I've just had a realization. I'm sitting here watching So You Think You Can Dance Canada and realized it doesn't have nearly the press or hype or following that the US version has. It's a bit disappointing. There always seems to be a stigma that Canadian TV isn't as good as it's US counterpart. Unfortunately, that carries over to Canadian talent, and many artists, performers and athletes get overlooked.
I know that the CRTC requires a certain amount of Canadian content from all of it's broadcasters, but that doesn't apply to the American channels that we all watch on a regular basis. It's possible to not see Canadian content at all and still catch all the popular prime time shows.
I think that's part of the reason Canadian athletes have so much trouble finding sponsorship (which translates into less funding, less press and less training). We're so close to the U.S and so inundated with their stars that we don't notice our own. I wonder if this happens less with other countries because there are usually either physical or language barriers, pr perhaps less media carry over.
I'm a huge supporter of Canadian talent - what can I say, I'm proud to be Canadian and local support is something I'm working on (local sports, talent, farmers, everything). I just find it so disappointing that the U.S. media has blinded us from seeing what wonderful things our country has to offer.
(of course, the way the government has cut funding to the arts might have something to do with it too....)
Showing posts with label Ideas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ideas. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Sleep
I never get enough sleep. In the past year I can only think of 4 times that I have gotten 6 or more hours of sleep in a row, and one of those I was medicated. This is nothing new though, I've had issues with insomnia since I was in high school. In college it was normal for me to only plan on about 6 hours of sleep a night. When I was pregnant I was getting up 3 or 4 times a night, and was awake about every hour. So having Hana get up two or three times a night really isn't such a big deal.
I know some of you will be shocked that my 10.5 month old still wakes up at night. She doesn't get up to eat, and usually doesn't need a diaper change, she just wakes. About half the time she puts herself back to sleep, sometimes she needs her soother, and sometimes she needs help getting back to sleep and comes into our bed, or I don't feel like getting up at 7 and bring her in bed with me with the hope that she'll go back to sleep until 9 - but those ones don't really count because it's technically morning when she wakes up.
I'm not bothered by Hana waking up at night, because I know I wake up at night, and Ben wakes up at night, and pretty much everyone I know wakes up at some point during the night and then falls back asleep. I don't even mind going in to help soothe her and help her get back to sleep - motherhood is a 24 hour job and I want Hana to know that I'm there for her no matter what time it is.
That's not to say that I don't get frustrated or even angry at times over the whole situation. There have been times when Hana has been in her crib crying with me sitting on the floor, also crying, and holding her hand. There have been times when I've had to wake Ben to help soothe her because I just couldn't take it anymore. There have been times when Hana and I have had to sleep on the couch to keep from waking the rest of the household. Frequently I nap during the day to catch up on sleep I miss at night (although usually missing sleep at night has nothing to do with Hana). It's rough, it's annoying, it stresses me out, and there are nights when all three of us have ended up crying. But Hana is never left to cry alone.
Not that I think crying will necessarily cause any permanent damage (altho if high levels of stress hormones are bad for adults I can't see how they couldn't be bad for babies...). I just know that if someone I love heard me crying and didn't offer comfort I'd feel alone and abandoned, and crying myself to sleep gives me horrible headaches and bad dreams, and I don't want to treat Hana in a way that I would not want to be treated. I know this is temporary. And I know getting her to sleep through the night is no guarantee that I'll get any more sleep than I usually do anyway.
(as a side note, STTN is usually defined as sleeping from midnight to 5 am without waking. I don't understand why people get in such a row over infants of x age needing to be able to STTN - at the age of 24 I still rarely fit that definition, and I was sleep trained...)
With moving and teething and transitioning to one nap things have been a little rougher than usual with sleep. She went from waking once a night (around 5) to waking twice a night, and then on bad teething nights sometimes 3 times (when the advil wears off). She's been doing well lately, going down MUCH easier since we dropped the morning nap and settling herself the first time she wakes at night.
Anyway. I was thinking early this morning (3:23 to be exact...) as I tried to comfort my crying daughter by leaning over her crib and rubbing her head - why is baby's sleep such a hot topic?
If you look at humanity though the eyes of anthropology, babies waking in the night and needing comfort is completely normal and to be expected. No matter how you believe humanity came into existence, you can't deny the fact that for a good chunk of our history we were tribal, nomadic, and lived communally - babies had to be kept close for their own safety - the threat of animals, cold, and other dangers was a real one. Globally most babies sleep with their mothers, not in a crib down the hall. Sharing sleep regulates temperature, digestion, and breathing. Sleep cycles become synchronized. Most of all, the baby knows they are safe and secure. A baby can not survive on their own, and they know that. I think waking at night for comfort is just their way of making sure we remember that they are completely dependent on us, no matter how independent and self sufficient we trick ourselves into believing they are.
(and as that thought was running through my mind I picked Hana up and brought her in bed with me, she settled and we got to stay in bed until 9, with one short waking around 5:30)
Not that I'm against cribs - Hana is peacefully sleeping in hers right now. But I can't deny that she (and possibly Ben and I) would probably get more sleep if she was in bed with us. Maybe all these "sleep issues" we think babies have are actually ones we bring on ourselves.
I know some of you will be shocked that my 10.5 month old still wakes up at night. She doesn't get up to eat, and usually doesn't need a diaper change, she just wakes. About half the time she puts herself back to sleep, sometimes she needs her soother, and sometimes she needs help getting back to sleep and comes into our bed, or I don't feel like getting up at 7 and bring her in bed with me with the hope that she'll go back to sleep until 9 - but those ones don't really count because it's technically morning when she wakes up.
I'm not bothered by Hana waking up at night, because I know I wake up at night, and Ben wakes up at night, and pretty much everyone I know wakes up at some point during the night and then falls back asleep. I don't even mind going in to help soothe her and help her get back to sleep - motherhood is a 24 hour job and I want Hana to know that I'm there for her no matter what time it is.
That's not to say that I don't get frustrated or even angry at times over the whole situation. There have been times when Hana has been in her crib crying with me sitting on the floor, also crying, and holding her hand. There have been times when I've had to wake Ben to help soothe her because I just couldn't take it anymore. There have been times when Hana and I have had to sleep on the couch to keep from waking the rest of the household. Frequently I nap during the day to catch up on sleep I miss at night (although usually missing sleep at night has nothing to do with Hana). It's rough, it's annoying, it stresses me out, and there are nights when all three of us have ended up crying. But Hana is never left to cry alone.
Not that I think crying will necessarily cause any permanent damage (altho if high levels of stress hormones are bad for adults I can't see how they couldn't be bad for babies...). I just know that if someone I love heard me crying and didn't offer comfort I'd feel alone and abandoned, and crying myself to sleep gives me horrible headaches and bad dreams, and I don't want to treat Hana in a way that I would not want to be treated. I know this is temporary. And I know getting her to sleep through the night is no guarantee that I'll get any more sleep than I usually do anyway.
(as a side note, STTN is usually defined as sleeping from midnight to 5 am without waking. I don't understand why people get in such a row over infants of x age needing to be able to STTN - at the age of 24 I still rarely fit that definition, and I was sleep trained...)
With moving and teething and transitioning to one nap things have been a little rougher than usual with sleep. She went from waking once a night (around 5) to waking twice a night, and then on bad teething nights sometimes 3 times (when the advil wears off). She's been doing well lately, going down MUCH easier since we dropped the morning nap and settling herself the first time she wakes at night.
Anyway. I was thinking early this morning (3:23 to be exact...) as I tried to comfort my crying daughter by leaning over her crib and rubbing her head - why is baby's sleep such a hot topic?
If you look at humanity though the eyes of anthropology, babies waking in the night and needing comfort is completely normal and to be expected. No matter how you believe humanity came into existence, you can't deny the fact that for a good chunk of our history we were tribal, nomadic, and lived communally - babies had to be kept close for their own safety - the threat of animals, cold, and other dangers was a real one. Globally most babies sleep with their mothers, not in a crib down the hall. Sharing sleep regulates temperature, digestion, and breathing. Sleep cycles become synchronized. Most of all, the baby knows they are safe and secure. A baby can not survive on their own, and they know that. I think waking at night for comfort is just their way of making sure we remember that they are completely dependent on us, no matter how independent and self sufficient we trick ourselves into believing they are.
(and as that thought was running through my mind I picked Hana up and brought her in bed with me, she settled and we got to stay in bed until 9, with one short waking around 5:30)
Not that I'm against cribs - Hana is peacefully sleeping in hers right now. But I can't deny that she (and possibly Ben and I) would probably get more sleep if she was in bed with us. Maybe all these "sleep issues" we think babies have are actually ones we bring on ourselves.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Exodus part 3 - The Mountain
The mountain.
Part 2 is here, part 1 is here
The mountain was the destination, the purpose of the exodus. The people were called out of Egypt to go to the mountain to worship God.
Then something went bad. Very bad.
