More Evidence...
...of the insanity that an over-sexed culture has been driven to can be found here. This makes me froth at the mouth.
One of the primary purposes of a woman's breasts is for the feeding of her infants. God designed this and it is GOOD. We are not talking about women flashing and exposing themselves deliberately in an attempt to cause lust in the male. We are talking about feeding babies, usually under the cover of a blanket. But the exclusive sexualization of a woman's breasts in our perverted culture have made that natural function an action of indecency. Grrrrrrrrr.
Thursday, April 24, 2003
Friday, April 18, 2003
Myths of Child-Rearing
A popular myth of child rearing that shows up in many circles is the myth that a mother only need be at home for the initial months, year, pre-school, or pre-teen years. The idea seems to be that if you breastfeed for at least six weeks, or are home in those important first few years, you have done your duty and may now go off and do something else with a clear conscience. Once a child reaches the age of say, 13, and is able to use a door key without losing it, or operate a microwave, mom may depart the home in search of fulfillment through full time employment or higher learning. But it ain't so.
True, children require less maintenance as they get older. Most teens don't need their diapers changed, they can feed themselves, and if you crack the whip hard enough, they will even clean up after themselves and others. But while their physical needs impose less work on mom, their emotional and spiritual needs come more to the fore. They need as much care as a baby or toddler, but they just need it in a different way.
The teen years are years that are fraught with danger, at least in our society. No more a child, but not yet an adult, they are caught in the no-man's-land of puberty where they lack the experience and discipline needed to avoid some serious mistakes. Many of us can attest to the fact that we sowed some pretty awful stuff into our lives during the teen years and we are still reaping their effects years later. It seems to me to be the height of foolishness for parents to abandon their posts at this time just because they can go out and the kids no longer need a baby-sitter.
It takes time to develop a good and lasting relationship that allows the transfer of wisdom and guidance from a parent to a child. It is hard to get this time when both mom and dad work outside the home and are both exhausted by week's end. Saturday may be devoted to catching up on household chores and maintenance and Saturday evening is a time for mom and dad to have a date in order to maintain their relationship. This doesn't leave a lot of time for spontaneous activities and heart-to-heart talks with your teen sons and daughters. And since young people can be notoriously difficult to get to talk, the necessary time it takes to break down this resistance is one thing that is often in short supply.
I am thankful for the Providence that has allowed me to stay home with my children. There will be a lot of things in my life that I will look back on with regret, but staying home for my teens won't be one of them.
A popular myth of child rearing that shows up in many circles is the myth that a mother only need be at home for the initial months, year, pre-school, or pre-teen years. The idea seems to be that if you breastfeed for at least six weeks, or are home in those important first few years, you have done your duty and may now go off and do something else with a clear conscience. Once a child reaches the age of say, 13, and is able to use a door key without losing it, or operate a microwave, mom may depart the home in search of fulfillment through full time employment or higher learning. But it ain't so.
True, children require less maintenance as they get older. Most teens don't need their diapers changed, they can feed themselves, and if you crack the whip hard enough, they will even clean up after themselves and others. But while their physical needs impose less work on mom, their emotional and spiritual needs come more to the fore. They need as much care as a baby or toddler, but they just need it in a different way.
The teen years are years that are fraught with danger, at least in our society. No more a child, but not yet an adult, they are caught in the no-man's-land of puberty where they lack the experience and discipline needed to avoid some serious mistakes. Many of us can attest to the fact that we sowed some pretty awful stuff into our lives during the teen years and we are still reaping their effects years later. It seems to me to be the height of foolishness for parents to abandon their posts at this time just because they can go out and the kids no longer need a baby-sitter.
It takes time to develop a good and lasting relationship that allows the transfer of wisdom and guidance from a parent to a child. It is hard to get this time when both mom and dad work outside the home and are both exhausted by week's end. Saturday may be devoted to catching up on household chores and maintenance and Saturday evening is a time for mom and dad to have a date in order to maintain their relationship. This doesn't leave a lot of time for spontaneous activities and heart-to-heart talks with your teen sons and daughters. And since young people can be notoriously difficult to get to talk, the necessary time it takes to break down this resistance is one thing that is often in short supply.
I am thankful for the Providence that has allowed me to stay home with my children. There will be a lot of things in my life that I will look back on with regret, but staying home for my teens won't be one of them.
Preserving a Dignified Silence
They say that it is better to be silent and thought a fool than to blog and remove all doubt. Maybe this post will confirm your suspicions that I am a fool.
There have been several things that I have been mulling over lately. One is this article that was posted on Rick Cappeza's website. Another article in the same vein that came my way (but for which I don't have a link), is the following which I will paste:
UNDERSTANDING YOUR SEX DRIVE
2003 NEW RELEASE from SILOAM: INTIMATE AND UNASHAMED
by Dr. Scott Farhart
"Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married
Rebekah. So she became his wife; and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted
after his mother's death." (Genesis 24:67, NIV)
In spite of God's good plan for sexual fulfillment in marriage, many men
ask the question: "Why doesn't my wife ever initiate sex?" The flip side of
that question comes from women: "Why is my sexual drive so low compared to
my husband's? These questions expose a complex issue involving many
factors; the answers are vital to any couple struggling in their sexual
relationship.
And it seems to be an issue that has only recently surfaced with the
'sexual' revolution of the 1960s. Generations past did not struggle so
intensely with the idea of unequal sexual drive. It was seen as normal for
the man to possess a greater drive for intercourse than the woman. But with
the emphasis placed on sex in our culture and the infusion of the women's
rights movement, there is a new perception that men and women should have
an equal sexual drive. When that does not manifest itself in "real" life,
both the husband and wife want to know, WHY NOT?
WHAT THE MEDIA PORTRAY IS FICTION
Men are created with a stronger tendency to initiate, while women are often
better to receive. It is within these God-given roles that men would
naturally be the initiators of intercourse and women the receivers of their
love. And there would be less problem with misunderstanding these roles if
the world hadn't interfered by injecting its ungodly "standards."
