More Active Posts
Front Page
Whirled Views 5.27
 |
 65 Comments |
Good morning!
Today’s quote is from a poet: “Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go.”
 |
Topic: WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. |  |
Share this: |
One more diversion
On May 21, there was a thread about “Dishonorable Honorable Degrees”. Someone, (DCL?) said that Ivy League schools didn’t give honorary degrees.
I see where Sir Paul McCartney is now Dr. Paul McCartney. Awarded by Yale.
Quite an accomplished musician. I wonder if Eddy Arnold or Willie Nelson got doctorates? My son is a fan of the Beetles.
Those are the songs I still remember all the words to, Chas. It’s amazing what sticks in the middle of one’s brain, isn’t it?
Kristin appears to be a posting hog today. Don’t tire yourself out, Kristin.
It reminds me of the expression, “It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.”
Isnt an honorary doctorate just a means of paying someone to give an address at your school??
I wonder what Sir Paul had to say to the Yale graduates?
Gee Dubya’s in town today, to raise money for Juan McSame’s campaign.
The fundraiser was originally to be held at the capacious Phoenix Convention Center, but last week they decided to move it to an “undisclosed private home” in the Greater Phoenix area.
One story is that the move was because of a concern that protesters would be there. Another is that it was because projected attendance was much lower than initially anticipated. Either way, ya gotta just love it.
Maybe “freedom” — err, I mean “nation-building and elective wars of liberation” — isn’t on the march after all.
I have a question for y’all from the middle of the country. Out here in CA we are well versed in earthquakes, fires and mudslides. We know what to do without thinking too much. But last week in Orange County there was a tornado warning/watch (don’t even know the right term) and I was up in the OC that day.
Since very few of us have basements, where should one go if there was a tornado? If you are in your car do you stay in it? Ditch it? Run for high ground ou low ground? See, we’re pretty tornado igonorant out here.
From The American Spectator, May 2008, by John H. Fund.
“… (P)urveyors of bottled water… convinced the public that bottled water was more pure, tasted better, and was safer than good ol’ tap water. In reality, tap water is much more vigorously regulated by the EPA than bottled water is by the FDA. The EPA requires daily tests for bacteria and they are publicly reported; the FDA only does weekly testing and it doesn’t share these results with even local governments.”
My grandchildren drink bottled water. I have been drinking water from the faucet for almost 78 years, and from every part of America, and have never had any problems with the water.
ADIOS, I can’t answer all of your question, except that I know that you don’t stay in your car. Get out, and get to a low part of the ground where flying debris won’t likely get you.
ADIOS,
…or get on a bike and ride it out. If the wicked witch can do it, anybody can! Oh, and if you’ve got your ipod with you, play some Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon, “The Great Gig in the Sky.”
Adios–
If you don’t have a basement, go to an interior room (no windows). If you don’t have one of those, the next best thing is the (ground floor) bathroom, preferably in the tub. Outside, the lower the better. Don’t stay in the car, and don’t hide under overpasses. Get down as low as possible in a ditch, unless it’s raining hard and the ditch is full of water, in which case you’re in a really bad way.
Get in a bathtub or the structural center of the house.
I found the following gem on political tyranny from a notable Christian theologian. The logic here clearly would conclude the American Revolution was sinful and that if tyrant rose to power in America it would likewise be sinful to rebel against him because God puts tyrants in power to punish people!
Anyone care to guess who said the following:
The wicked ruler a judgment of God
But it we have respect to the word of God, it will lead us farther, and make us subject not only to the authority of those princes who honestly and faithfully perform their duty toward us, but all princes, by whatever means they have so become, although there is nothing they less perform than the duty of princes. For though the Lord declares that ruler to maintain our safety is the highest gift of his beneficence, and prescribes to rulers themselves their proper sphere, he at the same time declares, that of whatever description they may be, they derive their power from none but him. Those, indeed, who rule for the public good, are true examples and specimens of big beneficence, while those who domineer unjustly and tyrannically are raised up by him to punish the people for their iniquity. Still all alike possess that sacred majesty with which he has invested lawful power.
I will not proceed further without subjoining some distinct passages to this effect. We need not labour to prove that an impious king is a mark of the Lord’s anger, since I presume no one will deny it, and that this is not less true of a king than of a robber who plunders your goods, an adulterer who defiles your bed, and an assassin who aims at your life, since all such calamities are classed by Scripture among the curses of God.
Victoria,
I just went back to the sex change thread to see if you ever responded to my last comments (and I see you did not). In rereading your comments about how I, as a nonmother, can’t really know anything about children and teens, something caught my eye: your reference to kids who “pop in and out of my life.” I realized you may see my contact with children as limited to a week or a month, and that could change the picture.
For the record, I’ve had kids who were (or are) part of my life for the better part of their childhood. For example, I spent seven years in my last Chicago house, and had kids who came by my home daily for several years. I was in the same Chicago church for 14 years (in heavy involvement with its children’s programs and the children in those programs–many of whom lived in my neighborhood for a double dose of interaction with me), and have been in my current church for five years. Those time periods are long enough to get to know children in a deeper way than popping in and out of one another’s lives.