While at the foot of the mountain they heard God's voice, and it terrified them. It scared them so much that they decided they didn't want to hear from God anymore. That was Moses' job, not theirs. So they sent him up to talk to God while they waited.
You have to wonder how long that was. Apparently for some it was far too long, they got bored. They got so bored in fact that they had time to cast an idol out of gold. THink of how much time and effort that would have taken. Finding a craftsman, collecting the cold, melting it, molding it. THis was no spur of the moment decision.
They had encountered the real and livng God, but He was too much for them. THey wanted a tamer God. One they could see, one they could control. They made a calf.
How stupid that seems when we look at it. We with our vast knowledge and understanding of God. Yeah....right...
How many times have we been touched byt he breath of God and turned away? How many times have we felt real worship, have we joined with heaven itself in praise to the King, and then decided it was too uncomfortable. Too unpredictable. Too lavish. Too eccentric. Too whatever.
I'm not saying we should (or even can) continually live in that space, in that moment where there is God and nothing else. As wonderful as it would seem, we couldn't survive in that space, it's not where we're supposed to be, at least not yet. As important and wonderful as praise is, we should be more like Isaiah, crying "woe is me" as we experience the presence of God, offering to be sent out in His name so that we may be welcomed back to praise when our time has come.
Still, worship is neglected. Real, true authentic connections with God scare us. THey're unpredictable. THey're not "seeker friendly", they don't fit the time frame. Heck, sometimes connecting with God doesn't even fit in the church building.
There is a deep need for God and at the same time a deep fear of Him. Perhaps is the residue of our sin nature, perhaps it's just the result of our humanity, I don't know. I do know, however, that there is a tendancy to try and create worship instead of experiencing worship. THe Israelites did do what they were supposed to - they worshiped. It was the object, the method, the content of that worship that needed to change. Perhaps the same is true in our lives.
Part 2 is here, part 1 is here
The mountain was the destination, the purpose of the exodus. The people were called out of Egypt to go to the mountain to worship God.
Then something went bad. Very bad.
While at the foot of the mountain they heard God's voice, and it terrified them. It scared them so much that they decided they didn't want to hear from God anymore. That was Moses' job, not theirs. So they sent him up to talk to God while they waited.
You have to wonder how long that was. Apparently for some it was far too long, they got bored. They got so bored in fact that they had time to cast an idol out of gold. THink of how much time and effort that would have taken. Finding a craftsman, collecting the cold, melting it, molding it. THis was no spur of the moment decision.
They had encountered the real and livng God, but He was too much for them. THey wanted a tamer God. One they could see, one they could control. They made a calf.
How stupid that seems when we look at it. We with our vast knowledge and understanding of God. Yeah....right...
How many times have we been touched byt he breath of God and turned away? How many times have we felt real worship, have we joined with heaven itself in praise to the King, and then decided it was too uncomfortable. Too unpredictable. Too lavish. Too eccentric. Too whatever.
I'm not saying we should (or even can) continually live in that space, in that moment where there is God and nothing else. As wonderful as it would seem, we couldn't survive in that space, it's not where we're supposed to be, at least not yet. As important and wonderful as praise is, we should be more like Isaiah, crying "woe is me" as we experience the presence of God, offering to be sent out in His name so that we may be welcomed back to praise when our time has come.
Still, worship is neglected. Real, true authentic connections with God scare us. THey're unpredictable. THey're not "seeker friendly", they don't fit the time frame. Heck, sometimes connecting with God doesn't even fit in the church building.
There is a deep need for God and at the same time a deep fear of Him. Perhaps is the residue of our sin nature, perhaps it's just the result of our humanity, I don't know. I do know, however, that there is a tendancy to try and create worship instead of experiencing worship. THe Israelites did do what they were supposed to - they worshiped. It was the object, the method, the content of that worship that needed to change. Perhaps the same is true in our lives.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
in a word
We know the answer to "what's in a name?" but what about "what's in a word?"
There are times when people are careless with words and it works out to more than just semantics. Every word has more than one meaning - there are personal feelings, connotations and experiences that we each attach to the words we use and the words we hear. Something seemingly (and intending to be) innocent can come across completely insulting and offensive because of these hidden meanings.
But that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about the cultural or intended connotations that come with words. Things that show a bias in one direction or another, words that were originally intended to be derogatory.
Like not too long ago when there was the "nappy headed ho's" comment made. It wasn't meant to be an insult, but there is no denying what the original meaning was - to refer to a group of professional female athletes that way was insane, and mayhem ensued.
There are times when these comments are innocent - like when someone asks me what I "do" and I say I'm a mom. Any response including the word "just" (as in "oh, so you just stay at home?") kinda irks me a bit - because I don't "just" do anything. I work harder now than I thought possible. I don't fault people for this, I'm just using it as an example.
My point? Be more careful with your choice of words. Look at things from the other side, take into account the mindset of whomever is listening (or reading). There are so many negative attitudes and perceptions floating around that we have allowed by claiming ignorance, and they will never stop unless we start paying attention.
There are times when people are careless with words and it works out to more than just semantics. Every word has more than one meaning - there are personal feelings, connotations and experiences that we each attach to the words we use and the words we hear. Something seemingly (and intending to be) innocent can come across completely insulting and offensive because of these hidden meanings.
But that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about the cultural or intended connotations that come with words. Things that show a bias in one direction or another, words that were originally intended to be derogatory.
Like not too long ago when there was the "nappy headed ho's" comment made. It wasn't meant to be an insult, but there is no denying what the original meaning was - to refer to a group of professional female athletes that way was insane, and mayhem ensued.
There are times when these comments are innocent - like when someone asks me what I "do" and I say I'm a mom. Any response including the word "just" (as in "oh, so you just stay at home?") kinda irks me a bit - because I don't "just" do anything. I work harder now than I thought possible. I don't fault people for this, I'm just using it as an example.
My point? Be more careful with your choice of words. Look at things from the other side, take into account the mindset of whomever is listening (or reading). There are so many negative attitudes and perceptions floating around that we have allowed by claiming ignorance, and they will never stop unless we start paying attention.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Question Everything
This is one of my new philosophies in life.
I will not accept something just because I am told I should.
I will take nothing at face value.
I will not expect myself to agree with every opinion from a certain source just because I agree with some of it.
Now of course I will still trust people (until given a reason not to), but there is very little from human sources that shouldn't be questioned.
As far as I'm concerned if something is true it can handle a question. If I am sold on something and believe it fully then I am not threatened when someone questioned or disagrees with it - that gives me the opportunity to better understand, refine and learn to express my position.
So I read, I question, I ask, I try to see things from opposing points of view. I've always done this to one degree or another, but I want to be more purposeful with it - no sacred cows, nothing off limits. If it's true then it can handle the question...if it's not then why would I want to believe it anyway.
I will not accept something just because I am told I should.
I will take nothing at face value.
I will not expect myself to agree with every opinion from a certain source just because I agree with some of it.
Now of course I will still trust people (until given a reason not to), but there is very little from human sources that shouldn't be questioned.
As far as I'm concerned if something is true it can handle a question. If I am sold on something and believe it fully then I am not threatened when someone questioned or disagrees with it - that gives me the opportunity to better understand, refine and learn to express my position.
So I read, I question, I ask, I try to see things from opposing points of view. I've always done this to one degree or another, but I want to be more purposeful with it - no sacred cows, nothing off limits. If it's true then it can handle the question...if it's not then why would I want to believe it anyway.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
truths
I believe in God the Father, maker of heaven and earth. I don't know how it happened, when it happened, or how long it took, but can't deny the fact that it is.
I believe in universal truth, ultimate right and wrong, and that such truth exists regardless of circumstances or belief.
I believe in grace, forgiveness, reconciliation, peace and the ability to find understanding in any situation.
I believe that all human life is sacred and that humanity comes with basic rights to food, water, shelter, safety, human touch, love, education, empowerment, and respect. I believe these rights exist regardless of ethnicity, religion, age, gender, sexuality, location, ability or any other human characteristic that can be exploited.
I believe that free will is the God given ability to make a choice, even if that means rejecting the good and embracing the the bad.
I believe in the Bible, that it is a continual revelation of God for those who seek Him.
I believe that peace can not be accomplished through war.
I believe that each person has a responsibility to do what they can for the well being of others.
I believe that wealth and prosperity exist so that everyone can be provided for.
I believe humans have the responsibility to be stewards and guardians of the earth and all animals, and that we are doing a horrible job.
I believe that more can be learned through listening to someone who disagrees with you than someone who agrees with everything you say.
I believe that respect should be earned and not commanded.
I believe that questioning authority, traditions, status quo and rules is essential for growth as a society.
I believe that a government should serve it's people.
I believe that God is bigger than human understanding.
I believe that more lives are changed through compassion than through judgment.
I believe anyone can say they would behave a certain way until they're faced with an unimaginable situation.
I believe in the power of women.
I believe that our differences only make us stronger when we are united together.
I believe that there is always a choice and to say other wise is to give up power to others.
