On Monday I saw a midwife for the first time, and I felt like it went well. I can tell how she is overseen by the OBs in the office because she still commented a lot on me trying to keep Samuel's weight down by eating healthier and exercising! It was very motivating and since the appointment I've barely eaten any chocolate (used to be a daily thing) and I'm sticking to whole grains. I also bought some great groceries from Trader Joe's, which surely makes eating healthier much more pleasurable! Anyway, I joined a FB group called "VBAC Facts Community" and posted a question about baby weight and VBAC. Woman after woman after woman after woman after woman posted about how they or a friend or relative has delivered a 10, 11, 12lb, etc baby doing VBAC. A doula posted that our body very very rarely makes a baby too big to push out, and that size of the baby is not a factor in the baby getting stuck while I push. and judging by all the hip pain I endured last time, I think they would be able to get a baby through 'em!
One of the most shocking things the midwife said was that the office I had switched out of has a C-section rate of 50%. That percentage sounds unbelievable to me, but I do know the OB I had been seeing was really pushing for me to have an RCS (repeat c/s). Also the office I was a part of is owned by the hospital, whereas the one I'm at is not (though they are next door).
I wish I would've had a list of questions ready, but luckily I still have 4 months to ask them. The midwife also made it clear that I won't be pressured either way and that I should not feel trapped. I really really REALLY appreciated her saying that. I felt pretty trapped in the other office, where I had very little support for a VBAC so I would've had one. From what I know so far having more c-sections limits the number of kids you can have, which makes me feel the most trapped of all!
Since my appointments got off track, my next one is in 6 weeks with one of the OBs in the office. Both OBs are male, so this will be a little awkward for me the first time... hahaha. And I definitely NEED to get Carson a babysitter for that because it includes by gestational diabetes 1 hr test. Let's just say by the end of that hour everyone in the office would be rolling their eyes and popping pain pills for their headaches. Carson is in a "special" phase right now.
Last time I wrote on this I was really torn about having a VBAC because of the type of risks involved. As of now I am still definitely going to try, but it really depends on how things go near the end of the pregnancy, and how pushy the midwives will be if they even think that Samuel will be 9 lbs. I've heard the margin of error on those weight guess is a whopping 2 lbs! I'd also like to know what kinds of accommodations the hospital has for a woman having a uterine rupture in TOLAC (trial of labor after cesarean). David's Mom, a seasoned nurse, told me that I should ask those questions. But honestly I was too distracted with Carson being so fussy the whole time that I forgot all my questions.
A couple days ago David told me of his fears about losing me :( The thing is, I reminded him, that the risk for a VBAC attempt is more for Samuel and not me. This is still the clincher for us, even though the risk is so miniscule. If I end up having a c-section, I will have to seriously lay on the altar my dream of having 4 or more kids.
Thanks for reading!
Showing posts with label critique. Show all posts
Showing posts with label critique. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Friday, August 9, 2013
Not just 'airing my opinions'
 |
| pic source: socialmediamarketinguniversity.com |
I love blogging and writing (when my charge allows) and could sit in front of this cheapo screen all day reading and writing. I think I even cherish this subconscious dream of becoming a writer of sorts, though I know I couldn't and wouldn't want to handle the stress, criticism and attention.
So I content myself to read the famous blogs. In recent months I've come to see why certain bloggers or authors get famous and others don't: The blogs that attract all the attention are people ranting and venting about being victimized in some form or another. Even worse, sometimes these bloggers have only a beginning or absolutely no formal education in the topic they are ranting about. And their readers, including myself, would rather read a short but attention-getting blog post rather than go to the library and read a more thoroughly researched, professionally edited and published work on the topic.
I notice that when I write about how I've been mistreated by someone and get snappish with my words, giving vent to my anger, that the post gets a lot of hits and feedback. When I write about every day things, being faithful in caring for family or just updates, or what God is teaching me through the Bible, it's usually not noticed that much.
 |
| pic source www.mrmediatraining.com |
I know why this is. It's in our nature to flock to passionate causes, but also in our nature to flock to that which itches our ears, which causes us to feel that satisfaction of wrath against a real or perceived injustice, to even cherish our hatred of one group of people or another. It's in our nature to be hateful. It really is.
God has convicted me of this. It is wrong for me to use online resources for passive-aggressive behavior. It is wrong for me to use online means to give vent to and nourish my bitterness or anger! And whenever I've found myself in the situation of posting something like this, I'm ashamed. I also realize that I posted that thing without praying first, and that I hadn't been in God's Word recently when I did. Instead, I marinated my mind in thoughts written by someone not in a Christ-like frame of mind, or something who denies Christ altogether. Furthermore I realize that what I posted was just my rantings and opinions, usually not researched or in adequate response to something I've thoroughly studied. It is usually and solely an emotional reaction because of my offended pride.
Could it be that the Christian life requires someone to be extra careful with what they post online? I really think so. Could it be that a faithful Christian has a 'boring' online representation of their life? Yes! And I'm ok with that. In the context of contentment in any life situation Paul wrote, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."
This means that I, as someone who loves to blog about my opinions, can through Christ's strength run those opinions through His Word and test to see if they are pleasing to Him before I post them. I can deny myself the emotional satisfaction of "getting back" at someone for hurting me. I can gain the courage to approach that person and talk to them face-to-face if they have hurt me. I regret that I've not done this in the past when I should. I always suffered from guilt or drama because of it. One or more relationships were strained. Most of all, anger and bitterness were allowed to take root and grow and prosper, making their presence in my heart more permanent and dangerous. It actually causes my spirit to die, the part of me that wants to seek and love God with all my heart. It stifles the hunger I've had in the past to know Him, and eradicates the hunger for time in the Word. It makes me friendships with people surfacey and shallow, never talking about the things of the Lord. It makes my view of reality to be shaped by worldly influences rather than the refreshing power of God's revealed words.
Now that I've further realized this I hope to change it by God's grace.
Saturday, August 3, 2013
Thoughts on trying for a VBAC, Part 2
My head is buzzing with questions: another month has passed and so I had another appointment this past week with my going-to-be-former OB. (I decided to switch to a practice that has both midwives and OBs so that I could have more support if I decide to attempt a VBAC.)
At this last appointment with her I was hoping to ask her more questions, but the more questions I asked, the more uncomfortable she seemed to get. When answering my questions, she continually tried to dissuade me from a VBAC by emphasizing the dangers of it and by continually mentioning having a repeat cesarean. She mentioned repeatedly not letting me go past 39 or 40 weeks, which would probably completely eliminate the chances of letting labor come on its own, something a woman attempting a VBAC should definitely do.
She also answered her phone and left the room in the middle of the appointment, and when she returned said (not because of the call) that she had to move on to the next appointment. Further, the more questions I asked, the more she said, "We'll see when you are further along, especially how big the baby is..." and referring to how Carson was 8'12'' (which in my book isn't that big). But I have a lot of questions and would like to set up a goal now before it's too late and I get pressured into having another Csection when I don't feel prepared or informed enough, like last time. I want more information.
I've liked this Dr. for several reasons though. Especially for how she acted at my 13 week appointment when she couldn't find the heartbeat (anterior placenta) and had to have an immediate ultrasound. She was genuinely worried and I could tell by the look on her face, yet she tried to remain calm. That impressed me. Further, she has always asked questions about our lives apart from my pregnancy or female health. She always tried to interact with Carson. In short, she has awesome bedside manner, but as she hinted to at this most recent appointment, there are powers above her that probably limit her ability to oversee a VBAC. In fact, without my mentioning my switch or to whom I was switching, she recommended the very group of midwives with whom I have my next appointment!
In spite of this Dr's unwillingness to openly support my attempt at a VBAC or answer my questions in a fair manner, the pendulum has lately swung back towards having another section. Here's why:
**The risks to baby Samuel for attempting a VBAC are huge in severity but small in number or probability, whereas the risks to Samuel for a repeat Cesarean are small in severity and number, but worse for my body in the future, and possibly future pregnancies.
**Future children/pregnancies have been my whole motivation for even considering a VBAC. But right now I have 2 kids, one in utero and one out. The one in utero (Samuel David) is already here, and I must consider his safety. At this point, I would rather have to have a hysterectomy or other problem that is not life-threatening to me or Samuel than risk Samuel's life in any form. I would rather have some health problem in the future than face the tragic death/loss of brain function because my uterus ruptured because I chose to try to have a vaginal birth. Any tragedy we would face because of a failed VBAC would be my fault directly.
Samuel's life is much more important to me than having a uterus when I go through menopause or being able to impress other moms with my super-birthing powers. Plus, right now having more than two children is only a dream, not a reality. Samuel David Guthrie is a reality and a gift from the Lord. His life is more important than a VBAC or a dream that may or may not become a reality through our biological children.
But I have yet to talk with the midwives (august 19th). I want more information.
Lastly, the consent form that Clark Memorial has you sign has some interesting stuff to say. I don't know if it is from the OB or Midwife perspective. It seems to contain a balance of both, so I thought I'd retype it here. It is thought provoking I think.
Informed Consent for Patients with a Prior Cesarean Birth
1. I understand that I have had one or more prior Cesarean births.
2. I understand that I have the option of undergoing an elective repeat cesarean or attempting a vaginal birth after a cesarean.
3. I understand that approximately 70% of women who undergo a VBAC will successfully deliver vaginally.
4. I understand that the risk of a uterine rupture during a VBAC in someone such as myself, who has had a prior incision in the non-contracting part of my uterus, is around 1%.
