My husband and I bought a new VHS player recently, so we now have the capability of watching our wedding video again. We watched it, and the rehearsal dinner footage, the other night. It brought back
many wonderful memories- I had mono at the time, and our families and friends stepped in and did my jobs at the end, helping and supporting and laughing and loving. I loved everything from the simply but beautifully decorated church (my, but artistic friends are grand!) to the music- we had a lovely organist, a former colleague of mine, and a full choir singing the Hallelujah Chorus as our recessional. It was an unequivocally happy day, and I'll cherish those memories forever.
I have to say, though, that there are definitely some things I'd do differently. For one thing, of course, I'd have skipped the whole "who gives this woman" bit. The property transfer makes me very uncomfortable. I'd adjust the wedding sermonette, for sure. I'd ask for less ” we present our daughter as a pure bride” and more ” we celebrate the mutual commitment of sacrificial love made here today.”
Another thing I'd do differently: the wedding vows. We used the very traditional ones (with the "plight thee my troth" and everything!) and I, yes I, promised to love, honor, and obey. I told my husband I'd no intention of obeying, but still..... anyway, I've been thinking, and I think if I had it to do over again I'd say something like this:
I, Mary, take you, Nathan, to be my husband. I will be loyal to you, faithful to you, and a true friend and lover in sickness and in health, in poverty or wealth, when life is rosy and easy, and when the way looks dark and hard. No matter what happens, I will honor you and cherish you. I promise to encourage you when you are right, and confront you when you are wrong. I will always have your back, and I will let no other friendship come between us. You are my primary family now, and I will face everything the world throws at us by your side. I will take care of you, and allow you to take care of me. I will support you as you have supported me, and I will rejoice with you in your successes and weep with you in your losses. For as many years as God gives us, I will be with you, and I will love you- fiercely, gently, freely, and passionately. When we disagree, I will fight for what I believe in, but I will try to remember who I love and what is important as I do. 'Till death do us part, my darling.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
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.
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.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Which Manifesto Represents Your Womanhood?
In all probability, if you are an evangelical christian woman in certain circles, you've heard of the True Woman conferences, Revive Our Hearts ministries, and the True Woman Manifesto. I attended a True Woman conference once, and found it- well, not stuff I should charitably say in public. Not that there is no good in it, but the bad hogties the good in such a way that I could not recommend it as generally helpful. =)
The True Woman Manifesto is a statement of what the leadership of the True Woman conferences believe to be an outline of christian womanhood. Some of it is good- like the importance of having a relationship with Jesus. But the following statements bug me to no end, as I consider them blatantly contrary to the intent of scripture and to the heart of God for His daughters. (read the full manifesto here)
The True Woman Manifesto is a statement of what the leadership of the True Woman conferences believe to be an outline of christian womanhood. Some of it is good- like the importance of having a relationship with Jesus. But the following statements bug me to no end, as I consider them blatantly contrary to the intent of scripture and to the heart of God for His daughters. (read the full manifesto here)
We are called as women to affirm and encourage men as they seek to express godly masculinity, and to honor and support God-ordained male leadership in the home and in the church.
When we respond humbly to male leadership in our homes and churches, we demonstrate a noble submission to authority that reflects Christ’s submission to God His Father.
Selfish insistence on personal rights is contrary to the spirit of Christ who humbled Himself, took on the form of a servant, and laid down His life for us.
God’s plan for gender is wider than marriage; all women, whether married or single, are to model femininity in their various relationships, by exhibiting a distinctive modesty, responsiveness, and gentleness of spirit.
Mature Christian women have a responsibility to leave a legacy of faith, by discipling younger women in the Word and ways of God and modeling for the next generation lives of fruitful femininity.
When we respond humbly to male leadership in our homes and churches, we demonstrate a noble submission to authority that reflects Christ’s submission to God His Father.
Selfish insistence on personal rights is contrary to the spirit of Christ who humbled Himself, took on the form of a servant, and laid down His life for us.
God’s plan for gender is wider than marriage; all women, whether married or single, are to model femininity in their various relationships, by exhibiting a distinctive modesty, responsiveness, and gentleness of spirit.
Mature Christian women have a responsibility to leave a legacy of faith, by discipling younger women in the Word and ways of God and modeling for the next generation lives of fruitful femininity.