I believe there is wisdom in other cultures, other beliefs and other people that we miss when we are too focussed on ourselves.
I believe that opinions, beliefs and ideas can and should be respectfully expressed so that everyone involved may be edified.
I believe that the status of children in western society now is similar to that of women through history and hope that common practices now will be appalling to those reading our history.
I believe that legalism is one of the greatest evils in the world and until people begin to question their motives, judgments and why they believe what they do, we will not see any change in our world.
I believe in peace, hope and love, and the greatest of these is love.
I believe in universal truth, ultimate right and wrong, and that such truth exists regardless of circumstances or belief.
I believe in grace, forgiveness, reconciliation, peace and the ability to find understanding in any situation.
I believe that all human life is sacred and that humanity comes with basic rights to food, water, shelter, safety, human touch, love, education, empowerment, and respect. I believe these rights exist regardless of ethnicity, religion, age, gender, sexuality, location, ability or any other human characteristic that can be exploited.
I believe that free will is the God given ability to make a choice, even if that means rejecting the good and embracing the the bad.
I believe in the Bible, that it is a continual revelation of God for those who seek Him.
I believe that peace can not be accomplished through war.
I believe that each person has a responsibility to do what they can for the well being of others.
I believe that wealth and prosperity exist so that everyone can be provided for.
I believe humans have the responsibility to be stewards and guardians of the earth and all animals, and that we are doing a horrible job.
I believe that more can be learned through listening to someone who disagrees with you than someone who agrees with everything you say.
I believe that respect should be earned and not commanded.
I believe that questioning authority, traditions, status quo and rules is essential for growth as a society.
I believe that a government should serve it's people.
I believe that God is bigger than human understanding.
I believe that more lives are changed through compassion than through judgment.
I believe anyone can say they would behave a certain way until they're faced with an unimaginable situation.
I believe in the power of women.
I believe that our differences only make us stronger when we are united together.
I believe that there is always a choice and to say other wise is to give up power to others.
I believe there is wisdom in other cultures, other beliefs and other people that we miss when we are too focussed on ourselves.
I believe that opinions, beliefs and ideas can and should be respectfully expressed so that everyone involved may be edified.
I believe that the status of children in western society now is similar to that of women through history and hope that common practices now will be appalling to those reading our history.
I believe that legalism is one of the greatest evils in the world and until people begin to question their motives, judgments and why they believe what they do, we will not see any change in our world.
I believe in peace, hope and love, and the greatest of these is love.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
who'd a thunk it
(ETA: this is post #200, yay me. I should get a prize or something.)
Apparently my mouth isn't the only part of me that likes sweet things. The rest of my body does too!
THe past while I've been looking for alternative/natural body products. I have serious sensitive/dry skin issues. I've never found a face product I could use more than ever other day without getting a rash. I have to apply most lotions 3+ times a day to keep my skin from getting dry. In the winter it gets so bad that I have to always wear something soft against my skin because some of my clothes will actually hurt when they rub against me.
When I moved out here I found Lush. Absolutely wonderful products! Nothing I've tried there has ever caused a reaction, the lotions work all day, and the Dream Cream even made Hana's eczema go away! It really is wonderful stuff, but still uses additives/scents.
Then there was my hair. I have course, wavy/curly hair. For most of my life it's been dry and frizzy. I've recently learned that it needs moisture, oil, and to be left alone. So I've stopped washing it as often, wash with conditioner, don't blowdry and don't use a brush. It's much happier now, so soft and shiny.
So what does all of that have to do with sweet stuff?
Well, I've recently discovered that a bit of conditioner mixed with brown sugar makes an excellent scalp/body scrub. It's wonderful stuff. And once my scalp is all clean I deep condition my hair with a honey/conditioner mix.
Yup, sounds odd, but it works!
Here's the proof:
I love it. I really want to grow my hair long again (like, really long), so I'm hoping using this stuff will keep it nice and shiny and pretty. Plus compared to salon stuff, this is cheep!
Apparently my mouth isn't the only part of me that likes sweet things. The rest of my body does too!
THe past while I've been looking for alternative/natural body products. I have serious sensitive/dry skin issues. I've never found a face product I could use more than ever other day without getting a rash. I have to apply most lotions 3+ times a day to keep my skin from getting dry. In the winter it gets so bad that I have to always wear something soft against my skin because some of my clothes will actually hurt when they rub against me.
When I moved out here I found Lush. Absolutely wonderful products! Nothing I've tried there has ever caused a reaction, the lotions work all day, and the Dream Cream even made Hana's eczema go away! It really is wonderful stuff, but still uses additives/scents.
Then there was my hair. I have course, wavy/curly hair. For most of my life it's been dry and frizzy. I've recently learned that it needs moisture, oil, and to be left alone. So I've stopped washing it as often, wash with conditioner, don't blowdry and don't use a brush. It's much happier now, so soft and shiny.
So what does all of that have to do with sweet stuff?
Well, I've recently discovered that a bit of conditioner mixed with brown sugar makes an excellent scalp/body scrub. It's wonderful stuff. And once my scalp is all clean I deep condition my hair with a honey/conditioner mix.
Yup, sounds odd, but it works!
Here's the proof:
I love it. I really want to grow my hair long again (like, really long), so I'm hoping using this stuff will keep it nice and shiny and pretty. Plus compared to salon stuff, this is cheep!
Monday, July 02, 2007
Clarification
From my previous post.
I haven't fallen into the "I'm ok, you're ok, everything is relative" pit (because honestly I don't think such a thing really can work...if we all weren't living/doing what we thought was right then why would we be doing it?)
I just feel that making laws against abortion because God makes it clear all life is sacred is like putting a bandage on a paper cut after the arm has already fallen off and the person is bleeding to death. There is a much bigger problem that needs to be addressed, and until it is the little things can't really be fixed anyway.
Yes, there will be those who won't have an abortion just because it's illegal. They're also more likely to be the ones willing to sit and talk with a counselor about the far reaching effects of abortion and to seek out other options. We should put our energy into support, education and relationships with people, not into legislation that won't stop the real problem anyway.
I haven't fallen into the "I'm ok, you're ok, everything is relative" pit (because honestly I don't think such a thing really can work...if we all weren't living/doing what we thought was right then why would we be doing it?)
I just feel that making laws against abortion because God makes it clear all life is sacred is like putting a bandage on a paper cut after the arm has already fallen off and the person is bleeding to death. There is a much bigger problem that needs to be addressed, and until it is the little things can't really be fixed anyway.
Yes, there will be those who won't have an abortion just because it's illegal. They're also more likely to be the ones willing to sit and talk with a counselor about the far reaching effects of abortion and to seek out other options. We should put our energy into support, education and relationships with people, not into legislation that won't stop the real problem anyway.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
World Police
A wonderful community that I'm part of (both online and in person) recently had a discussion in abortion. It was amazingly civil and I know I learned things and I'm sure others did too.
As would be expected, religion was brought into the discussion. It wasn't done in a derogatory way (well, at least it wasn't intended that way), but there was the "God says so, so there" sort of feel.
Things like that always make me uncomfortable. I am a Christian, I'm even on the conservative side of Christianity. If I see someone who I know has professed to be a Christian living in a way that goes against the core of the faith I feel an obligation to do something to correct the issue (in Hebrews we are told to "spur one another on towards love and good deeds" - spurring isn't always fun), however, for those outside of the faith, I see no justification for expecting them to live as I do.
See, the Bible was written to those who already had at least some interest in God, if not some connection with Him. the things written there, the rituals, observances, principles, they're for those who believe. There is not one command that I am aware of that was not written either to the Israelites (in the old testament) or to the new churches (in the New testament).
So when it comes to issues like homosexual marriage, abortion, premarital sex etc. I have very strong, biblically based opinions. But I can't take those opinions any further than those who have submitted themselves and chosen to live a certain way.
I think of it this way - there is no reason to assume that my belief in God is any deeper or more meaningful to my life than a Hindu's belief in their gods is. According to Hinduism the cow is a sacred animal. I choose to eat beef, and so under their belief system I have done something wrong. However, I can't be held accountable to it, because I'm not under that law.
And the same holds true for Biblical law - I don't have the right to hold someone to a standard that they are not aware of, especially one that requires an intentional decision to be under.
I don't think national laws should be dictated by religion - by ANY religion. I don't think that Muslim states should require everyone there to live as if they are Muslim. In the same light I don't think that so-called "Christian" nations should require that everyone act as though they are Christians.
Yes, I believe there is a right and wrong. I believe there is a God who will at one point judge everyone on earth. I don't know the standard of that judgment, however, and I'm not going to pretend I do. As far as I'm concerned if a person is living life without connection to God for whatever reason then anything they do after that doesn't really matter as far as eternity is concerned. And if they have or are seeking a connection with God as I know Him, then He will deal with whatever "issues" there may be, regardless of what I say. I am here to spur, it is God who convicts.
