedly paints Paul Revere as being involved in illegal drug trafficking (?!?!?) and Christopher Columbus as an eco-warrior. (now that one's just funny.) The most troubling allegation, however, is that the curriculum is not available for public (even parental) perusal and that teachers have to sign non-disclosure agreements about its content. (??!?!?!?!) I'm not familiar enough with the source of this article to give it credence on its own, so I did some digging. I cannot confirm the content, because the curriculum is in fact under wraps- not even parents can get copies of it, and the course descriptions are ridiculously vague on the curriculum's website. What the what? Since when is it ok to teach things in school to children that you refuse to allow their parents to peruse? Since when is it ok to restrict public access to publicly funded, public school curricula? This is wrong on so many levels. Such hubris, and such disregard for the transparency that is crucial to a free state! I think I might have a chat with my congressperson about that.

This brings me to another question-  What part should the state play in regulating education? Who should have the final say in what children learn?

I do not believe in a total lack of regulation, though I do believe regulation should be on a state and local level, as opposed to federal. I was homeschooled myself, and Husband and I are homeschooling our own children. I am very much in favor of homeschooling, as, in my experience, it gives students the ability to go at their own pace and tailor the elective aspects of their studies to their own interests. It's also flexible, allows for family time and can be a good alternative to school situations that involve bullying or harassment or negative peer pressure. It also gives parents the freedom to direct their children's education according to their religious and moral beliefs. In my own experience, though there were a few gaps, homeschooling served me well. Neither my siblings nor I have had much trouble with college, and my parents did a great job of combining their own teaching with co-ops and extracurriculars to give us the best education they could. My own children do well with homeschooling; my older boys both learned to read at 4 and love to learn, especially if it involves 1.Space/Astronomy/Cool Spaceships, 2. Marine Biology/Really Cool Fish And/Or Whales, 3. Trains, especially steam engines, and 4. Dinosaurs. :) It concerns me, though, that not all homeschooling experiences are so positive. I have seen examples of families who claimed to homeschool, but whose children entered high school illiterate (or worse, graduated without being able to read- thankfully, I believe that extreme is uncommon, but I've seen it myself and it breaks my heart. ) or could not get a job above minimum wage upon graduation because they lacked basic reading, writing, or math skills. I see a spectrum of homeschooling, with the "horror stories" or illiterate, isolated children at one end and the high-performing, well-educated, socially adept children at the other. I am, therefore, passionately in favor of some state/local regulation of all education, including homeschooling. While I think education is the primary responsibility of parents, I also think that if a parent has it in their power to give their child a basic education and chooses instead to withhold it, they are in effect crippling their child's future and abusing their child. 

If the state exists to protect freedom and liberty and the punish the infringement of the same, (I believe it does) then the we as the voting, office-holding people of the state have a responsibility to protect the rights of the defenseless, including children- to say nothing of our moral or christian duties towards those who cannot protect themselves. Our responsibility does not only extend to protection from parents who lie and refuse their children an education, however- it also extends to protection from inaccurate, idea-indoctrinating curriculum taught in our schools. Should schools teach that all muslims are terrorists or that God intended men to be the heads of their homes? No, of course not. Schools should teach facts, not ideas, and basic skills, not systems of belief. Schools and school boards also should not have the authority to teach curriculum that is not avaiable for public or parental review, any more than they should control what ideas parents teach their children or any more than parents should withhold a basic education. 

In my opinion, appropriate regulation for public schools must include transparency and the opportunity for public review. As long as the basic facts of science and history (including the history of our justice system and a basic working knowledge of it) and good reading, writing, logic, and math skills are taught, states and communities should be able to vote curricula in or out. Students and parents should never be vilified for having a difference of opinion with the state curriculum, ans students and parents should be able to opt out of any social studies/projects that they find personally offensive or religiously problematic, so long as it would not compromise the student's ability to pass the same basic skills testing that would be required for a homeschooled student.