I just thought you might want to know that, and it might help your assumption against the possibility of a non-parent ever knowing a particular child well or knowing anything about children in general! (And of course I’ve known my nieces and nephews, several of them now in their mid to late twenties, their entire lives.)
Anyway, since that thread seems to be dead, I thought I’d make that comment here. I hope you have a great week!
PS Victoria,
After posting the above, it occurred to me that others on here are going to say, “Cheryl, why bother? She won’t hear you,” and it further occurred to me that one reason that I can say that to some extent I do understand children and teens is that I observe and listen–and I’m teachable. With that perspective, there’s a pretty good chance I actually know more about children than you do, even though you’re a mother and all I can claim is 40 years of life and more than 25 years of working with children, not 18 years of mothering experience with a given child.
To understand people of ANY age, even children, one needs to be open to listening to them and understanding them. I’ve spent all of my adult life “studying” people of all ages. I’m not an expert, but I’m not ignorant of any human age.
Cheryl — As a male OB/GYN, I’m daily subjected to “you just can’t understand because you’ve never [fill the blank].” Your last paragraph is spot on, and it’s just as true of sex as it is of age.
#7 Frank:
You are most likely correct. Low attendance in a huge cavernous arena could have got a bad spin from media. I cant imagine it would be too hard to raise money for McCain in his home state
Adios–
Tornado Tips from the Land of Oz:
1) Find a basement.
2) If no basement is available, hide in a bathroom. (Walk-in freezers in restaurants are also good).
3) In case walk-in freezer or bathroom is unavailable, the hallway will be fine.
And–finally–take a pick at the thing! It’s not every day you see a tornado!
uhh … that’s “peek” in the last sentence.
60s comedy duo sensation DAN MARTIN and DICK ROWAN have at long last reunited.
And the man famous for directing Tootsie has passed on as well.
Cheryl, why bother? She won’t hear you. Trust me.
Godlumps, I know. But I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, just in case. Plus, the “you don’t have children, so you can’t possibly understand children” cliche simply rubs me the wrong way, and a lot of people do it. (I don’t generally give parenting advice, but that’s a completely different issue from saying I have some understanding of children, and some perspective as well.)
Stubob, I hear you on that one. And you know what? I’m a woman, and I don’t understand us. We’re weird. Sometimes our emotions come right out of nowhere, and sometimes we have no idea what we’re thinking or feeling, let alone any ability to explain it. And I say that as a woman who is more rational and better with words than the average woman. So expecting a man to understand us is asking a lot–and being down on him when he doesn’t is also asking a lot!!
I do take comfort in the fact that the apostle Paul gave advice to all sorts of people–including women, slaves, and parents–though he was apparently a single man. That rather tells me that truth is truth, and you don’t have to be in a certain category of people to understand some truth that applies to that category of people! Does one have to be a prostitute to give a prostitute advice? I mean, really!!
I hold back from offering parenting advice, but it’s partly because I won’t be heard, not because I never have anything to say. I have two good friends who could REALLY use counsel that their kids need to hear the word “no.” But they won’t hear it from me, so I stay quiet. Can those friends offer parenting advice because they happen to be mothers? Maybe on some issues, but certainly not on discipline! On that issue, I’m more experienced than they are, because I discipline effectively.
” The logic here clearly would conclude the American Revolution was sinful and that if tyrant rose to power in America it would likewise be sinful to rebel against him because God puts tyrants in power to punish people!”
“an impious king is a mark of the Lord’s anger, since I presume no one will deny it, and that this is not less true of a king than of a robber who plunders your goods, an adulterer who defiles your bed, and an assassin who aims at your life”
Doesn’t that same “logic” then forbid us from resisting robbers or stepping out of the path of an assassin’s bullet? In view of the analogies in your citation, that an impious tyant might be an instrument of God does not render meek obedience the only logically necessary response.
This was a point of contention between American evangelicals such as Jonathan Edwards who supported American Independence and believed it providential and British evangelicals such as the Wesleys and George Whitefield who adopted the position you put forth.
Ken,
I know, but I’m going to the big daddy theologian source for authority. Do you know whose words I quoted? And if you read the rest, he makes clear that resisting tyrannical magistrates is to resist God’s will.
The charity Save the Children UK has released a report on sex abuse by aid workers. Seems the numbers in the field investigations are much higher than what the UN claims. This is so sad.
http://tinyurl.com/6qolcv
I think the US and the rest of the world should immediately cease funding until the UN honestly address this issue. They’re supposed to be helping, not exploiting.
And to be fair, the UN is not the only one. Although they seem to be the biggest offender, some comes from other aid groups.
You can read more on it at STC UK’s website, including what they’re doing about it. I would encourage everyone to read their links on the subject. There’s 2.
http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/en/41_5708.htm
Are you going to tell us, Jon Rowe?
Cheryl, I don’t want to get in between you and Victoria, but I would have to agree that there are times when I as a single person who takes the time to listen to the kid’s side of things understands what’s going on a lot better than the parent. Listening is the key. (I’m still having problems with StuBob understanding cramps.
