Spiritual Disciplines

The subject of spiritual disciplines has been on my mind lately (got there in a round-about fashion, but more on that later).

Several years ago (a decade or more?), we celebrated the Passover. In my typical Toad-of-Toad-Hall style, I decided if we were going to do this, I would make sure it was done right. So I decided to clean out all the leaven from the house. I started with the obvious: yeast and baking powder. Then the conspicuous loaf of bread sitting there looking smugly at me - okay, tossed, along with hot dog rolls and hamburger buns. But wait. Do those cookies have baking powder? Uh-huh. Okay, so the cookies went. Oh, that cake in the freezer has leavening. Gone. What about those crackers? Yup, they have baking soda. Okay, so they're gone, too. Self-rising flour? Flung into the trash. Okay, all done.

Wait. There are lots of crumbs on the shelves of the pantry. I bet some of them have leavening in them. So, I cleaned the pantry. Done! Except that the kids have dropped bread and cracker crumbs on the dining room floor and, in the course of regular sweeping, some of them got pushed under the baseboards - time to clean the baseboards. And the kidlings sometimes would take crackers (or cookies) into their rooms (no, not with permission) and so we had to clean out the bedrooms. Oh, and we grown-ups occasionally snack in bed while reading before turning out the lights (with permission) - time to deep-clean the master bedroom, too. And crumbs stick to our feet when we walk through the house, so the bathrooms, living room, and school room also needed a deep cleaning. But crumbs tend to nestle down into the carpet and our vacuum wasn't strong enough to get them all out, so we rented a carpet cleaner. Etc., etc., etc.

It seemed that every time I cleaned the leaven from one place, I thought of another where it could be hiding, and another, and another, and another. Hmm …

Jesus continually warned his disciples about the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. And I know somewhere in there, Scripture equates leaven with sin. As I worked and worked to clean the leaven from my house, I learned a lot about the insidiousness of sin. I finally understood the Jewish custom of starting Passover with a plea to God to remove whatever leaven was missed in this giant spring cleaning. I've heard that described as a lazy and frivolous cop-out, but I think it's a serious appeal to God's grace, an acknowledgement that we can't ever entirely rid ourselves of our own sin. Only his mercy and power can do that.

The physical discipline of trying to clean all leaven out of the house taught me powerful spiritual lessons that I've never forgotten. And this, I'm beginning to see, is the power of spiritual disciplines. I'd avoided them in the past because I saw them as a way to try to earn God's favor (and I wanted none of that), but it's dawning on my that they can be a source of discipline and spiritual training for my soul.

So, since we celebrated Passover so many years ago, why is it coming up now? Well, I'll tell you. A friend recently mentioned that Advent used to be considered more of a season of preparation to celebrate Christmas and not a season of celebration itself. This resonated in my soul.

Another description I've read is that it's 'a kinder and gentler version of Lent'.

And yet another blogger described it thusly: 'Perhaps the most important thing for me (a baptist girl with liturgical longings) in trying to keep Advent is making a conscious effort to postpone Christmas. I must admit that when I first began doing Advent it was more as a way to prolong Christmas. This shift from "doing" to "keeping" and from "prolonging" to "postponing" has been slow but significant.'

This makes sense, given that the twelve days of Christmas begin on Christmas Day and run to January 5, with the celebration of the Epiphany on the 6th.

I've shared some of these insights with my husband and he's intrigued. We're beginning to try to think through what this change of mind will mean for us. So this will be a kind of 'transition Christmas' for us. We're thinking and researching Advent and Christmas based on a more liturgical calendar. We got a late start this year, but will do our best and continue to think about this throughout the year.

I hope to post more about some of the changes we're planning to incorporate this year and some of the spiritual lessons I'm learning.

SDG!

Sacrifice

So, a few years ago I was challenged by a definition of sacrifice that has had me scratching my head since.

sacrifice: giving up something of great value for something of lesser value

This gives a greater understanding of Christ's sacrifice for us (the righteous for the unrighteous, God for man, the Prince of Glory for sinners), but on another level, it brings up so many questions! With this definition, is it truly possible for us to sacrifice anything for Christ? What we give up is worth so much less than what we gain, that is it truly any kind of sacrifice? Yet, we are clearly told that God delights in our sacrifices. This has been a great puzzlement.

We discussed I Peter 2:1-5 with a small group of folks from church and the confusion began to be cleared away. Drew and I discussed it more as we drove home and I think I've got a much better handle on it.

I think there's a place for the above definition on a horizontal level, and when we think of the Lord sacrificing himself for us, but it falls short when we think vertically in an upward direction.

Horizontally: we must ask ourselves if we're really sacrificing when we want to think we are. If a mother says that she sacrificed her career for her children, isn't she really saying that her career was the more important of the two? If I claim to sacrifice my time in order to educate my children, aren't I really valuing my time above my children? Am I proud of my sacrifices? Hmmm … questions to consider.

Vertically: the sacrifice the Lord demands of us isn't based on any kind of valuation of what's offered (that's because of his grace in receiving our meager, dirty-rag offerings, not because our offerings are so high and valuable). Rather it's based on the fact that, biblically, sacrifices are dedicated totally to the Lord. When we're told to offer ourselves as living sacrifices, Paul isn't implying that we're more important that what we get in return, relationship with the Lord and the opportunity to glorify him; rather that we should wholly devote ourselves to serving and glorifying the Lord. It's about whole-hearted dedication, devotion, and passion for Christ.

And, to loosely paraphrase John Piper, as we serve Christ, we also enjoy him, which brings him the most glory.

SDG!

Socialized Medicine: Disaster or Opportunity?

The recently-passed pork package 'Stimulus bill' contained several provisions to start us on the road toward socialized medicine. As wrong as I think this is on a philosophical and Constitutional level, our family still has to deal with the fall-out of this decision.

Caring for the sick is a mandate from Christ to his people. Up until the 20th Century, life spans were short and hard, filled with pain and suffering.

