Two kinds of Homeschoolers
Sep. 17, 2009; 07:58 PM Filed in: Culture
| Church Life
It's clear to me that
there are two kinds of homeschoolers-- that is, two
kinds of parents
who homeschool their
children.
The first kind are primarily concerned about the education of their children. Because of circumstances, opportunities, and/or necessity, they have chosen to take on the education of their children at home. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't accept another opportunity (even public schools) if it met their standards and/or was necessary; it simply means that, as things are, this is what is best for their children right now. It also means that they are open to different options in the future if, again, they considered it and determined it to be what is best. These homeschoolers are generally accepting of other people's decisions about how those people educate their children, because, after all, those parents are the ones in the best position to know what is best for their children's education and overall health and well-being.
The second kind of homeschoolers would like for you to believe that their primary concern is the education of their children. They will even say that is their primary concern. But it isn't-- in fact, that is a secondary concern, at best. The primary concern for these homeschoolers is bound up in their worldview, political persuasion, and dogmatic views about what they believe is right for ALL children. They are convinced that they are "right" about all of their views-- not in the sense that they have carefully weighed it against all others and are acting on personal conviction, but in the sense that what they say goes for everyone else too. They have fallen into the fateful error of believing that they have unlocked "God's way" for understanding education, politics, social discussions, education, and everything else that interests them. As far as education goes, they have not only determined that what is best for their children is an education administered by them, but that there is no other biblical way that children can be rightly educated. This determination gives them a sense of superiority that empowers them to treat anyone who differs with them with condescension and belligerence.
In the Christian church, the first kind typically handles themselves in particular manner. They have come to their decision humbly, and regard others with the same humility. They are simply out to do their best, and are interested in connecting with others who homeschool because they recognize that many others are working in ways that they could learn from. While they may hold opinions about politics and social issues-- and even about whether others are making wise choices regarding their children's education-- they understand that those are their opinions. They do not view their homeschooling as necessarily motivated out of the "right" way to do all things, but out of what they believe is the best decision for their family; in fact, they acknowledge that sometimes homeschooling is a train-wreck for some families, and was a bad decision. They are grateful for the church as a refuge for broken people, a community of fellowship, and most importantly as a place where sinners may come to learn and grow in Christ's grace as those who were once the enemies of God but have now been adopted as His children. Many of them get concerned when the church loses its focus on the Gospel and emphasizes too much the things of this world.
In the Christian church, the second kind also handles themselves in apredictable
particular manner.
Regardless of the manner in which they have come to
their decision (humbly or not), they tend not to
regard others with humility. They are out to prove a
point-- and nearly every contact with them begins or
ends with that point being pushed on others. They
regard their opinions about politics and social
matters, as well as education, to be definitive, and
anyone who disagrees with them is obviously in sin.
They have no problem with foisting their every
political comment and complaint on whoever will
listen (and many who won't), under the guise of
"keeping people informed" but in the form of a
presentation that is not only biased but frequently
disrespectful and undignified. They typically
equivocate "Christian" with "Republican" and assume
certain shibboleths (such as "pro-life" and
"pro-family") to be the markers of "real"
Christians-- indeed, that these are all but required
alongside a profession of faith for the profession to
be valid. They believe that the church is a place for
the righteous, a coalition of the like-minded, and
most importantly as a place where everyone should go
to be shown all of the right ways of thinking about
the issues they care about. They get concerned when
their preacher doesn't call people to the carpet for
their political, social, educational, or other
failures.
Homeschoolers: which one are you?
To the first group, I say this: thank you for your humble and tireless efforts to raise your children as best as you are able. I know that it is often difficult, and you sometimes wonder if you have made a mistake in choosing this path. Your humility is affirming of the fact that you are approaching this with the right attitude, and that counts for a lot. Keep up the good work, and know that there are many of us behind you. You give homeschooling the good name that it (usually) deserves.
To the second group, I say this: please reconsider the over-confidence and absolute certainty with which you approach this and many other positions that you hold. I cannot say with any conviction that your attitudes or positions are inherently "blessed" by Scripture or by God, as you seem so persuaded is the case. I am certain of this: there is no requirement of political or educational uniformity in Scripture, and you are misrepresenting the church, the Gospel, and Christ Himself in much of the way you portray them. I fear that your presentation of what it means to be a Christian is a hindrance for many who otherwise long for the grace of the Cross.
The first kind are primarily concerned about the education of their children. Because of circumstances, opportunities, and/or necessity, they have chosen to take on the education of their children at home. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't accept another opportunity (even public schools) if it met their standards and/or was necessary; it simply means that, as things are, this is what is best for their children right now. It also means that they are open to different options in the future if, again, they considered it and determined it to be what is best. These homeschoolers are generally accepting of other people's decisions about how those people educate their children, because, after all, those parents are the ones in the best position to know what is best for their children's education and overall health and well-being.
The second kind of homeschoolers would like for you to believe that their primary concern is the education of their children. They will even say that is their primary concern. But it isn't-- in fact, that is a secondary concern, at best. The primary concern for these homeschoolers is bound up in their worldview, political persuasion, and dogmatic views about what they believe is right for ALL children. They are convinced that they are "right" about all of their views-- not in the sense that they have carefully weighed it against all others and are acting on personal conviction, but in the sense that what they say goes for everyone else too. They have fallen into the fateful error of believing that they have unlocked "God's way" for understanding education, politics, social discussions, education, and everything else that interests them. As far as education goes, they have not only determined that what is best for their children is an education administered by them, but that there is no other biblical way that children can be rightly educated. This determination gives them a sense of superiority that empowers them to treat anyone who differs with them with condescension and belligerence.
In the Christian church, the first kind typically handles themselves in particular manner. They have come to their decision humbly, and regard others with the same humility. They are simply out to do their best, and are interested in connecting with others who homeschool because they recognize that many others are working in ways that they could learn from. While they may hold opinions about politics and social issues-- and even about whether others are making wise choices regarding their children's education-- they understand that those are their opinions. They do not view their homeschooling as necessarily motivated out of the "right" way to do all things, but out of what they believe is the best decision for their family; in fact, they acknowledge that sometimes homeschooling is a train-wreck for some families, and was a bad decision. They are grateful for the church as a refuge for broken people, a community of fellowship, and most importantly as a place where sinners may come to learn and grow in Christ's grace as those who were once the enemies of God but have now been adopted as His children. Many of them get concerned when the church loses its focus on the Gospel and emphasizes too much the things of this world.
