Your Reward

As Seen on Real Live Preacher

Freedom From Today's Media

Hamburger Help Meet

I'm still not satisfied with the way people pour so much into the text of the Bible rather than pull out what's there. Here's a small snippet from Captivating, Unveiling the Mystery of a Woman's Soul by John and Stasi Eldredge.

'It is not good for the man to be alone, I shall make him [an ezer kenegdo].' (Genesis 2:18, Alter) Hebrew scholar Robert Alter, who has spent years translating Genesis, says that this phrase is 'notoriously difficult to translate.' The various attempts we have in English are 'helper' or 'companion' or the notorious 'help meet.' Why are these translations so incredibly wimpy, boring, flat…disappointing? What is a help meet, anyway? … Companion? A dog can be a companion. Helper? Sounds like Hamburger Helper. Alter is getting close when he translates it 'sustainer beside him.'

The word ezer is used only twenty other places in the entire Old Testament. And in every other instance the person being described is God himself, when you need him to come through for you desperately.

There is no one like the God of Jeshurun, who rides on the heavens to help you…

Blessed are you, O Israel! Who is like you, a people saved by the LORD? He is your shield and helper and your glorious sword. (Duet. 33:26,29, emphasis added)

I lift up my eyes to the hills—where does my help come from? My help comes from the LORD, the Maker of Heaven and earth. (Ps. 121:1-2, emphasis added )

May the LORD answer you when you are in distress: may the name of the God of Jacob protect you. May he send you help. (Ps. 20:1-2, emphasis added )

We wait in hope for the LORD, he is our help and our shield. (Ps. 33:20, emphasis added )

O house of Israel, trust in the LORD— he is their help and shield
O house of Aaron, trust in the LORD— he is their help and shield
You who fear him, trust in the LORD—he is their help and shield.
(Ps. 115:9-11, emphasis added)

Most of the contexts are life and death, by the way, and God is your only hope. Your ezer. If he is not there beside you …you are dead. A better translation therefore of ezer would be “lifesaver.”

From Internet Monk

Three Days Among the Mainlines

My crowd is made up of creationists, hardcore Republican culture warriors, pro-lifers, complementarians, Biblical literalists, polemicists, internet theologians, evangelists, Charismatics and people who enjoy TBN and K-Love. What you should have noticed down through the years on this web site is that even though I’m not “one of them,” they are the crowd I live with, work with and understand. Whenever mainliners come up. it’s usually when someone has heard something in the news about gay marriage/ordination or someone wants to denigrate a church as dead or apostate.

Mainline Christians? I’ve always known they were out there, but I was warned to avoid those “liberals.” [snip] But these past three days were some of my closest times actually meeting and talking with my mainline brothers and sisters. Maybe it’s where I am on my own pilgrimage right now or maybe it’s the fact that I’m the recipient of real generosity from mainline friends, but I was more open to the mainline ethos than I’ve ever been before and I thoroughly enjoyed my experience. It was a wonderful time in the fellowship of those whose lives are seeking to know and serve God through Jesus.

Just to scare the fundamentalists keeping an eye on me, let me give a bit of a report.

A third–at least–of the ministers and pastors present were women. That’s ordained women, pastoring churches. From what I could see, they were doing great jobs in tough places. They were intense, devoted, strongly called and gifted, and deeply committed to their ministries.

They were also comfortable and confident. I’ve always been told that women in ministry had attitude and “issues.” I missed that. These were….normal people. Young mothers. Experienced older pastors. Campus ministers. They were eloquent, intelligent and busy doing the work of pastors. They were comfortable with what God had called them to do. They were prepared, experienced and positive. One young ECUSA pastor was a mother of four and had just been given pastoral oversight of 15 other pastors in her large diocese. Another woman was the minister of pastoral care at a large church in Kentucky. Many of these women were pastoring the kinds of little churches men leave quickly. They seem to have stayed. Hmmmm.

Not even once did we pause to discuss “women in ministry.” That issue was a done deal, and even when it became known that a Southern Baptist was in the room, no one stopped to start “the discussion.” We were pastors and ministers. We were there to listen to Eugene Peterson, to get to know one another and to be better shepherds.

No one seemed to know or care what Mark Driscoll or the SBC thought. We just talked about our churches, our dreams and our journeys so far. I treated them with dignity and respect and they did the same to me.