In my opinion, appropriate regulation for homeschooling would be very basic, and keep in mind the parents' rights to teach their children according to their own idealogical framework. I would be in favor of periodic mandatory testing in math and language skills for younger grades, with basic science and history facts/dates added in for high school. Not knowing when Texas became a state might someday be a disadvantage to a child, but it certainly won't cripple them. Nor will not memorizing the periodic table or not knowing what the laws of thermodynamics are, though we'd hope those things would always be taught. Not knowing basic algebra or not being able to read well  or not being able to put a cogent sentence on paper could very well cripple a child's educational or vocational future. 

Thus, in my opinion, the role of the state in education should be to work towards every child receiving basic instruction in math and language skills and a knowledge of basic science and history facts including how our justice system works and how our country came to be, and to implement public school curriculum that is approved by the state, the community, and the parents. The state works for the parents and students, not the reverse. It is better, in my view, to have students who have the basics and know how to learn the specifics of a particular discipline for themselves than to have students who drink in everything they are taught, and parrot the worldview in which they have been saturated. 

A Libertarian Conversation on Same Sex Marriage, part 3: Gender Essentialism

One issue that I see as central to the question of harm or infringement of rights by same sex marriage is the issue of gender, specifically gender essentialism. I would define gender essentialism as: the belief that there are uniquely feminine and uniquely masculine essences, specifically uniquely masculine and feminine social and behavioral traits, not referring to basic physical differences, which exist independently of cultural/social conditioning.


In my opinion, it is possible to reject gender essentialism and still believe that there are differences between men and women. Gender essentialism is more about behavior and psychological hard-wiring than it is about basic physical, biological, or neurological differences. For my purposes here I will assume that men and women have basic physical and psychological differences, but that those differences are averages, not absolutes (e.g. men are usually stronger and taller than women, but some women are stronger and taller than some men).

I would represent both social and physical traits, reproduction excepted, on a linear scale- meaning that for each trait there is a line, say aggression/compliance for example. On this line, the average female position and the average male position may fall weighted towards one end or the other, but individual positions for either gender could be anywhere on the line. I do not believe that men and women are opposites. I do believe that there are clear and significant statistical differences in physical areas such as upper body strength, though again they are not absolute- uncommon though it may be, some women are stronger than some men. (Also, training and conditioning have a huge effect on situational outcomes- for example, while assuming the same training and fitness level, men seriously have a significant advantage over women in the physical strength department, a woman with superior skill and training can absolutely be more than a match for a man who does not have that training.) In the case of social traits/behaviors, however, I believe that there is as much difference within genders as there is between them; that is to say, there is as much difference, or more perhaps, between two random women as there is between your average man and average woman. I do not think that all men are/should be dominant in certain traits, or that all women are/should be dominant in others. I see anecdotal evidence in my own life which supports my belief that I have more in common with males who share my personality type than with females who do not.

Also, if gender based social behavior was a biological, undeniable constant of the human experience then, except for the tendency towards male rule and oppression of the weaker by the stronger which I believe was the result of the fall, I would expect to see this gender based behavior as a constant across cultures and times, and socio-economic status. I do not see this- in fact, quite the opposite. The cultural norms for acceptable gender behavior may well be consistent in modern, western society, but that is not at all the same thing. For example- consider the view of women's sexual nature at the time of the reformation contrasted with the Victorian era. I would posit that gender norms in history as a whole are actually quite varied and fluid, but that is another post entirely. Also worthy of another post is the influence on our cultural perceptions of gender- not of fundamentally christian teaching, but of greek thought and philosophy.


The reason this issue is at the center of the debate over same sex marriage is, first, that it is reasonable to suppose that both a stable heterosexual couple and a stable homosexual couple could hypothetically bring the same backgrounds, education, experience, moral code, religious knowledge, et c. to their marriage and their parenting- really, the only difference is the gender of one of the parties. Are the genders so unique that a family or couple will lose a vital part of its essence if one gender is missing? No, I really don't think so. May they be different? Yes; but will they "miss out" on something to such a degree that we must refuse to legislate in favor of their marriage in order to protect society and any children they may have from this horrible loss? I really don't think so. This is, of course, merely my opinion; I am aware of no comprehensive studies of children/families/marriages which specifically compare same and cross gender couples, with other major variables being equal, to determine which families, spouses, and children are healthier.