In the Christian church, the second kind also handles themselves in a
Homeschoolers: which one are you?
To the first group, I say this: thank you for your humble and tireless efforts to raise your children as best as you are able. I know that it is often difficult, and you sometimes wonder if you have made a mistake in choosing this path. Your humility is affirming of the fact that you are approaching this with the right attitude, and that counts for a lot. Keep up the good work, and know that there are many of us behind you. You give homeschooling the good name that it (usually) deserves.
To the second group, I say this: please reconsider the over-confidence and absolute certainty with which you approach this and many other positions that you hold. I cannot say with any conviction that your attitudes or positions are inherently "blessed" by Scripture or by God, as you seem so persuaded is the case. I am certain of this: there is no requirement of political or educational uniformity in Scripture, and you are misrepresenting the church, the Gospel, and Christ Himself in much of the way you portray them. I fear that your presentation of what it means to be a Christian is a hindrance for many who otherwise long for the grace of the Cross.
|
Redemption
Jun. 29, 2009; 01:09 PM Filed in: Church Life
Here’s a
great and amazing video. It offers a redemptive view
of a tragic circumstance.
What I love about this short account is that these believers aren’t pie-in-the-sky about their faith or passé about their situation. They are simply grateful for what God has given them, and for the hope that He has redeemed, is redeeming, and will redeem this broken world.
I’m undone.
What I love about this short account is that these believers aren’t pie-in-the-sky about their faith or passé about their situation. They are simply grateful for what God has given them, and for the hope that He has redeemed, is redeeming, and will redeem this broken world.
I’m undone.
(HT: Glen)
No balance
One of
the leaders of Youth Specialties, a large resource
for youth ministry in the Christian church,
recently announced that he was
cutting out Facebook, Twitter, and
blogging because
of a re-evaluation of priorities in his life. Good
for him.
Several of the comments he received pleaded with him to reconsider. At least one of them (I didn’t read them all) appealed to the goal of “balance” as the solution to continuing these activities. You don’t have to quit altogether, said he, but just scale back.
I have three responses to this:
First-- seriously?!? This guy’s just announced that he has prayerfully considered how he uses his time, and he’s giving up three online time-sponges in order to spend more time on his ministry and with his family. You want him to reconsider because you’d miss reading his blog? (And this is from people who work in vocational ministry...) I don’t have any problem with any of those activities, but I both understand and respect when people thoughtfully decide to purge them from their lives.
Second-- there are dozens of online “social” tools available (and more daily, it seems), and all of them have some value and purpose. But two things stand out to me in this vein: first, if you can’t articulate a good reason (even if it is, “harmless fun”) for using any one of them, then you’re wasting your time. Second, if you’re using them just to “build your brand” then I think you ought to take a closer look at the Scriptures and consider whether “building your personal brand” has anything to do with discipleship.
Third-- and this is the main point: people talk to me often about “balance” in their lives. Some are folks I minister to, others are people I consult with (because I do some consulting in addition to pastoral ministry, and that sometimes includes consulting about “productivity”), and a unifying fact about all of them is that they have too much going on in their lives. The popular solution to this in today’s culture is to look for “balance.”
But as I read the Bible I see nothing whatsoever about balance. Sure, you could argue that the texts on stewardship apply to time as well-- and they do-- but that doesn’t amount to a Divine declaration in favor of balance. In fact, there really isn’t a warrant for balance even in the stewardship texts.
What I see in the Bible is this: learn what are the priorities of the Kingdom, and utterly abandon everything that isn’t them.
If you’re looking for balance, here’s how you accomplish it in a biblical way: cut out some of the busyness that has little or no real value, and suddenly your life will feel balanced. Discern what God has created and called you to do and be, and stop trying to do or be more than this. Spend your time on what God declares to be important, and you won’t feel imbalanced.
Several of the comments he received pleaded with him to reconsider. At least one of them (I didn’t read them all) appealed to the goal of “balance” as the solution to continuing these activities. You don’t have to quit altogether, said he, but just scale back.
I have three responses to this:
First-- seriously?!? This guy’s just announced that he has prayerfully considered how he uses his time, and he’s giving up three online time-sponges in order to spend more time on his ministry and with his family. You want him to reconsider because you’d miss reading his blog? (And this is from people who work in vocational ministry...) I don’t have any problem with any of those activities, but I both understand and respect when people thoughtfully decide to purge them from their lives.
Second-- there are dozens of online “social” tools available (and more daily, it seems), and all of them have some value and purpose. But two things stand out to me in this vein: first, if you can’t articulate a good reason (even if it is, “harmless fun”) for using any one of them, then you’re wasting your time. Second, if you’re using them just to “build your brand” then I think you ought to take a closer look at the Scriptures and consider whether “building your personal brand” has anything to do with discipleship.
Third-- and this is the main point: people talk to me often about “balance” in their lives. Some are folks I minister to, others are people I consult with (because I do some consulting in addition to pastoral ministry, and that sometimes includes consulting about “productivity”), and a unifying fact about all of them is that they have too much going on in their lives. The popular solution to this in today’s culture is to look for “balance.”
But as I read the Bible I see nothing whatsoever about balance. Sure, you could argue that the texts on stewardship apply to time as well-- and they do-- but that doesn’t amount to a Divine declaration in favor of balance. In fact, there really isn’t a warrant for balance even in the stewardship texts.
What I see in the Bible is this: learn what are the priorities of the Kingdom, and utterly abandon everything that isn’t them.
If you’re looking for balance, here’s how you accomplish it in a biblical way: cut out some of the busyness that has little or no real value, and suddenly your life will feel balanced. Discern what God has created and called you to do and be, and stop trying to do or be more than this. Spend your time on what God declares to be important, and you won’t feel imbalanced.
Update on Abbey
Mar. 18, 2009; 04:39 PM Filed in: Personal
We just got back to the
hotel room from a long day, and I wanted to give you
all an update.