(This is what I said above-->) 5. I understand that VBAC is associated with a higher risk of harm to my baby that to me.
6. I understand that VBAC carries a lower risk to me than does a cesarean delivery.
7. (their emphasis) I understand that if my uterus ruptures during my VBAC, there may not be sufficient time to operate and to prevent the death of or permanent brain injury to my baby.
8. I understand that the decision to have VBAC is entirely my own and the option of an elective repeat cesarean has been discussed with me. (This hasn't really been discussed with me as much as I'd like! Because as I said, the Dr. hasn't really answered my questions. ha)
9. I understand that if I deliver vaginally, I most likely will have fewer problems after delivery and shorter hospital stay than if I have a cesarean delivery.
(boo! Don't like this) 10. I understand that during my VBAC, the use of oxytocin (Pitocin) hormone to make my uterus contract may be necessary to assist me in my vaginal delivery and the "risks" of this drug have been thoroughly explained to me.
11. I understand that if I choose a VBAC and end up having a cesarean during labor, I have a greater risk of problems than if I had had an elective repeat cesarean.
12. I have read or have had read to me the above information... etc etc
Sigh. Any thoughts or advice are welcome.
In conclusion, this situation has thrust me into several conflicts: the war between the OB camp and the midwife camp; the conflict between two routes of childbirth, neither of which I want to take; the current issues that divide many moms between two camps of birthing thought; the idea that "the business if being born" (which I have yet to watch btw) is what got me into this mess in the first place... the nagging thought that if I had not trusted only one doctor so implicitly (because of fear), I may not have to make this hard decision at all. I envy my friends who have had 1, 2 or more vaginal births.
Why can't there just be a third way to give birth? That would be adoption ;)
At this last appointment with her I was hoping to ask her more questions, but the more questions I asked, the more uncomfortable she seemed to get. When answering my questions, she continually tried to dissuade me from a VBAC by emphasizing the dangers of it and by continually mentioning having a repeat cesarean. She mentioned repeatedly not letting me go past 39 or 40 weeks, which would probably completely eliminate the chances of letting labor come on its own, something a woman attempting a VBAC should definitely do.
She also answered her phone and left the room in the middle of the appointment, and when she returned said (not because of the call) that she had to move on to the next appointment. Further, the more questions I asked, the more she said, "We'll see when you are further along, especially how big the baby is..." and referring to how Carson was 8'12'' (which in my book isn't that big). But I have a lot of questions and would like to set up a goal now before it's too late and I get pressured into having another Csection when I don't feel prepared or informed enough, like last time. I want more information.
I've liked this Dr. for several reasons though. Especially for how she acted at my 13 week appointment when she couldn't find the heartbeat (anterior placenta) and had to have an immediate ultrasound. She was genuinely worried and I could tell by the look on her face, yet she tried to remain calm. That impressed me. Further, she has always asked questions about our lives apart from my pregnancy or female health. She always tried to interact with Carson. In short, she has awesome bedside manner, but as she hinted to at this most recent appointment, there are powers above her that probably limit her ability to oversee a VBAC. In fact, without my mentioning my switch or to whom I was switching, she recommended the very group of midwives with whom I have my next appointment!
In spite of this Dr's unwillingness to openly support my attempt at a VBAC or answer my questions in a fair manner, the pendulum has lately swung back towards having another section. Here's why:
**The risks to baby Samuel for attempting a VBAC are huge in severity but small in number or probability, whereas the risks to Samuel for a repeat Cesarean are small in severity and number, but worse for my body in the future, and possibly future pregnancies.
**Future children/pregnancies have been my whole motivation for even considering a VBAC. But right now I have 2 kids, one in utero and one out. The one in utero (Samuel David) is already here, and I must consider his safety. At this point, I would rather have to have a hysterectomy or other problem that is not life-threatening to me or Samuel than risk Samuel's life in any form. I would rather have some health problem in the future than face the tragic death/loss of brain function because my uterus ruptured because I chose to try to have a vaginal birth. Any tragedy we would face because of a failed VBAC would be my fault directly.
Samuel's life is much more important to me than having a uterus when I go through menopause or being able to impress other moms with my super-birthing powers. Plus, right now having more than two children is only a dream, not a reality. Samuel David Guthrie is a reality and a gift from the Lord. His life is more important than a VBAC or a dream that may or may not become a reality through our biological children.
But I have yet to talk with the midwives (august 19th). I want more information.
Lastly, the consent form that Clark Memorial has you sign has some interesting stuff to say. I don't know if it is from the OB or Midwife perspective. It seems to contain a balance of both, so I thought I'd retype it here. It is thought provoking I think.
Informed Consent for Patients with a Prior Cesarean Birth
1. I understand that I have had one or more prior Cesarean births.
2. I understand that I have the option of undergoing an elective repeat cesarean or attempting a vaginal birth after a cesarean.
3. I understand that approximately 70% of women who undergo a VBAC will successfully deliver vaginally.
4. I understand that the risk of a uterine rupture during a VBAC in someone such as myself, who has had a prior incision in the non-contracting part of my uterus, is around 1%.
(This is what I said above-->) 5. I understand that VBAC is associated with a higher risk of harm to my baby that to me.
6. I understand that VBAC carries a lower risk to me than does a cesarean delivery.
7. (their emphasis) I understand that if my uterus ruptures during my VBAC, there may not be sufficient time to operate and to prevent the death of or permanent brain injury to my baby.
8. I understand that the decision to have VBAC is entirely my own and the option of an elective repeat cesarean has been discussed with me. (This hasn't really been discussed with me as much as I'd like! Because as I said, the Dr. hasn't really answered my questions. ha)
9. I understand that if I deliver vaginally, I most likely will have fewer problems after delivery and shorter hospital stay than if I have a cesarean delivery.
(boo! Don't like this) 10. I understand that during my VBAC, the use of oxytocin (Pitocin) hormone to make my uterus contract may be necessary to assist me in my vaginal delivery and the "risks" of this drug have been thoroughly explained to me.
11. I understand that if I choose a VBAC and end up having a cesarean during labor, I have a greater risk of problems than if I had had an elective repeat cesarean.
12. I have read or have had read to me the above information... etc etc
Sigh. Any thoughts or advice are welcome.
In conclusion, this situation has thrust me into several conflicts: the war between the OB camp and the midwife camp; the conflict between two routes of childbirth, neither of which I want to take; the current issues that divide many moms between two camps of birthing thought; the idea that "the business if being born" (which I have yet to watch btw) is what got me into this mess in the first place... the nagging thought that if I had not trusted only one doctor so implicitly (because of fear), I may not have to make this hard decision at all. I envy my friends who have had 1, 2 or more vaginal births.
Why can't there just be a third way to give birth? That would be adoption ;)
Monday, July 15, 2013
Thoughts on trying for a VBAC
I'm almost halfway through this pregnancy with our second child, so what to do when it's time for him/her to arrive has been on my mind more lately! I have two options: a scheduled C-section at 39 weeks (around December 10), or trying for a VBAC. The new OB I had been seeing at JFW had had a month to look at my op report to make sure I had the lowest-risk incision to try for a VBAC, so at my last appointment with her 5 days ago I asked her about it. She said I was in the clear and had the best incision, which she said most Doctors do today anyway (low transverse).
But she also told me that there was a 5 to 10% chance of something going wrong, and when it goes wrong it is almost impossible to save the baby. She also said that there is a greater chance of stillbirth when a woman goes past 41 weeks. Now, the percentage above is enough to dissuade me from thinking of a VBAC. The OB gave me two pamphlets published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists, one on Caesarean Birth and one on VBAC.
Within the next couple days I read through the pamphlets and found that both pamphlets had a much more of a favorable description of a VBAC than my OB had given. The VBAC pamphlet said that the most serious risk of a uterine rupture is less that 1% with the kind of incision I have. Another source said it is a .47% chance! Further, other than saying there is a 60-80% success rate of TOLAC (trial of labor after Cesarean), the only other figure mentioned was the one I just said - the very low and rare risk of uterine rupture. No mention of this 5-10% chance of baby dying. Hhhhmmmmmmmm.....
Yet I was no longer ruling it out for one MAJOR reason: Lord willing, we want to have at least one or two more kids, possibly more, after this 2nd one! The pamphlet warned that if a woman wants to have more kids, having another Caesarean birth is not the best for her. The VBAC pamphlet says, "For women planning to have more children, VBAC may help them avoid problems linked to multiple cesarean deliveries. These problems include hysterectomy, bowel or bladder injury, and certain problems with the placenta." The Cesarean Birth Pamphlet warns, "... the more cesarean births a woman has, the greater her risk for some medical problems and problems with future pregnancies. This may not be a good option for women who want to have more children." That last quote from the pamphlet all about Cesarean births is what finally got me. I knew at this point that the best thing would be to try for a VBAC and I sought out more advice. My friend Becca put me in touch with a doula (me talking to a doula is an occurrence I honestly didn't see coming) and I got more information from her as well.
I won't try to have a VBAC just to climb Mt Everest, prove how awesome I am, what a great Mom I am (I'm not, fyi). I'm not militantly granola and I find that kind of mindset cultish, narrow-minded, judgmental, legalistic and burdensome. Just to be brutally honest. (I don't feel like I have any close friends who fall into that category, those of you reading this. lol. I get this from the things I read online.)