Secondly, while gender differences/gender essentialism and gender roles are not the same thing, they are related- rejecting gender essentialism leads to the questioning of rigid gender roles and societal systems that require them in order to continue functioning. Unless gender-based prescriptive behavior is purely theological or ritual, with no basis in practical good or expediency/efficiency, believing that there are actually not rigid, biological, hard-wired social/behavioral ideals makes implementing rigid gender roles which are based purely on gender without regard to competency seems rather silly. In other words, why make mommies staying home/daddies working a moral/civil prescription if daddies can be just as nurturing as mommies and mommies really have no trouble navigating the wide, scary world of outside careers? Also, if men and women share social traits and differ more from opposite personalities than from opposite genders then the male rule, headship and female submission doctrines become at best a theological ritual with no basis in practicality. I honestly think that some of the more vitriolic rhetoric I've heard condemning same sex marriage comes from a place of fear- a fear that the systems that have supposedly kept society intact will slip away, or that a privileged position will be lost, or that the tidy boxes that we as christians are supposed to fit ourselves into in order to be "Godly" will go away. I honestly think that that would be a good thing, when it comes to gender roles.  We'd be left with freedom, relationships, and personal responsibility, and we wouldn't have to throw out godliness, christlikeness, or holiness to do it.

But.....roles and tidy boxes are easier. Really. They may not fit everyone, and they may chafe unbearably for some, but you're good to go if you can fit into them! It's certainly easier to have litmus tests and checklists for godly masculinity and femininity than it is to have to figure out how to hear the Holy Spirit, follow the guidelines Christ gives all Christians, and find and walk in the purposes, giftings and callings that are a part of each of our unique makeup as people and as followers of Christ. I am not saying, of course, to throw out all rules or commandments- but I think it would behoove us to resist making doctrines and prescriptive procedures of things that are not compatible with the teachings of Christ, the overall message of the gospel, and that don't work.

So- why is it, really, such an issue for gender to take less of a front seat in marriage and family issues? I have yet to see evidence that even reasonably assumes, let alone conclusively proves, that gender is the thing that makes such a difference to family and society that we must legislate it, even for those who believe differently than we do, as a moral and civil harm.

A Libertarian Conversation on Same Sex Marriage, Part 1: Framing the discussion

I am often frustrated by some of the more illogical arguments that I see employed in the debate over same sex marriage. Frankly, I find them a little embarrassing, coming as they do from Evangelical Christianity, which is where I place myself as well. Sometimes I want to ask- How do people who believe same sex marriage is evil think they'll ever win their point when their arguments go down in a logical fireball at the slightest test? Why choose shoddy arguments to prove a point that can be addressed with much more reasonable hypotheses, perhaps with similar results? I'd like to propose a few arguments that I think should really never be used in such a policy discussion:

1. It's always been this way

By this logic, the world is flat and women do not contribute DNA to their children. Also, science is evil and germs are not a thing.

2. It was this way in the bible

 (as opposed to endorsed specifically by scripture-the normative/prescriptive
 distinction is important here)

By that logic, marriage does not require consent, monogamy, or female agency. Scary.



3. The Greek Philosophers were for/against this

Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle are fun to read. They have a great many very smart things to say, particularly about law and government. Are they, however, infallible, or even universally reliable? Not a chance, as per their draconian views on gender, women, and the origins of the human race. Are they worthy of citation and consideration and thought? Yes! Does their opinion prove anything? No! It is their opinion, nothing more. The most intelligent and forward-thinking opinion, without substantiation, is still just an opinion. And some of their warped views of gender issues (yes, I'm going to get into that in more detail later) have shaped society, even christian society, and its views of the subject from their day to this one. That is not, in my opinion, a good thing.