)
# 23/24: Ken, never fear. Here are other quotes from that same “big daddy theologian.” The first is from the same magnum opus quoted above in # 13; the second and third are from his commentary on Romans 13. Suffice it to say, I would think you are correct; it would be very arrogant of me to say I knew more that an Edwards or Witherspoon about this theologian, even though I’ve actually read the work (all of it) quoted. They actually drank extensively from those waters, and it seems a bit of a stretch to think one can pull out quotes here and there and be an expert on one’s theology, especially if one is far removed from understanding that theology (unlike Edwards or Witherspoon, for instance). It’s one thing to pull out a quote here or there (we all do that); it’s another thing to think we’ve actually mastered what the man had to say. Here are further quotes:
“But in that obedience which we hold to be due to the commands of rulers, we must always make the exception, nay, must be particularly careful that it is not incompatible with obedience to Him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject, to whose decrees their commands must yield, to whose majesty their sceptres must bow. And, indeed, how preposterous were it, in pleasing men, to incur the offence of Him for whose sake you obey men! The Lord, therefore, is King of kings. When he opens his sacred mouth, he alone is to be heard, instead of all and above all. We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. If they command any thing against Him, let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they possess as magistrates - a dignity to which, no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God. On this ground Daniel denies that he had sinned in any respect against the king when he refused to obey his impious decree, (Dan. 6: 22,) because the king had exceeded his limits, and not only been injurious to men, but, by raising his horn against God, had virtually abrogated his own power. On the other hand, the Israelites are condemned for having too readily obeyed the impious edict of the king. For, when Jeroboam made the golden calf, they forsook the temple of God, and, in submissiveness to him, revolted to new superstitions, (1 Kings 12: 28.) With the same facility posterity had bowed before the decrees of their kings. For this they are severely upbraided by the Prophet, (Hosea 5: 11.) So far is the praise of modesty from being due to that pretence by which flattering courtiers cloak themselves, and deceive the simple, when they deny the lawfulness of declining any thing imposed by their kings, as if the Lord had resigned his own rights to mortals by appointing them to rule over their fellows or as if earthly power were diminished when it is subjected to its author, before whom even the principalities of heaven tremble as suppliants. I know the imminent peril to which subjects expose themselves by this firmness, kings being most indignant when they are condemned. As Solomon says, “The wrath of a king is as messengers of death,” (Prov. 16: 14.) But since Peter, one of heaven’s heralds, has published the edict, “We ought to obey God rather than men,” (Acts 5: 29,) let us console ourselves with the thought, that we are rendering the obedience which the Lord requires when we endure anything rather than turn aside from piety. And that our courage may not fail, Paul stimulates us by the additional considerations (1 Cor. 7: 23,) that we were redeemed by Christ at the great price which our redemption cost him, in order that we might not yield a slavish obedience to the depraved wishes of men, far less do homage to their impiety.”
“The reason why we ought to be subject to magistrates is, because they are constituted by God’s ordination. For since it pleases God thus to govern the world, he who attempts to invert the order of God, and thus to resist God himself, despises his power; since to despise the providence of him who is the founder of civil power, is to carry on war with him. Understand further, that powers are from God, not as pestilence, and famine, and wars, and other visitations for sin, are said to be from him; but because he has appointed them for the legitimate and just government of the world. For though tyrannies and unjust exercise of power, as they are full of disorder, … are not an ordained government; yet the right of government is ordained by God for the wellbeing of mankind. As it is lawful to repel wars and to seek remedies for other evils, hence the Apostle commands us willingly and cheerfully to respect and honor the right and authority of magistrates, as useful to men: for the punishment which God inflicts on men for their sins, we cannot properly call ordinations, but they are the means which he designedly appoints for the preservation of legitimate order.”
“Magistrates may hence learn what their vocation is, for they are not to rule for their own interest, but for the public good; nor are they endued with unbridled power, but what is restricted to the wellbeing of their subjects; in short, they are responsible to God and to men in the exercise of their power. For as they are deputed by God and do his business, they must give an account to him: and then the ministration which God has committed to them has a regard to the subjects, they are therefore debtors also to them.“
“he makes clear that resisting tyrannical magistrates is to resist God’s will”
Yup. Evil David, son of Jesse, resisting King Saul’s attempt to end his life. He should have just let Saul do it. After all, even David understood that Saul was God’s Anointed.
NJL,
That cramp thing brings back memories. I always thought the cramps women got were like a leg cramp, and used to tell my sister to walk it off. One day I offered her that advice, and she turned around and punched me in the stomach, just above the groin, as hard as she could. While I was doubled over in serious pain, she told me “now let’s see ya walk that off.” I quickly got the idea that not all cramps are the same, and some just can’t be walked off.
AJ, ya got that right! I sympathize with your sister and understand her punching you.
But it’s not just between male and female. In addition to cramps, I used to get migraines. My sister and/or my mother (who didn’t!) would tell me to “take an aspirin.” Anyone who has had a migraine knows aspirin ain’t gonna cut it. I really had no sympathy for my sister when she developed sinus headaches, and I confess that I smiled when I told her those continue after menopause!