In case I/we haven't been very good at keeping you in the loop, Abbey was accepted into the Shriners' Hospital Program for treatment of her cleft palette. The local (Memphis) Shriners have taken care of getting us up to Chicago(!) to visit the Shriners' Hospital up here, and we spent all day today in clinical assessment and evaluation.
We got to the hospital at 8am, and between then and mid-afternoon we saw 13 different specialists and team members, including a Nurse, a Speech Therapist, an Audiologist, a Social Worker, a Psychologist, an Ear/Nose/Throat Doctor, a pediatric Dentist, a pediatric Orthodontist, a Nurse Practitioner, and a team of two Cranial/Facial Plastic Surgeons. After that, we met with the whole team (including some that we didn't meet with individually) for a summary of their assessment.
As of now, the plan is to do corrective surgery when Abbey is between 9 months and 1 year old. At that time, they will also put tubes in her ears. These procedures will take place in Chicago also, and she'll be in the hospital for probably 2-3 nights (the night before and 1 or 2 nights after). After that, she'll have a recovery time of about 2 weeks before she can return to regular feeding, etc.
The whole team was/is top-notch, and we were so impressed with all of them and the care they offered. We were very encouraged about where things already are, and we are so grateful with what is to come with this program.
Thanks so much for your prayers and concern, and please continue to pray for our safety as we return home tomorrow.
In case I/we haven't been very good at keeping you in the loop, Abbey was accepted into the Shriners' Hospital Program for treatment of her cleft palette. The local (Memphis) Shriners have taken care of getting us up to Chicago(!) to visit the Shriners' Hospital up here, and we spent all day today in clinical assessment and evaluation.
We got to the hospital at 8am, and between then and mid-afternoon we saw 13 different specialists and team members, including a Nurse, a Speech Therapist, an Audiologist, a Social Worker, a Psychologist, an Ear/Nose/Throat Doctor, a pediatric Dentist, a pediatric Orthodontist, a Nurse Practitioner, and a team of two Cranial/Facial Plastic Surgeons. After that, we met with the whole team (including some that we didn't meet with individually) for a summary of their assessment.
As of now, the plan is to do corrective surgery when Abbey is between 9 months and 1 year old. At that time, they will also put tubes in her ears. These procedures will take place in Chicago also, and she'll be in the hospital for probably 2-3 nights (the night before and 1 or 2 nights after). After that, she'll have a recovery time of about 2 weeks before she can return to regular feeding, etc.
The whole team was/is top-notch, and we were so impressed with all of them and the care they offered. We were very encouraged about where things already are, and we are so grateful with what is to come with this program.
Thanks so much for your prayers and concern, and please continue to pray for our safety as we return home tomorrow.
On a trip...
Mar. 17, 2009; 06:16 AM Filed in: Personal
We’re
traveling this week-- part of “we” is, at least...
Most
of you know that Abbey was born with a cleft
palette-- which means that the hard roof of her
mouth (in her case, only part of it) is not
fully formed, and there is a gap in the back.
This has all sorts of implications, the most
prominent of which currently is that she isn’t
able to suck on a normal bottle.
A few months ago, Marcie found out that the Shriner’s Hospital cares for this, and through a series of providential encounters (which include my step-father and his neighbors) we were fast-tracked through the application process and Abbey was accepted. This means that she will receive some of the best care available, and 100% of her care for this issue (including even the most incidental costs) will be covered by them, until she is 18.
So today it all begins: they are shuttling us up to Chicago (where the Shriner’s Hospital that treats these is), and tomorrow we’ll see 12 specialists who will begin to assess and plan her treatment needs. Then we return on Thursday.
Please pray for us, and especially for Abbey as we attend to her care. Pray for the rest of the kids, who are staying with our mothers in Oakland. And for the doctors and others who will assess her care. Finally, give thanks with us for God’s provision in this.
Most
of you know that Abbey was born with a cleft
palette-- which means that the hard roof of her
mouth (in her case, only part of it) is not
fully formed, and there is a gap in the back.
This has all sorts of implications, the most
prominent of which currently is that she isn’t
able to suck on a normal bottle.
A few months ago, Marcie found out that the Shriner’s Hospital cares for this, and through a series of providential encounters (which include my step-father and his neighbors) we were fast-tracked through the application process and Abbey was accepted. This means that she will receive some of the best care available, and 100% of her care for this issue (including even the most incidental costs) will be covered by them, until she is 18.
So today it all begins: they are shuttling us up to Chicago (where the Shriner’s Hospital that treats these is), and tomorrow we’ll see 12 specialists who will begin to assess and plan her treatment needs. Then we return on Thursday.
Please pray for us, and especially for Abbey as we attend to her care. Pray for the rest of the kids, who are staying with our mothers in Oakland. And for the doctors and others who will assess her care. Finally, give thanks with us for God’s provision in this.
Thanksgiving wishes
Nov. 27, 2008; 09:56 AM Filed in: Personal
Happy
Thanksgiving to all!
I trust you and your families are resting, feasting, and enjoying the community and fellowship of family and friends. We are having a small but delightful family gathering here in Oakland-- my sister came down from St. Louis to join us for the weekend. We’ll have turkey, rice and gravy, green bean casserole, pineapple and cheese casserole, yeast rolls, and pie. This afternoon will be about rest, football, and feeding babies.
I apologize for the general slowness of posting here lately. I hope you will excuse me for putting pastoral ministry and family above blogging. I plant to resume more regular/frequent posting in the next week or so.
Meanwhile, here’s a recent shot of the twins-- they are growing fast.
I trust you and your families are resting, feasting, and enjoying the community and fellowship of family and friends. We are having a small but delightful family gathering here in Oakland-- my sister came down from St. Louis to join us for the weekend. We’ll have turkey, rice and gravy, green bean casserole, pineapple and cheese casserole, yeast rolls, and pie. This afternoon will be about rest, football, and feeding babies.
I apologize for the general slowness of posting here lately. I hope you will excuse me for putting pastoral ministry and family above blogging. I plant to resume more regular/frequent posting in the next week or so.
Meanwhile, here’s a recent shot of the twins-- they are growing fast.
