Flower Girls

The girls are finally at a stage where I have time to craft again. I have a million projects I want to do, both for the kids and for myself. Today, I got around to making some dolls for the girls. They were delightfully simple, and I was able to complete four of them today. One was supposed to be for Evie, but she wasn't interested. Jazz ended up hijacking them all. I got the instructions for them at Creative Kids at Home.

I think they are just adorable! We got other silk flowers today to make different colors, even though Jasmine requested only pink ones.

The bodies are made of pipe cleaners, so they are posable and can sit down. They are very small, too--just the right size for little hands. I just hope that they hold up to the wear and tear to which they will be subjected by those little hands!

Blessings from Acorns

Our house is full of acorns.

The girls have recently discovered these nutty little treasures, and they cannot walk past an acorn without squatting down to admire it and then pick it up, regardless of how full their little hands might be. It often becomes a point of contention--they want to look at the acorns, and I just want to want them to get in the car already. We live on a street full of live oaks, so we have acorns in abundance. Every stroll around the block, every trip to the mailbox, every time the front door opens, they have to look for acorns.

They have little tin pails that they put the acorns in, and these get dumped, sorted, shared, stolen, brought to the dinner table, hoarded, lined up, and carried around all day. Evie packs them in her pockets when we are out, and I often see that she has at least one little fist clenched when we get into the car because she is holding onto one of her finds. Yesterday, as I was changing Evie's diaper, several little brown things rolled out of her shorts...acorns. I saw something brown and suspiciously bug-like under a basket in the bedroom this evening...acorns. I stepped on something hard in the dark...an acorn.

I have the feeling that I am going to be finding acorns stashed and lost around the house for years to come. But just when I start to get exasperated with the acorn invasion, I remember that they were brought into the house by the curiosity and awe of a child--of my children. One of these days, they will drive by an oak tree on their way to school, to college, to homes of their own, and they won't notice the acorns that litter the ground. But I suspect that every time I see one, I will remember the image of two little girls squatting on the sidewalk to look at an acorn that Jazz is pointing out to Evie. I don't think I mind picking them up anymore.

Thank you, Lord, for the blessing of acorns.

How can God let bad things happen?

A friend posed this question on Facebook recently:

Do you see any conflict in this reasoning? "God is all powerful, but He doesn't ALLOW bad things to happen to us; they just do."

I suppose the conflict is that God cannot be all powerful and yet not have the ability to protect us from the bad things in life that happen. At the same time, though, if He allows those bad things to happen, that seems to be in conflict with the idea that He is a loving God.

I would argue, though, that there would be more conflict and inconsistency of character if God didn't let bad things happen.

The world is what it is: a flawed, cursed place that is destined to feel the wrath of God. A holy God cannot look at mankind's sin, shrug His shoulders, and say, "Oh, well; people will be people." If He did that, He would be our accomplice to sin. Look at it from a more human standpoint: If the CEO of a company knows that his employees are engaged in illegal activities that are wreaking fiscal havoc on people and turns a blind eye to it, we would find him complicit in their schemes. Even if the CEO had no direct part in the activities, we would still question his character if he let it continue without stepping in. Could you imagine having respect for a holy, perfect God who let sin slide? Thus, God reacted to man's original sin, resulting in the flawed, cursed place that we live in today.

If faith in God and Christ bought us indemnity against the effects of God's curse on earth, then who wouldn't want to get in on that deal? "Believe in God, and you'll never get the flu again!" Aside from the questionable motivations for faith, this would also bring the problem of splitting our focus. This world is not an eternal retirement community. The guarantee of perfect health, uninterrupted happiness, and financial security would go a long way toward taking our focus off of our ultimate destination: heaven and the presence of God himself. Christ did not give His life so that we could have the house of our dreams. He did it to give us access to God for all eternity--a far better deal, I think. The apostle Paul knew this well. Look at Philippians 4:11-13 (NLT): "Not that I was ever in need, for I have learned how to be content with whatever I have. I know how to live on almost nothing or with everything. I have learned the secret of living in every situation, whether it is with a full stomach or empty, with plenty or little. For I can do everything through Christ, who gives me strength." It wasn't that he had an easy life; it was that he learned to rely on God for strength through any situation in which he found himself. I'm sure his testimony--and our benefit from it--would have been quite different if God would have shielded him from bad things.

One of the situations that brings out this question about good people and bad things is death. In the interest of full disclosure, let me say that my immediate family is still alive; I've never lost a parent, sibling, spouse, or child, so I can't honestly say that I can empathize with people in those situations. The very thought of losing one of my daughters hurts so much I can't breathe. I know that I'll have to face the reality of death one of these days, but it won't be because God is impotent and unable to stop it from happening to me. It won't be about me at all, really, even though I'll feel the pain of loss. A woman who was a fixture in the church I grew up in passed away recently, and I know that her family was heartbroken over it. But what was God supposed to do--let her live here forever in a body that wasn't meant to last? Was he supposed to deny her an eternal reward for her stewardship in order to protect her family from pain?