As the church matured, caring for the sick became an important focus of ministry. According to Wikipedia:

The adoption of Christianity as the state religion of the [Roman] empire drove an expansion of the provision of care. The First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. urged the Church to provide for the poor, sick, widows, and strangers. It ordered the construction of a hospital in every cathedral town. Among the earliest were those built by the physician Saint Sampson in Constantinople and by Basil, bishop of Caesarea. The latter was attached to a monastery and provided lodgings for poor and travelers, as well as treating the sick and infirm. There was a separate section for lepers.

Health care, in the context of the Christian church, was viewed as an opportunity for ministry.  Just as we will always have the poor with us, so we will always have the sick with us, simply because we live in a fallen world.  This attitude, that caring for the sick is a ministry, continued on for most of history.  Think about the country doctor who would deliver a baby in exchange for a couple of chickens.  He lived among those he ministered to and, even if he didn't become rich, was held in high esteem by the community.  His care wasn't just technical; it was ministry, based on love and compassion.  (edit: A friend told me Sunday evening that he knew doctors who worked like this up to the 1980's.)

Then someone, somewhere, suggested that, if we wanted more doctors of better quality, we should pay them more and medical care became a business. This lead to people entering the medical profession for the money, not for the sake of ministry and compassion.  Doctors became businessmen more than ministers.  (Do I have to say it?  Okay.  Not all doctors are in it for the money - I know those who aren't - I'm speaking in general terms.)

This new attitude brings us to our current situation.  Health care is big business.  But it's not really a free market.  Because of tax laws that don't tax health insurance benefits, to save money and attract high-quality employees, employers began offering health insurance as an extra benefit.  However, those who were covered forgot that their health benefits were part of their pay, earned just as their paychecks are earned.  Because costs of health-care weren't coming directly from their own pockets, they stopped comparison shopping and considering if certain tests and procedures were truly necessary and beneficial.  We haven't had a free market in health care.  (There are exceptions in certain specialties that aren't covered by insurance, such as cosmetic surgery, and the free market has worked well, encouraging competition, comparison shopping, dropping prices, and higher quality.  No, I'm not planning on cosmetic surgery - it's simply an interesting microcosm of what the free market could do for medicine in general, if it were given a chance, although it wouldn't solve every problem (more below).)

With the nationalization of health care, rationing will be the order of the day.  The first thing done was to create a national committee to oversee health care (signed into law today in Denver).  You may pay for a procedure or a medicine (either out of your own pocket or through your insurance company), but this committee can and will call your doctor and tell him not to do the procedure or to stop the medication, all in the name of cutting costs.  Doctors who try to buck the system will be fined and fined heavily.  They won't be able to do what you and the doctor together think is best, but will have to abide by decisions of an unelected (and thus unaccountable) bureaucrat in Washington.

Nationalized medicine is a very bad thing, but it could turn out to be a golden opportunity for the church.  The church must step back in and care for the sick as a ministry.  Families should be prepared to care for their own.  When there is no family available, or if the family is unable to care fully for their own, then the church should step in to help.  At this point, we won't be able to offer medications (there's even a drive to make medicinal herbs available by prescription only), but we can offer comfort, compassion, nourishment for body and soul, a human touch, and love.  These are vital components of caring for the sick that have been largely lost in the rush to make it a business instead of a ministry, components that the family and the church can and must offer.

We will be learning how to care well for someone who is sick: how to change bedsheets while someone is in the bed, how to avoid bed sores, how to feed the sick so as to help and comfort them, possibly light massage to help ease aching muscles.  I'm going to work more on my kids' ability to read aloud well, in preparation for caring for someone who needs human companionship, to hear a human voice, yet who might not be up to conversing.

And yes, I've got some selfish motivations here.  As cost becomes everything, euthanasia will grow, not all of it voluntary (do a little research on euthanasia in the Netherlands for a peek at where we're headed).  My kids have assured me that I won't be left to the vicissitudes of a bureaucrat's arbitrary decisions regarding whether I live or die if I ever become simply a 'worthless eater'.  They plan to care for me at home out of appreciation for my work in caring for, educating, and raising them.  Now that's a health care system I can believe in.

SDG!

Norms & Nobility, I

I'm currently rereading Norms & Nobilityas part of my plan to continue to educate and challenge myself regarding the specific vocations to which the Lord has called me.

It's going slowly, but that's a good thing.  I'm taking more time to contemplate what I'm reading - multum non multa, deeper instead of more.  A few years ago, I found it quite helpful to blog through my notes from CiRCE and I think I'll do the same for N&N.  This isn't an overtly Christian book, but much can be gleaned.  

From Chapter 1: 'Virtue is the Fruit of Learning':

The purpose of education is not the assimilation of facts or the retention of information, but the habituation of the mind and body to will and to act in accordance with what one knows.

While Mr. Hicks has just quoted Aristotle, I'm reminded of 'be ye doers of the word, not hearers only,' and 'for him who knows what to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.' 

Later on, as he develops the idea of the purpose of education by comparing the life of pleasure, the practical life, and the theoretic life (or the life of the mind):

The life of pleasure eventually fades and exasperates the pleasure-seeker because it is not a life that is sufficient unto itself.  Pleasure demands a never-ending list of luxurious accessories, the acquisition of which wears man down with work and worry.  In the end, the pleasure seeker becomes preoccupied with what he lacks to complete his picture of happiness; gratification never catches up with his desire, and consumption consumes the consumer.  By the same token, the practical life falls short of completeness.  The wealth one acquires in a business is a useful thing, but as such, it exists for the sake of something else. […]

Dr. Hicks then goes on to elaborate on the theoretical life, or the life of the mind.

So we arrive at the theoretic life - not to be confused, as Professor Burnet (1976) warns, with the contemplative or passive life.

'What Aristotle calls theoria is emphatically an activity.  The fact is that he includes a good many things in it which we are too apt to regard as wholly different, things of which we fail to realize as he did the fundamental identity.  In the first place, scientific research is theoria, and no doubt Aristotle was thinking chiefly of that.  But so too is the artist's life, so far as he is not a mere artificer, and so is all enjoyment of art and literature. So too is the life of the religious man who sees all things in God.'