For one thing, I do not think that predominately or exclusively male leadership in the home, the church, or the world is God's design. I do not believe in a hierarchal Trinity, nor do I believe that any woman should submit to a man as she submits to God. Personal rights and boundaries are not automatically selfish- they are healthy. Should women be feminine? You betcha. =) But that doesn't mean being submissive, modest, "responsive", etc. and a "meek and quiet spirit" is equally advisable for BOTH genders. The writers of this manifesto do not believe in birth control, hence the "fruitful femininity" bit- I won't even dignify that one with a response. =) Rummaging around on the interwebs, however, I stumbled on an excellent replacement for the more offensive passages in the True Woman Manifesto. It's called- and I love this so much- the "Unladylike Manifesto." Here it is: (http://www.pamhogeweide.com/2012/05/26/unladylike-manifesto/)
Unladylike Manifesto
- We believe that male and female are created to collaborate, co-lead and co-exist in a mutuality of submission to one another. (Gen 2:18 – 23,Galatians 3:28)
- We believe that gifting is appointed according to the will of the Holy Spirit and that calling is determined by gifting, not gender. (1 Corinthians 12, John 20:1 – 20)
- We believe that the power of the Gospel restores men and women in right relationship to one another to live, serve and lead side by side rather than in patriarchal hierarchy. (Galatians 3:28, John 4:7 – 39)
- We believe that the voice, influence and authority of women is meant to be fully unleashed in accordance to the full personhood that women possess. Male headship is a myth. (Joel 2:28 – 29, 1 Peter 2:9 – 10)
- We believe in the mutual submission and partnership of marriage where neither has authority over another by virtue of gender. We reject the headship/submission model as a biblical truth and instead embrace the liberty and wisdom of deference to the other. (Ephesian 1:22, Ephesians 5: 15 – 33, 1 Peter 5:5)
- We believe that the leadership of women is needed in full partnership with the leadership of men in all arenas of culture and church. Women were not created to follow anymore than men were created to lead. (Numbers 12:15, Judges 4 & 5, 2 Kings 22:13 – 14, Acts 2, Romans 16:3 – 4, 7)
- We believe that Jesus modeled a radical agenda of respecting women’s full personhood in how he treated them as noted in the Gospels. Jesus went against cultural and religious norms in his treatment of women. (Luke 13:10 – 17, John 4, Luke 8:1 – 3, etc.….)
- We believe that men and women of faith ought to resist the injustice of inequality wherever it is found, including the halls of the church. Justice is a kingdom of God value and is the language of love. (Hosea 2:19, Amos 5:15, 24, Micah 6:8)
So this is my manifesto, my unladylike declaration that true womanhood is liberated personhood. The kingdom of God does not perpetuate the injustice of inequality among women. The kingdom of God frees women from sexism, even within the house of faith. Because being human is true womanhood
I know which one represents my womanhood best- that would be the second one, folks. =)
How about you?
Adult Daughters and Authority, Part 3- resources
Here are some posts from other blogs that I find excellent, informative, and speak well to the subject of women and authority:
Some excellent thoughts on the dangers of parent-controlled relationships
An overview of egalitarianism, an alternative to the patriarchy that is so closely tied to un-Christlike views on women and authority....
Some biblical examples of women in spiritual leadership.....
Adult Daughters and Authority, Part 2
To borrow briefly from part 1:
"Daughters should be under their fathers' authority until marriage."
"Daughters should be under their fathers' authority until marriage."
"Daughters should realize that their father has insights into potential suitors that they do not have, and they should therefore avoid any romantic relationships that do not have their fathers' blessing."
I've heard these, and variations of these, for as long as I can remember. I have many friends and relatives that believe them still, and I consider the ideas of absolute parental authority and parental authority in romantic relationships in particular to be some of the most insidious lies I have encountered. I see no support for them in scripture, and no way to support them logically or morally.
Besides the issue of whether or not obedience to parents from adult children is a biblical mandate, there are several other deceptions involved here. One is the idea that a daughter cannot judge for herself whether a man would be a suitable mate for her, and another (closely related) is the idea that a father will automatically be able to judge the motives of members of his own gender better than his daughter can judge the motives of those not of her own gender.
So- can a man judge other men better than a woman? The answer to this question depends a great deal on a person's view of gender, gender norms, and gender differences. If you believe that men and women are from different planets, metaphorically speaking, and that all men are/want/desire/struggle with x, while all women are/want/desire/struggle with y, then it makes perfect sense. If you believe that, while there may well be psychological as well as physical differences between the sexes, neither all women nor all men fit into a neat, tidy gender-specific box, then it is nonsensical. People are judged most accurately when they are judged as people, not as pink or blue cookie cutters. Not all men are alike, and there is no guarantee that a man will be able to see the heart of another man, simply because they share a gender. Personalities, giftings, callings, backgrounds, experiences, families, and all of the other things that make us who we are are generally NOT gender-specific, and those things reveal a person's character far better than any gender-based analysis. Also, the rigid gender roles leave out entirely hermaphrodites, homosexuals, and anyone else who does not fit within the "hetero macho male" or "hetero girly female" boxes. It is folly to assume that only men struggle with lust, emotional un-involvement, or insensitivity, or that only women struggle with self-acceptance, fear, or a lack of theological discernment, for example. Are there differences between the sexes? Sure. But this does not mean that men are more logical, that women are emotionally driven, that men are more sexual, that women long for security, that men feel stifled without an outside-the-home job, or that women are more fulfilled as homemakers. It also does not mean that a man, by the virtue of his being so, has any more insight into another man than would a woman.