Twins
Here are some pictures of the
twins, who were born safely on Friday at 4:31
(and 4:32) pm. They are in the NICU, and are
improving in their eating.
This is Abbey (Abigail Ellis), who has been having difficulty learning to eat (thus the tube for feeding). Marcie worked with her to feed her right after this picture, and she drank only 3ccs of the 8ccs they wanted her to have. (approx. 30ccs is one ounce!) She was first-born, and weighed 5 pounds 4 ounces at birth.
Since these pictures, she has
begun regulating her own temperature-- which
means that she is bundled up with blankets when
she isn’t being fed or changed. She hasn’t
required any medication, but she has had a
couple of episodes of apnea, which means that
she has stopped breathing briefly. (The second
time was very minor, and she corrected herself
without assistance.) But her feeding is getting
better-- the tube is out now, and she is eating
from a bottle, although it takes a lot of time,
work, and patience. They bumped her up to 16ccs
yesterday morning, and 22ccs last night.
Here is Caroline (Anna
Caroline), who was born at 4 pounds 13 ounces.
She is a champion eater, and usually finishes
her bottles in a couple of minutes. This bottle
(only 8ccs, like her sister) took her less than
two minutes; when I fed her this morning, she
had 20ccs in less than five minutes.
Caroline hasn’t had difficulty with breathing at all, and she hasn’t had to have any medication either. But she has struggled with keeping her temperature up, so they have kept her bed heated.
You
can see from the second picture that they are
very small. Caroline’s head is a little bigger
than a baseball, but much smaller than a
softball. Abbey is a little bigger, but neither
has begun to gain weight since birth. They are
healthy and doing well, and the nurses are
usually more encouraging and affirming about
their improvements. Still, they are going to be
in the NICU for a while longer yet.
Here’s another picture of Abbey:
And here’s another picture of
Caroline:
Twins update
Marcie is
scheduled for a C-Section today at 4pm! Caroline's
fluid levels were still low this morning, so the
doctor felt that the safest thing would be to move
ahead.
As of yesterday, all indications were that both girls (well, all three really) are healthy. Both twins are over 5 pounds, both are showing signs of breathing movement, etc. Marcie is 34½ weeks right now, and 36 is considered full-term for twins-- which means that they were pretty close.
Marcie is feeling well, though a bit tired-- and both hungry and thirsty, since she hasn't had anything to eat or drink since midnight or so. She's a little anxious about the surgery, anesthesia, etc., but is otherwise bearing up.
Please join us in praying:
As of yesterday, all indications were that both girls (well, all three really) are healthy. Both twins are over 5 pounds, both are showing signs of breathing movement, etc. Marcie is 34½ weeks right now, and 36 is considered full-term for twins-- which means that they were pretty close.
Marcie is feeling well, though a bit tired-- and both hungry and thirsty, since she hasn't had anything to eat or drink since midnight or so. She's a little anxious about the surgery, anesthesia, etc., but is otherwise bearing up.
Please join us in praying:
- For Marcie's preparation and endurance for surgery
- That the surgery would go smoothly, without pain or complication
- For the health of the twins and Marcie as they come out of delivery
- For wisdom about follow-up issues: whether the twins need intensive care, how long before they could come home, etc.
Fostering and Adoption: how we gave up the family a long time ago
Aug. 26, 2008; 09:05 AM Filed in: Culture
| Church Life
There is an interesting overture before
the legislature of Arkansas that, if it
succeeds, would put a bill before the state that
would outlaw adoption and foster care by
unmarried people who live together.
I find it interesting because it is addressing the very problem that, I believe, ended the current debate about same-sex marriage before it started: when we (and by that I mean the “royal we”-- the culture of our nation) granted same-sex couples the right to foster and adopt orphans, we tacitly allowed them to also define themselves as a family. How, then, could we possibly deny them other similar legal rights as a family?
So the people of Arkansas have realized that-- or at least they have recognized that granting same-sex couples (and other unmarried couples as well) the right to adopt, they put the “traditional” understanding of family under threat. This is a pretty bold move, given the widespread acceptance of divorce and even co-habitation in our society.
At the same time, I have to say I’m sympathetic to the response from the “other side”-- in this case, including the social workers and others who want to see the huge numbers of orphans placed with families that can care for them better than the state. Is it not the case that ANY willing parent-- single, unmarried, homosexual-- who will offer love and care for a child is better than none, leaving children in state care?
And this is where the rubber meets the road: if the church dares to demand that such measures be taken (i.e., stripping same-sex couples of the possibility of adoption), we must step up to improve our participation in adoption and foster care ourselves. We are biblically mandated to do so (James 1:27) if we claim to take the practice of our faith seriously. How can we say that unmarried couples must not be allowed to adopt, when they are willing to do what we are not?
I find it interesting because it is addressing the very problem that, I believe, ended the current debate about same-sex marriage before it started: when we (and by that I mean the “royal we”-- the culture of our nation) granted same-sex couples the right to foster and adopt orphans, we tacitly allowed them to also define themselves as a family. How, then, could we possibly deny them other similar legal rights as a family?
So the people of Arkansas have realized that-- or at least they have recognized that granting same-sex couples (and other unmarried couples as well) the right to adopt, they put the “traditional” understanding of family under threat. This is a pretty bold move, given the widespread acceptance of divorce and even co-habitation in our society.
At the same time, I have to say I’m sympathetic to the response from the “other side”-- in this case, including the social workers and others who want to see the huge numbers of orphans placed with families that can care for them better than the state. Is it not the case that ANY willing parent-- single, unmarried, homosexual-- who will offer love and care for a child is better than none, leaving children in state care?
And this is where the rubber meets the road: if the church dares to demand that such measures be taken (i.e., stripping same-sex couples of the possibility of adoption), we must step up to improve our participation in adoption and foster care ourselves. We are biblically mandated to do so (James 1:27) if we claim to take the practice of our faith seriously. How can we say that unmarried couples must not be allowed to adopt, when they are willing to do what we are not?
Blog tour: The Children's Extravaganza
Waterbrook Press
invited me to
participate in another blog tour-- where I read
and review books on my blog(s). This time, it is
the “Children’s Extravaganza” (their term) which
is a set of three children’s books they have
recently published.