Aristotle defends the theoretic life as the true end of education and the source of happiness.  One does not require more than the bare necessities in life to achieve happiness in thought, nor is the active life of the mind dependent upon inherently unequal endowments of nature.  One need be neither strong nor handsome, well-born nor gregarious, nay, not even brilliant to participate happily in the theoretic life. […] [T]he theoretic life is the life of virtue, so long as we mean by virtue all that the Greek arete expresses: the life that knows and reveres, speculates and acts upon the Good, that loves and reproduces the Beautiful, and that pursues excellence and moderation in all things.

I would add to that last paragraph: 'by the power of the Holy Spirit, because of gratitude for the Gospel of Christ, and to the glory of God'.  His definition of virtue reminds me of biblical fruitfulness.

I must keep reminding myself that it's not about how much I can cram into my children's heads, rather that I teach them (through example and precept) to act on what they know to be true, starting with the gospel from which everything flows.

Norms and Nobility: A Treatise on Education

Usefulness?

I've been thinking more about my post regarding the way I've been approaching kitchen maintenance lately.  As I continued to mull it over, I began to think it helpful to look at this in terms of usefulness; I want my kitchen to be useful.  But as I looked at it more, I began to see some rocks in that path.  I don't want to descend into hard-hearted utilitarianism and pragmatism, which measure everything by usefulness and therefore shut out beauty, goodness, and joy.  I continued to turn this over in my mind and I realized that it's not specifically about usefulness, rather it's about fruitfulness.

The world tends to look at life in economic terms, telling us that we are wasting our lives uselessly staying at home instead of making a contribution. The world focuses on usefulness. The world's schools train for usefulness.  The world measures people's worth by their usefulness.  The biblical response is fruitfulness. It's not about the economy, stupid. It's about so much more!

A kitchen that has every tool and lots of space to work in, but is stark in its efficiency is useful, but not so enticing.  A kitchen that is painted cheerfully, with pictures on the walls, curtains in the window, pretty utensils and crockery, music playing in the background is much more cosy.  The beauty nourishes the cook's heart as the cook works to nourish her family.

Besides efficiency, cleanliness, and orderliness, there are other, intangible aspects of keeping our homes that we mustn't lose sight of.  If I take an hour to complete work that could take me half that time, but I'm sharing a heart-to-heart talk with my daughter as we work, then that's a good and fruitful use of that time.  If my boys toil in the garden and get all kinds of work done, yet are at odds with one another when they're done, that's neither good nor fruitful.

Fruitfulness speaks to getting the work done, absolutely, but it also speaks to joyful relationships, spiritual riches, mended hearts, and encouraged souls.  If we remember this, the world's criticism will fade away as we make homes for our families, our friends, and even strangers.  

SDG!

The Mother and Her Reading, I

As I mentioned before, I've been slowly working my way through the Sovereign Grace Leadership series of podcasts, wherein, last summer, Josh Harris interviewed Jeff Purswell and CJ Mahaney. I'm amazed at how much of it I can apply in my life as a wife and home educating mom. While I'm not claiming pastor-status for what I do here, there are many parallels, so I thought I'd go through each podcast and share the things that occurred to me and how these ideas might apply.  However, I won't outline the podcast itself; better for you to listen to it in its entirety (it can be found through iTunes or on the Sovereign Grace Ministries website).

CJ's first point was about the importance of reading as a regular part of life.  If we want our children to become readers, it's important for us to model reading for them.  Read aloud to them; read books while they're awake and can observe you; rejoice with them as they learn to read; share your excitement when you receive the gift of a book.  If you save all your reading until after they go to bed, and don't talk to them about what you're reading, they'll think it's an optional part of life.  If, however, you share this part of life with them, chances are better that they'll catch your love of books.

CJ also emphasized planning our reading.  If we don't set aside time, if we don't plan which books we'll read, we won't read any or we'll meander through books and not benefit ourselves and our families as much as we could if we read more intentionally.

The plan may be to read a chapter or smaller section of several books each day, reading them slowly with time to digest the ideas.  Or, if you'd rather read one book at a time, you might read a daily, greater portion of one book, until you're finished.  The important thing isn't that our plans all look alike, but that we do what works for us.

Now, I do want to encourage moms of younger kidlets that grace is a necessary component of this idea.  Little ones demand a lot of time and energy, and if a little one isn't sleeping through the night yet, napping while the baby naps may be a better use of your time.  You may need to ease up on your reading for a season, or you may want to be more creative in carving out that time.  (I often had a book at hand when I sat down to nurse a little one.)  You may be able to listen to audio books while performing other tasks.  (That's something I'm not that good at - I need to see the words for it to make an impression.)  Please realize moms of littles, that there will come a time when you do have more time and can devote more of your time to reading.  There is a time and a purpose to every season under heaven.  Relax and flow with whatever season you're in now, thankful to the Lord for your little ones who grow so quickly and relying on the strength of the Lord to face these busy days.

A proper approach toward and priority of reading is a service to your family.  There have been many books I've read that have challenged my attitudes and thinking in managing my home, educating my children, and relating to others that my family has benefited from.  Reading, for an appropriate amount of time, is not selfish, but can help us serve more effectively.  (Reading can become selfish when it becomes more important than our children, our duties, our responsibilities, but that is probably rooted in selfishness and pride, not in reading itself.)

I've been finding that I'm fighting to maintain my concentration lately.  I was wondering why, and then I read an article that proposed the idea that time spent online, with its quick hyper-links and short articles, undermines our ability to concentrate (this is why I didn't include any hyper-links in my post today - I may begin adding them at the bottom rather than in the midst of the text, so they aren't such a distraction).  I think there's something to this and have determined to spend time each day reading from real books, away from the computer.  It is important for us to discipline our minds, loving the Lord with them, by reading real books: books that point us to Christ, helping us broaden our affection for our Saviour, as well as husband and children, inspiring us to creativity and fruitfulness.

Next time, I'll go through some of the categories of reading mentioned in the interview, along with some ideas of my own that those pastoral categories sparked.

SDG!