This woman and her family sang in the church, and one of the songs they sang was called "Promises." "Promises, promises and all of them true / He's done exactly what He said He would do. / He didn't tell me that my heart would not be broken / Oh, but He did say He'd mend it again." We are promised that God's grace is sufficient for us (I Corinthians 12;9). We are promised that God is, indeed, behind the scenes, bringing everything together in a way that will be for our ultimate good (Romans 8:28). We are promised that we can find strength in Christ in whatever life throws at us (Philippians 4:13). But nowhere are we promised that nothing bad will happen to those of us who have chosen to believe in Christ. In fact, Romans chapter 8 goes on to list a litany of trials that Christians may have to face--but that list is included to demonstrate the promise that nothing we face here on earth can separate us from God's love.

He's done everything He promised. We just have to focus on what those promises are, not what we'd like them to be.

The Separation of Knowledge and State

I recently had the chance to get a free copy of John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress as a free adio file from Christianaudio.com. It's the first time I've listed to an audio book (Is it antiquated to use the term books on tape?), and I loved that I was able to finish the entire book in about four walks with the kids. They sit in the stroller and snack and look for the guineas; I get a little fresh air and "read" a book. It's a happy arrangement for everyone involved.

I've read The Pilgrim's Progress before, and it's a nice little read. The introduction to this particular file mentioned that it used to be a required portion of literature classes in America. But as a religious text, should it be?

I say yes, and that's unrelated to my own personal religious views. I also think that the Bible should be part of required reading in schools, but again, that's not a religious opinion. I support the notion of separation of church and state (even though this phrase appears no where in the U. S. Constitution), but I don't think that texts like these are solely religious documents; I also see an overlap into the category of great books with which educated people should be familiar.

How many biblical references exist in popular culture? If people have no familiarity with the basic stories of the Bible, does that interfere with their understanding of movies or television or music? There is an episode of House called "Finding Judas." As someone who is familiar with the story of Judas, this title makes perfect sense to me, but I wonder if there are people who watched this episode without understanding what the writers meant with the name Judas. There was also a line about thirty pieces of silver in the episode, but comments like this are lost on audience members who aren't familiar with the story.

Teaching works like the Bible, The Pilgrim's Progress, and other "religious" texts isn't always about religious indoctrination; sure, it can become more personal than academic in the wrong hands...but so can history or political lessons. A good history teacher never lets her students know what her personal political leanings are, and the same could be done with a class on religious texts. Whether or not people are of the Christian faith, the fact remains that Christian and biblical references are peppered throughout American culture, and shutting these works out of the classroom ultimately does a disservice to students who want to have a complete education. The Pilgrim's Progress is, as a historical text, a seminal work that students of literature should read in order to understand later texts that reference it, as are the Bible and the Qur'an.

It's a shame that great works of literature have been cut from classrooms in the service of separating church and state. If schools are purged of any material that includes a reference to these or other religious texts, what kind of quality literature will be left? More importantly, what will happen to a generation of students who never had the chance to read the texts that have made up the cannon of Western literature?

The "Fat" Tax

If I have an aneurism, blame it on Adam.

He told me that there was an article in the Saturday paper that I would be interested in reading. If, by "interested in reading," he meant "infuriated by," he was right. It's called Obesity Expert Backs Tax on Sugary Drinks. Apparently, society's trip to hell in a handbasket is due in part to the eeeevils of soda. I agree with Brownell's first point--when it comes to obesity, prevention and education are surely easier than correction after the fact. It's a lot easier to form good habits than to change bad ones after a person has already reached the morbidly obese stage; after all, it's not like he got there by swinging through McDonald's and getting a large soda on a single Friday night.

After this, though, our points of view diverged.

I do have to congratulate him on the term better defaults, though. That's the fanciest euphemism for brainwashing I've heard in a long time. And I don't have a problem, exactly, with removing soda and candy machines from schools. The ten-year-old kid isn't allowed to do the grocery shopping on his own, so limiting his choices is not a problem for me. However, removing the choices of voting adults is where I have a problem. Don't tax soda through the roof on the pretense of giving me better defaults; I already know that soda is not the healthiest choice I can make. In fact, show me an adult who doesn't know that water is healthier than soda. People know this already. Brownell wants to add a penny per ounce to the cost of soda. Will that twenty-cent tax really persuade a die-hard Coke drinker to switch to water?