I liked that experience of fellowship a lot. Can I get away with saying that turning the “ministry” into a boys’ club–no matter what you believe about ordination–produces an atmosphere that I don’t really like? I don’t think I’m alone in that, and I assure you I’m not a mama’s boy. I’m just suspecting a lot of the grunting and chest hair in recent discussions of the “ministry” isn’t really necessary. God calls and gifts women. Even if you don’t ordain them, you believe that.

I also noticed that there was far more mature reflection on the experience and identity of the pastor in this group than in the other gatherings of ministers I’ve been a part of. Instead of being a driven kind of atmosphere, there was generosity, encouragement and thoughtful insight. I was really surprised that out of the whole group, over three days of discussion, I never spotted an ass……..well….a jerk. Or whatever term works. Not even one. In a room full of ministers listening to one another for three days, that seemed almost eerie to me. I’m used to gatherings of ministers being overt competitions of alpha males bragging, jousting for attention, bullying one another, playing games. My experience this week was absent all of that, and it had something to do with the fact that the role and person of the minister was taken more seriously than in my other experiences.

There was also an obvious gentleness in the leadership. No one seemed to have the need to vent their spleen and call it “leadership” or preaching. In the times of preaching, egos were set aside. Lots of scripture read, simple liturgies followed by 25-minute homilies. Where was the 1 hour 15 minute exposition telling us all what to do? Where was the parading of “names” to imitate? Not there…and I liked it.

There was a generosity toward other traditions that amazes me. All of these denominations together and I never heard ONE denominational or doctrinal discussion of any kind. Not one. Not even close. This was not the world I know, a world where anxieties about doctrine and theology seem to be, frankly, driving more than a few people to the point of distraction, illusion and obsession.

The entire article is here.

Women & Men and How They Behave

At the park last Friday I began talking with some fellow homeschooling moms that I don't know very well. One had mentioned to me at the beginning of the (school) year that she was going to join the Created to be His Helpmeet group by Debi Pearl. The other mom had mentioned her husband was becoming more "authoritative" and was asking them to dress more femininely (longer hair and mostly dresses). Both of these situations worried me.

It's hard to know when to open your mouth and speak or to just keep quiet, but anyone who *knows* me knows that just keeping quiet isn't usually the route I take ( be it good or bad!). I began to talk with these two young moms about the journey out of legalistic thinking God had walked me through this past year. I wanted them to see that not many people choose to live legalistically, but that it has a way of creeping up on you. I asked the woman who's husband was in the picture is he was reading a lot lately, and she confirmed this (naming some authors [who scare me ;]). What I'm wondering is when we begin to read multiple books on the same subject, by people who posit that what they are saying is *the right way*, can we say for certain that it is *God* calling us to live in this new way, or is it man? In my limited experience it has been man acting as God.

The woman who had been studying "Biblical truth" with Debi Pearl worried me, too. I suggested, after she named off a few "foundational truths" which included women acting a certain way, that we come to the scriptures *full* of preconceived ideas that we have been taught along the way (ie, how we digest what scripture says about "church" ). I knew I was getting somewhere with that idea, but hadn't fully thought it out. Serendipitously, Molly from Adventures in Mercy thought it out for me. Here's what she says:

CBMW says that heart of Biblical womanhood is the acceptance, nurturance and submission to the leadership of men. I’m a true woman, in other words, if I believe and perform the above expectations.

(then into the comments)

The actual booklet is, “What’s the Difference? Manhood and Womanhood Defined According to the Bible.”

It begins with Piper harkening back to the days of his youth and the way his mom and dad behaved with each other… and the “Biblical” (huh?) definition he then gives for femininity is thus:

“At the heart of mature femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman’s differing relationships.”

In other words, if you do not agree with Piper, then you are not mature, nor feminine, nor Biblical.

It is not Biblical to say that *women* receive leadership from men, whereas men give leadership to women. If this were the “Biblical” pattern, why did God call Wisdom a woman? Can anyone read the passages about Wisdom in Proverbs and say that God is not encouraging all of us to affirm and nurture and receive strength and leadership from her?

I feel that there is nothing at all wrong with wanting a traditional marriage, or desiring traditional roles. Where I cringe is when it’s said to be GOD’S way.

These books and teachers are telling men and women that they *must* adopt these gender roles, that it *is* God’s way, and that they are the only way to the kind of intimacy God wants for a marriage (and that if the married couple’s don’t experience that level of intimacy, then it’s NOT the books fault, but the man or the womans).