Cleaning the Kitchen?

After Sunday dinner, you look around the kitchen at the stacks of dishes, piles of glasses, mountains of pots and pans.  This room was clean a few hours ago and it'll take a long time and a lot of work to get it there, again.  And it won't stay that way for long, but will need to be cleaned several times each day … today… next week… forever.  We don't wonder why housework is viewed as drudgery.  The striving for a clean kitchen, or clean laundry, or a fully-stocked pantry never ends.

The way we think and talk about things has a great deal to do with our attitudes about them.  He who defines the terms wins the debate.  We see this in things as important as the words culturally used to describe abortion and marriage; it's also true in our everyday approach to keeping our homes and caring for our families.  As I read the chapters in Keeping House about feeding the hungry, I realized that my attitude toward cleaning the kitchen was causing discontent, disappointment, and discouragement. If a clean kitchen is my goal, I'll fail several times each day (after every meal and snack). How disheartening! I end up trying to cook with an eye toward a clean kitchen, which means I don't do as good a job of feeding my hungry family.  As the kitchen is used and dirtied, my work to clean it is undone and ruined.  It was time to redefine my terms. 

A kitchen that stays clean all the time isn't fulfilling its purpose. Instead of trying to get my kitchen clean, I now approach it as preparing it for the next meal.  

As I look to ready the kitchen to prepare the next meal, I acknowledge and embrace the ongoing essence of the purpose of the kitchen, or, to use one of Andrew Kern's favorite terms, the nature of the kitchen.  I acknowledge that the purpose of the kitchen is to prepare food to feed hungry people.  I also end up with a more realistic standard for success: not a clean kitchen, but one ready to be worked in.

Trying to keep a clean kitchen becomes a battle, with as many defeats as victories and the victories are tenuous at best, always swallowed up in defeat.  There's no energy to carry you along, but instead a sense of continually pushing a rock up a hill that then tumbles down on top of you again, that this is a useless task of unrelieved monotony, as Sisyphus experienced and it was hell.

Focusing on preparing the kitchen for the next meal gives the job a momentum that makes the enterprise easier. Success may thus be defined in a more limited, less grandiose way, but that just means I have more opportunities to experience that success and that's encouraging. Success may also be defined a bit more broadly: perfect cleanliness isn't necessary to prepare a meal; good enough is, well, good enough.

God probably could have created the universe so that it didn't need his ongoing, sustaining activity, but he didn't.  As he wills and works to sustain the very molecules of my pans and utensils, I am privileged to take part in the ongoing nature of that sustaining work, in my own small and dependent way.  As he brings order to a disordered soul to ready it for good works which he created in the eternal past, so I can bring order to my kitchen to ready it for the good work of feeding the hungry.  I get to take part in his provision for my family, nurturing them, caring for them, loving them.

I must admit that getting the kids to clean the kitchen has been a battle for years.  But their attitudes are slowly changing too, as I encourage them to prepare the kitchen for our next meal instead of simply cleaning it.  They're also more willing to cook or bake, knowing that that's why the kitchen is clean.  It's much more inviting than when the focus was a clean kitchen.

An anecdote: Saturday, we had a tech in to give us an estimate for a new heat pump.  Normally, I cringe at having tradesmen in my kitchen because it's not usually a pretty picture.  However, after a week of preparing the kitchen for the next meal, it was in fairly good order.  I was able to offer him a cup of tea, and could make it without having to clean out the tea-maker or wash any cups.  Because we'd prepared the kitchen for the next meal, it was a simple process to provide a bit of warmth on a cool morning, a bit of hospitality to a stranger.  There was a liberty in this that I don't usually experience.  To most of my readers, this may not seem earth-shaking or different, but it was a big deal in our house because this has been a struggle for so long.

What terms might you need to consider and re-define?  I'm thinking about this question in other areas involved in keeping my home and have more posts planned along these lines. I'd love your input!

SDG!

Resources for Hand Work

Life's been crazy-busy lately, mostly with making Christmas presents and keeping up with school.

The girls and I found a couple of really cool websites that I thought I'd share.

We're learning how to knit. Well, actually Judith and Rebekah are already pretty good at it, but Melody and Eliza are learning and I'm re-learning (my Mémère Bert taught me to cast on, knit, and purl, but I'd forgotten how - it's been so long). This website has been so helpful!  It includes free video instruction for both English style and Continental style.  My mem taught me English style, and when I first tried Continental, I made a big mess.  But there was a scene in an indie movie we watched the other night (review coming soon) that included a woman knitting Continental style and it finally clicked.  I tried it again the next morning and took off.  It's faster than English, so I've been using it for my current, very basic, project with its Christmas deadline.

The other website is also a gem.  More videos, but this time about hand embroidery.  I love my embroidery machine and am using it lots, but there's something about hand embroidery that is just stunning and a lot of stitches just can't be recreated on a machine.  Sometimes you just need a break from the machinery, time to sit with a needle and thread.  I love technology, but there's there's room in the world for both hand and machine work.  Hand work is good for the soul; it slows you down, gives you time to contemplate, and requires a greater time investment - all antidotes to a hurried modern world.  I also think we must work purposely and intentionally to maintain those old skills.  If we lose them, they'll be gone for good.

Last night, Drew and I were chatting with the man who runs the local Viking Sewing Center.  After purchasing some machine embroidery supplies, I asked him if Joann's carried hand embroidery threads (I wasn't expecting beautiful silks, but was hoping for something besides run of the mill floss, and was pleased to find that they did carry some nicer pearl cotton and a tiny bit of very expensive silk - the silk stayed at the store, but I brought home some of the cotton).  He didn't quite understand the attraction of doing it by hand, but told me that he was working on his embroidery software to make it look more like hand work.  But then he shared how astonished he'd been when he was the recipient of a hand-embroidered gift.  He said of the giver, 'It took her three months to embroider it.  She must really care a lot.'  There is something about an investment of time and effort that speaks deeply to the heart.

SDG!