We are all told that childbirth is a natural process and that nothing usually goes wrong, that we don't need all this "medical intervention". But from the standpoint of our Creator, "natural" is a slippery word. Before the fall, yes, birth was easily "all-natural" and probably a lot less painful and didn't result in death. But now sin and it's result, death, is at work all over the world and has effected our bodies. Childbirth is no longer easy as it was originally created. Women used to write goodbye letters to their husbands before going in labor, so many women would die in childbirth before this age of medical advancement! And the fact remains that my labor did not progress with Carson, and if this happens again I will have to have a C-section. It may never be known if my labor would have progressed after the 8 hours I was in it with Carson, but I'd like to find out this time for the sake of my and my future children's health! So that I feel like David and I can have as many kids as the Lord allows without taking some major risks.
I will have a thousand questions for the nurse practitioner when I meet with her in early August. I've had a few questions buzzing around my head concerning the Dr. that delivered Carson. My mom's labor with me was long because I was her first. But after they broke my water, Carson only had 8 hours to get out before I had a C-section. What if the Dr. had let me labor through the night to see what would've happened? His vitals were fine. I had only gone from 2 to 4 cm, and most of that was earlier in the day. It had probably been 5 or so hours with no progress, still at 4 cm. By 6 PM I had the Dr (via speakerphone... ugh!), David, and David's mom standing around my hospital bed, waiting for me to say whether or not I was going to have a C-section after having been persuaded by the Dr. that I should. David's mom didn't say a word, but David was convinced by the Doctor. I was very drugged, physically and emotionally drained, and frightened! As was David. I felt relief when I decided to have a C-section. The experience itself was not so bad, nor was the recovery process.
My regrets with this are that,
1) I had been induced into labor with Carson instead of letting it come on its own. It seemed to me that labor coming in its own is much better. Or at least waiting to induce a little longer. I wonder if the labor with Carson was so slow because my body was not on board, and also slightly malnourished.
2) I opened myself up to having a C-section as early as my 38 week appointment when the Dr gave me the doom and gloom speech about shoulder dystocia, or even as early as the first appointment when I told the Dr comically that I'm not all about natural childbirth, meaning without pain meds.
3) That I allowed the time crunch before Christmas, and my Dr's personal schedule, to pressure me into inducing. I could've easily had another Dr deliver Carson if she was busy. But I was too unsure of what birth was like and was scared of the whole process. (I've always been scared of health events honestly. Especially barfing. Don't get me started on my honeymoon! lol)
Like my mom said to me the other day, C-sections are sometimes medically necessary and thank God for that! But I'm unsure whether mine was. In fact, I highly doubt it was.
But she also told me that there was a 5 to 10% chance of something going wrong, and when it goes wrong it is almost impossible to save the baby. She also said that there is a greater chance of stillbirth when a woman goes past 41 weeks. Now, the percentage above is enough to dissuade me from thinking of a VBAC. The OB gave me two pamphlets published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists, one on Caesarean Birth and one on VBAC.
Within the next couple days I read through the pamphlets and found that both pamphlets had a much more of a favorable description of a VBAC than my OB had given. The VBAC pamphlet said that the most serious risk of a uterine rupture is less that 1% with the kind of incision I have. Another source said it is a .47% chance! Further, other than saying there is a 60-80% success rate of TOLAC (trial of labor after Cesarean), the only other figure mentioned was the one I just said - the very low and rare risk of uterine rupture. No mention of this 5-10% chance of baby dying. Hhhhmmmmmmmm.....
Yet I was no longer ruling it out for one MAJOR reason: Lord willing, we want to have at least one or two more kids, possibly more, after this 2nd one! The pamphlet warned that if a woman wants to have more kids, having another Caesarean birth is not the best for her. The VBAC pamphlet says, "For women planning to have more children, VBAC may help them avoid problems linked to multiple cesarean deliveries. These problems include hysterectomy, bowel or bladder injury, and certain problems with the placenta." The Cesarean Birth Pamphlet warns, "... the more cesarean births a woman has, the greater her risk for some medical problems and problems with future pregnancies. This may not be a good option for women who want to have more children." That last quote from the pamphlet all about Cesarean births is what finally got me. I knew at this point that the best thing would be to try for a VBAC and I sought out more advice. My friend Becca put me in touch with a doula (me talking to a doula is an occurrence I honestly didn't see coming) and I got more information from her as well.
I won't try to have a VBAC just to climb Mt Everest, prove how awesome I am, what a great Mom I am (I'm not, fyi). I'm not militantly granola and I find that kind of mindset cultish, narrow-minded, judgmental, legalistic and burdensome. Just to be brutally honest. (I don't feel like I have any close friends who fall into that category, those of you reading this. lol. I get this from the things I read online.)
We are all told that childbirth is a natural process and that nothing usually goes wrong, that we don't need all this "medical intervention". But from the standpoint of our Creator, "natural" is a slippery word. Before the fall, yes, birth was easily "all-natural" and probably a lot less painful and didn't result in death. But now sin and it's result, death, is at work all over the world and has effected our bodies. Childbirth is no longer easy as it was originally created. Women used to write goodbye letters to their husbands before going in labor, so many women would die in childbirth before this age of medical advancement! And the fact remains that my labor did not progress with Carson, and if this happens again I will have to have a C-section. It may never be known if my labor would have progressed after the 8 hours I was in it with Carson, but I'd like to find out this time for the sake of my and my future children's health! So that I feel like David and I can have as many kids as the Lord allows without taking some major risks.
I will have a thousand questions for the nurse practitioner when I meet with her in early August. I've had a few questions buzzing around my head concerning the Dr. that delivered Carson. My mom's labor with me was long because I was her first. But after they broke my water, Carson only had 8 hours to get out before I had a C-section. What if the Dr. had let me labor through the night to see what would've happened? His vitals were fine. I had only gone from 2 to 4 cm, and most of that was earlier in the day. It had probably been 5 or so hours with no progress, still at 4 cm. By 6 PM I had the Dr (via speakerphone... ugh!), David, and David's mom standing around my hospital bed, waiting for me to say whether or not I was going to have a C-section after having been persuaded by the Dr. that I should. David's mom didn't say a word, but David was convinced by the Doctor. I was very drugged, physically and emotionally drained, and frightened! As was David. I felt relief when I decided to have a C-section. The experience itself was not so bad, nor was the recovery process.
My regrets with this are that,
1) I had been induced into labor with Carson instead of letting it come on its own. It seemed to me that labor coming in its own is much better. Or at least waiting to induce a little longer. I wonder if the labor with Carson was so slow because my body was not on board, and also slightly malnourished.
2) I opened myself up to having a C-section as early as my 38 week appointment when the Dr gave me the doom and gloom speech about shoulder dystocia, or even as early as the first appointment when I told the Dr comically that I'm not all about natural childbirth, meaning without pain meds.
3) That I allowed the time crunch before Christmas, and my Dr's personal schedule, to pressure me into inducing. I could've easily had another Dr deliver Carson if she was busy. But I was too unsure of what birth was like and was scared of the whole process. (I've always been scared of health events honestly. Especially barfing. Don't get me started on my honeymoon! lol)
Like my mom said to me the other day, C-sections are sometimes medically necessary and thank God for that! But I'm unsure whether mine was. In fact, I highly doubt it was.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Why Christians need to be cautious with Rachel Held Evans' writings
This lady has gotten attention; for her skepticism, embrace of doubt, for questioning everything about traditional American evangelicalism. Bible interpretation, women's roles, especially the word "biblical", homosexuality, gay marriage and other sexual issues are all areas that she has a voice in.
She strikes a chord with those jaded by evangelicalism. Or the cynics. Or people who have doubts that they just can't conquer. She also strikes a chord with people who are or have been part of a typical evangelical subculture or church, but who do not have the family structure that is usually desired: marriage and/or children.
These issues and viewpoints are personal and, I'm guessing, painful. They definitely cause a lot of friction. Thus when I write this I have absolutely no intention of causing more hurt. I also realize that writing as one with the desired familial structure I may not be well received.
Can the reader set aside any bias against me? I hope so. I'm simply writing as a Christian to anyone who is curious enough to know my two cents.
I've been observing Rachel Held Evans from a distance for two or three years now; reading her stuff, reviews of her stuff, articles about her or by her, etc. She's smart. I love her writing style. I resonate with many of her concerns about American evangelicalism. I too struggle with church.
But there are some things about her trains of thought, her presuppositions, her hermeneutic, her views of authority, that I think can lead to some serious betrayals of orthodox Christianity. Not evangelicalism, but Christianity. Stuff that transcends the littler issues that divided denominations or elected presidents. I'm talking core stuff.
Before I go any further, I want to say that Evans is so good with words and thoughts that I'm sure she would easily refute what I have to say. In fact, it's as if the trap has been laid, and I'll probably step right into it, for refuting anything she writes only confirms what she writes about stereotypical evangelicals. Inherent in her style is an argument that is almost impossible to refute, for she speaks out of both sides of her mouth when using her postmodern hermeneutic on God's word and world.
Nonetheless I'll say what I feel led to say:
We should fear to flout what God says in his word. We should fear his judgement for tampering with a Christian's one reliable source of eternal truth. We should also fear that we are trampling on the blood of Christ poured out for us, going back on what we had received; adoption into God's family, wholly undeserved; the inheritance of God's kingdom; the sure promises of God; an essential place to serve in the body of Christ; the gospel of peace on our feet, powerful to save and free to all; the child-like trust in God alone for reconciliation with him! We cannot throw these eternal benefits away to have our ears itched, our doubts confirmed and to feel better about not fitting a temporal man-made mold of the nuclear family! What do we get if we gain the whole world and yet lose our souls?