[see Spunky's post on Created to be His Help Meet; she comes to the same conclusion.]

Again, I think everyone should have the right to choose traditional gender roles if that’s what they want. But the point is, they should get to choose that, not *must* do it because it’s *God’s* way. It’s like the thrust of women choosing to come and be home to raise their children. That is AWESOME. Instead of being forced to, like before, they are now given the freedom to CHOOSE to do so. That is beautiful.

This silly divvying up of qualities just drives me nuts. As if strength is masculine but not feminine…as if leadership is masculine but not feminine…as if nurturing is feminine but not masculine…? All three of those “gendered” attributes can be refuted Biblically, because all three of those attributes can be seen in positive lights through MALE *AND* FEMALE representatives in the Bible.

Which is the whole point of this post. We’ve made up the idea that “Strength” is “Masculine. Our culture made that up. It’s a cultural belief, not a true belief. Strength is both a male and female attribute. Yahweh tells the female Zion to gird herself in strength. Abigail exhibited strength. Esther exhibited strength. Women giving birth exhibit strength.

Gentleness is not a Feminine attribute. Our culture made that up. Was David being feminine when he was gentle with Saul’s crippled son?

We’ve made so many of these “gendered” attributes up. They’re just attributes, things found in humans, not some in men and others in women, but all in humans, because all the attributes are found in GOD, who is NOT gendered.

Was Stephen being feminine when he served the widows? Was Paul being feminine when he said he was travailing in birth again? Was John being feminine when he leaned on Jesus’s chest? Were husbands instructed to act femininely when the Apostle told them to nurture and cherish their wives?

Was Wisdom being masculine when she said, “Come in and sit down, that I may instruct you?” Was Deborah being masculine when she solved difficult problems and disputes with authority? Was Huldah being masculine when she heard words from God and then told them to men, even to kings? Was Priscilla being masculine when she helped instruct Apollos in the finer details of the Gospel (instead of serving tea and cookies while the menfolk talked)?

That's what I'd like to say to the women at the park, but I don't think I'm brave enough. I don't think they want to hear it anyway.

CNN on McCain

Schneider: McCain fought hard in home state

Posted: 10:51 PM ET

(CNN) – John McCain’s win in his home state wasn’t an easy one. For much of the night, the Arizona senator was neck-and-neck with Mitt Romney among Republican voters — and among self-identified conservatives, at one point, he was losing to Romney by 11 points. McCain's clearly having a good night, but it appears it was a hard-fought victory among Republicans who know him best.

–CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider

Ron Paul...Revisited

Sora from Upsaid Journal says,

IS HE ELECTABLE? DOES IT MATTER?

As I write, there have been votes cast in only 7 states primaries or caucuses -- that means there are 43 states still to go. Isn't it a little early to decide that a candidate "can't win"? Do the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, Wyoming, South Carolina, and Louisiana get to decide for the whole nation? If there was a clear "front-runner" coming out of these early states it might be suggestive of a national trend... but there isn't. RON PAUL has come in ahead of EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE in AT LEAST ONE STATE.

Someone who was canvassing for Ron Paul in South Carolina the week before the primary reported that almost 1/3 of the people he talked to said they liked Ron Paul's positions and what he had to say... but they weren't going to vote for him because "he couldn't win". If this percentage held true throughout the State, and if all those people had voted their conscience, Ron Paul would have won South Carolina.

When "blind" telephone polls have been taken, where the biography, history and positions of a candidate are given but not their name, Ron Paul wins them by an overwhelming majority. If everyone says Ron Paul can't win, and then doesn't vote for him because he can't win, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the media keeps saying Ron Paul can't win, and people keep believing them and voting for the candidates who are approved by the talking heads on the television set, then the media has taken over our representative republic. But IF people vote their conscience, then, YES, RON PAUL CAN STILL WIN THE NOMINATION.

Read it all here.

thanks, Headmistress.

Jellybaby

Reader Beware: I've had this video in my inbox since the summer. I wasn't sure who sent it to me, and I haven't known what to do with it. It's a little...disturbing. It's worth watching for it's quality and entertainment value, although I still don't know what to do with it mentally. Shake my head and move on.

P.S. I put it on tonight for my husband and come to find out *he's* the one who sent it to me. Great.