So while I'm pro-life and given the chance will do what is necessary to support a woman in the decision to keep her child (meaning I'm willing to take in a teen mother, to support treatment programs for mothers with addiction, to help financially and to just be a friend to someone going through the crisis of an unplanned pregnancy), I still think it's much better for a woman to have access to safe abortions rather than put the life of the mother at risk as well. As can be seen globally, abortions will happen, unless something dramatic happens to change the culture. It's sad, it's tragic, it's bad, but it exists and we need a much better way to deal with it than turning away and pretending it won't happen.
As would be expected, religion was brought into the discussion. It wasn't done in a derogatory way (well, at least it wasn't intended that way), but there was the "God says so, so there" sort of feel.
Things like that always make me uncomfortable. I am a Christian, I'm even on the conservative side of Christianity. If I see someone who I know has professed to be a Christian living in a way that goes against the core of the faith I feel an obligation to do something to correct the issue (in Hebrews we are told to "spur one another on towards love and good deeds" - spurring isn't always fun), however, for those outside of the faith, I see no justification for expecting them to live as I do.
See, the Bible was written to those who already had at least some interest in God, if not some connection with Him. the things written there, the rituals, observances, principles, they're for those who believe. There is not one command that I am aware of that was not written either to the Israelites (in the old testament) or to the new churches (in the New testament).
So when it comes to issues like homosexual marriage, abortion, premarital sex etc. I have very strong, biblically based opinions. But I can't take those opinions any further than those who have submitted themselves and chosen to live a certain way.
I think of it this way - there is no reason to assume that my belief in God is any deeper or more meaningful to my life than a Hindu's belief in their gods is. According to Hinduism the cow is a sacred animal. I choose to eat beef, and so under their belief system I have done something wrong. However, I can't be held accountable to it, because I'm not under that law.
And the same holds true for Biblical law - I don't have the right to hold someone to a standard that they are not aware of, especially one that requires an intentional decision to be under.
I don't think national laws should be dictated by religion - by ANY religion. I don't think that Muslim states should require everyone there to live as if they are Muslim. In the same light I don't think that so-called "Christian" nations should require that everyone act as though they are Christians.
Yes, I believe there is a right and wrong. I believe there is a God who will at one point judge everyone on earth. I don't know the standard of that judgment, however, and I'm not going to pretend I do. As far as I'm concerned if a person is living life without connection to God for whatever reason then anything they do after that doesn't really matter as far as eternity is concerned. And if they have or are seeking a connection with God as I know Him, then He will deal with whatever "issues" there may be, regardless of what I say. I am here to spur, it is God who convicts.
So while I'm pro-life and given the chance will do what is necessary to support a woman in the decision to keep her child (meaning I'm willing to take in a teen mother, to support treatment programs for mothers with addiction, to help financially and to just be a friend to someone going through the crisis of an unplanned pregnancy), I still think it's much better for a woman to have access to safe abortions rather than put the life of the mother at risk as well. As can be seen globally, abortions will happen, unless something dramatic happens to change the culture. It's sad, it's tragic, it's bad, but it exists and we need a much better way to deal with it than turning away and pretending it won't happen.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Boycott
July 2-8 has been named as Nestle Free Week
What's so bad about Nestle you ask?
The boycott has been going on for 30 years and is due mostly to Nestle targeting mothers in impoverished nations in order to get them to use formula. As was stated in 1978
"Can a product which requires clean water, good sanitation, adequate family income and a literate parent to follow printed instructions, be properly and safely used in areas where water is contaminated, sewage runs through the streets, poverty is severe and illiteracy is high?"
The answer, of course, is no.
Now, I formula feed Hana. It was a hard choice to make, but one of necessity, things had gotten so bad she was starving and would not latch. I know other people who formula feed just because they choose to, and that is their decision to make. However, they did so with clean water and sterile materials, ensuring their baby was not getting contaminated food, doing the best they could even tho it wasn't the optimal source of nutrition. So this isn't about a mother's ability to choose what she feeds her baby.
This is about targeting mothers in situations where preparing formula properly is near impossible, in North America and around the world. In North America low income families are more likely to use formula. I don't know if you've noticed, but formula is expensive, 11-30$ a can, which for Hana (who eats about 30 oz a day) lasts about 5 days. If mother's can't afford the formula they're prone to water it down or offer substitutes (juice etc.) and the baby ends up not getting the nutrition it needs. Sure, Nestle (and other companies) are good about sending them coupons, but think about the difference that would have been made if the mother was given the support and resources she needed in order to successfully nurse. Also, even with the coupons, Nestle is still bringing in a profit, so they really aren't being the good guys.
In the same vein, targeting mothers in situations where clean water is nearly impossible to come by is just horrible. Baring any life threatening condition that would make breastfeeding more of a risk than contaminated water there is no reason why formula would be the best choice. It makes me sick to think of those infants who could be getting all the food they need (and antibodies) from their mother safely but instead are starving.
So even tho Nestle formula might say "breast is best" they still give out samples to mothers in hospital (and anyone who has breastfed knows the first few days and weeks are all a confidence game), give gifts to health care workers and promote their formula over the "competition" (a successful nursing relationship).
According to the World Health Organization, 1.5 million babies die every year as a result of not being breastfed. That's too many.
So please consider joining this boycott, even just for the week. And don't forget to let Nestle know you're boycotting them and why.
There's more info here, here, and here.
Oh, and a list of what to boycott is here. Remember to always check labels, companies buy and sell products all the time.
What's so bad about Nestle you ask?
The boycott has been going on for 30 years and is due mostly to Nestle targeting mothers in impoverished nations in order to get them to use formula. As was stated in 1978
"Can a product which requires clean water, good sanitation, adequate family income and a literate parent to follow printed instructions, be properly and safely used in areas where water is contaminated, sewage runs through the streets, poverty is severe and illiteracy is high?"
The answer, of course, is no.
Now, I formula feed Hana. It was a hard choice to make, but one of necessity, things had gotten so bad she was starving and would not latch. I know other people who formula feed just because they choose to, and that is their decision to make. However, they did so with clean water and sterile materials, ensuring their baby was not getting contaminated food, doing the best they could even tho it wasn't the optimal source of nutrition. So this isn't about a mother's ability to choose what she feeds her baby.
This is about targeting mothers in situations where preparing formula properly is near impossible, in North America and around the world. In North America low income families are more likely to use formula. I don't know if you've noticed, but formula is expensive, 11-30$ a can, which for Hana (who eats about 30 oz a day) lasts about 5 days. If mother's can't afford the formula they're prone to water it down or offer substitutes (juice etc.) and the baby ends up not getting the nutrition it needs. Sure, Nestle (and other companies) are good about sending them coupons, but think about the difference that would have been made if the mother was given the support and resources she needed in order to successfully nurse. Also, even with the coupons, Nestle is still bringing in a profit, so they really aren't being the good guys.
In the same vein, targeting mothers in situations where clean water is nearly impossible to come by is just horrible. Baring any life threatening condition that would make breastfeeding more of a risk than contaminated water there is no reason why formula would be the best choice. It makes me sick to think of those infants who could be getting all the food they need (and antibodies) from their mother safely but instead are starving.
So even tho Nestle formula might say "breast is best" they still give out samples to mothers in hospital (and anyone who has breastfed knows the first few days and weeks are all a confidence game), give gifts to health care workers and promote their formula over the "competition" (a successful nursing relationship).
According to the World Health Organization, 1.5 million babies die every year as a result of not being breastfed. That's too many.
So please consider joining this boycott, even just for the week. And don't forget to let Nestle know you're boycotting them and why.
There's more info here, here, and here.
Oh, and a list of what to boycott is here. Remember to always check labels, companies buy and sell products all the time.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
True Words
How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?
Yes, 'n' how many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, 'n' how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before they're forever banned?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, 'n' how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
How many years can a mountain exist
Before it's washed to the sea?
Yes, 'n' how many years can some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free?
Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesn't see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
Before you call him a man?
Yes, 'n' how many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, 'n' how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before they're forever banned?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, 'n' how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
How many years can a mountain exist
Before it's washed to the sea?
Yes, 'n' how many years can some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free?
Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesn't see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
Monday, June 18, 2007
25 important things I've learned
In the order they came into my head:
1. No one does everything perfectly the first time.
2. An apology goes a long way to making things better.
3. Most of the time there are just as many things to be happy about as there are to make you sad, the choice is yours
4. Smiling at strangers makes for interesting reactions.
5. Looking someone in the eye when you talk to them makes them feel you care.
6. Parents are an amazing source of experience.
7. The older you get the more you have to offer the world.
8. We have a responsibility to take care of people who can't care for themselves.
9. We have a responsibility to care for the earth.
10. Sitting in a comfortable chair makes any conversation easier.
11. Sometimes a cookie makes things better.
12. A five minute break can make you more productive than the tightest schedule.
13. Some things are much more important than how others think about you.
14. You are not responsible for the emotions of others, so long as you act respectfully towards them.
15. Babies smell wonderful.
16. Age and wisdom aren't always opposites.
17. A lot can be learned from children.
18. A week really can make a difference in a life.
19. Someone out there really needs you to be part of their life.
20. God is there to be found if you really look.
21. No one knows everything.
22. Reading can be good for the soul.
23. Nature is good for the soul.
24. Laughter is vital to a relationship.
25. "The greatest of these is love"
1. No one does everything perfectly the first time.
2. An apology goes a long way to making things better.
3. Most of the time there are just as many things to be happy about as there are to make you sad, the choice is yours
4. Smiling at strangers makes for interesting reactions.
5. Looking someone in the eye when you talk to them makes them feel you care.
6. Parents are an amazing source of experience.
7. The older you get the more you have to offer the world.
8. We have a responsibility to take care of people who can't care for themselves.
9. We have a responsibility to care for the earth.
10. Sitting in a comfortable chair makes any conversation easier.
11. Sometimes a cookie makes things better.
12. A five minute break can make you more productive than the tightest schedule.
13. Some things are much more important than how others think about you.
14. You are not responsible for the emotions of others, so long as you act respectfully towards them.
15. Babies smell wonderful.
16. Age and wisdom aren't always opposites.
17. A lot can be learned from children.
18. A week really can make a difference in a life.
19. Someone out there really needs you to be part of their life.
20. God is there to be found if you really look.
21. No one knows everything.
22. Reading can be good for the soul.
23. Nature is good for the soul.
24. Laughter is vital to a relationship.
25. "The greatest of these is love"
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Attitude Adjustment
(Disclaimer: Nothing I'm about to say is an attack on any individual. It's a lament over the current state of things, and possibly a gripe towards the people with some sort of authority that perpetuate it, but nothing personal. If you do the things I complain about here I understand it's just because it's the "norm" and "the way things are done" etc. I hold nothing against you. Basically don't read more into this than what I'm putting here...thank you.)
Our current culture has an awful view of children. Ok, maybe awful is going a bit to far, but at the very least it's frightening and negative. Parents are so often told (by Doctors, books, "experts" etc.) that they need to "train" their child.
Children aren't dogs!
It's so frustrating to me when I am told I need to "sleep train" Hana. Or when people think I'm odd for "potty training" her. Or when I'm told it's such an awful thing that I respond to her or wear her because I'm "training" her to be clingy and needy.
If we treated any other class of people the way children are treated there would be an uproar. If an elderly person without mobility was left without access to a bedpan and had to sit in soiled clothing for an hour (or more!) people would have a fit. If a person without the ability to clearly communicate was left alone crying until they fell asleep authorities would be called in. If we see a stranger on the street in obvious need of something (a tire change, for example), we stop to help. If someone is hungry we do what we can to feed them.
And yet when it comes to infants none of the above applies. We're told they need to be left to figure things out for themselves. To "self soothe", to learn they can't always "get their way". I'd like to find the person who first came up with that idea and ask them where their mind went.
If anyone else in my life were in need of something, someone I cared about even the slightest bit, I'd be seen as mean or uncaring if I didn't offer some comfort or respond to them in some way.
We somehow lost sight of what it means to be a child - to explore, to learn, to grow, to be in the care of another. Yes, children need structure and boundaries, but they also need to be able to be children.
Attachment theory talks about the need for a child to develop secure attachment to a primary care giver. This security helps to balance and regulate the child, giving a safety. When it comes time for the child to explore or try something new, they have the reassurance of that safe place and the confidence to try new things. Unfortunately, outside of early childhood education or child psychology, attachment theory isn't very well known.
Some people think this is just part of me being an idealist. Or it's because Hana's my first child. Or because she's a baby. Or that I just plain don't know what I'm talking about. I don't care. I'm going to raise my child with the same respect and dignity that I would show to anyone else and would respect for myself. If I were to hit an adult it would be considered assault, so I won't hit her. I don't like crying myself to sleep, so I don't make her do it. I can eat when I'm hungry so I extend the same privilege to her. I know that the people who love me will be there for me when I need them, and I make sure she has the same security. I will teach her to be a loving and compassionate person by being loving and compassionate towards her. I will let her know there are things in life that aren't fair and she won't like, but that they're small compared to all the good things she can get out of life, and I will help her to work through them.
A quote I love (tho can't find who said it) is "It's easier to raise healthy children than it is to fix broken adults.". I think that once this mentality is more widely adopted we will see a big change in the world. I want Hana to be part of that change.
Our current culture has an awful view of children. Ok, maybe awful is going a bit to far, but at the very least it's frightening and negative. Parents are so often told (by Doctors, books, "experts" etc.) that they need to "train" their child.
Children aren't dogs!
It's so frustrating to me when I am told I need to "sleep train" Hana. Or when people think I'm odd for "potty training" her. Or when I'm told it's such an awful thing that I respond to her or wear her because I'm "training" her to be clingy and needy.
If we treated any other class of people the way children are treated there would be an uproar. If an elderly person without mobility was left without access to a bedpan and had to sit in soiled clothing for an hour (or more!) people would have a fit. If a person without the ability to clearly communicate was left alone crying until they fell asleep authorities would be called in. If we see a stranger on the street in obvious need of something (a tire change, for example), we stop to help. If someone is hungry we do what we can to feed them.
And yet when it comes to infants none of the above applies. We're told they need to be left to figure things out for themselves. To "self soothe", to learn they can't always "get their way". I'd like to find the person who first came up with that idea and ask them where their mind went.
If anyone else in my life were in need of something, someone I cared about even the slightest bit, I'd be seen as mean or uncaring if I didn't offer some comfort or respond to them in some way.
We somehow lost sight of what it means to be a child - to explore, to learn, to grow, to be in the care of another. Yes, children need structure and boundaries, but they also need to be able to be children.
Attachment theory talks about the need for a child to develop secure attachment to a primary care giver. This security helps to balance and regulate the child, giving a safety. When it comes time for the child to explore or try something new, they have the reassurance of that safe place and the confidence to try new things. Unfortunately, outside of early childhood education or child psychology, attachment theory isn't very well known.
Some people think this is just part of me being an idealist. Or it's because Hana's my first child. Or because she's a baby. Or that I just plain don't know what I'm talking about. I don't care. I'm going to raise my child with the same respect and dignity that I would show to anyone else and would respect for myself. If I were to hit an adult it would be considered assault, so I won't hit her. I don't like crying myself to sleep, so I don't make her do it. I can eat when I'm hungry so I extend the same privilege to her. I know that the people who love me will be there for me when I need them, and I make sure she has the same security. I will teach her to be a loving and compassionate person by being loving and compassionate towards her. I will let her know there are things in life that aren't fair and she won't like, but that they're small compared to all the good things she can get out of life, and I will help her to work through them.
A quote I love (tho can't find who said it) is "It's easier to raise healthy children than it is to fix broken adults.". I think that once this mentality is more widely adopted we will see a big change in the world. I want Hana to be part of that change.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Religion
These are some things I've been thinking lately.
I'm a Christian. I believe in one God, that people are separated from Him, and that the only way to fix that separation is through the sacrifice of Christ.
I don't believe that because I'm a Christan that I've somehow got some sort of spiritual superiority, or that my hunger and devotion to God is any greater than anyone elses.
See, I believe there is some truth in every belief system. In fact, I think that the things we ignore in Christianity, things that we might even class as wrong or evil, make us miss out parts of God that He has revealed.
religion is created by man. God has continually revealed Himself, and we're left to interpret it. God reveals Himself in a sunrise, in the birth of a child, in scripture, in dance, in music. All good gifts come from God, all truth is God's truth, and I think we all miss Him in different ways.
So do I believe that "all roads lead to God" - no. I don't, because religion, doctrine, all that is all interpretation, and interpretation can be wrong.
The way I see it, every religion has within it a fatal vice, something that can distract a person from their search for God. It can be power, knowledge, experience, answers, empty promises, anything. I think if a person is able to overcome those things they will always keep searching for God, and realize that no one interpretation of Him has all the answers.
The Bible says that the earth reveals His glory, that He has written eternity on the hearts of men. How can we ignore that and think that somehow we have contained Him in the walls of a building, in a book, or even in our hearts. When Christians talk as though they are the only ones to experience God, to feel His love or see His glory or do His work it makes me mad. It ignores the work of the Spirit, the desire of others and the ability of God to work any situation for His glory.
So those are my thoughts...anyone else want to chime in?
I'm a Christian. I believe in one God, that people are separated from Him, and that the only way to fix that separation is through the sacrifice of Christ.
I don't believe that because I'm a Christan that I've somehow got some sort of spiritual superiority, or that my hunger and devotion to God is any greater than anyone elses.
See, I believe there is some truth in every belief system. In fact, I think that the things we ignore in Christianity, things that we might even class as wrong or evil, make us miss out parts of God that He has revealed.
religion is created by man. God has continually revealed Himself, and we're left to interpret it. God reveals Himself in a sunrise, in the birth of a child, in scripture, in dance, in music. All good gifts come from God, all truth is God's truth, and I think we all miss Him in different ways.