TJ,
I would concede that Romans 13 is subject to dispute in orthodox Christendom and in Calvinism itself. Calvin’s thoughts that you reproduce generally have to do with the inevitable question of “okay, believers are to submit to and obey leaders, but what if they command us to sin”? In that case, obey God and not men. This is not a blanket right to resist tyrannical or even “un-godly” leaders.
As one, Calvin influenced, orthodox theologian put it commenting on my blog:
In I Samuel 8, the people reject God as their ruler and demand an earthly king. God lets them have a king, but spends the bulk of chapter 8 warning them of the dire consequences. Political liberty? Where? In Acts 5:29, Peter and the apostles refuse to quit preaching the Gospel (as they did previously in 4:19-20); but they make no claims of political liberty and organize no rebellion. In fact, they make it clear that they are under the authority of the Council by affirming its authority to judge their actions (4:19) and by submitting to the punishment prescribed (flogging) in 5:40. No one demands any rights or appeals to political liberty or calls for rebellion – quite the contrary.
http://positiveliberty.com/2006/08/frazer-replies-to-babka.html
This I would surmise is an accurate representation of Calvin’s thoughts on political liberty, rebellion, and submission.
I should add that Witherspoon and Edwards himself were influenced by Locke’s theories of rebellion, state of nature, contract and rights, which are not at all Calvinistic or even biblical.
Francis Schaeffer has warned you folks of this non-biblical “rationalism” infecting the Christian mind. Aquinas was the main culprit, according to Schaeffer of pagan Aristotelian, rationalism entering the Christian mind.
Schaeffer’s critic of non-biblical, non-Christian ideas affecting Christian theology is entirely applicable to John Witherspoon and a whole slew of other theologians who tried to justify rebellion in theological terms during the Founding era.
NJ Lawyer, re cramps: I never really had them badly, at least compared to my mom and my sister. (My sister would scream out in pain two days of every month when she was a teen, and throw up everything, even pain killers.) But when I was a young teen, I didn’t exactly want to go out and play volleyball, and I went through a year or two when I’d throw up for an entire morning (and then Mom would send me to school–walking across the park by myself–for the afternoon!).
My PE teacher was probably seventy years old, very dark (from the Phoenix sun) and wrinkled, and she didn’t do any of the exercises she instructed us in, just stood on the sidelines and criticized. Well, in my junior high years, she repeatedly gave us a lecture to the effect of “Cramps are never an excuse not to participate in PE. You’ll feel better if you move when you have cramps. You’ll forget you even have them. Don’t even come whining to me saying, ‘I can’t race today, because I have cramps.’”
I decided that not only was she 20 years into menopause by then, but she probably had never had cramps and simply had no clue what she was talking about. If she’d seen my sister screaming out in pain for two days, or seen me throwing up for several hours until vomiting turned to dry heaves, she might have been a little less hasty to say that running and playing games was a sure cure.
Cheryl D.
This might be where Victoria gets her notions, but we moms–and we are admittedly a tough crowd–can often peg childless school teachers. They new to the field and idealistic. It is easy to spot mothers with only girls cause they just can’t figure out a boy’s energy. But those are always generalizations. Most teachers learn in time just like you say. Some never get, but then they miss a lot in other areas too.
Just spent a girls’ weekend with a couple childless women. They have dedicated their lives to the education of other people’s kids. One taught kindergarten for 35 years and one taught middle school and now is a principal. You’d be hard presse to find two more mothering, understanding women on the planet. When either of them wants to talk to me about my kids I’m a fool not to shut up and listen. And my kids have been beyond blessed to know them as mentors outside of the classroom.
John Rowe,
Some notable theologians have been notably wrong;)
Jon, the problem I have is the simplistic quoting of Calvin without consideration of wildly variant factors that exist. For instance, you know perfectly well that the colonial structure was not strictly a king/subject relationship; the colonies had their own governments, George III violated contractual obligations with the colonies, and the fact that the colonies were invaded before a declaration of independence was rendered (by an actually governmental body, not by rebel thugs in the streets). This is not exactly the situation about which Paul writes (nor Calvin comments) in Romans 13.
Furthermore, even though I tend to wish to respect you and your posts on here, I was repulsed when I went to your blog and saw that you try to connect Calvin with Fred Phelps. The “guilt by association” fallacy is quite beneath you, imho, just to score a few rhetorical points on a blog. “Five-point Calvinism” has more to do with the outcome of the Synod of Dordt than strictly being about Calvin (besides, Calvin had lots of points!). Besides, the five-points deal specifically with soteriology, not the governing role of magistrates, nor any other areas of Calvin’s theology. Furthermore, as the quotes I posted above show, Calvin did not make the same claims that you attribute to Phelps in your post.
Finally, using the phrase “you folks” is a good way to alienate your audience right from the start. I brings forth memories of Ross Perot addressing a group of African Americans (”you people”) while running for President in 1992.
Adios,
Understood! For me, idealism has long since flown out the window. I’ve had a kid at camp wet her bed (the bunk above mine), in the process soaking my pillow and dampening my hair; had a foster child throw up every hour for her first 24 hours in my home, and been spat on, scratched, kicked, bitten, and repeatedly called a name that would earn me a scepter bonk if I repeated it here, all by that same child; I’ve also loved a 13-year-old girl who was a potential witness in a murder case in which her next-door neighbor murdered her toddler, a case so hideous it made national news. Idealism is something I lost long ago, if I ever had it. (I’m not sure I ever did–I spent my childhood longing to be an adult.)