HOLLYWOOD'S INFLUENCE
On televisions and movie screens, in books and magazines, in music videos
and video games, the role is portrayed of a woman who is sexually desirable
taking charge over the man: ripping off his shirt, unbuttoning his pants
and taking control. This scenario has become every man's fantasy because it
is Hollywood's fantasy. However, this perception of a woman's role is a
complete reversal of the way God made us. This model of sexual activity
should never be perceived as the norm.
Much of the discrepancy expressed by men and women concerning sexual drive
is a matter of perception: It involves what you think you should be doing
or what your spouse wants you to do. And some of the sense of "lower"
sexual drive in women is actually a reflection of how they perceive a good
Christian woman should behave. In their proper rejection of Hollywood's
version of the oversexed, promiscuous harlot, women may unwittingly reject
the natural desires God placed within them. This lack of understanding of
what is normal and acceptable in a godly sexual relationship plagues many
women.
BIBLICAL FREEDOM
While men are routinely taught that their sex drive is a strong aspect of
what it is to be a man, women rarely receive such positive reinforcement,
especially from the Christian community. Women can confuse the godly
understanding of being submitted to their husbands with being "submissive,"
passively waiting for him to initiate sexual activity. They wrongly
interpret a desire to have intercourse with their "flesh" that the Bible
commands us to crucify.
The Bible teaches us the proper perspective to have regarding marital sex
and sets us free from the world's distorted perceptions. For example, the
apostle Paul commands the husband to fulfill his marital duty to his wife
and the wife to her husband:
"The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the
wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also
to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him
alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other..." (1 Corinthians
7:3-5)
This mutual sharing of each other's body as taught by the Scriptures gives
freedom to the Christian couple to understand that both the man and the
woman have a right to have sex without fearing they are somehow displeasing
God. The apostle Paul warns them not to deprive one another, except for a
period of time they would devote to prayer, lest Satan tempt them to be
unfaithful (1 Cor. 7:5).
Just discovering this truth can increase a woman's sexual desire for her
husband because she now realizes she has a right to it. And a husband's
understanding of the God-given differences between the initiator he is and
the receiver she is may give him more reasonable (godly) expectations of his wife.
THE ROLE OF HORMONES
There is another important difference between men and women that affects
the natural sex drive - the hormone testosterone. In men, testosterone is
the primary sex hormone, whereas in women it is a very small part of their
hormonal makeup. Testosterone fuels the sexual drive, so the differences in
levels of testosterone between male and female also contribute to what many
couples see as an imbalance in sexual drive. The bottom line reality is
that men and women are created by God with drastically different sexual
drives; if we accept this fact, we can come to a much healthier idea of
what "normal" really is."
End of quote
I thought it was worth while passing along both of the articles for several reasons. First of all, as the first article stated, pornography has created a distorted view of sexuality for men and women. Women are now expected to be sexual amazons with an appetite that matches the male of the species. The new "ideal" woman is also one who is less curvacious than an older generation, and aside from breasts, looks more like a man, especially if you look at the muscle building and fitness mags. Some of the women in there look like they have taken a woman's head and stuck it on a man's body in a bikini. The proliferation of pornography has made sex miserable for many women. Like it or not, Christians (men and women) have adopted this perverted and fictional picture of female sexuality so that disappointment abounds in the bedroom when reality fails to live up to it.
The other factor is that the proliferation of birth control and the limiting of most families to one or two children means that the better part of North Americans, including doctors, are *unaware* of the changes that the libido can go through in extended childbearing. I am one of those women who is blessed with a lack of cycles while I nurse. That is a great convenience, but it also means that I have a greatly diminished sex drive as well. I remember going to the doctor after baby # 3 and asking him what was wrong with me. He didn't know. It wasn't until later when I was hanging out with midwives and had become more educated that I learned that this was *normal* for many women during times of lactational amenorrhea. But combine a populace of few children and few women who nurse beyond a few weeks or months, and most health care providers don't have a lot of experience in recognizing this for what it is.
Now, in the face of my ignorance, my dh's ignorance, and my doctor's ignorance, what do you think the result was? We all thought something was wrong with ME. In an earlier generation where long periods of nursing and many children being the norm, this would have been taken for granted. But in a sex-saturated and sex-fixated society, what is normal for some is now viewed as being the true perversion. Birth control has come to mean that women are available at all times and the perversions extend to having relations during menses so that even that is no longer off limits. The natural rhythm and flow that goes with ovulation, menstruation, pregnancy, childbearing, and nursing are ignored in the demands of sex for sex's sake.
The other thing that I think that has happened is that we now no longer know how we are supposed to look. It becomes increasingly harder to accept the aging process. Look at the Hollywood starlets who are the epitome of what our culture worships in terms of beauty and desirability --Demi Moore after she had her three kids had liposuction AND new breast implants AND worked out with a trainer like a woman possessed. We thought things were bad in the nineties when you needed surgery to have a baby. Now you need surgery to restore your body to porno proportions after having a baby too.
I was working out in the gym yesterday with one of my older daughters and I was thinking as I watched myself lift weights in a mirror that I am looking rather matronly and middleaged. Well guess what? I am a matron and middle-aged to boot. My face is relatively unlined, but I have more and more grey hairs popping up and now I find the ugly head of vanity raising its head. And I *look* like someone who has had a lot of kids. Ever seen a brood mare with the sway back and belly low to the ground that comes with repeated foaling? I am her human equivalent. Even if you stay away from porn and women's mags, it is hard to escape the influence they can wield since our culture is so influenced by them. What is a healthy 42 year old mother of 11 *supposed* to look like? Should I be a hag and let it go at that? How far am I allowed to go in compensating for gravity? I struggle with the demon of discontent in this area at times. It is *hard* to get the balance between just not caring any more and caring too much. But I think if I were really honest, I had that problem at every age.