4. Things we like will magically disappear if this happens

If we were legislating homosexual marriage instead of heterosexual marriage, this would be true. I do not think, however, that anyone wants to do that. All of the heterosexual people that would have gotten married will still, you know, get married. And allowing gay marriage does not automatically remove the commitment aspect of christian marriage, nor does it affect in any way the manner in which I or any other heterosexual christian lives out our marriages. This point is debated sometimes, in that some people say that allowing same sex marriage must completely redefine the institution in a way that damages and cheapens all marriages. I disagree; more on that later.

There are variations of these arguments which I will explore in more detail as time goes on, but the four above are the basis for those arguments which, in my opinion, it would behoove us to dismiss entirely.
So- what questions do I think we should be asking? What arguments should we be making

Assuming, for the purposes of this discussion, that American judicial, legislative, an political policy is and should be based upon protecting its citizens' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as they do not cause harm or infringe upon others' said rights:

Does same sex marriage infringe on the rights of others?

Does same sex marriage harm any one outside that marriage, specifically those who cannot advocate for themselves? (and yes, this includes hypothetical children raised in such a household)

Does same sex marriage remove/replace other, more expedient institutions?

What would same sex marriage cost, in resources, the state or community?

Does same sex marriage cause quantifiable harm to any person or institution which is not themselves causing harm?

Does same sex marriage carry any benefits to the state, community, or individuals?

Does the fact that many people believe something to be a moral sin mean that it should be legislated as such, purely for that reason?

Three things I think it's important to remember in discussions like these, particularly as we attempt to define harm and wrestle with what same sex marriage is and what are its implications for society-

 Correlation does not equal causation, 

 Genetic does not equal hereditary, and 

 Statistically likely does not equal universal, superior, or prescriptive.

In framing the discussion about possible harms from same sex marriage, too, I think that it is important to distinguish between data that may indicate a connection between harm (familial instability, for instance) and same sex marriage, and data that demonstrates in a reputable, scientific way a causality between harm of some sort and some aspect of same sex marriage: for example the gender of one's parents. To demonstrate this alleged harm, it would be important that the control parents be equitable in everything but gender. E.G. it would be illogical to cite two bisexual romantic partners who do not cohabit as a same sex couple for the purposes of comparison and statistics. We should try to approach data collecting and interpretation here with the same objectivity that we would any other question, in my opinion.

It should be noted that I have no intention of arguing whether or not homosexuality and same sex marriage are sin or inappropriate for christian practice. Nor do I feel that this series of posts is the appropriate venue to delve into my own opinions on that topic and my interpretations of the scriptures pertaining to it. Most christians believe that the bible clearly vilifies homosexual behavior, so for my purposes here I will equate that with the majority christian view. 

This series of posts is simply about legislating for or against same sex marriage- should we allow it, shouldn't we, or how do we decide?

Parenting on the Playground

Have you ever been with your kids at the park, the pool, etc and a strange kid comes up and takes one of their toys to play with? What do you do? Do you tell your child to share, thus validating the rudeness of the other child? Do you take the toy away from the little interloper, gently explaining the rudeness of grabbing a stranger's things without asking? Do you try to gather more information- find out whether the other child had a parent around, what their situation is, what could be motivating the toy takeover, etc.? When should your child's need to learn to share supersede their need to learn polite behavior and the boundaries of personal property?


 This one is a bit sticky for me. As mommies, we want our kids to get along- to be socially accepted in their circle of friends, and not regarded as an undisciplined, selfish rugrat. We don't want our child to be the one that takes away from other kids or the one who obviously has no clue what sharing is. But I don't think it's right to ask our kids to surrender their property to any stranger that takes it in the name of sharing. If they are hosting a birthday party or a play date, then yes, their duties as host mandate their giving their guests some toy choosing privileges. (Though it's also important that they be able to keep some toys from public purview) If they are a guest themselves, and the host wants a toy, they should recognize the right of ownership and graciously defer to the toy's owner. Those are easy-it's what to do with the stranger on the playground or the fellow playgroup guest that is more complex. My first thought: our kids watch how we treat others, not just them, and they can see if there are double standards for what we teach them is polite and what we allow in their playmates. Would I let my child run up and grab a toy without first politely asking to join the game or asking for a turn with the toy? Would I let my child throw a fit if the request for voluntary sharing was refused? Um, no. :) So why should I teach them that that's ok in other kids; that they cannot themselves be rude but they must still defer to those who are? Also, I don't want to teach my kids that their property rights don't matter, or that they have to share with anyone who asks. I still find myself doing it without even thinking sometimes, though- telling my kid to share with a complete stranger who grabbed their toy at the pool, for example. Then I stop, and tell my child- ” hey- if you want to play with that other child, fine. Share sweetly. If you don't, then politely ask for your toy back. If the child refuses to return it, come get me, your mom. Bringing a toy to a public place does not make it public property, though if you do bring it here you may have to deal with kids who have no concept of personal property. :)