Since I have five brothers and 75% of the next generation in my family is male, I’m regularly wanting to tell mothers, “He’s a boy! He was born to wiggle!” We had a single mother in my Chicago church who seemed embarrassed by her son’s boyishness–and he was a good kid. In a doctor’s office recently, a four-year-old boy waited with his mother, sitting obediently beside her, but when they got up to leave, she chastised him because the couch pillows under him weren’t smooth and he hadn’t sat as wiggle-free as the little girl in the same waiting room! I don’t think there’s any excuse for a child, boy or girl, running up and down store aisles and grabbing things off the shelf, but I hate to see mothers expect their sons to be meek and passive–and girlish. (I personally think that’s one reason for two-parent families–boys need fathers to calm their mothers down and tell them, “He’s a boy. Boys do that.”)
TJ,
Thanks for your criticisms I will take them to heart. I knew that the point about Fred Phelps possibly would alienate my Calvinist readers. But, what I see in him (perhaps you can correct me) is a very mean spirit, very biblically literate 5-points-Calvinist who takes the meanness Calvinist reasoning to its absurdest conclusions.
So how does Calvin deal with the issue of human tragedy? I have heard D. James Kennedy say many times the answer to why do bad things happen to good people is that, they don’t, because there are no good people. Note he wasn’t just pointing out original sin that technically no one is good. Rather that was his entire answer for why bad things happen to humans. This clearly intimates that tragedies punish people for their sins. How is this any different then the Phelps reveling in the fact that tragedies are God’s will to punish people for their sins, aka “Thank God for the Hurricane,” “Thank God for the Shooter.”
On the “you folks” remark, I thought this crowd above politically correct sensitives. I do try to watch my language based on the crowds to whom I address. And have taken some liberties here given the conservative tenor of the audience.
But certainly if the posters find “you folks” in my referring to the conservative evangelical community offensive, I will strike that from my vocabulary.
#38 “I hate to see mothers expect their sons to be meek and passive–and girlish.”
Cheryl D,
I think I get what you’re talking about - I have two boys, and as toddlers they were “all boy.” (Though as they got older they never ran around as much as other boys, preferring reading and other less active pursuits.)
But your sentence above seems to be saying that being meek and passive are inappropriate to boys but appropriate to girls, which I have to disagree with. Meekness, properly understood, is a positive character quality for both boys and girls. Passivity is not a positive quality for either.
Jon, I did not think the term “you folks” to be non-PC or anything like that (though the example I gave, b/c of circumstances, may have been). I simply think it is a condescending term, pure and simply. It is beneath the level of both of us in civilized discourse.
Your comments about Phelps above would seem to be more or less correct. One could equally say that Phelps takes meanness biblical reasoning to its absurdest conclusions. Simply taking possible overlaps in doctrine in one area and impugning in another (unrelated) one is not a sound argument. To use an example, I am a Trinitarian, and I assume Pope Benedict is as well. Yet he and I would diverge widely on matters of salvation, church government, and a host of other areas.
I believe Kennedy’s comments do stem from the doctrine of original sin. In other words, the Fall “infected” human beings (as well as the creation in general), which is why both bad things happen and why people are bad. Kennedy was probably answering an objection along the lines of the Kushner book of that title. The problem is that when people ask why bad things happen to good people, they are making an improper assumption that people are naturally “good” at least in relation to God. The Calvinistic doctrine (sometimes called Total Depravity, but which is a misleading name) means that every part of human beings (the heart, the mind, the will, if you will) has been infected by sin. It does not mean we are as evil as we can be (Calvin would affirm quite strongly that God actually restrains the evil in the world; he would even affirm that one of the ways He does this through civil governments), but it does mean our thoughts, actions, etc. are corrupted. We are sinners by nature, not by consequence.
If you are interested in studying this further, I would recommend John Frame’s comments on the so-called problem of evil. He explains this very well at length in Apologetics to the Glory of God, but you can read some of his thoughts here: http://tinyurl.com/6dyogs
Also, here is another article explaining this from a strong Calvinist perspective: http://tinyurl.com/58cr3y
Hey everybody who answered my ignorant Cali tornado question. Thank you very much. We live in a house with no basement and no room without windows, but at least I have a handle on how to respond.
Except the “take a peek’ suggestion from Kimberly. I am sure tornados look awesome, but if I took a peek I think I’d wet my dress, if you know what I mean;) Of course if I’m cowering in the shower it might not be so bad.
Give me earth-surfing any day.
Oh, and Cheryl D. anyone who has been thrown up of every hour by a biological kid, and adopted child or a foster child is Mom enough for me! That’s the initiation right there, I don’t care who you are;)
How gracious you are, Cheryl, in your dialogs with people.
I appreciate your sincerity and gentleness with your words.