The Amazing Race

The Amazing Race is one of those television shows that the actors' unions hate because it uses real people instead of employing actors.  I'm not a big fan of reality television, but we watched this the other day, for the first time, and I found it fascinating to watch the different teams and their greatly different relationships.

One team, 'The Frat Boys', were an object lesson in how not to work toward a goal with someone else.  I wanted to slap one of them upside the head.  All he did was to complain, complain, and complain some more, especially when his partner tried to push him to greater heights.  His self-centeredness blazed out in neon color.  His partner did his best to encourage him to give of himself, but he would have none of it.  He had entered this contest to try to win a million dollars, but viewed the challenges as inconveniences and burdens. He wasn't focused on the goal, but was distracted by how he felt and 'how a team is supposed to work' - meaning how a team is supposed to feel and that he wasn't feeling the right way (obviously his partner's fault).  

Another team stood out in sharp contrast.  A brother and sister team who were single-minded in pursuing their goal.  When one sacrificed, the other was full of encouragement and willingness to sacrifice alongside.  They didn't make excuses, but worked shoulder-to-shoulder to achieve their goal.  They were truly comrades in arms, pushing each other on toward the goal.  Because they weren't fixating on feeling like a team, they achieved the unity and likemindedness that the other team only dreamed of.

The second team 'ran toward the roar' of battle.  Instead of holding back, hesitating, allowing themselves to become distracted by irrelevancies, they pressed on boldly.  

Oh, and by the way, they won that leg of the race.

SDG!

Effort and Enjoyment

I wrote last time about some of the changes occurring because of our broken microwave oven. There's another that I find interesting.

Food tastes better. There seems to be a direct correlation between the effort to prepare a meal and the enjoyment of that meal. The time spent in anticipation brought about by the delayed gratification of the slower preparation and cooking process heighten the delight and relish we receive from the fruit of our labor.

Fast food, whether pulled from the microwave oven or the window of a drive-thru, doesn't provide nearly the satisfaction of a meal made from scratch with one's own hands, in company with family-members. The effort and the wait also increase appetite. And appetite is the most flavourful sauce.

SDG!

Re-Thinking Marriage

I've been contemplating the purpose of marriage lately. I've also been leading the Pride & Prejudice discussion in our Gileskirk co-op and we just watched The Taming of the Shrew.

Our modern world (newpapers, celebrity magazines, self-help books, films, television shows - both fiction and nonfiction) tells us that the purpose of marriage is to live happily ever after. Marriage should be about each spouse's satisfaction, fulfillment, and contentment. A good marriage itself is thought to confer these things. The underlying assumption here is that either the efforts of my husband are what make me happy or his lack of effort makes me unhappy. And if he's not making me happy, then the marriage isn't fulfilling its purpose, and therefore is somehow invalid or disposable. However, Jane Austen and Shakespeare shared a different view.

At the beginning of Pride and Prejudice, both Darcy and Elizabeth have some growing up to do. Even though Darcy is smitten by Eliza's 'fine eyes', after Elizabeth's initial interest in Darcy is quashed by his arrogance, she never really expresses a strong physical attraction for him, but is eventually attracted by his character and the growth she sees there. I read once that, without Darcy, Elizabeth would have ended up just like her father, distant and disdainful; without Elizabeth, Darcy would have ended up just like Lady Catherine de Bourgh, proud and unyielding. In other words, Elizabeth and Darcy are right for one another because they influence each other to be better people.

If we compare Elizabeth and Darcy's relationship with the relationships of the other married couples in the book, we see how important this is to Jane Austen. Mr. Bennet doesn't even try to make Mrs. Bennet a better person, but lets her go on in her foolish ways. He doesn't seem to want to influence anyone for the better, but is content to sit back and merely laugh at the folly of others, including that of his wife and younger daughters. Charlotte and Mr. Collins also have no gentling effect on each another, content merely to exist in the same house, spending as much time apart as possible. Lydia and Wickham not only don't try to affect change in one another, but actually reinforce each other's folly and sin. The author's attitude toward all these couples is clear - they are not examples to be followed.

In The Taming of the Shrew, Petruchio doesn't love Katharina when he seeks permission from Baptista to marry her. He really wants her inheritance. He wants a wife, and because she's rich and he has no competition, she'll do. Katharina starts out hard, selfish, violent, lazy, ungrateful, unloving - in other words, a shrew. However, he, even with his less-than-romantic motives, is the right husband for her because he teaches her gentleness, duty, responsibility, gratitude, grace, and love.

Looking at the other couples (because foils can tell us so much about authorial intent), even though Lucentio and Bianca are head over heals in love, she has all the makings of a shrew as she rebels against her husband in the final scene; she may be gentle and beautiful on the outside, but it seems her heart doesn't follow suit. And Hortensio and the Widow, whom I suspect Shakespeare married to one another merely to give us another cautionary example as their courtship happens off-stage and out of sight, are in no better position than Lucentio and Bianca. Lucentio and Hortensio are losers in the wager of marriage because they have no influence over their wives.

Both Jane Austen and Shakespeare understood that the purpose of marriage is not our happiness, but our holiness

If the purpose of marriage isn't happiness, but holiness, unhappiness doesn't invalidate a marriage, or justify walking out when the going gets tough or boring and mundane. A husband isn't responsible for his wife's happiness. Rather, we are each responsible to influence our individual husbands toward godliness (not as a form of manipulation in an effort to make our lives easier, but out of love and even self-sacrifice, doing what is best for another) also eagerly expecting our husbands to influence us in the same direction.

Now, I'm not saying that marriage should be primarily a chore and a trial that we merely survive. However, we must realize that happiness in marriage is a result of focusing on the true purpose of marriage. As we strive to be more Christlike, iron sharpening iron, we will experience more joy. (This is just one more example of ethereal ideas having tangible consequences.)

Among all these couples in both works, whom do you think will end up being the happiest? My money is on Darcy and Elizabeth, and Petruchio and Katharina. And if they lived today, I bet they'd celebrate at least 50 years of marriage one day because they'd get through the tough times, even in a culture of easy divorce.

SDG!