We read through the books-- of course we read them with Jack and Molly-- and got their opinions as well as forming our own. I’ll take each one in turn and offer sort of a mini-review.
The
first book we read was God Gave Us
Heaven, by Lisa Tawn
Bergren.
In it we follow a family of polar bears, with
Little Cub asking Papa questions about God and
heaven throughout the course of a day. It is a
sweet story, and Bergren takes care to answer many
important (and complex) questions in a way that is
understandable to children. The artwork, drawn by
Laura J. Bryant, is fun and cute, and both Jack
and Molly liked it. In fact, Jack and Molly liked
this book the most of the three. Marcie and I
liked it a lot as well, though both of us thought
that a few parts toward the end open the
suggestion that everyone eventually goes to
heaven. 
Apart from that concern-- and
the subtle notion that polar bears have souls
and go to heaven because of Jesus, which I don’t
consider a huge problem in a book like this-- we
liked the book and thought it was very helpful
to begin conversations with Jack and Molly about
eternal life and heaven. I’ll rank this one an
8+.
Bergren has written nearly 30 titles in the publishing world, and God Gave Us Heaven is her fourth. I hope she will offer us more.
When God Created My
Toes was a cute idea-- speculate
about what God thought about creating the
different parts of the body (which, of course, we
know already: He pronounced them “very good” in
Gen. 1:31). It was done in rhyme, which made it
easier to follow for the kids. While some of the
rhymes were a stretch, several of them offered
interesting and good insights. Jack and Molly
liked it okay, but it wasn’t a favorite for
either. And we didn’t love it, either-- mainly
because a number of the pictures (drawn by David
Hohn, some of which made Jack and Molly giggle)
portrayed the children doing mischievous things,
which we didn’t think we wanted our kids getting
ideas from! Overall, I’ll give this one a rating
of 6/6+.
Both When God Created My Toes
and
the last book, God Loves Me More Than
That,
are by Dandi Daley Mackall, who has written
many, many children’s books (over 400!), and has
other titles published by Waterbrook, as well.
Last, but not least,
was God Loves Me More Than
That, which we all liked very much.
Focusing on how great is God’s love for us
(Ephesians 3:17b-18, “And I pray that you, being
rooted and established in love, may have power,
together with all the saints, to grasp how wide
and long and high and deep is the love of
Christ”), this book does a good job of offering
something of a balance to the many wonderful books
that focus on a parent’s great love (think
Guess How Much I
Love You?). The illustrations (again
drawn by David Holm) were terrific-- my favorites
of the three books-- and complemented the book so
well. I had no parental or theological concerns
about this one at all, in either the content or
the drawings, and it’s a toss-up about whether
this one might not be my favorite of the three.
Marcie felt like it might be better for kids a
little younger than ours, though Jack seemed to
connect with it. I rate this one as a 10.
We read through the books-- of course we read them with Jack and Molly-- and got their opinions as well as forming our own. I’ll take each one in turn and offer sort of a mini-review.
The
first book we read was God Gave Us
Heaven, by Lisa Tawn
Bergren.
In it we follow a family of polar bears, with
Little Cub asking Papa questions about God and
heaven throughout the course of a day. It is a
sweet story, and Bergren takes care to answer many
important (and complex) questions in a way that is
understandable to children. The artwork, drawn by
Laura J. Bryant, is fun and cute, and both Jack
and Molly liked it. In fact, Jack and Molly liked
this book the most of the three. Marcie and I
liked it a lot as well, though both of us thought
that a few parts toward the end open the
suggestion that everyone eventually goes to
heaven. Apart from that concern-- and
the subtle notion that polar bears have souls
and go to heaven because of Jesus, which I don’t
consider a huge problem in a book like this-- we
liked the book and thought it was very helpful
to begin conversations with Jack and Molly about
eternal life and heaven. I’ll rank this one an
8+.
Bergren has written nearly 30 titles in the publishing world, and God Gave Us Heaven is her fourth. I hope she will offer us more.
When God Created My
Toes was a cute idea-- speculate
about what God thought about creating the
different parts of the body (which, of course, we
know already: He pronounced them “very good” in
Gen. 1:31). It was done in rhyme, which made it
easier to follow for the kids. While some of the
rhymes were a stretch, several of them offered
interesting and good insights. Jack and Molly
liked it okay, but it wasn’t a favorite for
either. And we didn’t love it, either-- mainly
because a number of the pictures (drawn by David
Hohn, some of which made Jack and Molly giggle)
portrayed the children doing mischievous things,
which we didn’t think we wanted our kids getting
ideas from! Overall, I’ll give this one a rating
of 6/6+.
Both When God Created My Toes
and
the last book, God Loves Me More Than
That,
are by Dandi Daley Mackall, who has written
many, many children’s books (over 400!), and has
other titles published by Waterbrook, as well.
Last, but not least,
was God Loves Me More Than
That, which we all liked very much.
Focusing on how great is God’s love for us
(Ephesians 3:17b-18, “And I pray that you, being
rooted and established in love, may have power,
together with all the saints, to grasp how wide
and long and high and deep is the love of
Christ”), this book does a good job of offering
something of a balance to the many wonderful books
that focus on a parent’s great love (think
Guess How Much I
Love You?). The illustrations (again
drawn by David Holm) were terrific-- my favorites
of the three books-- and complemented the book so
well. I had no parental or theological concerns
about this one at all, in either the content or
the drawings, and it’s a toss-up about whether
this one might not be my favorite of the three.
Marcie felt like it might be better for kids a
little younger than ours, though Jack seemed to
connect with it. I rate this one as a 10.
Tragedy and loss
Aug. 15, 2008; 08:10 AM Filed in: Ministry
| Church Life
I’ve
recently read two posts from bloggers who, somehow,
have managed to candidly capture in their posts the
shock, the depth of pain, the sense of loss that they
have experienced.
Amazingly, both of these writers appear to have written their words even during their experiences. Their words are as beautiful as they are tragic, in part because they are so vulnerable and exposed in them. They are also beautiful because they seem to be inviting others-- not to share their pain, but to understand it.