Dear friends, if you are a fan of RHE I make no claim to know where your heart or hers is when it comes to the Christian faith. I'm only saying what I see in what she writes. I think one should be very cautious to lock themselves into a way of thinking proselytized by a person whose fame has flourished on a platform of creating a vacuum of belief, of denying old ways, and pulling out and tossing aside foundation stones.
I also don't think that questioning things is wrong. The right or wrong is in the answer you settle on. And the standard of right and wrong belongs to God, not people.
Lastly I think this all just boils down to who you put your faith in and how you perceive the role of postmodern thought in biblical interpretation or the illumination of Scripture. If red flags don't come up in your mind when someone makes weighty claims that question millenia-old teachings of Christianity, then I fear for you.
She strikes a chord with those jaded by evangelicalism. Or the cynics. Or people who have doubts that they just can't conquer. She also strikes a chord with people who are or have been part of a typical evangelical subculture or church, but who do not have the family structure that is usually desired: marriage and/or children.
These issues and viewpoints are personal and, I'm guessing, painful. They definitely cause a lot of friction. Thus when I write this I have absolutely no intention of causing more hurt. I also realize that writing as one with the desired familial structure I may not be well received.
Can the reader set aside any bias against me? I hope so. I'm simply writing as a Christian to anyone who is curious enough to know my two cents.
I've been observing Rachel Held Evans from a distance for two or three years now; reading her stuff, reviews of her stuff, articles about her or by her, etc. She's smart. I love her writing style. I resonate with many of her concerns about American evangelicalism. I too struggle with church.
But there are some things about her trains of thought, her presuppositions, her hermeneutic, her views of authority, that I think can lead to some serious betrayals of orthodox Christianity. Not evangelicalism, but Christianity. Stuff that transcends the littler issues that divided denominations or elected presidents. I'm talking core stuff.
Before I go any further, I want to say that Evans is so good with words and thoughts that I'm sure she would easily refute what I have to say. In fact, it's as if the trap has been laid, and I'll probably step right into it, for refuting anything she writes only confirms what she writes about stereotypical evangelicals. Inherent in her style is an argument that is almost impossible to refute, for she speaks out of both sides of her mouth when using her postmodern hermeneutic on God's word and world.
Nonetheless I'll say what I feel led to say:
Following her train of thought will lead a Christian down a path that forsakes the inerrancy, authority and sufficiency of Scripture. On this train also rides those who don't truly believe, deep down, that the Holy Spirit is working in evangelical churches, which are part of Christ's body, today. In her view, it seems as if most (or all) authority in America's church is really a fabricated, man-made, and hopelessly corrupt system. Therefore we can't trust these pastors or church leaders, we can only trust ourselves.
The subtle denial of Scripture's inspiration and its implications, embracing and nurturing doubts of Scripture's authority, and lowering the Bible to the status of just another classic novel or good moral book is an age-old practice. What I see that may be new with Evans is that she blurs the line between higher and lower textual criticism, but at the core embraces a higher criticism and doesn't view Scripture as authoritative. This leaves one with a powerless social gospel, devoid of the Holy Spirit and the power of regeneration and sanctification and glorification. Jesus didn't die and physically raise from the dead in order to save us from the penalty of our sins; He just physically rose and we don't know what for.
But I see that God's Spirit is working. Yes, even in silly ol' 'Murica. And a vast majority of the Scriptures are really easy to understand and are much harder to twist than people say it is. In fact, the Bible through and through has some pretty nasty things to say to those who choose to reject God's word. It has some doubly nasty foretellings for those who lead God's children away from the gospel as well. There actually are God-given categories of thought for fear and trembling, and for God's authoritative judgment. He is our Creator.
The subtle denial of Scripture's inspiration and its implications, embracing and nurturing doubts of Scripture's authority, and lowering the Bible to the status of just another classic novel or good moral book is an age-old practice. What I see that may be new with Evans is that she blurs the line between higher and lower textual criticism, but at the core embraces a higher criticism and doesn't view Scripture as authoritative. This leaves one with a powerless social gospel, devoid of the Holy Spirit and the power of regeneration and sanctification and glorification. Jesus didn't die and physically raise from the dead in order to save us from the penalty of our sins; He just physically rose and we don't know what for.
But I see that God's Spirit is working. Yes, even in silly ol' 'Murica. And a vast majority of the Scriptures are really easy to understand and are much harder to twist than people say it is. In fact, the Bible through and through has some pretty nasty things to say to those who choose to reject God's word. It has some doubly nasty foretellings for those who lead God's children away from the gospel as well. There actually are God-given categories of thought for fear and trembling, and for God's authoritative judgment. He is our Creator.
We should fear to flout what God says in his word. We should fear his judgement for tampering with a Christian's one reliable source of eternal truth. We should also fear that we are trampling on the blood of Christ poured out for us, going back on what we had received; adoption into God's family, wholly undeserved; the inheritance of God's kingdom; the sure promises of God; an essential place to serve in the body of Christ; the gospel of peace on our feet, powerful to save and free to all; the child-like trust in God alone for reconciliation with him! We cannot throw these eternal benefits away to have our ears itched, our doubts confirmed and to feel better about not fitting a temporal man-made mold of the nuclear family! What do we get if we gain the whole world and yet lose our souls?
Dear friends, if you are a fan of RHE I make no claim to know where your heart or hers is when it comes to the Christian faith. I'm only saying what I see in what she writes. I think one should be very cautious to lock themselves into a way of thinking proselytized by a person whose fame has flourished on a platform of creating a vacuum of belief, of denying old ways, and pulling out and tossing aside foundation stones.
I also don't think that questioning things is wrong. The right or wrong is in the answer you settle on. And the standard of right and wrong belongs to God, not people.
Lastly I think this all just boils down to who you put your faith in and how you perceive the role of postmodern thought in biblical interpretation or the illumination of Scripture. If red flags don't come up in your mind when someone makes weighty claims that question millenia-old teachings of Christianity, then I fear for you.
"How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same."
The Lord your God will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess. But when you have driven them out and settled in their land, and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same.” You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. (Deuteronomy 12:29-31 NIV)
I don't know about you, but I can see a lot of similarities between the wandering and/or exiled Israelites and us Christians today. We never belong or fit in with this world or culture. The world may even hate us as it hated Jesus and killed him on his day a couple millennia ago.
The culture wars of this week are a powerful reminder of this fact for me. Our core beliefs found in Scripture are of God, our Creator and Designer, and our call to submit to Him our entire beings! Also, that God our Creator and Savior desires our sanctification from the many forms of sexual immorality that we are tempted to! (1 Thess. 4)
In my reading today in Deuteronomy the above passage stuck out to me because I think it reveals the true motives of many Christians who compromise God's desires for family and sexuality so that they can worship our culture's idols the same way that they do.
As God's people it's a shameful thing that we look to our culture for cues on how to live and what it means to be a 'good person'. Lots of TV shows that I watch will have these 'good people' sleeping around and/or with someone they aren't married to, breaking vows and promises, lashing out in anger, withholding forgiveness, nursing grudges, abusing drugs and alcohol, wasting thousands of dollars on shopping sprees... All in the name of being a 'victim' and still a 'good person'. And then we go do the same!
Part of our call to renew our minds (Romans 12) is to forsake our culture's categories of what is good and beautiful, especially when it goes against God's word. Let's be aware of when and how we seek examples from non-believing individuals, wondering how they treat their family or spend their money.
This passage of Moses' preaching to the people of Israel was such a powerful reminder to me this morning! There is no requirement to imitate everything about our culture, even in the midst of this culture war. It's a sign of making ourselves vulnerable to the wrong person if we do! So I'll go to God with my weakness and my questions.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Butterfield's book, homosexuality, etc.
I haven't written in a while! I think it's been 11 days, which is a record. I'm sure the internet missed another person's opinions.... anyway...
I've been taking this time to let Rosaria Champagne Butterfield's testimonial book just sink into my soul. Like I said, I'm in the process of reading 3 different books giving autobiographical testimony of conversions, all of which come from some sort of sexual brokenness. This is in an effort to understand where people come from to Christ, and how better to relate to them, befriend them and love them.
And Carson starts fussing now... this is the other reason why writing blog posts is hard! Having a crazy, adventurous toddler! That being said, I don't really have time to write any kind of comprehensive review of her book. I'm glad that's not my job. So I want to write about how her book changed my life!
Rosaria went from being a feminist, lesbian English professor studying Queer Theory in New York to being now a wife, pastor's wife and adoptive parent. She describes her conversion as a trainwreck, traumatizing and just really hard! She says that as she read through the Bible to refute it, and met with her new friend, a Reformed Presbyterian minister, the Word of God got bigger in her than herself. She had a lot of ups and downs along the way, but I'll save those for your own reading.
Two things powerfully struck my in the beginning of reading this book. 1) Her critiques of American evangelicals, and 2) the role of pastor Ken Smith as a friend and advocate in her search through the Bible (before she left her lesbian lifestyle).
1) When I first read her critiques of evangelicals I was offended. I felt my face get hot as I read it. I didn't like reading all the things that people like me are doing wrong toward the gay community. I knew she was right though! When I read through this part of the book a second time, having read the story of her conversion, it was easier to read.