The Simple Woman's Daybook

Peggy, at The Simple Woman posted a meme back on the sixth and it's just gotten around to me. I've chosen not to participate in some of the sillier memes making the rounds, but I thought this one was lovely.

For Today...

Outside my Window... is a patio that's calling my name to do school outside in the cool weather

I am thinking... about the purpose of marriage, lately.

From the learning rooms... Eliza's phonics, Joel's math, Judith's Latin

I am thankful for... a local church made up of sinners saved by grace and not super-Christians

From the kitchen... breakfast quiche in the oven - sausage, bacon, leeks, green and yellow bell peppers, cheddar cheese, herbs and I'm going to attempt Mexican chocolate to drink (edit: I have a new love!). Chicken with some kind of mushroom sauce for dinner.

I am wearing... denim capris made from a pattern copied from an old worn out pair that I ripped apart, and a blue linen, embroidered blouse, barefoot, with my hair in a braid and reading glasses perched on my head.

I am reading... Nicholas Nickleby, 7 Steps to a Pain-free Life (about relieving back and neck pain), Penrod (aloud to the kids), The Warden (with my middles), Adrenal Fatigue: the 21st Century Stress Syndrome (arriving from Amazon on Wednesday)

I am hoping... that the path my naturopath and I are on will give me more energy, but I know it will take some time to figure it all out; and I'm thankful for the current results of the hydrocortisone I started last week.

I am creating...ideas for Christmas which I can't divulge because the recipients are also some of my Dear Readers; a Hawaiian shirt for Drew; and wintery clothing for me.

I am hearing... the fan in the window next to me that sounds occasionally like a choir as it oscillates

Around the house... lots of fans and open windows to cope with our nonfunctioning AC.

One of my favorite things...the gospel - not one of, the

A Few Plans For The Rest Of The Week...work on school, clean the house, call my naturopath to report on Rebekah's and my progress, bake, rest, sew, start neck and back exercises

Here is a picture thought I am sharing with you...

Not a new picture, but the best I could do for fall. This was taken a couple years ago when Drew and I were in Nashville for the King's Meadow Study Center Second Annual Film and Worldview Festival. Since our leaves don't change here until sometime in January, this picture helps me get into that autumn mood.

SDG!

Decided, at last

First, the Lord reminded me powerfully yesterday that he is still on his throne and he will continue to work no matter who happens to occupy the oval office.

Second, I spent more time reading and researching (and praying). What I read was frighteningly eye-opening. You see, I stumbled upon a liberal blog and began reading some of the comments there. I read praise for a self-avowed Marxist (not the candidate in question), but the poster then denied that the man he was praising was really a Marxist. His reasoning? 'Well, I agree with him on everything, and I'm no Marxist, so therefore he can't be.' But on all the issues, the opinions of both these men line up perfectly with those outlined by Karl Marx…I guess Marx himself must not have been a Marxist, either!

These folks (and the author of the blog post they were discussing) don't think the liberal candidate is really liberal; he's actually just a (get ready for it) Reagan Democrat. (That sound you hear is Ronald Reagan spinning in his grave.)  They hope to influence him once he's in office. And, given the liberal candidate's voting record, that won't be difficult for them to do.

Third, I've been learning much more about that voting record.  This man can't be described as 'pro-choice', but as hard-core 'pro-abortion' - more rabid about the issue than even NARAL, which is quite a feat.  I'm sure that, through the abuse of the executive order power that's been in vogue with so many of our recent presidents, many, many more unborn babies will die under him as president.  Not only that, but many infants who are born alive will die.  He was the only senator in Illinois who lobbied and voted against a bill that would offer protection to an infant who survived an abortion.  That's unconscionable.  For more information about Obama's stand on life issues, see George Grant's pro-life blog, 'The Quick and the Dead'.

So, I've come to the conclusion that my vote must be cast in a way that will do the most to keep this man out of the White House and put in a man who won't cave to the kind of pressure discussed above. I don't know what the Lord has in store, but I now know that I can vote a certain way with a clear conscience, although my vote will be against the one candidate and not really for the other. And that no matter who wins, we must keep a close eye on things.  Eternal vigilance…

The scary parts of what I read?  Well, the absolute lack of coherent, logical thought of the man who wrote the blog and the folks who posted.  These folks' lack of real understanding of the Founding Fathers' philosophies and ideas.  And that my husband tells me that he hears things like this all the time (my kids don't tend to talk this way, so I don't hear it so much).

I also read a blog entry by Alec Guiness Alex Baldwin (I'm still waiting to see if he'll keep his promise to move abroad after Bush was declared the winner in 2000 - that was something I was looking forward to).  His stated thesis was, basically, 'What an Obama Presidency Will Mean'.  I thought I was going to hear about what he thought Obama would do for the country, how things would change, what Mr. Guiness Baldwin was hoping for as he looked to this future possibility.  But all he discussed was that an Obama presidency would put McCain in his place.  Yea … that was productive.  I'm so glad he had something of substance to offer.  (Okay, I'm removing my tongue from my cheek, now.)

I think this will be the last of my federal election posts, but I'd like to start looking at the local initiatives.  We still have to figure out what they are, what they really mean, and where we stand.  And there are lots of them!

SDG!

Befuddlement

I've never been so frustrated and confused about whom to vote for.

God created society with four separate and distinct governing institutions, each with a separate and distinct sphere of authority: the state (civil government), the church, the family, and the self. If one of these institutions breaks down, it's not an option for the others to step in and take over its responsibilities; that leads to disaster. Instead, the other institutions must work to re-build that which has fallen, strengthening whichever one has broken down. Since the election is about the civil government, I'll focus there, but an understanding of this principle of jurisdictional sovereignty is key.

Civil government is responsible for (I may have forgotten a few, but this is the gist of what's been rolling around in my mind) …

• protecting our rights - not granting them (which the government has no power or authority to do); this includes the rights to life, liberty, and property, freedom of speech, freedom to practice our religion - well, read the Bill of Rights for the full list; you get the idea. This doesn't mean protecting us from our own bad decisions.
  