So do I believe that "all roads lead to God" - no. I don't, because religion, doctrine, all that is all interpretation, and interpretation can be wrong.
The way I see it, every religion has within it a fatal vice, something that can distract a person from their search for God. It can be power, knowledge, experience, answers, empty promises, anything. I think if a person is able to overcome those things they will always keep searching for God, and realize that no one interpretation of Him has all the answers.
The Bible says that the earth reveals His glory, that He has written eternity on the hearts of men. How can we ignore that and think that somehow we have contained Him in the walls of a building, in a book, or even in our hearts. When Christians talk as though they are the only ones to experience God, to feel His love or see His glory or do His work it makes me mad. It ignores the work of the Spirit, the desire of others and the ability of God to work any situation for His glory.
So those are my thoughts...anyone else want to chime in?
Saturday, June 02, 2007
The Birth House
I bought this book on Wednesday. It was WONDERFUL
It's set in Nova Scotia, during the first world war. It's about a midwife, from her first birth experience, during a time when the "miracles of modern medicine" were making births "pain free" for women - meaning they missed the birth of their children.
It was a beautiful, wonderful book, dealing with homeopathy, turning a breech baby and other common "problems" with birth. The main focus of the book was the struggle for women to be able to choose how they birth their child - at home when possible.
I find it interesting that this same discussion is happening now as more and more doulas and midwives are fighting for hospital privileges, as more and more women are looking for alternatives to a hospital birth, and as the medial system is (finally) realizing that midwives could take a lot of strain off of the medical system.
I admit with Hana I was scared to give birth. When I found out she was breech I was almost relieved because I had been so scared of what could happen - of an episiotomy, of the pain, of forceps and epidural. At least with a section I knew what would happen.
Now that I've spent more time reading about birth, I've come to realize that pregnancy is not cause for medical intervention. Birth is not a medical procedure. Yes, there are times when intervention are needed, and medical advances have kept so many mothers and babies safe, but for most women, these things aren't needed.
I'm so looking forward to my next birth. If the laws in Canada were different it would be a home birth, but having had a c-section that's not possible. I will trust my body, I will endure the pain, and, hopefully, I will bring my child into the world in whatever position makes it easiest for it to happen.
This was a wonderful, sweet, sad and empowering book. I highly recommend it (and if anyone in Calgary wants to borrow it just let me know!)
(P.S. I also found it quite humorous that at the same time as adressing the "evils" of masturbation, one of the "cures" for the "neurosis" that happened to women was a weekly treatment by a trained obstetrician that lead to orgasm...or at home with the use of a battery powered vibrator.)
It's set in Nova Scotia, during the first world war. It's about a midwife, from her first birth experience, during a time when the "miracles of modern medicine" were making births "pain free" for women - meaning they missed the birth of their children.
It was a beautiful, wonderful book, dealing with homeopathy, turning a breech baby and other common "problems" with birth. The main focus of the book was the struggle for women to be able to choose how they birth their child - at home when possible.
I find it interesting that this same discussion is happening now as more and more doulas and midwives are fighting for hospital privileges, as more and more women are looking for alternatives to a hospital birth, and as the medial system is (finally) realizing that midwives could take a lot of strain off of the medical system.
I admit with Hana I was scared to give birth. When I found out she was breech I was almost relieved because I had been so scared of what could happen - of an episiotomy, of the pain, of forceps and epidural. At least with a section I knew what would happen.
Now that I've spent more time reading about birth, I've come to realize that pregnancy is not cause for medical intervention. Birth is not a medical procedure. Yes, there are times when intervention are needed, and medical advances have kept so many mothers and babies safe, but for most women, these things aren't needed.
I'm so looking forward to my next birth. If the laws in Canada were different it would be a home birth, but having had a c-section that's not possible. I will trust my body, I will endure the pain, and, hopefully, I will bring my child into the world in whatever position makes it easiest for it to happen.
This was a wonderful, sweet, sad and empowering book. I highly recommend it (and if anyone in Calgary wants to borrow it just let me know!)
(P.S. I also found it quite humorous that at the same time as adressing the "evils" of masturbation, one of the "cures" for the "neurosis" that happened to women was a weekly treatment by a trained obstetrician that lead to orgasm...or at home with the use of a battery powered vibrator.)
Monday, May 28, 2007
Thoughts
My church has been doing a very indepth study on 1st Corinthians.
I LOVE it.
Tonight was the first part of Chapter 4:
1So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God. 2Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
With a refrence to chapter 5
12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
and a throwback to Matthew 7:1
Do not judge or you too will be judged.
There was a lot of truth in what was said.
The first point was that the Matthew verse doesn't mean we can't make any judgements at all, but that our judgments, like all other things, come with consequences and paramaters.
Any judgement we make leaves us vulnerable to the same standard. That means we have to be very careful the standard we use. We can still recognize right and wrong, but at the same time need to have grace and understanding for different circumstances.
Which brings us to the 1 Cor 5 passage. This has to be one of my favorite passages, and one that is so often overlooked. I bet some people don't even know this is actually in there.
Paul doesn't think it's his business to judge people outside the church. He was a smart man, I agree with him.
See, there are laws of humanity, laws of the land, and laws of God. We're all subject to the laws of humanity - under no circumstances are things like the abuse of a child allowed. We're also subject to the laws of the land, however these may change depending on where you are. For instance, if someone in Canada is caught with marijuana they should pay whatever fine etc. is deemed necissary. If they're in, say, Denmark where the law is different, then it would be absurd to expect them to suffer the same consequences.
In the same veign, it makes no sense to me to expect those who haven't submitted themselves to God to ack like they have. There is no reason for most people not to have sex outside of marriage because they see nothing wrong with it. There is no reason for non-christian homosexuals not to get married because they see nothing wrong with it.
However, there is something wrong with "prayer gossip" within the church. There is something wrong with bitter, cuting remarks that are said "in fun" instead of openly dealing with issues. There is something very, very wrong with the hurtful, hateful things that people say to others "in the name of God". Yes, there is a truth that needs to be shared, that truth is God's love, not condemnation.
We've gotten mixed up on the gospel - it is Christ crucivied, dead, buried, and alive again, giving life and freedom to all. It is not ripping apart everything that a person believes and leaving them with nothing. That's spiritul rape.
The other part of the message was talking about who we truly are responsible to when we make our judgements. It's not those around us - inside or outside the church (because our judgements are to "spur one another on toward love and good deeds", not to hold one another down in guilt or anything else), it's God. In the end, we are accountable only to Him.
This is important, because no matter how sure we are of our decisions, of where God is leading us or the truth in our lives, someone will see a problem with it. Nothing good has ever been accomplished without some resistance. When we meet that resistance we need to remind ourselves of who we are truly accountable to. So long as He is behind us everyone else can step aside.
I LOVE it.
Tonight was the first part of Chapter 4:
1So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God. 2Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
With a refrence to chapter 5
12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
and a throwback to Matthew 7:1
Do not judge or you too will be judged.
There was a lot of truth in what was said.
The first point was that the Matthew verse doesn't mean we can't make any judgements at all, but that our judgments, like all other things, come with consequences and paramaters.
Any judgement we make leaves us vulnerable to the same standard. That means we have to be very careful the standard we use. We can still recognize right and wrong, but at the same time need to have grace and understanding for different circumstances.
Which brings us to the 1 Cor 5 passage. This has to be one of my favorite passages, and one that is so often overlooked. I bet some people don't even know this is actually in there.
Paul doesn't think it's his business to judge people outside the church. He was a smart man, I agree with him.
See, there are laws of humanity, laws of the land, and laws of God. We're all subject to the laws of humanity - under no circumstances are things like the abuse of a child allowed. We're also subject to the laws of the land, however these may change depending on where you are. For instance, if someone in Canada is caught with marijuana they should pay whatever fine etc. is deemed necissary. If they're in, say, Denmark where the law is different, then it would be absurd to expect them to suffer the same consequences.
In the same veign, it makes no sense to me to expect those who haven't submitted themselves to God to ack like they have. There is no reason for most people not to have sex outside of marriage because they see nothing wrong with it. There is no reason for non-christian homosexuals not to get married because they see nothing wrong with it.
However, there is something wrong with "prayer gossip" within the church. There is something wrong with bitter, cuting remarks that are said "in fun" instead of openly dealing with issues. There is something very, very wrong with the hurtful, hateful things that people say to others "in the name of God". Yes, there is a truth that needs to be shared, that truth is God's love, not condemnation.
We've gotten mixed up on the gospel - it is Christ crucivied, dead, buried, and alive again, giving life and freedom to all. It is not ripping apart everything that a person believes and leaving them with nothing. That's spiritul rape.
The other part of the message was talking about who we truly are responsible to when we make our judgements. It's not those around us - inside or outside the church (because our judgements are to "spur one another on toward love and good deeds", not to hold one another down in guilt or anything else), it's God. In the end, we are accountable only to Him.