Also, there is the idea that parents know better than an adult daughter what will make her happy and/or what is best for her, and the idea that fathers in particular are responsible to protect their adult daughters from poor decision-making. Are parents, fathers or mothers, responsible to protect their children from themselves? Assuming a fully-functional adult child, I again find no support for this idea, logically or biblically. Removing autonomy and the consequences of decisions will make a daughter or son unable to be independent, for if a person is used to being told what to do and sloughing off responsibility on authorities they will have no idea how to weigh possible consequences and live with the results of their decisions, or how to make a decision based solely on their own opinions and discernment without having the support of directives from above. Wrestling with hard decisions, learning our own strengths and weaknesses, and struggling towards the destiny to which we feel called are important parts of the growing-up process, and a parent who robs their child of these experiences can cripple them. Autonomous decision-making is also an important part of our relationship to Christ- how can we give Him glory with the choices we make if the choices are not ours to make? How can we hear His voice for ourselves if we have no practice doing so? (Also- while I won't take the time now to discuss it in detail, there is an insidious rumor going around Christendom that women are more easily deceived/ more needful of direction and oversight than are men. This is a lie, and a very damaging one. Neither scripture nor history supports it. )
Do parents sometimes have wisdom and insights that their child may not, due to their (we hope) more advanced maturity and knowledge? Of course. And a wise person will get council from their parents if they feel that the relationship warrants it and the parents share enough of a similar paradigm to make their advice apropos. But.... they will not always be right, and they will not always know best. Parents are fallible, flawed humans, as are their children. Parents have blind spots and weaknesses and biases too! Can God speak through parents? Of course. He can also speak through billboards, friends, music, sermons, movies, nature, evil dictators, tv commercials, political satire, cartoons, facebook, books, etc- God can reveal truth through anything and anyone. But this does NOT mean that an adult child should trust their parents' opinion of God's will more than their own. Any child of God who has accepted the gospel of Christ can hear His voice! Can God reveal His will through parents? Sure. But who bears the responsibility of determining what is the right choice and dividing flawed advice from good? The child- the one who has to live with that job,that spouse, etc. Another point here- not every decision is right or wrong- some are right or left. In the latter case, parents' opinions should weigh even less- if the choice is to be based on the likes, dislikes, personality, etc. that God gives all of us, it should again be the child who must live with the consequences who must make the choices. A person's personal preferences are important, and it is completely right and proper for them to take center stage in decision-making as long as there is no sin involved, no dishonorable behavior, no harming of oneself or others, etc.
A decision about marriage, specifically, is an important and very personal one. It will affect a person for the rest of their lives. So, according to my reading of scripture, the only decision makers here should be two spouses. It is up to them to do right, choose wisely, and live with the results of their decision. And should they choose foolishly, there is forgiveness and grace in Christ, always, and an equal share of opportunities for love and service whether you are divorced, married, or single.
Biblical Womanhood
http://soulation.org/jonalynblog/2007/11/biblical-womanhood.html
From an excellent blog post on biblical womanhood:
(They) "have constructed an artificial realm of womanhood (i.e. home economics), and failed to dig deeper into the real unique things women offer. A man can iron, sew, cook, entertain just as well as a woman, so making women Masters of Home Economics pretends that this is a “woman’s realm” when in reality it’s a human realm. Further it actually robs men from the work (both satisfying and grueling) of caring for hearth and home. If a wife prefers to be the home economics master, well and good, but let’s not assume that this means she is
more feminine
more godly
more biblically feminine
more ezer.
She is not. Femininity, godliness and helper are more demanding than home economics. You can do home economics well, and still be unfeminine and ungodly (i.e. frigid or invulnerable or calculating or controlling or demanding et cetera)."
Good stuff.
From an excellent blog post on biblical womanhood:
(They) "have constructed an artificial realm of womanhood (i.e. home economics), and failed to dig deeper into the real unique things women offer. A man can iron, sew, cook, entertain just as well as a woman, so making women Masters of Home Economics pretends that this is a “woman’s realm” when in reality it’s a human realm. Further it actually robs men from the work (both satisfying and grueling) of caring for hearth and home. If a wife prefers to be the home economics master, well and good, but let’s not assume that this means she is
more feminine
more godly
more biblically feminine
more ezer.
She is not. Femininity, godliness and helper are more demanding than home economics. You can do home economics well, and still be unfeminine and ungodly (i.e. frigid or invulnerable or calculating or controlling or demanding et cetera)."
Good stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)