It is helpful at these times to go back to Scripture and find our bearings there. It is easy for a woman to use a lack of libido as an excuse to not fulfill her duties to her husband. It is easy to use the kids as an excuse for not taking care of herself. Instead, we have to remind ourselves of what is required of us, even when we don't want to do it, and that this is an act of obedience to God that will reap a blessing.
Anyhow, I thought that these articles might be of help to anyone else who may struggle in this area like I do.
They say that it is better to be silent and thought a fool than to blog and remove all doubt. Maybe this post will confirm your suspicions that I am a fool.
There have been several things that I have been mulling over lately. One is this article that was posted on Rick Cappeza's website. Another article in the same vein that came my way (but for which I don't have a link), is the following which I will paste:
UNDERSTANDING YOUR SEX DRIVE
2003 NEW RELEASE from SILOAM: INTIMATE AND UNASHAMED
by Dr. Scott Farhart
"Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married
Rebekah. So she became his wife; and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted
after his mother's death." (Genesis 24:67, NIV)
In spite of God's good plan for sexual fulfillment in marriage, many men
ask the question: "Why doesn't my wife ever initiate sex?" The flip side of
that question comes from women: "Why is my sexual drive so low compared to
my husband's? These questions expose a complex issue involving many
factors; the answers are vital to any couple struggling in their sexual
relationship.
And it seems to be an issue that has only recently surfaced with the
'sexual' revolution of the 1960s. Generations past did not struggle so
intensely with the idea of unequal sexual drive. It was seen as normal for
the man to possess a greater drive for intercourse than the woman. But with
the emphasis placed on sex in our culture and the infusion of the women's
rights movement, there is a new perception that men and women should have
an equal sexual drive. When that does not manifest itself in "real" life,
both the husband and wife want to know, WHY NOT?
WHAT THE MEDIA PORTRAY IS FICTION
Men are created with a stronger tendency to initiate, while women are often
better to receive. It is within these God-given roles that men would
naturally be the initiators of intercourse and women the receivers of their
love. And there would be less problem with misunderstanding these roles if
the world hadn't interfered by injecting its ungodly "standards."
HOLLYWOOD'S INFLUENCE
On televisions and movie screens, in books and magazines, in music videos
and video games, the role is portrayed of a woman who is sexually desirable
taking charge over the man: ripping off his shirt, unbuttoning his pants
and taking control. This scenario has become every man's fantasy because it
is Hollywood's fantasy. However, this perception of a woman's role is a
complete reversal of the way God made us. This model of sexual activity
should never be perceived as the norm.
Much of the discrepancy expressed by men and women concerning sexual drive
is a matter of perception: It involves what you think you should be doing
or what your spouse wants you to do. And some of the sense of "lower"
sexual drive in women is actually a reflection of how they perceive a good
Christian woman should behave. In their proper rejection of Hollywood's
version of the oversexed, promiscuous harlot, women may unwittingly reject
the natural desires God placed within them. This lack of understanding of
what is normal and acceptable in a godly sexual relationship plagues many
women.
BIBLICAL FREEDOM
While men are routinely taught that their sex drive is a strong aspect of
what it is to be a man, women rarely receive such positive reinforcement,
especially from the Christian community. Women can confuse the godly
understanding of being submitted to their husbands with being "submissive,"
passively waiting for him to initiate sexual activity. They wrongly
interpret a desire to have intercourse with their "flesh" that the Bible
commands us to crucify.
The Bible teaches us the proper perspective to have regarding marital sex
and sets us free from the world's distorted perceptions. For example, the
apostle Paul commands the husband to fulfill his marital duty to his wife
and the wife to her husband:
"The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the
wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also
to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him
alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other..." (1 Corinthians
7:3-5)
This mutual sharing of each other's body as taught by the Scriptures gives
freedom to the Christian couple to understand that both the man and the
woman have a right to have sex without fearing they are somehow displeasing
God. The apostle Paul warns them not to deprive one another, except for a
period of time they would devote to prayer, lest Satan tempt them to be
unfaithful (1 Cor. 7:5).
Just discovering this truth can increase a woman's sexual desire for her
husband because she now realizes she has a right to it. And a husband's
understanding of the God-given differences between the initiator he is and
the receiver she is may give him more reasonable (godly) expectations of his wife.
THE ROLE OF HORMONES
There is another important difference between men and women that affects
the natural sex drive - the hormone testosterone. In men, testosterone is
the primary sex hormone, whereas in women it is a very small part of their
hormonal makeup. Testosterone fuels the sexual drive, so the differences in
levels of testosterone between male and female also contribute to what many
couples see as an imbalance in sexual drive. The bottom line reality is
that men and women are created by God with drastically different sexual
drives; if we accept this fact, we can come to a much healthier idea of
what "normal" really is."
End of quote
I thought it was worth while passing along both of the articles for several reasons. First of all, as the first article stated, pornography has created a distorted view of sexuality for men and women. Women are now expected to be sexual amazons with an appetite that matches the male of the species. The new "ideal" woman is also one who is less curvacious than an older generation, and aside from breasts, looks more like a man, especially if you look at the muscle building and fitness mags. Some of the women in there look like they have taken a woman's head and stuck it on a man's body in a bikini. The proliferation of pornography has made sex miserable for many women. Like it or not, Christians (men and women) have adopted this perverted and fictional picture of female sexuality so that disappointment abounds in the bedroom when reality fails to live up to it.
The other factor is that the proliferation of birth control and the limiting of most families to one or two children means that the better part of North Americans, including doctors, are *unaware* of the changes that the libido can go through in extended childbearing. I am one of those women who is blessed with a lack of cycles while I nurse. That is a great convenience, but it also means that I have a greatly diminished sex drive as well. I remember going to the doctor after baby # 3 and asking him what was wrong with me. He didn't know. It wasn't until later when I was hanging out with midwives and had become more educated that I learned that this was *normal* for many women during times of lactational amenorrhea. But combine a populace of few children and few women who nurse beyond a few weeks or months, and most health care providers don't have a lot of experience in recognizing this for what it is.