This is important, because no matter how sure we are of our decisions, of where God is leading us or the truth in our lives, someone will see a problem with it. Nothing good has ever been accomplished without some resistance. When we meet that resistance we need to remind ourselves of who we are truly accountable to. So long as He is behind us everyone else can step aside.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Pan's Labyrinth
We rented it because of all the comercials saying how great a fantasy it was.
It was not a fantasy. It had fantasy in it, but it was a movie about war.
There were parts that were beautiful and sweet, but most of it was horiffic and burtal. It's hard for me to watch violence, there were a lot of time I had to cover my eyes. It was a very honest movie.
It didn't make war glamorous or romantic. Even the heroine was terrified.
I've been thinking about war a lot lately. Usually I keep my ideas fairly quiet so as not to offend people. I don't want it to come across as a lack of respect or appriciation for all the soldiers willing to fight for something they believe in. That's not it at all, I have admiration for anyone willing to stand up for what's right. The world would be a much better place if more were willing to do that.
My problem is with the way war is presented. I know it's unrealistic to think this world will ever be without war - there are too many selfish and cruel people for that to happen. Instead I take this stance:
It may be necessary temporarily to accept a lesser evil, but one must never label a necessary evil as good. - Margaret Mead
Pan's Labyrinth deals is set during the second world war, in 1944, Spain. There is a leader, there are rebels. Without knowing the context, one would be tempted, at the beginning of the movie at least, to sympathize with the leader.
It made me wonder, at the beginning of the war, how many people, individuals andleaders, took it for granted, maybe even saw it as good. It's so easy looking at things from this side to say how horrible it was, to class it as one of the worst things in human history (tho there are things just as bad, even worse, with more deaths, and closer to where we are if people would care to look....). Look how long it took others to get involved, how long people just stood back and watched things happen.
And it makes me wonder if 60 years from now people will be looking back at current times with the same mentality. There are horible, sadistic, evil things happening in the world that most people don't even know about. Either they don't care to know, or they're afraid if they know they would do something about it. We've been so brainwashed in our society, so secure. Most fear we feel in North America is fear of our own making, fear forced on us by our media and our leaders. In anyone's lifetime there have been a total of 2 attacks from outside. Asside from killing ourselves (school shootings, bombings, gang wars etc.), we're pretty well protected. In other parts of the world not a day goes by without people afraid of what will happen, without seeing soldiers walk down the street, without having to hide their ideas and oppinions and thoughts for fear of being mistaken as a "terrorist".
who is really causing the terror?
I'm saddened and I'm hurt. And I'm angry. I'm angry at the misinformation, at the skewed numbers, at the lack of coverage of other atrocities that people think are history (Like most things happening in africa, like the starvation and treatment of widows/orphans in India, the deaths of Christians globally, the continued sepritism and conflict in Europe).
I wanted to turn off the movie. I wanted to not think about it. But I couldn't. I couldn't let myself to forget, to not think about how evil this world can be. I don't want to be one of the masses that doesn't know, and therefor doesn't care.
I reccomend the movie, but be warned, it might make you think.
It was not a fantasy. It had fantasy in it, but it was a movie about war.
There were parts that were beautiful and sweet, but most of it was horiffic and burtal. It's hard for me to watch violence, there were a lot of time I had to cover my eyes. It was a very honest movie.
It didn't make war glamorous or romantic. Even the heroine was terrified.
I've been thinking about war a lot lately. Usually I keep my ideas fairly quiet so as not to offend people. I don't want it to come across as a lack of respect or appriciation for all the soldiers willing to fight for something they believe in. That's not it at all, I have admiration for anyone willing to stand up for what's right. The world would be a much better place if more were willing to do that.
My problem is with the way war is presented. I know it's unrealistic to think this world will ever be without war - there are too many selfish and cruel people for that to happen. Instead I take this stance:
It may be necessary temporarily to accept a lesser evil, but one must never label a necessary evil as good. - Margaret Mead
Pan's Labyrinth deals is set during the second world war, in 1944, Spain. There is a leader, there are rebels. Without knowing the context, one would be tempted, at the beginning of the movie at least, to sympathize with the leader.
It made me wonder, at the beginning of the war, how many people, individuals andleaders, took it for granted, maybe even saw it as good. It's so easy looking at things from this side to say how horrible it was, to class it as one of the worst things in human history (tho there are things just as bad, even worse, with more deaths, and closer to where we are if people would care to look....). Look how long it took others to get involved, how long people just stood back and watched things happen.
And it makes me wonder if 60 years from now people will be looking back at current times with the same mentality. There are horible, sadistic, evil things happening in the world that most people don't even know about. Either they don't care to know, or they're afraid if they know they would do something about it. We've been so brainwashed in our society, so secure. Most fear we feel in North America is fear of our own making, fear forced on us by our media and our leaders. In anyone's lifetime there have been a total of 2 attacks from outside. Asside from killing ourselves (school shootings, bombings, gang wars etc.), we're pretty well protected. In other parts of the world not a day goes by without people afraid of what will happen, without seeing soldiers walk down the street, without having to hide their ideas and oppinions and thoughts for fear of being mistaken as a "terrorist".
who is really causing the terror?
I'm saddened and I'm hurt. And I'm angry. I'm angry at the misinformation, at the skewed numbers, at the lack of coverage of other atrocities that people think are history (Like most things happening in africa, like the starvation and treatment of widows/orphans in India, the deaths of Christians globally, the continued sepritism and conflict in Europe).
I wanted to turn off the movie. I wanted to not think about it. But I couldn't. I couldn't let myself to forget, to not think about how evil this world can be. I don't want to be one of the masses that doesn't know, and therefor doesn't care.
I reccomend the movie, but be warned, it might make you think.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Withdrawn
I am no longer a liscenced minister in the Wesleyan church.
No, nothing happened, just a lot of thinking and praying. I've learned a lot of things over the past two years, and part of what I learned is that the Wesleyan church isn't really a fit for me.
First off, let me say that I see denominations as helpful, but not essential. In fact, if you look at 1st Corinthians and all the problems that were caused by people aligning themselves to different teachers, denominations can be a bad thing. They're helpful in that they bring people together who have similar tastes in regards to certain issues. That keeps people from arguing over some things (altho if one looks hard enough they can find anything to argue about...) and keeps some sense of unity. That's a very good thing.
So why did I become Wesleyan? So I could be ordained. Not that I couldn't be ordained outside of the Wesleyan church, it just seemed an easy route to go, especially since I was going to a Wesleayan college. I felt a call into ministry, and took the pastroal program, and ordination seemed like the natural conclusion.
Except that things didn't go the way I planned. I did church ministry, and I enjoyed it, but a lot of my passion was lost. It became work. I wasn't able to do what I was truly passionate about, and couldn't force myself to be passionate about what I needed to do. It didn't feel like ministry anymore.
When I felt led to step down before Hana was born I was a mess. I thought God was removing my call, or that it was some sort of test, or that if I did step down I would be failing somehow. I was so wrong. Since taking that pressure off myself I've been so much happier, so much more passionate. I've been able to study and learn and share and build relationships. I've been able to get to know people, really know them without an agenda (because whenever you church plant, no matter how noble your intentions may be, getting people in the building is a big pressure).
So a lot of my ideas and assumptions have changed. I will still be doing full time ministry, just not traditional church ministry, at least not anywhere in the near future. I've also had to reevaluate being a member of the denomination. I always had hesitancies about some of the membership commitments in the denomination (and I've learned many others have the same hesitations, so maybe eventually those things will change), but was able to put them aside. I was able to uphold them for the sake of my integrity - standing for the things I had said I would. Now I've realized that it better serves my integirity to not align myself with something I don't agree with.
I don't know what I'm going to do now. Well, I do, I'm going to be a wife and mother and friend and teacher and helper and do all I can to be Jesus to everyone in my life. As for a career, I'm not sure. I've always been drawn to counceling. I have a lot of admiration for Social Workers. I love being a full time mom. No matter what I do I will be ministering. I will be partnering with churches and will be involved in structured ministry - children's church, small groups, missions.
This whole thing has been going on since January, actually it all really started last summer when I felt the need to step back from The Summit. Ben has been amazing through the whole process. So supportive and always reminding me that God will lead us, that His plans are higher than ours. He's reminded me that I never planned on being Wesleyan in the first place, and has pointed out how much more connected to God and my passions I have been in the last few months. He's such an amazing husband and father, I'm so blessed to have him.
I have such a peace about this. It was scary at first, wondering what will happen and where it will lead us, but the good kind of scary, the scary that makes me in awe of God's love and provision and providence. We're excited to see where God leads us.
No, nothing happened, just a lot of thinking and praying. I've learned a lot of things over the past two years, and part of what I learned is that the Wesleyan church isn't really a fit for me.
First off, let me say that I see denominations as helpful, but not essential. In fact, if you look at 1st Corinthians and all the problems that were caused by people aligning themselves to different teachers, denominations can be a bad thing. They're helpful in that they bring people together who have similar tastes in regards to certain issues. That keeps people from arguing over some things (altho if one looks hard enough they can find anything to argue about...) and keeps some sense of unity. That's a very good thing.