Pauline,
I more or less agree with you on what I was saying about meek and passive. Probably not the right words. But you know what I’m getting at–the mother who thinks that it’s always inappropriate for boys to wrestle or otherwise act wilder than the average girl.
I had a boy in a club program where I used to teach, a boy who couldn’t not wiggle–I think he had some mental challenges besides being a boy. I effectively kept him from disturbing other kids and the leader, on weeks I wasn’t teaching, by sitting next to him and making sure he always had something to roll between his fingers! Sometimes it was the edge of my jacket, and sometimes it was a pencil. But as long as his fingers were moving, the rest of his body could be quiet and still. Plus, he felt flattered that I wanted to sit by him, and never even realized I sat by him every week because I realized I was the only one who could keep him quiet!
Adios and TLO, thanks.
I don’t normally visit this thread on a daily basis, but today I have had a limited time, and have read some of the posts. I have to say some of them are humorous.
I’ve never met a mother who though boys shouldn’t wrestle, or act different than girls. Boys are different, they are little imps who explore bugs, nests, spiders, they tease their sisters, they climb trees higher and peek around corners, they are just little pests….
Getting back to the “inappropriate for boys to wrestle or otherwise act wilder than the average girl.” —–
Kids are kids, boys aren’t the same as girls, so what’s the point? Boys are different from girls, is this NEWS? Girls climb trees, hit home runs, run faster than SOME boys, SO WHAT?
Parents of children living with them day in day out, staying up days weeks, with illness, praying for their lives because they love them, care for them, that’s the deal we get as being parents, REAL PARENTS.
GOD gives children to those HE chooses, we know not why, but HE does. We must accept the fact that those raising children are the parents they were supposed to have, not the ones who believe they could do better.
Ask yourself, “why didn’t GOD choose you to be a mother?” and then take it up with the LORD!
28-
As for a single person:
“there are times when I as a single person who takes the time to listen to the kid’s side of things understands what’s going on a lot better than the parent.”
You may be helping the child’s situation in a complimentary fashion, but the attidtude that you understand better than the parent, might ruin any of the good that you might otherwise have accomplished.
Well, Reg, with some parents, a disinterested party can see things that the parents don’t. People don’t all of a sudden become “perfect” because they’ve become parents. Parents are people, and often their own self-interest is in play. For example, consider a divorcing couple who use their children against the opposite parent. Sometimes it takes someone from the outside who can see what’s going on to put the children first and read the parents the riot act. Perhaps you have a view of parents that they are selfless and perfect, but I don’t.
It is really about having discernment into each situation in which God places us.
TJ,
Thanks as always for the very informative source.
BTW: I’m still studying the history of slavery in the medieval Christian West and plan on going to the premiere of a documentary on human rights by the Acton Institute which features the work of Rodney Stark who most notably has made the case of medieval Christianity fighting slavery. He also argues the notion of the “dark ages” are a myth, something with which both traditional Protestants and men of the Enlightenment are inclined to disagree.
Adios,
Maybe a large closet (though I’ve had one of those with a window, too!)?
Thanks, Jon. Props to you for your further investigation on these matters.
With regard to the sources: I tried to include two sources from Calvinists: one a van Tillian and one a Clarkian. Their conclusions really aren’t different, but the way they get there is not quite the same.
This morning, I saw this post from a blog (actually a vlog here) that I subscribe to. The commentator is also a Calvinist, and I think/hope this may also give a different perspective that the likes of FP in dealing with tragic issues (he is speaking of the tragic death in Steven Curtis Chapman’s family, which was a post on Worldblog several days ago). Here’s the link: http://tinyurl.com/5chf43
BTW, I would tend to agree that the term “Dark Ages” is generally overrated and overused. I’m not sure who is responsible; sometimes I’ve seen Protestants do this with regard to the “loss” of the gospel in the Medieval church (which I would tend to agree), and sometimes I’ve seen it done with secularists who point to this as an example of what happens when the church is in charge (some of this may be due to the myth-making of Andrew Dickson White, one of the founders of Cornell, who sought to tar-and-feather religion and wasn’t above making up stories — the idea that folks in the late 1400’s believed in a flat earth being just an example — to advance his agenda). Maybe there’s plenty of blame to go around. But what gets overlooked is that a lot of advances took place during the so-called Dark Ages. The development of algebra took place (as a former mathematics teacher, this is of special interest to me!), along with the rise of universities (probably of special interest to you!). While there were some setbacks with regard to Roman Catholic abuses, there were some good theologians during the time. Anselm’s advances in atonement theory actually paved the way for the Reformation, and even though you and I might disagree with him, Thomas Aquinas was no theological slouch. I would be very interested in what you have to say about the documentary you mentioned (I have not heard of it), as the disappearance of chattel slavery in Western Europe would certainly be included on the “not-so-dark” list.
Here is the website for the documentary with clips of it.
http://www.thebirthoffreedom.com/
I’m going to see it on June 19 and will blog about it in a review.
Thanks, NJ Lawyer. I’ve known good parents and bad parents–today, unfortunately, more bad than good. I know I wouldn’t be a perfect mother, but I also know that I WOULD do a better job at it than the majority of mothers I see around me. Becoming a mother doesn’t automatically make a woman a good mother, nor does it automatically give one a knowledge of children.