Now, in the face of my ignorance, my dh's ignorance, and my doctor's ignorance, what do you think the result was? We all thought something was wrong with ME. In an earlier generation where long periods of nursing and many children being the norm, this would have been taken for granted. But in a sex-saturated and sex-fixated society, what is normal for some is now viewed as being the true perversion. Birth control has come to mean that women are available at all times and the perversions extend to having relations during menses so that even that is no longer off limits. The natural rhythm and flow that goes with ovulation, menstruation, pregnancy, childbearing, and nursing are ignored in the demands of sex for sex's sake.
The other thing that I think that has happened is that we now no longer know how we are supposed to look. It becomes increasingly harder to accept the aging process. Look at the Hollywood starlets who are the epitome of what our culture worships in terms of beauty and desirability --Demi Moore after she had her three kids had liposuction AND new breast implants AND worked out with a trainer like a woman possessed. We thought things were bad in the nineties when you needed surgery to have a baby. Now you need surgery to restore your body to porno proportions after having a baby too.
I was working out in the gym yesterday with one of my older daughters and I was thinking as I watched myself lift weights in a mirror that I am looking rather matronly and middleaged. Well guess what? I am a matron and middle-aged to boot. My face is relatively unlined, but I have more and more grey hairs popping up and now I find the ugly head of vanity raising its head. And I *look* like someone who has had a lot of kids. Ever seen a brood mare with the sway back and belly low to the ground that comes with repeated foaling? I am her human equivalent. Even if you stay away from porn and women's mags, it is hard to escape the influence they can wield since our culture is so influenced by them. What is a healthy 42 year old mother of 11 *supposed* to look like? Should I be a hag and let it go at that? How far am I allowed to go in compensating for gravity? I struggle with the demon of discontent in this area at times. It is *hard* to get the balance between just not caring any more and caring too much. But I think if I were really honest, I had that problem at every age.
It is helpful at these times to go back to Scripture and find our bearings there. It is easy for a woman to use a lack of libido as an excuse to not fulfill her duties to her husband. It is easy to use the kids as an excuse for not taking care of herself. Instead, we have to remind ourselves of what is required of us, even when we don't want to do it, and that this is an act of obedience to God that will reap a blessing.
Anyhow, I thought that these articles might be of help to anyone else who may struggle in this area like I do.
Wednesday, April 09, 2003
Yep, yep, yep...
But I don't think I am tragic.
Numenorean
To which race of Middle Earth do you belong?
brought to you by Quizilla
But I don't think I am tragic.
Numenorean
To which race of Middle Earth do you belong?
brought to you by Quizilla
Tuesday, April 01, 2003
How Rude!
Or is it? Is it rude to declare that you are sick to death of your discussion groups? I have shut off each and every one that I am subscribed to with the exception of those that I own or moderate. And even there I am mostly lurking and not commenting these days. I have also stopped reading all but one or two blogs (won't say which ones) and I am not commenting on them either.
General malaise or general fed-up-ed-ness has set in. I am sick to death of discussing or fighting about the same old, same old.
Or is it? Is it rude to declare that you are sick to death of your discussion groups? I have shut off each and every one that I am subscribed to with the exception of those that I own or moderate. And even there I am mostly lurking and not commenting these days. I have also stopped reading all but one or two blogs (won't say which ones) and I am not commenting on them either.
General malaise or general fed-up-ed-ness has set in. I am sick to death of discussing or fighting about the same old, same old.
Tuesday, March 25, 2003
Signs
Sceptics would call this "coincidence," but I prefer to call it "Signs that I am Loved."
Yesterday I took our fuel efficient Chevy Malibu to town. I had Princess Elodie, Groovy Garnet, Beautiful Bethany, and Terrific Trahern. We got about half way to town when all of a sudden every light on my dashboard came on. Then the speedometer, thermometer and RPM meter went dead. Then the car died -- right in the middle of an intersection near a gas station. I put the car into neutral, and thankfully there was no traffic for once at that busy corner, and we pushed the car into the gas station so that we wouldn't be in imminent danger of being struck.
I was able to phone my daughter Trista who came and picked up the children in two lots with her little car while I stayed with our sick and ailing Malibu to await a tow to the automotive shop. You know your life is too full when you consider a break down a bit of a holiday. I made my way into the convenience store attached to the gas station and bought myself some corn chips and bottled water and settled down in my car for a blissful 20 minutes to eat and read uninterrupted.
The car was duly towed and Trista then graciously came and picked me up from the shop and drove me all the way home so I could get the family van for a return to town for the children and a resumption of the grocery store trip.
So my first sign that I am loved is the fact that God arranged for my car to have a fit in a convenient location.
Well, we got through the grocery shopping in record time. I drove home with a van load of food and the children only to realize once I got home that I had left my keys to the office behind at the grocery store and now could not answer the business phone or get to the computer or any of the 3 million things that I keep in here. So... back into the van with Handsome Hannah and Neat Nate in the hopes that my keys would be found and a brief stop at the Y to work out some of the kinks my back had acquired during the course of the day.
I walked into SuperStore and inquired about the keys. They were not there. I started to walk around the store to see if I could find them, only to be called back by the customer service rep on the PA. Someone had just turned my keys in.
So there you have it -- my car breaks down in a good place for breaking down, and my keys are returned at precisely the same moment I am in the store. Coincidence? Nah. I am Loved.
Sceptics would call this "coincidence," but I prefer to call it "Signs that I am Loved."