• defense - the military on a federal level, the police force and fire department on a local level
• regulating commerce - not to make business decisions for us or to decide on productivity levels or where we should invest, but to protect us from one another where necessary (we are, after all, sinners); includes infrastructure
• the judiciary - again, because we're sinners there will be crimes committed and there will be disagreements between people which need to be settled
• relations with other nations - including treaties and immigration.

That civil government governs best which governs least. Our Constitution gives the federal government very limited powers; given that inch, they've flown to the moon. The federal level of government should have the least day-to-day influence on our lives as it is farthest from us and therefore farthest away from our influence. Instead it has the most. Can you name your mayor? What issues are before your city or town council this month? I don't know, either.

In addition to that, I'm a fiscal conservative who doesn't believe in debt (the only debt we have is our 16 year-old mortgage and we're working to pay that off as soon as we can) or consistently living beyond one's means. Tax dollars spent by the government actually belong to the people who paid the taxes (something most politicians and recipients of government largesse have conveniently forgotten or never knew). I also believe that the free market, while not perfect (nothing sinful man is responsible for can be), is the best economic system ever devised by man, giving the most liberty to the most people and raising productivity and standards of living. (Recommended reading: Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt and Basic Economics, by Thomas Sowell)

I'm a social conservative who believes that life begins at conception, marriage is an institution ordained and created by God, that parents are ultimately responsible for raising their children and do so with the support and encouragement of the local church and community, and that the family (as the main building-block of society) should be protected. I also believe that the family is primarily responsible for welfare by taking care of its own. If there's no family, or the family is unable, then the responsibility falls to the church or to private and voluntary endeavors. Private welfare requires contact with real people, real accountability, and real change; it doesn't sentence families to generations of poverty. We'll always have the poor with us, but membership in this group should be a temporary thing. (Recommended reading: The Tragedy of American Compassion, by Marvin Olasky and Bringing in the Sheaves, by George Grant)

So the question is, whom do I vote for? One of the major candidates is so far out of sync with the Constitution and biblical principle on all these issues that casting my vote for him just isn't an option. The other is one for whom I've never voted and whom I've deliberately gone to the polls late in the day to vote against (even though I knew Arizona would go for him). There are a few issues that separate these candidates, but they're simply different flavors of the same dish. Under both parties, government continues to grow, entitlements continue to mushroom, and our liberties continue to shrink. (Recommended reading: In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government, by Charles Murray)

Do I vote for the lesser of two evils? Or do I vote for a third party candidate who shares my views on most of the issues even though he probably has no chance of winning? Do I vote principle or pragmatism? And is it really pragmatic to vote for the lesser of two evils?

No answers today, I'm afraid. Just questions.

Amazon Delivery

The Warden, by Anthony Trollope

David Copperfield, by Charles Dickens

Island Boy, by Barbara Cooney

Far from the Madding Crowd, by Thomas Hardy

The Saturdays, by Elizabeth Enright

Don Quixote, by Miguel de Cervantes, translated and abridged by Walter Starkie

James and the Giant Peach, by Roald Dahl

Babar and His Children, by Jean de Brunhoff

The Bird in the Tree, by Elizabeth Goudge (the first in the Eliot Family trilogy)

Green Dolphin Street, by Elizabeth Goudge
Vanity Fair, by William Makepeace Thackery

Coming soon...

a used copy of The Dean's Watch, by Elizabeth Goudge

So what am I reading? Well, re-reading both The Warden with the middle kiddoes and Pride and Prejudice with the biggles, and I'm reading for the first time Nicholas Nickleby and enjoying it!

Although my enjoyment is a bit ironic - the intro to The Warden pointed out that Trollope didn't like Dickens' work. Dickens' characters are mostly one-dimensional, either black or white, good or evil (at least according to the author of the Introduction; I haven't read enough Dickens to know for sure, but I am seeing this in Nicholas Nickleby and remember not liking The Pickwick Papers because of the cartoonish characters; although Sidney Carton comes to mind as an argument that Dickens could write more fully-orbed characters when he wanted to). Trollope's characters, on the other hand, are much more nuanced and fully realized, a mixture of virtue, vice, and absurdity, as are we all. Even though I'm enjoying Nicholas Nickleby, I'm finding it doesn't demand much thought or character analysis. The characters are pretty much as presented - all sneering vice or blushing virtue. I'm not as drawn into this story as I am when I read Trollope. And although I'm enjoying NN and want to read more of Dickens (best in small doses), I think I like Trollope better. I find I learn more about human nature from Trollope, about beings made in God's image, yet subject to the fall and the pervasive presence of sin and selfishness. There really isn't a villain in The Warden. Everyone does what he thinks is best, even though some are mistaken in their understanding of the results of their actions.

And all this reminds me of Gene Edward Veith's workshop on the humours at CiRCE in July. I'm almost ready to get my notes out and start blogging through them.

SDG!

Praying…

…for the Stauffer family today as they bury their beloved Emily.  And still feeling a bit of shock.

SDG!

Kitchen Books

'Eating is not merely a material pleasure. Eating well gives a spectacular joy to life and contributes immensely to goodwill and happy companionship It is of great importance to the morale.'
~Elsa Schiaparelli

Drew finished painting the kitchen/dining room this weekend and he installed about 75% of the chair rail. It looks lovely! (pictures coming soon...)

I have a large hutch, which holds my china, nice wine glasses, special plates and trays, a few statues and one of my china tea pots, and lots of those odds and ends that make life beautiful, but that aren't all needed everyday.

I have a smaller hutch that I use for, what else? Books!

We emptied both hutches so we could pull them away from the walls to paint. I've got the big hutch put back together (and rearranged), and am working on the smaller one. I have several categories of books in the kitchen, some of which are about to find a new home, but I thought I'd list some of my favorite books in each.

'Where the guests at a gathering are well-acquainted, they eat 20% more than they otherwise would.'
~Edgar Watson Howe

Cooking

The Professional Chef: This is the text book of the Culinary Institute of America (CIA). Ours is the 7th edition from 2002. It covers just about anything you can think of, with detailed instructions and pictures of each step. This is the book for those who want to learn the techniques of great chefs.