Examples:
"Here is one of the deepest way Christians scared me: the lesbian community was home and home felt safe and secure; the people that I knew the best and cared about were in that community; and finally, the lesbian community was accepting and welcoming while the Christian community appeared (and too often is) exclusive, judgmental, scornful and afraid of diversity..." pg 5 (italics mine).
"[Christians] appeared to use the Bible... in order to bring the Bible into a conversation to stop the conversation, not deepen it" pg 4.
"I'm grateful that the Lord brought me to a church that was as strong on teaching as it is on compassion... My lesbian friends had to learn that not all Christians are bigots. My Christian friends had to learn that Christians have a lot to learn from gay and lesbian folks about mercy work... I didn't know how to bridge the two groups..." pgs 23-24.
Here is a long one, but this one powerfully struck me:
"Shortly after becoming a Christian, I counseled a woman who was in a closeted lesbian relationship and a member of a Bible-believing church. No one in her church knew. Therefore, no one in her church was praying for her. Therefore, she sought and received no counsel. There was no "bearing one with the other" for her. No confession. No repentance. No healing. No joy in Christ. Just isolation. And shame. And pretense. Someone had sold her the pack of lies that said that God can heal your lying tongue or your broken heart, even cure your cancer if he chooses, but he can't transform your sexuality... She said: 'Rosaria, if people in my church really believed that gay people could be transformed by Christ, they wouldn't talk about us and pray about us in the hateful way that they do.'
"Christian reader, is this what people say about you when they hear you talk and pray? Do your prayers rise no higher than your prejudice?
"I think that churches would be places of greater intimacy and growth in Christ if people stopped lying about what we need, what we fear, where we fail, and how we sin... And I suspect that instead of seeking counsel and direction from those stronger in the Lord, we retreat into our isolation and shame and let the sin wash over us, defeating us again" pg. 25.
Wow.
2) The friendship that this Reformed Presbyterian minister and his wife, Ken and Floy, formed with this nonChristian, Christian-hating lesbian activist was truly loving and authentic. And to be loving and authentic he did not have to approve of the homosexual lifestyle. But he did have to go against what most Christians do today, which is to separate themselves from close friendship with anyone in the LGBT community.
There were some notable components of their friendship... the fact that he didn't just invite her to church and quote a ton of Scriptures at her, that they didn't treat her like a project, scapegoat, blank slate for them to write on, or example of warning to Christians. He didn't humiliate her. He didn't just talk about sexual issues all the time. It seems like to me they talked mostly about the Bible and Jesus and Christianity. Mainly because she was writing something against the Christian Right and needed to study the Smiths.
She says,
"Before I ever set foot in a church, I spent two years meeting with Ken and Floy and on and off "studying" scripture and my heart. If Ken and Floy had invited me to church at that first meal I would have careened like a skateboard on a cliff, and would have never come back. Ken, of course, knows the power of the word preached but it seemed to me he also knew at that time that I couldn't come to church - it would have been too threatening, too weird, too much. So, Ken was willing to bring the church to me. This gave me the room and the safety that I need to match Ken and Floy's vulnerability and transparency. And so I opened up to them. I let them know who I was and what I valued. I invited them into my home and into my world. They met my friends, came to my dinner parties, saw me function in my real life. They made themselves safe enough for me to do this" pgs 11-12.
After I read the whole book, one big theme concerning sin and repentance struck me: the true cost of the Christian life in denying oneself and taking up one's cross. In Rosaria's life this can be summed in this sentence: "One doesn't repent for a sin of identity in one session" pg 23.
We all have to repent of our identities and give our whole selves to Him. We all are depraved and lost without him. And as Christians we should see ourselves on an equal plain with the rest of the condemned, non-believing world, were it not for Christ in us.
I came away from this book wanting to make more non-believing friends and friends from the gay community. I hate that they have a hard time and many times don't have anyone to share the truth about Christ's love and sacrifice to them.
I know that Rosaria's case is unique - she sought out this pastor after receiving a letter in response to an article she wrote. He sought her out too, but she had to initiate. She had to study the bible for herself, and she did so because of her academic goals, not because the pastor told her to. Ultimately, it was God who saved Rosaria. He only used the Smiths for a time. I pray that more Christians can do that, especially with what's going on in the U.S. today. I think next week there is some legislation on gay marriage that's getting voted on. Instead of hating the gay community and seeing them as the enemy, we should remember that our battle is not with flesh and blood, but evil spirits and Satan himself.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Profound quote on Christian persuasiveness
This morning I was reading a blog by Peter Leithart reporting on a debate between Douglas Wilson and Paul Sullivan on gay marriage. We Christians pretty much 'lose' all debates in this arena. And concerning that the author writes,
"In the end, these dilemmas may not matter. Perhaps Christians are called to do no more than speak the truth without worrying about persuasiveness. Perhaps we have entered a phase in which God has closed ears, so that whatever we say sounds like so much gibberish. We can depend on the Spirit to give ears as He pleases."
True that.
"In the end, these dilemmas may not matter. Perhaps Christians are called to do no more than speak the truth without worrying about persuasiveness. Perhaps we have entered a phase in which God has closed ears, so that whatever we say sounds like so much gibberish. We can depend on the Spirit to give ears as He pleases."
True that.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
On being an everyday apologist
I am continually surprised and at the same time discouraged by how many people who have called themselves Christians in the past are doing things against... let's call it, 'traditions'. I don't mean this self-righteously. I'm tempted to do the same things they now do, but the grace of God sustains me. I don't really talk to any of these people anymore.
But I make war on the doubts that creep up in my mind. I'm troubled. I'm burdened. I'm struggling. But I'm not defeated because of God in me. Over the years, even in Bible college, I've been through serious doubts about God and about Christ and about the Bible. But in the bloody pits of these battles I call out to God and He sustains me. Sometimes I don't even call out to God, and ignore Him; yet still, he speaks to me. He reveals himself to me. He shows his love to me.
I don't know if these people who fell away did that, or what kind of pain they have been through, or anything. I don't really know them, I just see and hear about what they do. And I read about the kinds of thoughts and philosophies that lead to a denial of our faith and a free license to do whatever they want without fear of God.
But nothing strengthens faith like discouragement, opposition or persecution. I turn over in my mind the claims of those against my faith. And I'd like to write more about what goes in on my brain here.
My hesitation has always been the crap that people will throw at me, or the kinds of things they will say behind my back. Or to my face, since the internet makes people more rude and bold at times.
But if I am staying true to my conscience, to what I feel God's Spirit leading me to do, and if I am doing nothing against the plain word of God, then I have nothing to be ashamed over. It's not shameful to be passionate about what's good. And if my passion for what's good makes someone feel guilty for being passionate about bad things, but they cover up their guilt with anger and hate and snappy remarks, I'm told that I'm blessed in receiving that. But am I throwing the proverbial pearls before the proverbial swine?
So maybe I'll go out of my comfort zone a bit. I'll start blogging about being an 'everyday apologist', with a Bible in one hand and a baby in the other. As I'm washing dishes and thinking, or as I'm watching Carson play and thinking, ... maybe I'll write some of those thoughts here. Maybe not.
Let me make one thing clear: I have no reason to hold myself above anyone who lives differently than me. I am just 'one beggar telling another beggar where to get bread.'
If I sound self-righteous to any of you, you have misunderstood me and I'm sorry. I work all day every day at setting aside my pride and checking my motives. I've almost gone insane over it, but for the assurance of God's acceptance of me by Christ.
Just remember this: I have the right to type these things, and so far, the American government has not restricted that right. I thank God for that and pray He uses me for His glory.
His glory is the only worthy reason to writing about defending the orthodox Christian faith.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Downton Abbey Season 3 (revised post)
Oh. my. word.
I just finished Downton Abbey season three, because my mom, who has a special membership with PBS, got me the DVDs for Christmas. So of course I finished the season within 2 days! (I was also sick, so I had time to lay around ;) )
Since I don't want to spoil it for my friends, I will use words to describe how I feel.
UGH. Frustrated. Shocked.
None of those above words are shocking because, well, it's Downton Abbey. They always want to shock. :P
A TV show is a TV show, and I was thankful to see a real life sunset tonight, knowing that real life is much different than Downton Abbey.
I will say, they have changed some of the characters' personalities. They have an agenda to communicate, so they made Carson and Lord Grantham more intolerant and bigoted to prove their point. People love having bigots to scowl upon, because it always makes someone feel good to have someone else to look down on!
But both Carson and Lord Grantham, from the beginning of Downton, were kind, sweet and fatherly. Now they are harsh and cold-hearted, at least much of the screen time. Suddenly upholding even the most minute of traditions is more important that kindness. This was not the case at first. I hate that they sacrificed the fatherly figures of the show just to make a social point. And it doesn't make the point for me, sorry! It only muddles social issues and makes them more messy.
However, that change is the only thing I didn't like about the season! I love how redemptive the show is as a whole. Each character goes through a kind of personal redemption (without naming Christ of course). The most inspiring redemptive story for me was Mary's story through seasons 1 and 2.
And when it comes to tolerance, I will say that they made a great point about it when Thomas makes a new friend (not 'lover') at the end of Season 3. Bravo for that. It makes a point that all evangelicals I think mean at heart: that though we disagree with any immoral actions, showing general kindness to others is one way we desire show Christ's love. Yes, Christ's love has a tough side. A very tough side. But He's God and we're not. :)
Monday, January 14, 2013
My encounter with the nasty passage of Genesis 34
For years now I have really loved the book of Genesis. I love the narrative, the snapshots into ancient culture and customs, and how God revealed himself so plainly...