Yesterday I took our fuel efficient Chevy Malibu to town. I had Princess Elodie, Groovy Garnet, Beautiful Bethany, and Terrific Trahern. We got about half way to town when all of a sudden every light on my dashboard came on. Then the speedometer, thermometer and RPM meter went dead. Then the car died -- right in the middle of an intersection near a gas station. I put the car into neutral, and thankfully there was no traffic for once at that busy corner, and we pushed the car into the gas station so that we wouldn't be in imminent danger of being struck.
I was able to phone my daughter Trista who came and picked up the children in two lots with her little car while I stayed with our sick and ailing Malibu to await a tow to the automotive shop. You know your life is too full when you consider a break down a bit of a holiday. I made my way into the convenience store attached to the gas station and bought myself some corn chips and bottled water and settled down in my car for a blissful 20 minutes to eat and read uninterrupted.
The car was duly towed and Trista then graciously came and picked me up from the shop and drove me all the way home so I could get the family van for a return to town for the children and a resumption of the grocery store trip.
So my first sign that I am loved is the fact that God arranged for my car to have a fit in a convenient location.
Well, we got through the grocery shopping in record time. I drove home with a van load of food and the children only to realize once I got home that I had left my keys to the office behind at the grocery store and now could not answer the business phone or get to the computer or any of the 3 million things that I keep in here. So... back into the van with Handsome Hannah and Neat Nate in the hopes that my keys would be found and a brief stop at the Y to work out some of the kinks my back had acquired during the course of the day.
I walked into SuperStore and inquired about the keys. They were not there. I started to walk around the store to see if I could find them, only to be called back by the customer service rep on the PA. Someone had just turned my keys in.
So there you have it -- my car breaks down in a good place for breaking down, and my keys are returned at precisely the same moment I am in the store. Coincidence? Nah. I am Loved.
Thursday, March 20, 2003
Spring Fever
The sun has been out, a warm wind from the south has been blowing and the snow is melting rapidly. Everywhere you look are decaying mounds of snow, no longer lovely but dark, dirty and trashy looking. Garbage that was decently interred under drifts is now being resurrected and needing a thorough burial at the dump or immolation on the burning pile.
Because the sun is rising earlier now, it gets me out of bed at an early hour too -- frequently before 6 am. And now that the days are longer and warmer, I am feeling the itch to CLEAN!
So, the next few weeks, before Marc returns home from his work stint in Calgary, will be devoted to deep spring cleaning all the rooms in the house as well as painting and decorating the bathroom, the girls' bedroom and the mudroom. I feel the blood surging through my veins in anticipation of the soul-cleansing feeling of a thoroughly clean house.
The sun has been out, a warm wind from the south has been blowing and the snow is melting rapidly. Everywhere you look are decaying mounds of snow, no longer lovely but dark, dirty and trashy looking. Garbage that was decently interred under drifts is now being resurrected and needing a thorough burial at the dump or immolation on the burning pile.
Because the sun is rising earlier now, it gets me out of bed at an early hour too -- frequently before 6 am. And now that the days are longer and warmer, I am feeling the itch to CLEAN!
So, the next few weeks, before Marc returns home from his work stint in Calgary, will be devoted to deep spring cleaning all the rooms in the house as well as painting and decorating the bathroom, the girls' bedroom and the mudroom. I feel the blood surging through my veins in anticipation of the soul-cleansing feeling of a thoroughly clean house.
Tuesday, March 11, 2003
Garnet
Elodie is not the only cute one in the family. The office of cutest small boy has been reserved for Garnet, who is three and a half.
Garnet was potty trained many months ago but still has the habit of coming and announcing to me that he needs to use the washroom before he will use it. The other day my husband and I were sitting in our office chatting and Garnet came in to tell me that he had to use the washroom. I replied, "Okay, go for it, man!" but Marc, my husband asked him, "Garnet why don't you still wear diapers?" Garnet replied, "Cuz Mom won't buy them for me any more" as he left the office with a downcast expression and sigh for the good old days.
And while I think of it, I will ask Emeth to post a picture of Garnet so that I won't be challenged on his cuteness.
Curing Matt's Agnosticism
Since doubt has been cast on my ability to judge the daintiness and sweetness of Princess Elodie, I have forwarded a picture of her to Emeth who controls how my blog looks (since I don't have a clue how to do this, or I would remove the orange colors off of it) and I hope she will post it for me. Then you can all judge for yourselves.
Since doubt has been cast on my ability to judge the daintiness and sweetness of Princess Elodie, I have forwarded a picture of her to Emeth who controls how my blog looks (since I don't have a clue how to do this, or I would remove the orange colors off of it) and I hope she will post it for me. Then you can all judge for yourselves.
Friday, March 07, 2003
Wednesday, March 05, 2003
Morbid Curiosity
I don't always understand how my brain works or why I feel driven to learn about certain things. Lately, I have felt a compulsion to understand the process of dying. No one that is close to me is terminally ill, and I have no premonitions about my own health or death. In some respects I guess this is the other end of the continuum of my education about health and life. I used to be a doula and have a pretty good knowledge of how people get here. Now, perhaps, it is time for me to round out my education and learn about how they leave here.
This is a rather strange subject to delve into. Death is the one thing that we don't want to deal with, but which is always hanging over us. You can't get out of life alive. Ok, so how do we get out?
Prior to the advent of antibiotics, death was far more common and life was often far shorter than it is today. The smells, sights and feelings of death were things that were commonly experienced by earlier generations on an uncomfortably regular basis. Death wasn't limited to only the elderly -- many babies, many youths, many young men and women were struck down in their prime by a variety of circumstances. Now, fewer babies and young people die and life has been extended into the 80's and 90's for more and more people.
The result? Death has become something that many of us are not familiar with in our youth. The shortness of life is easier to ignore. And when death comes, it is sanitized very often by the intervention of doctors and nurses, morticians and funeral home directors. The reality of death is almost limited to the void that is left by the person being gone. There is little that we personally have to do with our family members who pass on. You can hire someone else to do it.