Herbs & Spices: The Cook's Reference, a DK book: Like all DK books, the photography in this one is superb - two-page spreads of any and every herb and spice you can think of and many you can't. It includes the history of each spice, recipes, foods it goes well with, buying and storing tips, etc. It inspires me every time I browse through it - a bookish food muse.

Culinary Artistry, by Andrew Dornenburg and Karen Page: This isn't so much a cookbook, but a book about food. It includes a few recipes, but is really more about the creativity of composing your own recipes and dishes. Much of the book's value comes from the lists of foods that go well together. This is another of my bookish food muses.

The America's Test Kitchen Family Cookbook: From the folks who bring us 'Cook's Illustrated Magazine'. I love this book not just for the tried and tested recipes, but also for the plentiful tips in each chapter. I must admit that as much as I love the recipes in 'Cook's Illustrated', I am as fascinated by the articles describing how each recipe was developed and the science behind the different techniques and methods.

I'm Just Here For the Food, Version 2.0, by Alton Brown: His down-to-earth style and clear explanations make this a gem! Also includes lots of sciency bits about how food works.

Joie de Vivre: Simple French Style for Everyday Living , par Robert Arbor: Not so much a cookbook as a memoir of Arbor's childhood in France. The recipes are simple, yet elegant. I firmly believe that we Americans eat much too much pre-prepared food, with too many chemicals and additives; I call it 'pseudo-food'. Arbor (another bookish kitchen muse) inspires me to approach food from a different direction and perspective; slower and more thoughtful, yet delicious and family-centered.

'From morning till night, sounds drift from the kitchen, most of them familiar and comforting…On days when warmth is the most important need of the human heart, the kitchen is the place you can find it; it dries the wet sock, it cools the hot little brain.'
~E.B. White

Baking

Dessert Circus at Home: Fun, Fanciful, And Easy To Make Desserts, by Jacques Torres: Yum! I've only made a few of these amazing desserts, but really want to make time to bake more with the kids and this will be one of my sources for the sweet stuff! The only thing is some of his ingredients are a tad hard to find. But that's what online shopping is for!

Williams Sonoma Kids Baking, by Abigail Johnson: I forgot I had this until I pulled it off the shelf last Friday. It's going to be shelved in an easily accessible place for use with the little ones.

The American Boulangerie, by Pascal Rigo: Subtitled French Pastries and Breads for the Home Kitchen, this is one I really knead to get back into. I used to make all our own bread. But the family got too big for me to keep up. I don't know that I want to go back to doing all our baking myself, but I do love to bake bread. Lots of comfort food here.

'In living, and moving and having something of our being in a home culture, even with its all-too-human fuss and bother, if we but smuggle in something of the simple cargo--sturdy, comfortable furniture, fresh food, home cooked meals, good wine, one set of fine china for special meals, paintings and ancestral portraits on the wall, an old upright piano, acoustic guitar, any non-electric instrument, a time set apart to read aloud before prayers and bedtime--if we but make a welcome hearth for the songs of the Muses, we too will know that even on this earth, now and again, a courage will visit among us in those comforting, beautiful reflections of the permanent things, quite surprising yet strangely familiar for us who are passing to and fro in these playful shadows, and we will begin to see as Odysseus recognized, "something very much like perfection.'
~James S. Taylor

SDG!

Morning Time

I'm working on a time based on Cindy at Dominion Family's 'Morning Time' (see the ClassEd blogs list in the sidebar). I don't know that mine will look just like hers or what I'll end up calling it (although I have some ideas, which I'll discuss in a separate post), or what it'll look like long-term, but I have a plan for this coming week. Each day we'll

*read the day's Bible reading assignment from our senior pastor's blog
*read a short section from The Gospel Primer for Christians
*sing 'O Wondrous Love' to work toward memorizing it
*recite the books of the Old Testament (also working toward memorizing them - my older kids know this, but the youngers have slipped through the cracks)
*read 'Casey at the Bat', also working toward a comfortable familiarity through repetition, if not memorization
*read at least a chapter of Northanger Abbey (we finished Alice this week)

SDG!

To Plan or Not to Plan

…that is the question.

The last few years, I've spent most of my summer heavy in planning mode. I set up spreadsheets. I plan out each week of school. I plan out each day of each week. In every subject and discipline. For each child. I create worksheets for reading assignments and copywork and grammar.

Then school starts, and the whole thing goes down the drain within the first couple of weeks. Eventually, I'm so discouraged at my perceived lack of progress that I don't even bother to open the spreadsheet. It sits forlorn and lonely on my dock, guiltily ignored. Then we get to the end of the school year and I feel like we've gotten very little done. (Then, once I get over the homeschooling-mom-end-of-year doldrums, I realize we haven't done that badly.)

This year, because of a discussion on ClassEd and a phone chat with Michele, one of the ClassEd moms, I'm letting go of the planning. I'm still setting out rough guidelines and basic goals, but I'm not going to try to plan our year in such great detail.

With this decision, summer has taken on a different hue. Instead of the olive green of drudgery, it's the bright and shimmery pink of promise (I don't know if drudgery is olive green or promise is pink, but I don't like the former and love the latter, so it works for me ;-D). My prep work this summer will entail reading the books the kids will be reading, listening to and taking notes on the Gileskirk lectures, and laying out general goals and guidelines, immersing myself in the material instead of in the plan. Oh, frabjous joy! Calloo, callay!!!

SDG!

Transitions

To continue my last post...

Given Cindy's comment (her concern isn't a possibility at our church as there are well over 500 members), I've been thinking about the balance between community and cleaving.

For a single person who has been rightly encouraged to be involved in the lives of others, investing in them and letting them invest in him in return, there's a huge transition in getting married.

Instead of thinking of the feelings of lots of others, one's new spouse becomes pre-eminent and that one person must be considered above and possibly against all others (after the Lord, I'm talkin' horizontal relationships in this post).

That doesn't mean that the new couple doesn't continue to invest in the lives of others, but it does change the nature of that investment and those other relationships.

SDG!