AtomFilms.com: Funny Videos | Funny Cartoons | Comedy Central

Odd

From Mercola.com:

• In 1975, a man riding a moped in Bermuda was accidentally struck and killed by a taxi. One year later, the man’s brother, riding the very same moped, was killed in the very same way by the very same taxi driven by the very same driver -- and carrying the very same passenger.

• Twin brothers Jim Lewis and Jim Springer were separated at birth and adopted by different families. Unknown to each other, both were named James, both owned a dog named Toy, both married women named Linda, both had a son they names James Alan, and both eventually divorced and got remarried to a woman named Betty.
• A German mother who photographed her infant son in 1914 left the film to be developed at a store in Strasbourg, but was unable to collect the film picture when World War I broke out. Two years later she bought a film plate in Frankfurt, over 100 miles away, and took a picture of her newborn daughter -- only to find, when developed, the picture of her daughter superimposed on the earlier picture of her son. The original film, never developed, had been mistakenly labeled as unused and resold.

• In 1858, Robert Fallon was shot dead by fellow poker players who accused him of cheating to win a $600 pot. None of the other players were willing to take the now unlucky $600, so they found a new player to take Fallon’s place, who turned the $600 into $2,200 in winnings. At that point, the police arrived and demanded that the original $600 be given to Fallon’s next of kin -- only to discover that the new player was Fallon’s son, who had not seen his father in seven years.
• In 1930s Detroit, a man named Joseph Figlock was to become an amazing figure in a young (and, apparently, incredibly careless) mother’s life. As Figlock was walking down the street, the mother’s baby fell from a high window onto Figlock. The baby’s fall was broken and Figlock and the baby were unharmed. A year later, the same baby fell from the same window, again falling onto Mr. Figlock as he was passing beneath. Once again, both of them survived the event.

• In 1973, actor Anthony Hopkins agreed to appear in “The Girl From Petrovka”, based on a novel by George Feifer. Unable to find a copy of the book anywhere in London, Hopkins was surprised to discover one lying on a bench in a train station. It turned out to be George Feifer’s own annotated (personal) copy, which Feifer had lent to a friend, and which had been stolen from his friend’s car.

Biblical Dilemmas: Solved

For over a year I've had a nagging complaint with the Bible. *Gasp*! Don't lay prostrate on the floor for me just yet. Inside the group of Christians we went to church with a year ago it was hinted that because the *Pastor* had so much Bible training and I didn't, I couldn't possibly trust myself to read the Bible and interpret it correctly (so little faith in the Holy Spirit, I realize!).

This distressed me greatly. I was angry at God. Why give us a book, call it His Word, treat it like a manual-for-living, say it's inerrant, and then say Sola scriptura. I didn't know how to deal with my anger and confusion, assuming that if I did ever actually talk to someone about my doubts in the Bible that I'd be labeled a heretic, or worse, in rebellion.

I tried to play with the word "inspired." Does it really mean God-breathed...in the *Greek*? And finding out that's just exactly what "inspired" means, what does God-breathed really mean? The only conclusion I could come up with was that I was stuck believing in a Book that had all the answers, was full of stories and instruction directly from the mouth of God, even though hardly anyone could completely agree on it's meaning. These are the things I had been taught. They're the truths that most of my fellow believer-friends continue to hold dear to.

I began to look into other people's ways of interpreting the Bible. I found that many people disagree with the traditional way women are viewed, and I realized that maintaining cultural integrity was actually very important. Take, for instance, this article on Household Codes. Mr. Kruse does an honorable job at revealing the way Greeks & Romans understood words, metaphors, and associations. I hope you read it (at least Greco-Roman Households, The “Head” metaphor, and The Household Code: Ephesians 5:18-6:9), but here is one of his conclusions regarding the structure of the family and what Paul had to say in regards to it:

For those of us living in 21st Century democracies with a range of options for how to govern our social institutions, it is hard to appreciate just how unalterable social structures must have seemed to Paul, at least until Christ returned. Social structures were not on Paul’s radar. What Paul was concerned about was how we live within the given structures. If people lived in genuine submission to each other, then the power inequities of the structures would be rendered meaningless.

As Molly said in regards to the article, " Whatever conclusion one comes to, this is certainly important background information."

Then I came across Michael Spencer's A Conversation in God's Kitchen. He introduces us to his model for understanding the Bible, interpreting the Bible, and applying the Bible- all based on what Literature Scholars recognize as "The Great Conversation." Viewing the Bible as a "great conversation" between writers helped me realize that (as Michael says, ) "it allows a variety of viewpoints on a single subject, such as the problem of evil. Job argues with Proverbs. It encourages us to hear all sides of the conversation as contributing something, and doesn’t say only one voice can be heard as right."