But today I hit a bump in the road. It's been over 8 years since I've really studied this, and since then I've usually swerved around this bump in the road, but there is a time to face your doubt head-on and deal with it! Gen. 34 is just nasty. The whole situation and every player in it is just nasty. The nastiest thing is what Jacob's two sons did. Cruel, heartless, mass-killing!
And the voice in my head, a voice I am convinced was nurtured by all the anti-belief trends I marinated in while growing up in the Seattle area, the voice that dominated my being until I met Christ at 14... this voice questioned, "What kind of 'good' faith would have patriarchs like these? " or, "How can the Bible be God's Word with such horrific acts?" or, "How can God approve of this?"
These questions have heavy presumptions. The core presumption being that everything set forth in biblical narratives, including the choices of key people, is (or should be) approved by God and is considered holy even today. That patriarchs were perfect, holy people and should be our example.
Psh!
This is why it's important to get education in the Bible. This is why it's important for pastors to explain the whole Scriptures to their congregants. I'm so blessed to have gone to one of the best Bible colleges around, Moody Bible Institute. But again, I hadn't gone in-depth into a study of Genesis for 8 years now!
Luckily we still have our textbooks, plus more from David's seminary classes. I'd been reading a few things on Genesis (like commentaries and Bible encyclopedias) but the best thing I read on this has been James Montgomery Boice's commentary Genesis: An Expositional Commentary, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.)
Boice's chapter (117) on Genesis 34 is entitled, "A Shameful Incident". The first thing he points out is that many influential commentators have not dealt with the passage, by either skipping it completely, telling readers to figure it out on their own, or sometimes even telling pastors there is no valuable lesson to preach from the passage (p. 829). Boice insists that there is, especially in the area of how not to live!
But the main encounter I want to focus on with Gen. 34 is bibliology (doctrine of the Bible) and even the inerrancy of Scripture, not so much the Christian life. The latter is a cake walk in this case...
Anyhoo, Boice says,
That's the point of the passage! We should be horrified by what we read. It was wrong.
Moreover this passage touches on the roots of the Good News: Man cannot save himself. All other religions/spiritualities involve man reaching out to the divine somehow, but Christianity is God reaching down to man. The Good News is that all have sinned, that the wages of sin is death, and that the gift of eternal life is for all who believe in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation, not their own imperfect and perpetually tainted good works. (Romans 3:23, 6:23-24, Ephesians 2:8-9, Ephesians 1)
Look at this pretty graph I made!
Even before Christ, God told the Israelites that he chose them not because they were better than all the other nations around them, but because of his own goodness and sovereign plan (>>>Deuteronomy 7:6-9). And it is clear that regardless of all the stupid things God's people have ever done (like the Crusades, etc) God will still work out His plan. People will still believe in Jesus Christ.
God's love is relentless. There's nothing we can do to stop Christ from doing his work on earth. People saying that Judaism or Christianity is false or the Bible is false can't stop it either. And pointing out Gen 34 as a reason to reject God is only an excuse masking deeper, tougher issues.
Of course God hates what Simeon and Levi did. Their shame is our warning and our reminder that we are all capable of such evils, and such evils are in all our natures, and that God is the only one who can save us from ourselves and from His wrath against evil.
But today I hit a bump in the road. It's been over 8 years since I've really studied this, and since then I've usually swerved around this bump in the road, but there is a time to face your doubt head-on and deal with it! Gen. 34 is just nasty. The whole situation and every player in it is just nasty. The nastiest thing is what Jacob's two sons did. Cruel, heartless, mass-killing!
And the voice in my head, a voice I am convinced was nurtured by all the anti-belief trends I marinated in while growing up in the Seattle area, the voice that dominated my being until I met Christ at 14... this voice questioned, "What kind of 'good' faith would have patriarchs like these? " or, "How can the Bible be God's Word with such horrific acts?" or, "How can God approve of this?"
These questions have heavy presumptions. The core presumption being that everything set forth in biblical narratives, including the choices of key people, is (or should be) approved by God and is considered holy even today. That patriarchs were perfect, holy people and should be our example.
Psh!
This is why it's important to get education in the Bible. This is why it's important for pastors to explain the whole Scriptures to their congregants. I'm so blessed to have gone to one of the best Bible colleges around, Moody Bible Institute. But again, I hadn't gone in-depth into a study of Genesis for 8 years now!
Luckily we still have our textbooks, plus more from David's seminary classes. I'd been reading a few things on Genesis (like commentaries and Bible encyclopedias) but the best thing I read on this has been James Montgomery Boice's commentary Genesis: An Expositional Commentary, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.)
Boice's chapter (117) on Genesis 34 is entitled, "A Shameful Incident". The first thing he points out is that many influential commentators have not dealt with the passage, by either skipping it completely, telling readers to figure it out on their own, or sometimes even telling pastors there is no valuable lesson to preach from the passage (p. 829). Boice insists that there is, especially in the area of how not to live!
But the main encounter I want to focus on with Gen. 34 is bibliology (doctrine of the Bible) and even the inerrancy of Scripture, not so much the Christian life. The latter is a cake walk in this case...
Anyhoo, Boice says,
"Whenever the Bible contains material that reflects so badly not merely upon the sins of humanity in general but also upon the particular wickedness in the hearts and lives of God's people, this is evidence of the divine and not merely the human origin of the Scriptures... Human writers would have suppressed these events, just as commentators sometimes seem compelled to suppress them today... As we study this chapter we find the words of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to be true; "All Scripture is [indeed] God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man" [i.e. person] "of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (pp. 829-830).If you were transcribing the ancient scrolls, would you not want to leave out Genesis 34? I would. Yet the Jews have included it in the Torah from the beginning (829). Our natural shame wants us to suppress things like this.
That's the point of the passage! We should be horrified by what we read. It was wrong.
Moreover this passage touches on the roots of the Good News: Man cannot save himself. All other religions/spiritualities involve man reaching out to the divine somehow, but Christianity is God reaching down to man. The Good News is that all have sinned, that the wages of sin is death, and that the gift of eternal life is for all who believe in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation, not their own imperfect and perpetually tainted good works. (Romans 3:23, 6:23-24, Ephesians 2:8-9, Ephesians 1)
Look at this pretty graph I made!
 |
| I first learned this from my youth pastor, and then learned all the amazing details from the Bible |
Even before Christ, God told the Israelites that he chose them not because they were better than all the other nations around them, but because of his own goodness and sovereign plan (>>>Deuteronomy 7:6-9). And it is clear that regardless of all the stupid things God's people have ever done (like the Crusades, etc) God will still work out His plan. People will still believe in Jesus Christ.
God's love is relentless. There's nothing we can do to stop Christ from doing his work on earth. People saying that Judaism or Christianity is false or the Bible is false can't stop it either. And pointing out Gen 34 as a reason to reject God is only an excuse masking deeper, tougher issues.
Of course God hates what Simeon and Levi did. Their shame is our warning and our reminder that we are all capable of such evils, and such evils are in all our natures, and that God is the only one who can save us from ourselves and from His wrath against evil.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Weaning
I promise I won't get graphic in this entry. I just wanted to type some thoughts on the subject of weaning.
I determined ahead of time that I would wean Carson as he was turning one. I was also determined to flout the idea of "Being Mom Enough" to breastfeed until they start Kindergarten, acting in defiance of the idea that motherhood is defined by what goes into a person rather than what comes out of the heart...
... which I still stand by with great zeal. But I am no where close to weaning Carson, for many various reasons...
I've read all the views on everything I wrote above, and I've made up my mind, and I know what kind of criticism my views can draw, and I don't really care... I don't have any other moms hovering around me telling me how to parent, though I get the impression that some ladies would love to do just that, and it scares me. [BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU]
The bigger issue here is not the debate over when to wean, but just the fact that whether I like it or not, my little guy is quickly becoming a toddler. I have to establish boundaries for his safety (and mine) and enforce them. He eats solid food and will learn how to walk soon! He just recently learned to be content in the church nursery without me there.
And that's what weaning is all about, growing up! that's the goal of parenting, to raise an adult! Kinda scary...
In college about 6 or 7 years ago I was struggling to understand issues and who God is, and in a state of turmoil I stumbled upon this psalm which pacified my soul completely...
The psalm is so loaded with history and imagery and culture that I can't explain here, but verse 2 is absolutely amazing. The image of a weaned child with its mother has taken on new meaning in this stage of life, but it so perfectly expresses the kind of contentment that comes from humility and a sober view that He is God and I am not.
Thus the mystery of growing up fast remains and it remains in God's hand.
I determined ahead of time that I would wean Carson as he was turning one. I was also determined to flout the idea of "Being Mom Enough" to breastfeed until they start Kindergarten, acting in defiance of the idea that motherhood is defined by what goes into a person rather than what comes out of the heart...
... which I still stand by with great zeal. But I am no where close to weaning Carson, for many various reasons...