So many Christians I have known are afraid of pain, many because they have been so sheltered from it. But our world is full of pain, and it is quite likely that more than half of the people you encounter today are facing suffering of some sort. What would you do if you knew of it? How would you come alongside them in their pain? As one friend (who pointed me to one of these posts) wrote, “I am currently working on a doctorate in biblical studies... a Ph.D. does not address this.”
I think the heart of these two ladies is right: to come alongside them, we must understand their pain. We don’t have to share it-- I think many who are the midst of suffering feel strongly that the only way others can understand IS to share it, but I disagree-- but we must understand it. I’m grateful for the vulnerability of these two who, in the moment of their suffering and pain, invite you and me to have a glimpse of what pain looks like, that we might understand.
I invite you to read the stories of:
Rae (AKA SmockLady) who faced her first miscarriage
Denny (AKA Songstress) who lost her husband at age 33
Amazingly, both of these writers appear to have written their words even during their experiences. Their words are as beautiful as they are tragic, in part because they are so vulnerable and exposed in them. They are also beautiful because they seem to be inviting others-- not to share their pain, but to understand it.
So many Christians I have known are afraid of pain, many because they have been so sheltered from it. But our world is full of pain, and it is quite likely that more than half of the people you encounter today are facing suffering of some sort. What would you do if you knew of it? How would you come alongside them in their pain? As one friend (who pointed me to one of these posts) wrote, “I am currently working on a doctorate in biblical studies... a Ph.D. does not address this.”
I think the heart of these two ladies is right: to come alongside them, we must understand their pain. We don’t have to share it-- I think many who are the midst of suffering feel strongly that the only way others can understand IS to share it, but I disagree-- but we must understand it. I’m grateful for the vulnerability of these two who, in the moment of their suffering and pain, invite you and me to have a glimpse of what pain looks like, that we might understand.
I invite you to read the stories of:
Rae (AKA SmockLady) who faced her first miscarriage
Denny (AKA Songstress) who lost her husband at age 33
Family man
I’ve
mentioned Andrew Peterson
before;
he’s a guy with a lot of talent
whose book I reviewed a while
back, and he’s also a talented musician, singer, and
songwriter.
One of Andrew’s songs that I love is “Family Man”-- it’s one of those songs that I wonder at how he ever performs live, because I don’t understand how he doesn’t choke up with tears.
Well, others love this song too. One church staffer created a video for the song, and it’s a pretty incredible video. Take a look:
One of Andrew’s songs that I love is “Family Man”-- it’s one of those songs that I wonder at how he ever performs live, because I don’t understand how he doesn’t choke up with tears.
Well, others love this song too. One church staffer created a video for the song, and it’s a pretty incredible video. Take a look:
"Family Man" from
Trevor Little on Vimeo.
Self-assessment and life plans
Following
up on my comments about health and
risk, the
next question about personal health assessment--
regardless of how you scored on the tests-- is,
“what are you going to do about it?”
This is where a recent post from Michael Hyatt, the CEO of Thomas Nelson Publishers, is very helpful. Michael gives a concise yet complete guide for creating a “Life Plan” which is a self-assessment of how things are in your life, how you want them to be, and how you will get from one to the other.
For example, Michael talks about assessing his own health-- which he is generally happy with (Michael has completed two half-marathons in the past 18 months, so he’s in pretty decent health)-- and where his concerns are. He says:
Michael has a lot of good report of what he learned from doing his life plan, and he even offers a basic template you can download for creating one of your own.
I think this is a solid idea; whether it is related to health, family life, career, church and ministry involvement, or other areas of life, most of us don’t put enough thought and reflection into what lies ahead-- or how easy it will be to get there. Thanks, Michael, for giving us some great food for thought.
This is where a recent post from Michael Hyatt, the CEO of Thomas Nelson Publishers, is very helpful. Michael gives a concise yet complete guide for creating a “Life Plan” which is a self-assessment of how things are in your life, how you want them to be, and how you will get from one to the other.
For example, Michael talks about assessing his own health-- which he is generally happy with (Michael has completed two half-marathons in the past 18 months, so he’s in pretty decent health)-- and where his concerns are. He says:
here’s what I wrote a couple of weeks ago in my Health account: • I feel great. My stamina is great. It's been a long time since I have been sick. • I feel good about my weight and my overall fitness. • I am running (or cross-training) four days a week for at least 60 minutes. • I am not presently doing any strength training. I am concerned this will eventually catch up with me. • I am eating pretty well, but I could be more consistent in choosing more healthy foods.I would share more, but, frankly, it’s too personal.
Michael has a lot of good report of what he learned from doing his life plan, and he even offers a basic template you can download for creating one of your own.
I think this is a solid idea; whether it is related to health, family life, career, church and ministry involvement, or other areas of life, most of us don’t put enough thought and reflection into what lies ahead-- or how easy it will be to get there. Thanks, Michael, for giving us some great food for thought.
A note to sitters about TV
For all the
grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other babysitters
out there, here’s a rule of thumb about appropriate
TV shows:
Don’t assume that it’s safe or appropriate to watch just because it is animated or drawn.
We were recently at someone’s house for a visit, and they don’t have young children. (No, you don’t know them.) One of these adults turned on the TV for Jack and Molly while we (Marcie and I) were in another part of the house. When I came in, they were watching a show that was an animated cartoon-- so the assumption was that it would be a safe show for them. But, in fact, it was a show with a fair amount of violence and themes that we would prefer to introduce our children to more gradually and through a different channel (sorry about the pun) of communication other than television.
It is difficult to grasp the amount of animated TV available these days, especially if you don’t have children under 20. I can name six or seven distinct channels that show animated productions, and some show only animated stuff. There is plenty of stuff that is animated, but is not even marketed to very young children. There is at least as much stuff that IS marketed to children Jack and Molly’s age, but that we don’t want them watching. Many of these shows regularly portray one or more of the following behaviors and/or ideas as both appropriate and acceptable:
On the other hand, the best shows deal with many of the same themes in a way that is good and helpful. Disney produced a show called “Recess” for a few years that frequently portrayed authoritative adults (usually school teachers) in a foreboding and somewhat intimidating manner; however, the show also regularly added in a plot development where the adults that appeared fearsome were shown to be caring, likeable people with normal lives. A show that our kids watch, called “Max and Ruby,” has older sister Ruby displaying a condescending and bossy attitude to her little brother Max in almost every episode; the resolution of every plotline, though, has Ruby realizing that there was something she didn’t know at work, and humility and appreciation were in order.