So why did I become Wesleyan? So I could be ordained. Not that I couldn't be ordained outside of the Wesleyan church, it just seemed an easy route to go, especially since I was going to a Wesleayan college. I felt a call into ministry, and took the pastroal program, and ordination seemed like the natural conclusion.
Except that things didn't go the way I planned. I did church ministry, and I enjoyed it, but a lot of my passion was lost. It became work. I wasn't able to do what I was truly passionate about, and couldn't force myself to be passionate about what I needed to do. It didn't feel like ministry anymore.
When I felt led to step down before Hana was born I was a mess. I thought God was removing my call, or that it was some sort of test, or that if I did step down I would be failing somehow. I was so wrong. Since taking that pressure off myself I've been so much happier, so much more passionate. I've been able to study and learn and share and build relationships. I've been able to get to know people, really know them without an agenda (because whenever you church plant, no matter how noble your intentions may be, getting people in the building is a big pressure).
So a lot of my ideas and assumptions have changed. I will still be doing full time ministry, just not traditional church ministry, at least not anywhere in the near future. I've also had to reevaluate being a member of the denomination. I always had hesitancies about some of the membership commitments in the denomination (and I've learned many others have the same hesitations, so maybe eventually those things will change), but was able to put them aside. I was able to uphold them for the sake of my integrity - standing for the things I had said I would. Now I've realized that it better serves my integirity to not align myself with something I don't agree with.
I don't know what I'm going to do now. Well, I do, I'm going to be a wife and mother and friend and teacher and helper and do all I can to be Jesus to everyone in my life. As for a career, I'm not sure. I've always been drawn to counceling. I have a lot of admiration for Social Workers. I love being a full time mom. No matter what I do I will be ministering. I will be partnering with churches and will be involved in structured ministry - children's church, small groups, missions.
This whole thing has been going on since January, actually it all really started last summer when I felt the need to step back from The Summit. Ben has been amazing through the whole process. So supportive and always reminding me that God will lead us, that His plans are higher than ours. He's reminded me that I never planned on being Wesleyan in the first place, and has pointed out how much more connected to God and my passions I have been in the last few months. He's such an amazing husband and father, I'm so blessed to have him.
I have such a peace about this. It was scary at first, wondering what will happen and where it will lead us, but the good kind of scary, the scary that makes me in awe of God's love and provision and providence. We're excited to see where God leads us.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
I'm a hipipe
According to my mother, I've turned into a hipie...and aside from the pot smoking and acid dropping, I can't really argue with her.
I've started living life much more simply. I don't use commercial cleaners. I shop organic whenever I can. I cloth diaper my baby and carry her around in a long piece of cloth.
There are other things too....like my growing interest in homeopathy. If it were possible I'd have a water birth with my next child - at home. I have a complete disgust at the amount of chemicals and alterations that come with food. I have a growing frustration with government, especially when it comes to the war of terror. I distrust media and know I'm never getting the whole story. If given the opportunity to protest something I have issues with I'd happily participate.
I'm also realizing that a lot of the extras we live with and consider vital aren't really necisary at all. I'm mostly noticing this with baby items (we have a lot of stuff we don't use/need), but it goes with general stuff as well - altho no one can make me give up my computer!
I guess I'm just learning how to make life more simple and appreciate things more. I listen to music and read more. I spend more time walking and with Hana and Ben. We do things as a family. We're trying t keep things more natural because it cuts down on stress and makes things better for everyone.
So I like being a hippie...and I don't think anyone who really knows me is all that surprised.
I've started living life much more simply. I don't use commercial cleaners. I shop organic whenever I can. I cloth diaper my baby and carry her around in a long piece of cloth.
There are other things too....like my growing interest in homeopathy. If it were possible I'd have a water birth with my next child - at home. I have a complete disgust at the amount of chemicals and alterations that come with food. I have a growing frustration with government, especially when it comes to the war of terror. I distrust media and know I'm never getting the whole story. If given the opportunity to protest something I have issues with I'd happily participate.
I'm also realizing that a lot of the extras we live with and consider vital aren't really necisary at all. I'm mostly noticing this with baby items (we have a lot of stuff we don't use/need), but it goes with general stuff as well - altho no one can make me give up my computer!
I guess I'm just learning how to make life more simple and appreciate things more. I listen to music and read more. I spend more time walking and with Hana and Ben. We do things as a family. We're trying t keep things more natural because it cuts down on stress and makes things better for everyone.
So I like being a hippie...and I don't think anyone who really knows me is all that surprised.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Considerations
a lot has been changing in me lately and it's hard to figure out some times.
Since moving to Calgary I've grown a lot and learned a lot and my perspective on things has changed, especially in my beliefs.
I suppose some would say I'm going through a crisis of faith, but that's not it at all. My faith is secure. In fact, it's more secure and more alive than it's been for quite a while. I'm more aware of God than I've been. I'm more thankful, more reflective, more passionate about what it means to live a life with God. I see things differently, see people differently, and have a clearer sense of where I fit in the midst of it all.
So what's the problem then?
I was filling out my DBMD form late last night. Currently my ordination status is on hold until I'm done being a stay at home mom. The thing is, I don't know when that's going to be. I love being a mom. I love being able to focus on Hana, to spend time with her. I love getting to know other moms. It's taken me two years to make friends here outside of work, and the friends I've made in the past few months are so wonderful and it's making moving back east a little harder.
When I decided to put my ordination on hold it was really hard on me. I felt like I was abandoning my call, that I was letting God down somehow. I realize now that really it's just a clarification of my call. I see now that my ministry won't be what I had originally thought. I'm not sure if I'll ever be in official full time ministry - meetings, office hours etc. I will do ministry, and I am doing ministry, but it's something much different than I had pictured.
So I wonder where this leaves me for ordination. I'm also dealing with different ideas and issues towards the denomination. The main reason I became Wesleyan was because I understood and could support the doctrines and because it was necessary for ordination. So I feel no supreme loyalty to the denomination. Don't get me wrong, the denomination has been good to me and besides minor issues (none of which are any worse than could be found in any other organization I've ever been part of) I'm very happy.
Ben and I have been going to a Mennonite Brethren church since December and we love it. It's warm and welcoming and the teaching is wonderful. My point is - what if the church we feel is a fit for us and want to be part of isn't Wesleyan?
So right now I'm sitting with a bunch of questions and what ifs and things that I don't need to question but am. Like I said, I see things differently now. The legalism and hoops and right answers stick out to me, and I'm not sure how I feel about them anymore. Again, it's nothing I have against the denomination, these things exist in all organizations, I guess I'm just more aware of them now.
So thats what I'm thinking and that's where I am, and if you've gotten this far and have anything to share, I'd appreciate it.
Since moving to Calgary I've grown a lot and learned a lot and my perspective on things has changed, especially in my beliefs.
I suppose some would say I'm going through a crisis of faith, but that's not it at all. My faith is secure. In fact, it's more secure and more alive than it's been for quite a while. I'm more aware of God than I've been. I'm more thankful, more reflective, more passionate about what it means to live a life with God. I see things differently, see people differently, and have a clearer sense of where I fit in the midst of it all.
So what's the problem then?
I was filling out my DBMD form late last night. Currently my ordination status is on hold until I'm done being a stay at home mom. The thing is, I don't know when that's going to be. I love being a mom. I love being able to focus on Hana, to spend time with her. I love getting to know other moms. It's taken me two years to make friends here outside of work, and the friends I've made in the past few months are so wonderful and it's making moving back east a little harder.
When I decided to put my ordination on hold it was really hard on me. I felt like I was abandoning my call, that I was letting God down somehow. I realize now that really it's just a clarification of my call. I see now that my ministry won't be what I had originally thought. I'm not sure if I'll ever be in official full time ministry - meetings, office hours etc. I will do ministry, and I am doing ministry, but it's something much different than I had pictured.
So I wonder where this leaves me for ordination. I'm also dealing with different ideas and issues towards the denomination. The main reason I became Wesleyan was because I understood and could support the doctrines and because it was necessary for ordination. So I feel no supreme loyalty to the denomination. Don't get me wrong, the denomination has been good to me and besides minor issues (none of which are any worse than could be found in any other organization I've ever been part of) I'm very happy.
Ben and I have been going to a Mennonite Brethren church since December and we love it. It's warm and welcoming and the teaching is wonderful. My point is - what if the church we feel is a fit for us and want to be part of isn't Wesleyan?
So right now I'm sitting with a bunch of questions and what ifs and things that I don't need to question but am. Like I said, I see things differently now. The legalism and hoops and right answers stick out to me, and I'm not sure how I feel about them anymore. Again, it's nothing I have against the denomination, these things exist in all organizations, I guess I'm just more aware of them now.
So thats what I'm thinking and that's where I am, and if you've gotten this far and have anything to share, I'd appreciate it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)