Of course, not everyone is so arm's length from death. There are those who do hospice care in their homes for their loved ones so that they are in familiar surroundings when the end comes. When I go, I hope that I will be able to do it this way. I don't want to be in a ward in a rented bed. I want to be in my own surroundings with those I love around me to encourage me on. Of course, we don't necessarily get to choose how we will die or where. But if I had my druthers....
I wonder if birth control would be so popular if people didn't think most of their children would make it beyond the first few years of life?
I don't always understand how my brain works or why I feel driven to learn about certain things. Lately, I have felt a compulsion to understand the process of dying. No one that is close to me is terminally ill, and I have no premonitions about my own health or death. In some respects I guess this is the other end of the continuum of my education about health and life. I used to be a doula and have a pretty good knowledge of how people get here. Now, perhaps, it is time for me to round out my education and learn about how they leave here.
This is a rather strange subject to delve into. Death is the one thing that we don't want to deal with, but which is always hanging over us. You can't get out of life alive. Ok, so how do we get out?
Prior to the advent of antibiotics, death was far more common and life was often far shorter than it is today. The smells, sights and feelings of death were things that were commonly experienced by earlier generations on an uncomfortably regular basis. Death wasn't limited to only the elderly -- many babies, many youths, many young men and women were struck down in their prime by a variety of circumstances. Now, fewer babies and young people die and life has been extended into the 80's and 90's for more and more people.
The result? Death has become something that many of us are not familiar with in our youth. The shortness of life is easier to ignore. And when death comes, it is sanitized very often by the intervention of doctors and nurses, morticians and funeral home directors. The reality of death is almost limited to the void that is left by the person being gone. There is little that we personally have to do with our family members who pass on. You can hire someone else to do it.
Of course, not everyone is so arm's length from death. There are those who do hospice care in their homes for their loved ones so that they are in familiar surroundings when the end comes. When I go, I hope that I will be able to do it this way. I don't want to be in a ward in a rented bed. I want to be in my own surroundings with those I love around me to encourage me on. Of course, we don't necessarily get to choose how we will die or where. But if I had my druthers....
I wonder if birth control would be so popular if people didn't think most of their children would make it beyond the first few years of life?
Tuesday, March 04, 2003
Headcoverings and Modesty
Some posts by Matt and Sora reminded me of a recent discussion I was involved in concerning the use of headcoverings as a sign of modesty and submission for women in our culture. Is the headcovering meant to be a sign of these things forever and always? Here is a copy of a post from a friend of mine that deals with the question as laid out by Durham and Gillespie:
Let's start with Durham on Scandal:
"Chap 6: Holding forth the difficulty mainly in pracitce, and shewing how far offence ought to have influence on a Christian in his walk."
Durham proceeds in making careful distinctions/qualifications via 3 assertions (I'll be including 2):
1. Necessary duties.
2. Things of light concernment in themselves (the context will evidence a sense of things not inherently necessary)
"1. For no offence whatsoever should men forbear a necessary duty, or commit any thing which is materially sinful. Christ would needs go up to Jerusalem, altho' his Disciples were displeased, and would continue in preaching the Gospel, and in doing what was intrusted to him, altho' the Pharisees were offended, Matt 15. This is clear: For no Evil should be done that Good may come of it, Rom 3.
2. Assert. Yet in other things there ought to be great respect had to offence, and men ought to be swayed accordingly in their practice, as the former Reasons clear; As, 1. If the matter be of light concernment in itself, as how mens Gestures are in their walking, (Suppse in walking softly, or quickly with Cloke or without) Men ought to do or abstain as may prevent the Contruction of Pride, Lightness, etc. or give occasion to others in any of these: Of such sort are salutations in the very manner of them. Of this sort was women praying with their heads uncovered amongst the Corinthians, it being then taken for an evil sign; yet if it be necessary, there is nothing little, as moses will not leave an hoof, Exodus 10, nor Mordecai bow his knee to Haman, because it that it looked like fauning on an accursed enemy: Of this Sort also are offences in the fasions of Clothes, as some Mens wearing Ribbons, and such like, which being of small Concernment, ought certainly to be regulated by Offence" - Durham's treatise concerning scandal, pg 24; Ch 6 Part 1.
The 1st assertion deals with necessary duties. The 2nd, however, deals with things of another nature (things of light concernement, etc). This fact alone demonstrates how Durham interpreted the nature of the practice, without question. This section should be interpreted as a qualifier in reference to Durham's comments on 1st Corinthians 11 in "The Law Unsealed." Appealing to historical practice in Scotland, or anywhere else is fallacious (in this context); an instance of question begging. The question is not in reference to the practice historically, but in reference to the nature of the historical practice. If this method was not assumed when examining historical accounts, one by consequence would terminate in a thousand superstitious conclusions...perhaps an infinite number of conclusions.
The covering is either necessary inherently, or not. Durham excludes the covering from the category of inherently necessary duties, and squarely places it in a category of a different nature - "Yet in other things......If the matter be of light concernment.....Of such Sort are salutations in the very manner of them. Of this Sort was womens praying with their heads uncovered amongst the Corinthians, it being then taken for an evil sign, etc" Therefore, etc. Durham is clearly dealing with contextually qualified necessities in this section, rather than things inherently necessary.
To avoid the charge of redundancy, there are different applications of necessity. Some duties are necessary inherently, as Durham's 1st assertion clears. Some duties are contextually necessary, as in the instances mentioned in his 2nd assertion...being qualified by the context. Durham judiciously elaborates on this idea a bit further along in the chapter: "If it be indifferent, that is, in the matter thereof, such as may be done, or forborn; as eating or not eating such a meat for such a time, (for altho' no Action is indifferent when it is done, because the Circumstance of the End, Motive and manner, do determine them either to be good or bad, as they are agreeable or disagreeable to the law when they are done; yet some Acitons in themselves are such:)...."