There are good shows on for children, and I appreciate that many production houses that market to younger children strive to offer some vallue in their shows, even if it is something on the order of a portrayal of decision-making in social circumstances. But it’s a safe bet that the parents of children you know have some distinct preferences about what their kids watch. If you don’t know what these preferences are, be sure to ask before you reach for the clicker.
Don’t assume that it’s safe or appropriate to watch just because it is animated or drawn.
We were recently at someone’s house for a visit, and they don’t have young children. (No, you don’t know them.) One of these adults turned on the TV for Jack and Molly while we (Marcie and I) were in another part of the house. When I came in, they were watching a show that was an animated cartoon-- so the assumption was that it would be a safe show for them. But, in fact, it was a show with a fair amount of violence and themes that we would prefer to introduce our children to more gradually and through a different channel (sorry about the pun) of communication other than television.
It is difficult to grasp the amount of animated TV available these days, especially if you don’t have children under 20. I can name six or seven distinct channels that show animated productions, and some show only animated stuff. There is plenty of stuff that is animated, but is not even marketed to very young children. There is at least as much stuff that IS marketed to children Jack and Molly’s age, but that we don’t want them watching. Many of these shows regularly portray one or more of the following behaviors and/or ideas as both appropriate and acceptable:
- Crude language/joking
- Disrespect for other people/their possessions
- Whining and complaining
- Jokes/mischief at others’ expense
- Moral relativism
- An almost religious/spiritual environmentalism
- Thoughtless foolishness
On the other hand, the best shows deal with many of the same themes in a way that is good and helpful. Disney produced a show called “Recess” for a few years that frequently portrayed authoritative adults (usually school teachers) in a foreboding and somewhat intimidating manner; however, the show also regularly added in a plot development where the adults that appeared fearsome were shown to be caring, likeable people with normal lives. A show that our kids watch, called “Max and Ruby,” has older sister Ruby displaying a condescending and bossy attitude to her little brother Max in almost every episode; the resolution of every plotline, though, has Ruby realizing that there was something she didn’t know at work, and humility and appreciation were in order.
There are good shows on for children, and I appreciate that many production houses that market to younger children strive to offer some vallue in their shows, even if it is something on the order of a portrayal of decision-making in social circumstances. But it’s a safe bet that the parents of children you know have some distinct preferences about what their kids watch. If you don’t know what these preferences are, be sure to ask before you reach for the clicker.
Health and risk
Jul. 08, 2008; 03:50 PM Filed in: Personal
I’ve got something of an awful family history
health-wise, with Diabetes coming down from one side
of my family tree and heart disease/attacks coming
from both; add to that the prominence of things like
breast cancer (my mother and her mother both had it)
and Lupus (my grandmother and one other relative),
and suddenly Marcie is justifiably anxious about my
health and longevity.
Which is why I was very interested to find this set of risk-assessment quizzes from the School of Medicine of Washington University in St. Louis, in partnership with Barnes Jewish Hospital and the Siteman Cancer Research Center. It offers a brief but comprehensive quiz that will assess your degree of risk for Diabetes, heart disease, stroke, Osteoperosis, and twelve types of Cancer.
I’ve worked through a handful of them, and I’m pleased with my results:
Keep in mind, all this quiz can do is assess what degree you are “at risk” for these health issues. A clean or encouraging word from this helpful site is great, but it doesn’t excuse you from attending to your body’s health needs through exercise, dietary discipline, and keeping stress and anxiety levels in check.
That’s why I especially appreciate that, when they return your quiz results, they also include suggestions for how to improve your scores, as well as buttons that answer questions such as, “what makes up my risk?” and “what does my risk mean?” Beyond the basic quiz results, these folks offer a surprising amount of information in an interactive, semi-personalized format.
Which is why I was very interested to find this set of risk-assessment quizzes from the School of Medicine of Washington University in St. Louis, in partnership with Barnes Jewish Hospital and the Siteman Cancer Research Center. It offers a brief but comprehensive quiz that will assess your degree of risk for Diabetes, heart disease, stroke, Osteoperosis, and twelve types of Cancer.
I’ve worked through a handful of them, and I’m pleased with my results:
- Diabetes = below average risk
- Heart disease = much below average
- Stroke = below average
- Prostate Cancer = below average
- Lung Cancer = much below average
Keep in mind, all this quiz can do is assess what degree you are “at risk” for these health issues. A clean or encouraging word from this helpful site is great, but it doesn’t excuse you from attending to your body’s health needs through exercise, dietary discipline, and keeping stress and anxiety levels in check.
That’s why I especially appreciate that, when they return your quiz results, they also include suggestions for how to improve your scores, as well as buttons that answer questions such as, “what makes up my risk?” and “what does my risk mean?” Beyond the basic quiz results, these folks offer a surprising amount of information in an interactive, semi-personalized format.
First wedding
My friend
Paul commented that it has been a long time without a
blog post-- right you are, Paul, and I do beg your
forgiveness. What folks in my congregation know (but
you blog readers of course have no way of knowing) is
that I’ve been on vacation all week, having come to
South Carolina to visit my family and friends and
participate in a wedding.
In fact, we’ve just returned from the wedding a few moments ago (or from the reception, actually). My dear friend who was married today is someone I knew since before she was old enough to be in my youth group, and part of a family that considers me to be something of an adopted member. Her father, also a PCA pastor, and three other pastors-- including me-- officiated in the wedding today, so we tied the knot really tightly. Congratulations, Suzanna and Johnathan.
I’m delighted to report that my small part in the wedding went fine. I was asked to do the prayer of invocation only, which is an admittedly straightforward and fairly simple portion. Still, ever since seeing Four Weddings and a Funeral I’ve been concerned that my first wedding-- or part of a wedding-- might possibly present similar problems. Not so today, so perhaps I’ve avoided the “first wedding jitters” or what-have-you.