I've read all the views on everything I wrote above, and I've made up my mind, and I know what kind of criticism my views can draw, and I don't really care... I don't have any other moms hovering around me telling me how to parent, though I get the impression that some ladies would love to do just that, and it scares me. [BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU]
The bigger issue here is not the debate over when to wean, but just the fact that whether I like it or not, my little guy is quickly becoming a toddler. I have to establish boundaries for his safety (and mine) and enforce them. He eats solid food and will learn how to walk soon! He just recently learned to be content in the church nursery without me there.
And that's what weaning is all about, growing up! that's the goal of parenting, to raise an adult! Kinda scary...
In college about 6 or 7 years ago I was struggling to understand issues and who God is, and in a state of turmoil I stumbled upon this psalm which pacified my soul completely...
Psalm 131 - a psalm of ascents. Of David.
1 My hear is not proud, Lord, my eyes are not haughty; / I do not concern myself with great matters or things too wonderful for me.
2 But I have calmed and quieted myself, I am like a weaned child with its mother; like a weaned child I am content.
3 Israel, put your hope in the Lord both now and forevermore.
The psalm is so loaded with history and imagery and culture that I can't explain here, but verse 2 is absolutely amazing. The image of a weaned child with its mother has taken on new meaning in this stage of life, but it so perfectly expresses the kind of contentment that comes from humility and a sober view that He is God and I am not.
Thus the mystery of growing up fast remains and it remains in God's hand.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Missionary friends and Christian friends
Today we were so blessed to be visited by our friends Kristie and Boing (Cristian Boingeanu) who are in the States for a time. They do camp ministry in Romania. Boing is Romanian and Kristie is American! I knew Kristie as a close friend from my Moody days.
When they pulled into our driveway I was pumped, and gave our baby in desperate need of a diaper change to my loving husband so that I could run toward Kristie and get a HUGE hug. We were so happy to see each other!
Being with Kristie again instantly transported me back to the times I had at Moody - times of honesty, love and tears with close girlfriends who loved the Lord. We prayed for each other, spent life together, served others together, worshiped Christ together in chapel. I spent many hours in Kristie and Anne's room just hanging out and sometimes praying.
I miss those days. Never have I lived in a community with such openness where I felt so safe to be myself. Granted, it took courage to participate in other's lives and share my heart. It takes a tremendous amount of courage to be vulnerable outside of environments like this. Or it takes a particularly painful trial to shock you out of selfishness.
One or the other, vulnerability is hard to come by and seems to be rarely received with compassion out in the not-so-real "real world" that I apparently live in. I mean, it has been months since I have seem most of my neighbors. Months! I actually wonder if some of them have been away all that time. I even knocked on their doors for help with the aforementioned weed whacker (as some of my neighbors are pretty in to their weed whackers and their yards look amazing) and no one came to the door though their cars were there. It took guts for me to knock, and no one came. That doesn't make me want to try it again, but as Jesus would have it, I probably will. :)
Anyway, seeing Kristie again was bittersweet - I won't see her and Boing again for another year, I will miss their Romania wedding, and it opened up wounds I have now of missing seeking the Lord with those girls. It was sweet to laugh again with her, and see her glowing face with her fiance!
Why is it that, even (or especially) in the seminary/church community, people's talk (especially busy moms like myself) is limited to small talk, to the same few subjects: work, kids, groceries, whatever...? Why is it so hard to say "God is teaching me this" or to say "Let's pray about this now"? Why don't we ever ask "How are you really doing?" Or "How is your marriage going?" Or to even confess our sins to one another as it says in James 5? I'm telling you, when we did this at Moody God's Spirit was free to move in our hearts and convict and change. But here I feel stagnant and like I'm becoming more like a Pharisee every day. It makes me discontent, but may that discontent be from the Lord and not from my own deceitful heart. May it cause change instead of cynicism.
Will you join me in praying for revival?
When they pulled into our driveway I was pumped, and gave our baby in desperate need of a diaper change to my loving husband so that I could run toward Kristie and get a HUGE hug. We were so happy to see each other!
 |
| Awesome mug and prayer card from them |
Being with Kristie again instantly transported me back to the times I had at Moody - times of honesty, love and tears with close girlfriends who loved the Lord. We prayed for each other, spent life together, served others together, worshiped Christ together in chapel. I spent many hours in Kristie and Anne's room just hanging out and sometimes praying.
I miss those days. Never have I lived in a community with such openness where I felt so safe to be myself. Granted, it took courage to participate in other's lives and share my heart. It takes a tremendous amount of courage to be vulnerable outside of environments like this. Or it takes a particularly painful trial to shock you out of selfishness.
One or the other, vulnerability is hard to come by and seems to be rarely received with compassion out in the not-so-real "real world" that I apparently live in. I mean, it has been months since I have seem most of my neighbors. Months! I actually wonder if some of them have been away all that time. I even knocked on their doors for help with the aforementioned weed whacker (as some of my neighbors are pretty in to their weed whackers and their yards look amazing) and no one came to the door though their cars were there. It took guts for me to knock, and no one came. That doesn't make me want to try it again, but as Jesus would have it, I probably will. :)
Anyway, seeing Kristie again was bittersweet - I won't see her and Boing again for another year, I will miss their Romania wedding, and it opened up wounds I have now of missing seeking the Lord with those girls. It was sweet to laugh again with her, and see her glowing face with her fiance!
Why is it that, even (or especially) in the seminary/church community, people's talk (especially busy moms like myself) is limited to small talk, to the same few subjects: work, kids, groceries, whatever...? Why is it so hard to say "God is teaching me this" or to say "Let's pray about this now"? Why don't we ever ask "How are you really doing?" Or "How is your marriage going?" Or to even confess our sins to one another as it says in James 5? I'm telling you, when we did this at Moody God's Spirit was free to move in our hearts and convict and change. But here I feel stagnant and like I'm becoming more like a Pharisee every day. It makes me discontent, but may that discontent be from the Lord and not from my own deceitful heart. May it cause change instead of cynicism.
Will you join me in praying for revival?
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Reflections on Quiet (by Susan Cain)
Quiet now sits in the hands of the Jeff library circulation desk people, who kindly informed me when I asked to renew it a second time that I cannot because of their fairness policy. hahahaha. Of course I can go check it out again tomorrow, but I just don't have time...
I had a hard time finishing this book because of my busyness in my current occupation... :) And honestly, I had to skim through most of the second half of the book. So I'll make no claims of expertise on her expertise or anything.
If you're curious, based on her quiz of common traits of each, I'm actually about 60% introvert and 40% extrovert. Surprised me, but the more I read, the more I realized it! I come across to people I know as extroverted, and yes I can be very social, but that is from years of training in church and MBI to be bold about my faith. What she said about the extrovert ideal in American culture spreading even to evangelicalism is so true. Many churches/organizations I've volunteered in have stressed being outgoing.
I think, however, there needs to be caution to some extent of focusing too much on dividing people into two clear-cut categories. Though the author also mentions that caution here or there, she usually followed it with words like, "Yet..." "However..."etc. She always seemed to point to data insisting on a dichotomy like this. Also, as I came across the studies and descriptions in the book, I would try to put either myself or my husband into her oft-described categories, and we had traits on both sides. Both of us.
I still found myself bothered by her equating introversion with wisdom, humility, genius creativity, and extroversion with impulsiveness, superficiality, etc. I think this in part comes from her non-biblical worldview, in which a lot of people blend together moral traits with personality traits, making them both unchangeable and non-moral issues.
Overall though, I really loved all of her research and data behind what she wrote, and found it to be very true and applicable. It's refreshing to see someone out there exposing the extrovert ideal and GroupThink for what it really is - peer pressure and a popularity contest. hahaha!
I had a hard time finishing this book because of my busyness in my current occupation... :) And honestly, I had to skim through most of the second half of the book. So I'll make no claims of expertise on her expertise or anything.
If you're curious, based on her quiz of common traits of each, I'm actually about 60% introvert and 40% extrovert. Surprised me, but the more I read, the more I realized it! I come across to people I know as extroverted, and yes I can be very social, but that is from years of training in church and MBI to be bold about my faith. What she said about the extrovert ideal in American culture spreading even to evangelicalism is so true. Many churches/organizations I've volunteered in have stressed being outgoing.
I think, however, there needs to be caution to some extent of focusing too much on dividing people into two clear-cut categories. Though the author also mentions that caution here or there, she usually followed it with words like, "Yet..." "However..."etc. She always seemed to point to data insisting on a dichotomy like this. Also, as I came across the studies and descriptions in the book, I would try to put either myself or my husband into her oft-described categories, and we had traits on both sides. Both of us.
I still found myself bothered by her equating introversion with wisdom, humility, genius creativity, and extroversion with impulsiveness, superficiality, etc. I think this in part comes from her non-biblical worldview, in which a lot of people blend together moral traits with personality traits, making them both unchangeable and non-moral issues.
Overall though, I really loved all of her research and data behind what she wrote, and found it to be very true and applicable. It's refreshing to see someone out there exposing the extrovert ideal and GroupThink for what it really is - peer pressure and a popularity contest. hahaha!
Monday, October 15, 2012
Reading "Quiet" as an Extrovert, #2
I enjoyed the introduction, and by Susan Cain's informal standards, I may not be 100% extrovert. I love solitude, and I do prefer to be a lone to think a lot. More on that later.
I also notice that Cain is very proud of being an introvert. I understand that she writes as an introvert herself and probably doesn't see anything wrong with her pride, but as she describes the stupidity of extroversion's harmful dominance of our society in chapter one, I get the impression that she thinks extroversion is the big evil in the U.S. today. I could be wrong about that, so don't quote me.