But the task God has given us is to come alongside mothers and support them, not (at this point) to be mothers ourselves. Unfortunately, the mothers who most need the support are often the least likely to show respect for single people and what they can offer to a family.
Victoria, watch a few single mothers or wives whose husbands are uninvolved, and you most certainly will find some who think boys should act like girls. I’m surprised you haven’t seen it already. But then, as I’ve mentioned before, I love watching people, and not everyone does. BTW, I don’t need to take it up with the Lord. I love the place He has given me in life, and am not bitter over it.
The Bible has many principles about rearing children. A godly single who understands those principles, and understands how children think and feel, is in a good position to be a mother if God someday gives her children. A woman who refuses godly wisdom will probably not be a good mother, though she may be OK if she has extra-good kids.
Victoria’s comment, #45, was just downright nasty, unnecessary, & terribly ungracious.
Cheryl - As a “real” parent myself, I am not too proud to admit that there have been times when other women (a couple of them with no children of their own) had a positive impact on my daughters.
And yes, most of us have known mothers of boys who didn’t “get” that “boys will be boys”. I’ve known a couple moms who didn’t want their little boys to get dirty while playing.
Also, Cheryl, I believe that maybe God hasn’t given you your own children cuz he wanted you to be free to have the influence on the children He has brought into your life. God bless you as you continue to minister to them.
Cheryl - Your last comment must have come up while I was typing mine.
Your last paragraph reminded my of my MIL, Mary. She had one child (not for lack of trying & wanting) who turned out to be a compliant kid. Plus, she used intimidation as a parenting tool, & he was easily intimidated as a kid, so she could look at his good behavior & think what a good mom she was.
As a teen, he merely hid his bad behavior from her.
When she lived with us, she took out her anger on my older daughter, Emily, who was always a strong-willed girl. If Mary disapproved of Emily’s behavior (things which weren’t really a big deal to us), Mary would glare & scowl at her. This usually happened at dinnertime, where Mary would pause with her fork in the air & give Emily that deep, scary scowl, holding it for what seemed like a long time, trying to intimidate her into kowtowing.
Well, Emily refused to be intimidated, & would look her in the eye & smile. Mary would almost have smoke coming out of her ears, she was so angry at Emily not being intimidated nor kowtowing to her.
My own mom could be that way to an extent when I was a kid. She knew she could intimidate her timid daughter & used it when she wanted to. (She has admitted this & is sorry for it.)
When I grew up, I made it a rule, between my husband & me, that “because Mommy’s mad” is not a reason to change one’s behavior. I determined I would not use intimidation or anger to rule over my daughters.
Thanks, Karen! I like your last paragraph–that your own anger isn’t the reason for your children changing.
My sister has five children, but she has more than once reminded me of Scripture passages that say the “barren” woman may have more children than the married mother of children–presumably more children she influences. I remember once my sister sent me a Mother’s Day card that told me to think of the children who wished they could call me mother, or who in their hearts did call me mother….
She knew that my ministry at that point included caring for children through the evening sometimes when their mother and grandmother left to go gambling, leaving scared children to wander the neighborhood alone. I usually didn’t let them in after dark (though they sometimes spent hours in my house before dark), feeling it was better for all of us if they went home at dusk. But when they came trembling to my door in the late evening because no one was home and the neighborhood was full of fireworks (once it was July 4), I let them in.
I wasn’t babysitting (wasn’t getting paid) or in any official capacity of responsibility for those children, but they were mine to love and take to God. And you know what? I doubt God is up in heaven saying, “Yeah, but Cheryl isn’t their REAL mother.” When they needed a mother, too often I was there and their “real” mother wasn’t. That’s responsibility and blessing enough, motherhood enough, though I didn’t birth them.
I didn’t move away until these children outgrew the need for my daily presence and were pretty much doing their own thing; at that point God gave me freedom to leave Chicago, which I’d have gladly done years ago, except that I wasn’t going to leave my children. I don’t have the intensity of day-to-day influence on children anymore, though I would if the foster kids had stayed with me longer. But God has let me be a second mother to many children, and indeed it is a blessing to know I’ve come alongside a parent or lifted a child’s burden a bit.
(The “real mother” distinction others have used seems nearly meaningless. I don’t mean there isn’t a unique honor in rearing children to adulthood–indeed there is. But does a mother who loses her only child in infancy still qualify as a “real mother”? Is a mother who adopts a five-year-old a “real mother”? We do what God calls us to do–for some women that means adoption, for some it means birth, and for some it means simply loving other women’s children at whatever level they need to be loved. I have a mother’s heart, though I’ve never given birth to children.)
Reg,
I couldn’t AGREE MORE!
Reg, you wrote, “You may be helping the child’s situation in a complimentary fashion, but the attitude that you understand better than the parent, might ruin any of the good that you might otherwise have accomplished.”,
I don’t think this applies to Cheryl (not sure you were applying to her, or as merely a general statement). She has written that she holds her tongue from giving unsolicited advice, & she comes across as a gracious, caring person, which would be the attitude that comes across to others in person, I would think.