And so, in honor of the bride and groom, Johnathan and Suzanna Stenbeck; in honor of my first wedding being behind me; and as an effort to apologize for not blogging this week; I offer you the following, for your viewing and laughing pleasure:
In fact, we’ve just returned from the wedding a few moments ago (or from the reception, actually). My dear friend who was married today is someone I knew since before she was old enough to be in my youth group, and part of a family that considers me to be something of an adopted member. Her father, also a PCA pastor, and three other pastors-- including me-- officiated in the wedding today, so we tied the knot really tightly. Congratulations, Suzanna and Johnathan.
I’m delighted to report that my small part in the wedding went fine. I was asked to do the prayer of invocation only, which is an admittedly straightforward and fairly simple portion. Still, ever since seeing Four Weddings and a Funeral I’ve been concerned that my first wedding-- or part of a wedding-- might possibly present similar problems. Not so today, so perhaps I’ve avoided the “first wedding jitters” or what-have-you.
And so, in honor of the bride and groom, Johnathan and Suzanna Stenbeck; in honor of my first wedding being behind me; and as an effort to apologize for not blogging this week; I offer you the following, for your viewing and laughing pleasure:
Bits & Tidbits, 6/6/08
A few
links and fun stuff for the weekend:
- Good thoughts on listening to a sermon can be found here (dealing with action) and here (dealing with reaction). Go forth and do likewise.
- A problem I just don’t have... yet?!?
- There’s been a bit of interesting stuff about transracial adoption lately. For one, there’s this piece from the NY Times on de-emphasizing race. Here’s another, from Touchstone magazine, discussing how the Gospel affects the issue. The Washington Post chimes in about it, and Thabiti Anabwile offers his thoughts on the Times piece and others. Thoughtful stuff. (HT: Between Two Worlds for some of these.)
- John Piper is starting a seminary at Bethlehem Baptist Church. Is this a good thing, or a bad thing? Will there be any other professors but him?
- Thoughtful ideas about both sides of the now-FINALLY!-decided Presidential race: is Barack ready? Is McCain ready?
- What are Christians NOT allowed to say? Here’s one piece on “cussin’” and foul language. Here’s another piece on the same topic, with a slightly different take. Here’s an entirely different idea-- with some surprising responses-- on what ideas Christians aren’t “allowed” to say. (I’ll come back to this soon, I think.)
- From Will Smith... who knew? Here’s some great marriage advice from the guy who brought us “Parents Just Don’t Understand” and “Gettin’ Jiggy Wit It” as well as Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Independence Day, Hitch, and The Pursuit of Happyness. I’ve always known he was a great talent; now I see that his talent extends into understanding people, as well.
- An interesting way to express yourself... create your own fonts. What’s so fascinating about this is that, 20 years ago, this artform was so obscure and difficult to accomplish that those who actually did it could be counted by the hundreds, if not the tens.
- Is your favorite ice cream in this list? Here are the top six most-fattening ice creams in the U.S. I’m so glad someone finally did that study.
- My friend Dane has some good questions for the emerging church. Very thoughtful-- I’d like to know that too, Dane.
- Okay-- 10 is enough for this week.
My new hero
I was
briefly distracted this morning by our
church's list of
Pastors-- the
succession of Pastors through the
173-year history of Hickory Withe
Presbyterian Church. If
you haven't taken the time to look through this
list, you should; it's a fascinating list of men.
I am the 28th Pastor of Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church. Of the remaining 28, 22 of them served the church for less than five years, and three more served for right around five years. Only three Pastors in 172 years have served this church for more than five years.
One of these men is my new hero: Pastor S. S. (Scott) Gill served Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church for 44 years, 2 and a half months, from 1861-1905. Noticing those dates, I'm struck by the fact that, in his first year of ministry, Rev. Gill would have begun shepherding his flock through the difficulties of four years of the War between the States. Following that, he pastored them for another 40 years-- a simply astounding tenure in our day, and from the looks of the aforementioned list, an impressive tenure in his day as well.
I heard mega-church Pastor Rick Warren comment recently that, in his preparation for ministry, he contacted the 100 largest churches in the U.S. and asked them, "what makes a church healthy?" (Whether you agree or disagree with Pastor Warren's choice of source for this information, I hope you'll agree it's an interesting perspective to pursue.) One thing emerged from them: in all of these churches, the Pastor had been there for a long time. Thus, Pastor Warren began to pray specifically about his pastoral call: "Lord, I'll go anywhere you want, as long as you take me there for life." He and his wife Kaye said that, when they went to plant Saddleback Church, they were 25 years old and made a 40-year commitment to that area.
Marcie and I have long hoped for the same thing: that we might move only once after seminary. While we're barely four months into this pastorate-- let alone 40 years or more!-- and I still face ordination trials (tomorrow, by the way), I'm renewed in my desire for that by the example of Scott Gill.
I am the 28th Pastor of Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church. Of the remaining 28, 22 of them served the church for less than five years, and three more served for right around five years. Only three Pastors in 172 years have served this church for more than five years.
One of these men is my new hero: Pastor S. S. (Scott) Gill served Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church for 44 years, 2 and a half months, from 1861-1905. Noticing those dates, I'm struck by the fact that, in his first year of ministry, Rev. Gill would have begun shepherding his flock through the difficulties of four years of the War between the States. Following that, he pastored them for another 40 years-- a simply astounding tenure in our day, and from the looks of the aforementioned list, an impressive tenure in his day as well.
I heard mega-church Pastor Rick Warren comment recently that, in his preparation for ministry, he contacted the 100 largest churches in the U.S. and asked them, "what makes a church healthy?" (Whether you agree or disagree with Pastor Warren's choice of source for this information, I hope you'll agree it's an interesting perspective to pursue.) One thing emerged from them: in all of these churches, the Pastor had been there for a long time. Thus, Pastor Warren began to pray specifically about his pastoral call: "Lord, I'll go anywhere you want, as long as you take me there for life." He and his wife Kaye said that, when they went to plant Saddleback Church, they were 25 years old and made a 40-year commitment to that area.
Marcie and I have long hoped for the same thing: that we might move only once after seminary. While we're barely four months into this pastorate-- let alone 40 years or more!-- and I still face ordination trials (tomorrow, by the way), I'm renewed in my desire for that by the example of Scott Gill.