Brownell's "fat tax" argument that really struck a nerve with me, though, is the argument that healthy food is more expensive that unhealthy food. "Look! If you go to McDonald's, it costs less to get a burger and fries than it does to get a salad! It's a conspiracy to MAKE US ALL FAT!" This is what's known as a false dilemma fallacy, though. He's presented you with these two options--a Big Mac or a salad--and ignored the existence of other options. The cheaper choice yet is not to eat at McDonald's at all. We as a family rarely eat out because it's far more expensive than eating at home. We went to Wendy's a few weeks ago, and for two adults and a toddler, it cost almost $18. For less than that, I can get ten pounds of rice and ten pounds of beans, and that will last us for months. Just like anything else, healthy eating costs as much as you want to spend on it. Sure, you can get the fancy organic and free-range foods that will jack up your bill, but the basics do not have to cost a fortune. I've been analyzing our budget more closely lately because I am not a shopping wizard by any means, but I know the basics of eating cheap and healthy: buy what's in season and cut down on meat. If you've got the means, grow your veggies at home--that can both cut down on costs and provide an organic alternative. (Plus, those sad, sad things they market as "tomatoes" in the grocery store don't hold a candle to a nice, ripe, fresh-off-the-vine Early Girl that you get out of your own backyard.) Brownell bemoans the availability and marketing of fast food, but he does not address eating at home at all.

I also can't get behind his argument for a "safe environment" for kids. Maybe things will change when my kids learn how to write, but in our house, the kids...don't make the grocery list. The kids don't do the shopping. Don't want your kids to drink soda? Then don't buy it for them. Not into candy for the little ones? I don't blame you. Don't let them have it. Think there's too much fast food marketing on TV? Turn it off. There is a way to give kids better defaults on the choices they make--it's called parenting. Just because your kid wants to eat at Taco Bell every meal--and I surely cannot fault her if she does--doesn't mean you have to comply. My dad had a saying when we started to whine about wanting something as kids: "You can want in one hand and piss in the other and see which one fills up first." I never understood it, but I knew what it meant: we weren't getting the Big Mac or My Little Pony or dog or whatever else it was that we were whining about.

Brownell didn't mention the last fat tax argument I hate: Obesity is a public concern because of all the health costs that the government has to absorb. There's an easy solution to that: don't nationalize healthcare! No worries about costs! If Joe Shmoe wants to eat himself into a heart attack, don't make me pay for.

It's all about personal responsibility and decisions, and I just don't buy most of the arguments about sin tax. I enjoy a bottle of Coke now and then. I love donuts. I could eat Taco Bell every single day (and did in college). But, as a rational adult, I understand that eating donuts and Taco Bell every day will make me fat, and I hate shopping for pants, so I'll keep the ones I have, thanks. I understand that forcing my heart to deal with a Big Mac every day is going to make it wear out sooner, so I'll stick to my beans and rice. I do enjoy a little bit of chocolate in the afternoons; the kids nap, I grade papers, and the M-n-Ms and coffee keep me awake. But I don't eat the whole bag, and I understand that I need to add a little more physical activity to my routine to balance out those candy-covered chocolates. It's basic math, really; if calories in is greater than calories out, weight goes up. It's not rocket science. But it is a personal choice, and I resent anyone who tries to coerce me into making the choice that they think is best for me.

I don't drink a lot of soda, but that doesn't matter. I'd like to buy the world a Coke and keep it company, and then we can all tell the government that if they want to tax us for enjoying a carbonated treat, they can want in one hand and piss in the other and see which one fills up first.

Busy Mom's Bible: First Impressions

I signed up to receive a free copy of the Busy Mom's Bible, and it arrived in the mail on Monday. My first reaction: I love the smell of new Bibles! I haven't purchased a new Bible in ages; I still use either the Bible I got to keep in my locker for Bible studies in high school or, more often, the one I received at my baptism in 1988. These don't really have that fresh-out-of-the-box smell anymore. (Or look, actually; I'm amazed that my locker Bible is still in tact.)

The BMB is an NIV translation, so that's a small plus for it. I was looking for a more modern translation, but this will do. All of the Bibles in this house are KJV translations, and I'm not sure why. As a kid, I thought that this was the original and therefore most authentic translation and using a modern translation was a cop-out to avoid the work it took to slog through all of the thees and thous and thines in the KJV and if you were going to take the easy way out on the translation you'd probably take the easy way out on the commandments and you would invariably GO TO HELL. This...makes no sense. I don't think that my church overtly taught this; the pastor was old-fashioned and used KJV, but I do not recall any specific statements against other translations. I guess it was something that my juvenile mind extrapolated. "Pastor is good; pastor uses KJV; KJV is good; everything else is bad." That's some faulty logic there, folks. I've been considering buying a new translation for several reasons. For one, the thees and thous sound poetic and lovely, but at the end of the day, I just don't want to slog through old English text. I want to focus on the content, not the translation. For another, since I grew up with KJV, it's easy to gloss over verses when I'm reading. "Yeah, yeah, I've read this before; let's get a move on so I can meet my quota to read through the entire Bible in a year (or, on my current toddler-controlled schedule, a decade). A different translation would force me to slow down and think about what I'm reading, thus encouraging an actual study that allows me to glean things from the text I've never considered before.