"Nature" is often amplified as universally assuming the idea of unalterability. No doubt, it certainly carries this sense, yet not universally. "Moral" may be amplified as assuming a universal and absolute sense as well. No doubt, it certainly carries this sense, though not in every expression of moral principle (see Durham's latter qualifications; see also Rutherford's dispute concerning Scandal - found at the end of 'The Divine Right of Church Government & Excommunication' ).
Gillespie in English Popish Ceremonies:
"As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women covered whilst they were praying (that is, in their hearts following the public common prayer), they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human institution. This covering was a moral sign for that comely and orderly distinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their meetings; wherefore that distinction of habits which they used for decency and comliness in their common behavior and conversation, the Apostle will have them for the same decency and comliness, still to retain in their holy assemblies." - pg 254.
Note Gillespie's description of the nature of the practice; it was something used in their "common behavior and conversations." On the very next page, Gillepie identifies the sense in which he is using these terms, in reference to alterable circumstances:
"Alas! what sorry conceit is this? Divines, indeed, do rightly require that those *alterable circumstances* of divine worship which are left to the determination of the church be so *ordered and disposed* as they may be profitable to this edification. ** But this edification they speak of is no other than that which is common to all our actions and speeches** "
"Actions and speeches" are merely synonyms for "behavior and conversation."
A few questions:
Of what nature does Gillespie descibe the woman's veil?
A. He descibes it as something common to the Corinthians' behavior and conversation.
Of what nature does Gillespie define things that are common to our actions and speeches/behavior and conversation"?
A. He defines them as alterable circumstances of divine worship which are left to the determination of the church to be ordered and disposed as it may be profitable to edification.
Hence, there are two things common to our actions and speeches:
1. Things universally received; unalterable and absolutely obligatory in all contexts (see Gillespie's use of the term 'common to societies' in this former sense....in 'Wholesome severity reconciled with Christian liberty')
2. Things contextually qualified, and defined as alterable circumstances common to actions and speeches/behavior and conversation.
The latter is the context in which Gillespie is describing the woman's veil, without question.
Gillespie further defines:
"And further, the Apostle shows that it is also a natural sign, and that nature itself teaches it; therefore he urges it both by the inferiority or subjection of the woman (vs 3, 8, 9; for covering was then a sign of subjection) [here Gillespie assumes morality applied in a 'contextually qualified' sense at point-blank range - NS], and by the long hair which nature gives to a woman (vs. 25); where he would have the artificial covering to be fasioned in imitation of the natural."
In reference to natural e xpressions, we find that Gillespie applies natural significations as well to things such as Kneeling, standing, lifting the eyes and hands, etc.
"Now, besides the sacred signs of God's own institution, we know that natural signs have also a place in divine worship; thus kneeling in time of prayer signifies the submission of our hearts and minds, the lifting up of our eyes and hands signifies the elevation of our affections; the rending of the garments signified the rending of the heart by sorrow; standing with a religious suspect to that which is before us signifies veneration or reverence, sitting at table signifies familiarity and fellowship [elabaration on in what sense this is necessary as it is applied to the Lord's supper, we can perhaps discuss as well...very interesting principles in operation - NS]....All these signs have their signification from nature." - pg 248
Gillespie distinguished 3 sorts of signs before this section:
1. Natural signs
2. Customable signs
3. Voluntary signs
None of these signs assume a necessary element of unalterability and absolute moral obligation, but to the contrary, are applied to things within the section that obviously do not possess such attributes (as Gillespie has clearly shown).
E xpressions of natural principle do not necessarily assume a universal and absolute (unalterable) nature, but as in many instances, are found in habits/customs/manners/gestures that "vary, ebb, flow, and alter according to Civil Government's laws, manners, customs of men"; instances that are in no way inherently moral, nor universally received - but necessary in a contextually qualified sense (See Rutherford's comments - Divine right of church government and excommunication, pg 1-7, 89, 90...more on how some have distorted at least one of these sections of Rutherford later, if time permits).
Rending the garment is a natural sign, though not inherent, nor morally obligatory in the expression of sorrow - yet having its signification from nature, and not an unalterable e xpression, as with standing, lifting the eyes and hands, etc.
Again, "Nature" is often amplified as universally assuming the idea of unalterability. It certainly carries this sense, yet not universally. "Moral" may be amplified as assuming a universal and absolute sense as well. No doubt, it certainly carries this sense, though not in every expression of moral principle.
The woman's veil is called a moral sign. In this context, the use of the term "moral" does not assume an unalterable sense, but was as well applied to the kiss of charity by Gillespie in the very paragraph before the veils were mentioned:
"Concerning the kiss of charity used in those times (2 Cor. 13:12), we say in like manner tht it was but a moral sign of that reconciliation, friendship and amity, which showed itself as well at holy assemblies as other meetings in that kind and courtesy, but with all chaste salutation (see Durham's comments on salutations), which was then in use."
Next paragraph:
"As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women covered whilst they were praying (that is, in their hearts following the public common prayer), they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human institution. This covering was a moral sign for that comely and orderly distinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their meetings; wherefore that distinction of habits which they used for decency and comliness in their common behavior and coversation, the Apostle will have them for the same decency and comliness, still to retain in their holy assemblies." - pg 254.
Gillespie also applies the term "moral sign" to the love feasts used in the primitive church, which were used for mutual charity, and further evidencing the alterablility of the practice by obviously assuming they were an element of past history, in no way obligatory in the 17th century context.
Gillespie also applies the term to the rite Abraham commanded his servant to use when swearing, when putting his hand under his thigh (Gen 24:2)...calling it a moral sign of civil subjection, reverence and fidelity which inferiors owe to superiors - pg 251 EPC (compare with Rutherford's comments on the nature of the Corinthians' covering - pg 90 Divine Right of Church Government).