Here's a snippet from his section on "What is the Bible?"

Genesis isn’t twentieth century science. Leviticus is primitive, brutal and middle eastern. The Old Testament histories are not scholarly documentaries, but religious and tribal understandings of God and events. Proverbs comes from a mongrel wisdom tradition throughout the middle east. Song of Solomon is erotic poetry, and not much else. The prophets spoke to their own times, and not to our own. The scholars who help me understand these books as they are, are not enemies of truth, but friends. Call it criticism, paint it as hostile, but I want to know what the texts in front of me are saying!

[snip]

Most importantly, this model says the Bible presents a conversation that continues until God himself speaks a final Word. In other words, I do not expect this conversation to go on endlessly. It has a point. A conclusion. And in that belief, the great Biblical conversation differs from the Great Books conversation. There is not an endless spiral of philosophical and experiential speculation. There is, as Hebrews 1 says, a final Word: Jesus.

Under his next point, "How Can I Say the Bible is Inspired?" I cannot express to you the relief that washed over me when I read,

I am not shocked that Catholics and Lutherans find the words “This is my body” to mean something different than Baptists do. I am distraught that any of these parties would fail to see that we are all listening to the same texts, and disagreement isn’t because some of us are all that much smarter or better listeners. It’s because we listen to different parts of the conversation, in different ways, and we are allowed to do so.

In the very same little church I was a part of that tried to teach me I was incapable of really understanding what the scriptures were saying, I was taught that people who did not believe the same interpretation of the Bible that we did were not simply wrong, but "teaching [sic] by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming." Especially Catholics. I was taught that people like me who could see why believers had different views were being blown by the winds of false teaching. I was convinced for a while, but when I realized that I was coming to drastically different understandings from the Scriptures than the little church itself, I began to doubt everything they taught and search for a better Biblical understanding.

Now to the final admission I had planned to make: I do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture. *Gasp* again! It has taken me quite a while to get to this realization. I feel like a heretic just saying it! But I have come to believe that while scripture is inspired by God, it was not dictated by God as Joseph Smith claims about the Book of Mormon. Throughout the New Testament the writers say very human things, back-tracking in some places (see this post at Adventures in Mercy), clearly explaining others as something *they* do not permit (see also 1 Corinthians 7:12).


Again (and as a last thought) I'll refer to something very telling from InternetMonk:

[W]hat has inerrancy done for all those individuals and churches who embrace it? I’ll let BHT [Boar's Head Tavern] fellow Bill Mackinnon call the roll.

Those who hold to inerrancy usually qualify it by saying it only applies to the originals. Great. We don’t have them.

Inerrancy is supposed to help us achieve unanimity in doctrinal matters, yes? Has it?

Common doctrine of God? No. (There’s a guy at IM taking Michael to task about inerrancy who has doubts about the Trinity)

Common doctrine of Baptism? No.

Common doctrine of Communion? No.

Common doctrine of Church organization? No.

Common doctrine of Spiritual Gifts? No.

Common doctrine of Biblical interpretation? No.

Common doctrine of Salvation? No.

Common doctrine of Creation? No.

There are all kinds of people who hold to inerrancy who vigorously disagree on the issues above. And there are people who are on both sides of the inerrancy question who hold common agreement on the doctrines listed above. There are inerrantists who don’t know, read, or rely on the scriptures as much as some who don’t hold to inerrancy.

Do inerrant originals guarantee inerrant transcription? No

Do inerrant originals guarantee inerrant translation? No

Do inerrant originals guarantee inerrant interpretation? No

Birds of a Feather

I came across a new blog yesterday (thanks, Meredith!).

I'm enamored.

If you aren't too familiar with the blog-o-sphere, you may not have realized that many blogs dedicated to decorating (which may or may not be "the Nester's" intent) are lacking in authenticity. Nesting Place is not. It's light but not fluffy, sassy but not overboard. In a word: charming.

Here is her most recent post with cute *easy* (cheap!) curtain hanging tips.

Here is a post that looks quite familiar, with different players in a different setting.

And here is the other post that made me say, "Aww!"