Yes, there are those who think they know better. The funny thing is, I’ve seen that more from other parents than I have from singles, though.
The comments I made #45 were not “ungracious” but needed to be heard by those who believe they are more competent than MOST PARENTS. I dare say most of the comments ’some’ have made, have been presumptuous, self important, and ridiculous.
Then there was the comment “With that perspective, there’s a pretty good chance I actually know more about children than you do, even though you’re a mother and all I can claim is 40 years of life and more than 25 years of working with children, not 18 years of mothering experience with a given child.”
Part time and intermittent experience
what a toot!
The comments I made in post 45 were not “nasty” they were necessary.
Victoria,
Actually, indeed your comments were nasty–the hint seemed to be that God hasn’t given me children (nanny nanny nanny) because He saw I wouldn’t be a good mother and you would, or something like that. But we all know that sometimes abusive single women are mothers, so motherhood is not in and of itself a sign of virtue or of God’s reward. Nor is His choice to withhold a husband and children a sign of His displeasure. Read Job if the virtue/reward distinction isn’t clear enough.
As to my comment that you quoted above, perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. But Victoria, if you don’t listen to your children any better, or show any more compassion to your children and other people in real life, than on this blog, then you probably do not in fact know much about children, mother or no. Being a biological mother is not some magic thing that suddenly gives one perfect knowledge about children. Relationship and wisdom do that–and those are the two things on which I’m quesitoning your ability right now, if in real life you respond to people the way you consistently do on this blog.
And that’s probably all I need to say on that subject. God knows my heart, and if there is some kind of reward in heaven for “mothering,” He knows of the children I’ve loved through the years as though they were my own. I’m satisfied that He is not withholding something good from me out of punishment; I am His, and He is mine. And someday I will stand as part of His bride, in the white robe of His righteousness. If I hear His “well done,” I need nothing more–neither husband nor biological children.
Cheryl D.,
Well said, as usual.
Cheryl D, I admire your gracious spirit.
This discussion reminds me somewhat of the issue of unmarried pastors doing premarital/marriage counseling. Some would argue that those men cannot give good counsel because they have not experienced marriage themselves. While they may not be able to speak to every situation of marriage, biblical principles don’t change depending upon who is teaching those principles. (Am I opening up a “whole nuther” can of worms here?!)
There are biblical principles of raising children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord,” and non-parents can certainly apply those biblical principles to their relationships with children. A woman can nurture a child who is not her own, and she does not need to have been pregnant and birthed a child to be a mother to children.
CherylD, I have no doubt that you would be a good mother and that you have done some good mothering — after all, you’ve been vomited on, and those in the know here say that’s a badge of honor. (My sister, who birthed 3 children made a deal with her husband that she’d do diapers if he’d do vomit, so you’re ahead of her on that!) And you don’t sound indulgent — which is my “sin” — but I’m an auntie and it’s my “thing.” Everybody needs someone to indulge them when they’re little just because they’re little (sometimes just with time), and I don’t apologize for doing that. Everyone needs to know they’re special.
When I was in college, I visited a history professor at her home, and she took me outside to her garden. She told me that day that as a teacher, she wasn’t always sure if she hit her mark because the kids graduated and didn’t always keep in touch, but twenty minutes weeding in the garden and she was sure she’d accomplished something because she could see progress. I think that’s true for you, too. You may never know the impact you’ve had on some of the kids who have been in your care, but I do believe that you can rest assured that your kindness and goodness will be remembered long after you have separated from them. I vividly remember people who spent time with me, did a little extra mothering or grandmothering when I was growing up, so I know you made good memories for a lot of kids, too.
Cheryl — 60
When you brought this subject from another thread (”Doctor offers sex change for kids”) and then proceeded to post, complaining I had not answered your questions, (posts 14 and 15 ) - I shouldn’t have been surprised. I left the thread, not wanting to continue this discussion, then finding that you dragged it over to this thread two days ago. My last post was on the 22nd, that’s 8 days ago.
Is this all you have to do, demanding that people answer your questions on another thread and if they don’t you take it to “Whirled Views” ? - No one is obliged to answer my questions or yours, it’s a CHOICE, not a COMMAND PERFORMANCE.
Now you post this:
There is no nanny, nanny nanny to it, however this sort of childish talk doesn’t surprise me either. Pitiful -
And then your second paragraph; you literally know nothing of what you speak. From the day I came on this blog its been constant complaints from you as to what I say, how I say it, etc., and then the ’same’ group who ‘lock step’ in the back up line. Certainly you have something better to do, or maybe not -
Victoria,
If I was the only one who ever complained about the way you treat other people on here, or even if I got the same complaints about myself anywhere near regularly, I’d think the problem might be with me. I don’t believe it is. (As to the other thread, you basically attacked me–unprovoked–and then walked away. My not being a mother wasn’t the point of that thread, and wasn’t the least bit relevant to the point I was making. So yes, I felt it fair for you to continue to address me after I had taken the time to respond.)
May you live a long, happy life. You were fun on here for a while, and I hope someday you again return to treating the rest of us as friends or potential friends, and don’t read the worst possible motive into everything we say. Go in peace.