 I wonder why we, as mommies, are so conditioned to advocate niceness at the expense of other virtues in our children, and to make them ” get along” with other kids no matter the truth of the situation? Having the negotiation skills to compromise and avoid conflict is a good thing, but having the ability to insist on fair play and not tolerate invasion of personal boundaries of self or property (or the self or property of others) is good too. I sometimes think: I'm raising my kids in a world where civil liberties are not a given, and need protecting; how can I expect them to stand up for honor and justice when I teach them to always yield to another in the name of avoiding conflict and being nice, regardless of the right or wrong or rudeness involved? Now, to balance that- sometimes my children will come in contact with other children who may have no clue how to behave properly, but who may need my child to overlook that misbehavior in order to show the love of Jesus to that other child, to witness to that other child, or to help a child who is in need of something they can give.


Here's my take- I want to teach my children Honor and Justice and Mercy; to be givers, not takers, and to understand and respect boundaries, both their own and those of others. My kids do not have to share with strangers if they don't want to. Their toys are their own, and the decision to share them should be theirs as well. I will encourage my children to learn to look beyond the surface of the situation, and evaluate the other child. Do they have toys of their own to play with? Do they seem otherwise kind and respectful of other property, like the playground equipment? They may be simply ignorant of the protocol for toy borrowing. They may just need a friend. If this is the case, I'd encourage my child to invite them into their play, though I would not require it. If, on the other hand, the other child has other play options but insists on grabbing from others instead of playing with what is available, I would not encourage my child to share with them, and if the other child refused a polite request to return the toy in question I would step in. If the other child grabbed a toy out of my child's hands, I would have them ask for it back, and then gently but firmly take it back if their request was refused. I'd step in then, too, if I needed to. I don't think that allowing another child to come up and grab something my child is holding with impunity sets a good precedent for personal boundaries.


 I do not, however, want my children to be selfish. Honor knows no improper self-interest. If they are playing with a toy at a playdate, for example, and another child wants it, negotiating a system of turn-taking is entirely appropriate, as is simply saying that no, I'm playing now, but I'd be glad to give it to you when I'm done. I also want my children to stand up for the weak, the small, or those being taken advantage of. I will never punish my children for coming to the rescue of another child. I want my children to have a keen sense of justice, and to care more for justice being done than for whether or not they get to keep a certain toy. (Yeah.... we're not there yet. Mr. 6-yr-old shows glimmers, but we're not there yet.  =) )


I don't want my children to blindly either share or keep their toys close to home- I want them to make informed decisions based on what is just and appropriate and kind in a situation, and then be able to defend those decisions. I want them to be free to share with another child, even one who is being rude and mean, in order to show love to them; but, I want that to be an intentional choice and not a default setting. My children must be able to defend their liberties and rights and those of others if we are to keep our American freedoms for the next generation; they must know that to defend their rights and those of others is honorable and good. They must also know that they are here to serve a loving God, and to show love, grace, and wisdom to those He puts in their path. I want my children to know liberty and responsibility, grace, mercy, and the rule of law, to be both warriors and lovers, fighters and peacemakers.


With children, dear, very fallible children, ranging from 6 years to 6 months, my husband and I are very far from achieving those goals with them. Very, very far. =) But these are our goals, and the more I can keep them in mind the better I like my day-to-day parenting.