I love how she documents her life in pictures. What a great way to preserve those moments that are categorically special! I'm a new fan, and adding her to my sidebar already.

the God journey

Since Christmas, when I got my fantastic new little iPod, I've been listening to the God Journey, a fantastic new little podcast! Just Kidding: because the God Journey is neither new nor little.

I followed the link from Molly's blog (yes! she's back!), and have been hooked ever since. These guys, Wayne & Brad, have gotten me to a place where I understand God in a whole new way. Profound in their simplicity, I am turning from my God-as-concept way of life back into a God-as-friend way of living.

One of their "taglines" is "thinking outside the box of organized religion." Am I anti-institution now? No. But I am beginning to see that the way some churches lord their authority over people is not healthy, nor biblical. I'm beginning to understand that performance-based living, shame-infused to boot, was never God's intention. As in the stories of the Samaritan woman at the well, and with the woman who was about to be stoned, Jesus did not cast condemnation on them, or shame them into better behavior. That was not His way, and it certainly doesn't need to be ours.

A year ago God began to show me that "church" as I knew it was not the end all be all. "Church" is not a building. It isn't your choice of people that you meet with on Sundays. The Church is the Bride of Christ: "where two or three are gathered..." The unhealthy church we finally left tried to convince me that church *was* the Sunday morning event- and you *had* to be a part of that ("if you want to be a good Christian, you go to church on Sundays, and Wednesdays, and..." performance based, anyone?). They had verses to back it up (of course), and thinking that I couldn't possibly hear from God on my own because I didn't have years & years of Bible training, I believed them.

Thanks to Wayne and Brad, for spending their time podcasting once a week for almost three years. I have come to acknowledge that "church," or (as they say) the Sunday morning event, is not what God is all about. We are called to live relationally, and to me, that is the highest calling: love God and love our neighbors. Easier said than done if you're honest...

Ron Paul

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Hmmm...

I wonder how they figure this out. Words used? Punctuation used correctly? I don't know anyone with a poorly punctuated blog or I might have just typed in the URL to see...
.
.

A Birthday Wish from Our Insurance Co

First of all, a bilingual greeting:

Happy Birthday
Feliz Cumpleanos

then the oh-so-sweet reminder to get those totally normal, non-controversial, very-good-for-you shots:

Here's a birthday wish
Especially for you.
Make sure you've got
All Your Shots
Completed by age 2.

Wasn't that thoughtful?!

Global Warming: Hoax, Hysterics, or just plain Hot !?

I came across a lecture from the ACAEF* and thought it quite a good summary of the Global Warming Debate. You really need to watch this if you've wondered just how accurate the media and/or Gore's "Truth" project is. This is only the first part of a four segment video release (on youtube), but it's all I needed (having a brain that can handle only small, incremental pieces of scientific fact at one time.).

You can find the 4 parts at each of these links: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 (thanks, American Papist)

Also, there is nice introduction of R M Carter, the lecturer, so bear with it for a minute or two.

Here's what you need to watch:





*Annual Conference of the Australian Environmental Foundation

The Business of Being Born

Or, What Every Woman in the States Needs to See. How birthing is done in America needs some serious reconsideration if *45%* of births in 2005 were actually Cesarians. I've already done a post on Hospital Births, but I wanted you to see this amazing trailer of an up-and-coming documentary that actually gets it right...are you willing to listen?

The Business of Being Born

I'll remind you that once upon a time I had no idea what was really going on in the hospital concerning birthing and our precious children. I went right along with what I was told because I assumed that doctors wanted the best for me and my baby. Ladies (and gentlemen), that just isn't true. If it were, they would tell you all the risks involved when you get an epidural, or pitocin, or they wouldn't force you to stay hungry during birth, or get an IV that straps you on your back during back labor.

I *need* to inform people. I want women to make decisions based on knowledge. Only then can they decide what is *truly* best for them and their baby.

What do you think? Did this trailer cause your blood to stir as it did mine?

Medical Health: the Old Oxymoron

Thanks to WellTellMe and Mercola.

For Mimi:

This is a new feature of Blogger- the video option. It might take a while to load, so if you aren't interested in getting a glimpse of my home life, you're better off moving on to the next blog...

believers blacked out

Last Halloween we were caught off guard. We hadn't bought candy, we hadn't bought (new) dress-ups, and we hadn't thought of anywhere to go to celebrate. That's because we had chosen *not* to celebrate Halloween, as it's generally seen as a nod to evil, and evil we want no part in (see MacArthur's quote below).