On a positive note, I really enjoyed her insights in the Intro and first chapter. It helps to understand introversion as in a person's nature and a part of God's beautiful design. I agree that our culture needs introverts.
Chapter two takes stock of today's leaders, drawing on the history of the rise of extroversion in chapter one. Her description of Harvard Business School, for example, really scared me.
Among the myriad of research and studies she discusses, she brings out a point that introverts leading extroverts are more effective than extroverts leading introverts though a couple of studies. "...it makes sense that introverts are uniquely good at leading initiative-takers" (57). I've found this so true in my own life! As in, I love following the lead of someone who is quiet, vs. cowering under a domineering, yelling person. Who doesn't?
But along with this example, Cain makes one point that I think blurs the line between the definition of "extrovert" and "proud". She says, "Extroverts, on the other hand, can be so intent on putting their own stamp on events that they risk losing others' good ideas along the way and allowing workers to lapse into passivity." I see that this statement is softened with "can" versus "do [put their stamp on events]", and that she says two sentences later that extroverts are better at getting results than introverts. But on the same token, I notice this tendency in the first 50-odd pages, that I hope doesn't continue: that is, making pride and extroversion partners, and humility and introversion partners. Repetitively she describes obnoxious extroverts, shallow extroverts, and selfish extroverts.
In my view, extroversion is not equivalent to obnoxiousness, superficiality or selfishness. It's a Venn diagram. I struggle with selfishness not because I am an extrovert but because I am a human with a sin nature, like 100% of humans.
On the same token, I have found myself being obnoxious, saying things I regret, and being selfish. I do wish I was more introverted at times, and I admire introverted qualities in my friends and family a lot! I just hope they don't only see me or all extroverts as obnoxious and selfish. Of course, taking time to dwell on the faults of those around you can make you pretty proud, whether or not you are introverted or extroverted.
I look forward to reading the rest of the book as time allows, and am glad that the entire book is not only critique.
One more thing... Susan Cain and I don't share many similar views on human nature and creation, so I'll be more skeptical than the average reader. I will be pointing out flaws, but I suppose I'm allowed to do that on my blog. :)
Monday, October 1, 2012
Homosexuality and the Bible - Not in my words :)
Here is a great response to some recent dialogue on homosexuality and the Bible by an influential and strong Christian man, a professor at the Bible college I attended. He also has a history of homosexual activity and has HIV. Because he was a professor while I was in college, I came to know him and personally benefited from his advice about my interactions with a lesbian co-worker a couple years ago. He told me that the most important thing to discuss with this girl is not her sexuality, but the Gospel.
This guy puts it better than me, but I wanted to share it to spread what God's Word really has to say about this important and tense issue.
Also, I just want to say, that I do love my gay friends. I don't hate them.
Friday, August 10, 2012
updates and thoughts
Well, I think we are much more settled in our new home and neighborhood. We fit in better in a town than a city. But I have been busier than ever, and never has it been more obvious to me that one of the last things on my priority list is being on facebook, watching netflix or on this blog.
At a SAHM I've been spending my time in many ways. The last few days I have been constantly monitoring Carson, because he learned to crawl on August 7th, a week from turning 8 months. In addition to that, my obvious priority as a mom is my relationships with David and Carson. I have also been racing to finish editing a Korean seminary student's papers. She writes them before the semester, and sends them to me. It is very time-consuming, but it is my part-time job right now. I have been cooking a ton, and we rarely eat out now. Our new gas stove is wonderful! It's a big treat to have a new appliance.
My newest and most refreshing hobby is yard work. I love being outdoors. I wait until Carson's nap, and use the monitor to go out and weed or plant. I do a lot of laundry. Also this summer we have had many family visitors, or have gone to see them. I have many more chores now that we have a house. I love keeping up with friends too.
My reading this summer has been great. Lineage of Grace by Francine Rivers, The Bible, Little Women (again), and Liberating Ministry from the Success Syndrome by Kent and Barbara Hughes. I discovered the last book in an SWI class over a year ago, and it has been an enormous encouragement. Also, it's about time to re-read Pride and Prejudice. That has been my favorite for over ten years.
When we have time to relax, we watch Warehouse 13 because we are nerdy. Also Top Shot, Yo Gabba Gabba (Carson's fav), and some movies. I saw Vanity Fair and hated it. What I really hate is that genre of movie or book. I know they are making a point, but the way they make it is not entertaining in a wholesome or comforting, hahaha!
In order to keep my priorities straight, I have avoided getting into the Chick-fil-A controversy. I can get passionate about things like that, but from the outside it looks like a bunch of name-calling and victimizing on both sides. I think Satan uses the culture wars as a huge distraction from spreading the good news about Jesus, especially to people my age.
Also, for a long time now I have been wanting to leave facebook. I can't bring myself to do it because of keeping in touch with precious friends from Moody and/or overseas, or friends long distance or being seeing pictures of their lives and kids. I know however that my view of reality might be a little more accurate without facebook tempting me when I feel lonely. I won't have to worry about the effects of what I post will have on 587 different people, most of whom don't care to read what I post. Besides, I got along the first 20 years of my life without facebook just fine! Now I almost feel like I can't live without it, and I feel uneasy about that.
At a SAHM I've been spending my time in many ways. The last few days I have been constantly monitoring Carson, because he learned to crawl on August 7th, a week from turning 8 months. In addition to that, my obvious priority as a mom is my relationships with David and Carson. I have also been racing to finish editing a Korean seminary student's papers. She writes them before the semester, and sends them to me. It is very time-consuming, but it is my part-time job right now. I have been cooking a ton, and we rarely eat out now. Our new gas stove is wonderful! It's a big treat to have a new appliance.
 |
| Basil |
My newest and most refreshing hobby is yard work. I love being outdoors. I wait until Carson's nap, and use the monitor to go out and weed or plant. I do a lot of laundry. Also this summer we have had many family visitors, or have gone to see them. I have many more chores now that we have a house. I love keeping up with friends too.
 |
| Carson and great-grandpa |
My reading this summer has been great. Lineage of Grace by Francine Rivers, The Bible, Little Women (again), and Liberating Ministry from the Success Syndrome by Kent and Barbara Hughes. I discovered the last book in an SWI class over a year ago, and it has been an enormous encouragement. Also, it's about time to re-read Pride and Prejudice. That has been my favorite for over ten years.
When we have time to relax, we watch Warehouse 13 because we are nerdy. Also Top Shot, Yo Gabba Gabba (Carson's fav), and some movies. I saw Vanity Fair and hated it. What I really hate is that genre of movie or book. I know they are making a point, but the way they make it is not entertaining in a wholesome or comforting, hahaha!
In order to keep my priorities straight, I have avoided getting into the Chick-fil-A controversy. I can get passionate about things like that, but from the outside it looks like a bunch of name-calling and victimizing on both sides. I think Satan uses the culture wars as a huge distraction from spreading the good news about Jesus, especially to people my age.
Also, for a long time now I have been wanting to leave facebook. I can't bring myself to do it because of keeping in touch with precious friends from Moody and/or overseas, or friends long distance or being seeing pictures of their lives and kids. I know however that my view of reality might be a little more accurate without facebook tempting me when I feel lonely. I won't have to worry about the effects of what I post will have on 587 different people, most of whom don't care to read what I post. Besides, I got along the first 20 years of my life without facebook just fine! Now I almost feel like I can't live without it, and I feel uneasy about that.
Friday, April 13, 2012
On Being Relevant
My generation is sort of interesting. Well, I bet all generations were interesting when they were in their 20's.
The 90's yielded a lot of Christian cliches which are now mocked by us who are or used to call themselves Christians. We've grappled with postmodernism, homosexuality and the emerging church. We were in our teens when the year 2000 came and when 9/11 happened. There's also been a huge upsurge in evangelicalism and it's grappling with culture, between separating from and engaging in it. My generation is a few years out of college and ready to save the world.
All that to say... what's the same about my generation as with those previous is this: we all think we have something new and fresh to offer. We purposely want to reject what the previous generation did because it is old, harmful, restrictive, and irrelevant.
It's a lie that my generation has something new and fresh to offer. What's trendy or in style always changes, and those who are trendy like to mock those who aren't. What's theologically "traditional" and "new" has never changed in substance. If you study church history the same debates we have as Christians now they had then. There is always someone ready to deny what "has been" taught in church and there is always someone to fight against it. And then there's everyone else talking about it. It dies down, and several hundred years later it crops up in a different form with a different name.
It's a lie that my generation has something new and fresh to offer because,
"What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecc. 1:9).
Now that I have a son to raise, my perspective on my generation has changed. All day I care for, nourish and clean my son (babies have a lot of bodily fluids, I find). He is totally dependent on me. I don't have much time to sit around and navel gaze about what's the right way to "engage" in culture as a Christian. The time and money to buy the latest fashions is not available in large amounts...
When I read the Bible I find constant reminders of God's immutability. God never changes, and man does. While culture vacillates between new and old, right and left, stupid and stupider, God is still God.
As a mother I have to cling to God, not a culture or way of life. If my focus is on denying what my parents taught me, what good does that teach my son? If my focus is "not this, not that", what will the vacuum be filled with? I will teach my son my "Yes".
It truly is a waste of time to focus on denying and rejecting things. Cynicism is not the answer to the mistakes of the previous generation. I think maturity as a Christian is being able to move on from that and cling to God. That's what I'll strive for as a mother.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)