There are 52 study guide sections in the BMB, each consisting of a 1-minute, 5-minute, and 10-minute study option. These...these are really great. If I know that I have five minutes before the kids wake up, I'm not that motivated to delve into the Bible; how can I focus on something meaty in just five minutes? These short, directed studies are just the ticket. Each section also has a "word to take with you today" that is related to the study topics. I like this, too; I may not have room in my addled brain for a whole passage or even a single verse, but I can surely squeeze in a word that I can use a touchstone for the larger ideas covered in the studies.

The one-minute studies start with a short verse, then have a short passage to read that connects that study to everyday life (often, it appears, everyday life as a mother). There is also a passage of relevant scripture listed below the one-minute study. The five-minute study is Reflect and Pray study. There are a series of questions to think and pray about that are related to the one-minute study. Beyond that is the ten-minute study, which directs the reader to the back for more passages related to a given topic. The first few ten-minute studies, for example, are a series of subsections under a heading called God is.... Each of these has a flagship verse and three more passages to read. The first one is "Coming Again," the second is"Compassionate," and the list continues in alphabetical order. The next major heading is Family Ties, with such subsections as "Acceptance" and "Communication." Again, these seem like great little snippets that will allow me to read and study the Bible with purpose in the few minutes I can carve out for myself during the week.

Also at the back are some pages with more five-minute Reflect and Pray studies. The first heading here is Reflect and Pray on authentic living, with sections such as "Beauty," "Character," "Comfort," and "Confidence." Again, yay for focus and purpose in just a few minutes!

I just noticed the last two pages before the maps in the back. (I always loved the maps as a kid. No idea why, but they were fascinating.) There is a page called 5 Minutes Reading About Jesus and a page called 5 Minutes Reading About the Women of the Bible. I look forward to getting into these when I have time, too.

Overall, my initial reaction is very positive. This really does seem geared toward ladies with very little time for in-depth, thorough Bible studies at home. I look forward to getting started!

If Mama ain't happy...

Today it was in the high sixties, sunny, light breeze, and the kids were absolutely beside themselves with naughtiness. I stocked the girls up with Cheerios and water, put on some headphones, turned on Pandora, and we all went for a nice, relaxing walk around the block.

There's been a discussion on a board I follow about whether moms, particularly stay-at-home moms, need to make "me" time. I can see both sides of the issue; if you really, truly, honestly do not mind spending every single second with your children, then being a SAHM is a wonderful arrangement. If you really, truly, honestly need to have a little bit of time each day where you get a break from the little people, that's okay, too. I think the problem lies in women who need that time away but feel guilty about it, like they should want to spend every waking (and, in our case, sleeping) moment with their children. This is a recipe for disaster; the kids are grating on Mama's nerves, Mama wants to get away, Mama feels like she can't (or shouldn't), so Mama starts to resent the kids subconsciously for putting her in this position. Kids pick up on that stuff, though, so it's no good to anyone if Mama never takes a moment to herself when she needs one.

I'm one of those mothers who does need a little time sans children. I don't need a lot; I'm not looking to leave town for a week to hang out alone or with friends. I don't even need to get out of the house or be completely alone--I'd actually kind of like to hang out with that guy I married. I just need to reboot my brain for a few minutes when there is no whining, no crying, no shoving, not even a sleeping baby on my lap. It's been especially important since E was born. She spent most of the first year of her life with me--she literally would not sleep unless it was in my arms, on my lap, or by my side. I know that I'll look back on this time fondly when I have the benefit of time and perspective, but in the here and now, it gets to be overwhelming at times.

Our walk today was largely motivated by my need for a time out. I tried to take five minutes to clean the bathroom counter, and Jazz got annoyed by that brief lack of attention (Oh, the temperament of children at two and a half!) and tried desperately to squash her sister, for no other reason than because she can. After that disastrous attempt at cleaning, I needed some time to reset my system, hence the walk. Even though I was interrupting what they wanted to do (play, eat, and kill each other) with something that I wanted to do (get a moment's peace), it wasn't a bad decision. I felt much better after the walk, and I was able to be a better, more patient mother because of that. Taking "me" time isn't selfish if it improves a mother's ability to mother her children.

Yearly Ritual

Every year or so I do this. I get the itch to write something other than a shopping list or a grading comment, I start a blog, I promise myself I'll keep it going, and I promptly forget for another year. Perhaps if I know that I have some sort of audience to keep me on my toes, I'll keep up with it (I'm lookin' at you, Katie.).