About 6 o'clock, before it was even dark, our doorbell rang. I was surprised, as it doesn't ring very often, so I left my post at the stove wondering who wanted me to buy what. And boy was I surprised. It was kids! *Scary* looking kids. Teenagers, even. And they wanted me to give them candy. I sheepishly told them we didn't have any, and shut the door.

These first trick-or-treaters really scared my children. They didn't like scary looking people coming to our door, and the doorbell just kept ringing. My husband and I explained they were just dressed up for fun and wanted us to give them candy, but the children did not like it at all. We eventually turned out all the lights in the house, made a sign that said "trick-or-treating" in a "no" circle, and ate by candle light. Eventually they stopped coming. It was poorly planned and poorly executed, and I am not proud of it. I later read Tim Challies post titled Halloween Fast Approaches. He first quotes John MacArthur (a giant in the life of Challies) as having a typical view on the subject at hand:

“I think, it’s not a wise thing to have children go out trick or treating. I mean, I think it’s kind of dumb for Christian kids to dress up like ghosts and witches and weird things, and devil suits, and trouble-makers, and all that. I think, for example, you know, the whole thing of All Saints Day or All Hallows Eve has connotations, first of all of Roman Catholic tradition. It has connotations of demons and spirits. Plus the fact that little kids are exposed to screwballs as well as to cars, and all kinds of other things…What we do in our family is we have an alternative. Like you said, we do an alternative thing. We do something fun for the whole family. It varies from year to year, and our church has always done that, too, for the kids. Have parties and socials and things.”

After Tim states that whether or not you take part in Halloween festivities is completely a matter of conscience he goes on to make his compelling case:

My conviction is that it is a very poor witness to have the house of believers blacked out on Halloween. Halloween presents a unique opportunity to interact with neighbors, to meet their children and to prove that Christians are part of the community and not merely people who want only to interact with Christian friends or to only interact in our own way and on our own terms.

*snipping where he admits Halloween decorations do generally glorify evil*

Perhaps the greatest fallacy Christians believe about Halloween is that by refusing to participate in the day we are somehow taking a stand against Satan. And second to that, is that participation in the day is an endorsement of Satan and his evil holidays. The truth is that Halloween is not much different from any other day in this world where, at least for the time being, every day is Satan's day and a celebration of him and his power. A member of the discussion list wrote the following last year around this time: "Yeah... I've heard all of the 'pagan' reasons Christians should avoid Halloween. The question is whether we are actually participating in Samhain when we participate in Halloween? Who or what makes the 'Witch's League of Public Awareness' the definers of what Halloween is, either now or historically? Such a connection between Samhain and my daughter as a ladybug or my son as a Bengals Boy is highly dubious." And it is highly dubious at best.

I am guessing my neighbourhood is all-too-typical in that people typically arrive home from work and immediately drive their cars into the garage. More often than not they do not emerge again until the next morning when they leave for work once more. We are private, reclusive people who delight in our privacy. We rarely see our neighbors and rarely communicate with them. It would be a terrible breach of Canadian social etiquette for me to knock on a person's door and ask them for a small gift or even just to say "hello" to them. In the six years we have been living in this area, we have never once had a neighbor come to the door to ask for anything (except for this time). Yet on Halloween these barriers all come down. I have the opportunity to greet every person in the neighbourhood. I have the opportunity to introduce myself to the family who moved in just down the row a few weeks ago and to greet some other people I have not seen for weeks or months. At the same time, those people's children will come knocking on my door. We have two possible responses. We can turn the lights out and sit inside, seeking to shelter ourselves from the pagan influence of the little Harry Potters, Batmans and ballerinas, or we can greet them, gush over them, and make them feel welcome. We can prove ourselves to be the family who genuinely cares about our neighbours, or we can be the family who shows that we want to interact with them only on our terms. Most of our neighbors know of our faith and of our supposed concern for them. This is a chance to prove our love for them.

The same contributor to the email list concluded his defense of participating in Halloween with these words: "One night does not a neighbor make (and one night does not a pagan make), but Halloween is the one night of the year where the good neighborliness that flows from being in Christ is communicated and reinforced. We are citizens of another Kingdom where The Light is always on."

And on a light-er note, heres a picture I found of the two men I quoted today (thanks to the reformed evangelist):

(I think it's hilarious, and mean no malice by posting it here at all.)