So, in these correctly qualified senses, the covering is both a moral sign of subjection, and has its signification from nature:
1. As an e xpression of submission (for covering was then a sign of submission).
2. As an e xpression of the long hair that God gives to women by nature (where Paul will have the artificial covering fasioned in imitation of the natural).
Those who interpret Gillespie as if he were referring to practices of an unalterable nature, have to be consistent, and interpret the other references in the same light. Context is critical, and logical consistency is inescapable. Such interpretations should, in all consistency, be evidenced in their present practice.
Seeing as these men were ministers of the highest reputation in Scotland, I can only conclude they (in their ministrations) applied the assumptions underlying their practice according to these same assumptions. In other words, the application (historical practice) was not inconsistent with their assumed principles, but the very fruition of these principles as applied in civil and ecclesiastical contexts. These books were public as well. If the contrary position was historically accurate, I can't imagine it would have gone unoticed before the General assembly of the Church of Scotland.
Some posts by Matt and Sora reminded me of a recent discussion I was involved in concerning the use of headcoverings as a sign of modesty and submission for women in our culture. Is the headcovering meant to be a sign of these things forever and always? Here is a copy of a post from a friend of mine that deals with the question as laid out by Durham and Gillespie:
Let's start with Durham on Scandal:
"Chap 6: Holding forth the difficulty mainly in pracitce, and shewing how far offence ought to have influence on a Christian in his walk."
Durham proceeds in making careful distinctions/qualifications via 3 assertions (I'll be including 2):
1. Necessary duties.
2. Things of light concernment in themselves (the context will evidence a sense of things not inherently necessary)
"1. For no offence whatsoever should men forbear a necessary duty, or commit any thing which is materially sinful. Christ would needs go up to Jerusalem, altho' his Disciples were displeased, and would continue in preaching the Gospel, and in doing what was intrusted to him, altho' the Pharisees were offended, Matt 15. This is clear: For no Evil should be done that Good may come of it, Rom 3.
2. Assert. Yet in other things there ought to be great respect had to offence, and men ought to be swayed accordingly in their practice, as the former Reasons clear; As, 1. If the matter be of light concernment in itself, as how mens Gestures are in their walking, (Suppse in walking softly, or quickly with Cloke or without) Men ought to do or abstain as may prevent the Contruction of Pride, Lightness, etc. or give occasion to others in any of these: Of such sort are salutations in the very manner of them. Of this sort was women praying with their heads uncovered amongst the Corinthians, it being then taken for an evil sign; yet if it be necessary, there is nothing little, as moses will not leave an hoof, Exodus 10, nor Mordecai bow his knee to Haman, because it that it looked like fauning on an accursed enemy: Of this Sort also are offences in the fasions of Clothes, as some Mens wearing Ribbons, and such like, which being of small Concernment, ought certainly to be regulated by Offence" - Durham's treatise concerning scandal, pg 24; Ch 6 Part 1.
The 1st assertion deals with necessary duties. The 2nd, however, deals with things of another nature (things of light concernement, etc). This fact alone demonstrates how Durham interpreted the nature of the practice, without question. This section should be interpreted as a qualifier in reference to Durham's comments on 1st Corinthians 11 in "The Law Unsealed." Appealing to historical practice in Scotland, or anywhere else is fallacious (in this context); an instance of question begging. The question is not in reference to the practice historically, but in reference to the nature of the historical practice. If this method was not assumed when examining historical accounts, one by consequence would terminate in a thousand superstitious conclusions...perhaps an infinite number of conclusions.
The covering is either necessary inherently, or not. Durham excludes the covering from the category of inherently necessary duties, and squarely places it in a category of a different nature - "Yet in other things......If the matter be of light concernment.....Of such Sort are salutations in the very manner of them. Of this Sort was womens praying with their heads uncovered amongst the Corinthians, it being then taken for an evil sign, etc" Therefore, etc. Durham is clearly dealing with contextually qualified necessities in this section, rather than things inherently necessary.
To avoid the charge of redundancy, there are different applications of necessity. Some duties are necessary inherently, as Durham's 1st assertion clears. Some duties are contextually necessary, as in the instances mentioned in his 2nd assertion...being qualified by the context. Durham judiciously elaborates on this idea a bit further along in the chapter: "If it be indifferent, that is, in the matter thereof, such as may be done, or forborn; as eating or not eating such a meat for such a time, (for altho' no Action is indifferent when it is done, because the Circumstance of the End, Motive and manner, do determine them either to be good or bad, as they are agreeable or disagreeable to the law when they are done; yet some Acitons in themselves are such:)...."
"Nature" is often amplified as universally assuming the idea of unalterability. No doubt, it certainly carries this sense, yet not universally. "Moral" may be amplified as assuming a universal and absolute sense as well. No doubt, it certainly carries this sense, though not in every expression of moral principle (see Durham's latter qualifications; see also Rutherford's dispute concerning Scandal - found at the end of 'The Divine Right of Church Government & Excommunication' ).
Gillespie in English Popish Ceremonies:
"As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women covered whilst they were praying (that is, in their hearts following the public common prayer), they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human institution. This covering was a moral sign for that comely and orderly distinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their meetings; wherefore that distinction of habits which they used for decency and comliness in their common behavior and conversation, the Apostle will have them for the same decency and comliness, still to retain in their holy assemblies." - pg 254.
Note Gillespie's description of the nature of the practice; it was something used in their "common behavior and conversations." On the very next page, Gillepie identifies the sense in which he is using these terms, in reference to alterable circumstances:
"Alas! what sorry conceit is this? Divines, indeed, do rightly require that those *alterable circumstances* of divine worship which are left to the determination of the church be so *ordered and disposed* as they may be profitable to this edification. ** But this edification they speak of is no other than that which is common to all our actions and speeches** "
"Actions and speeches" are merely synonyms for "behavior and conversation."
A few questions:
Of what nature does Gillespie descibe the woman's veil?
A. He descibes it as something common to the Corinthians' behavior and conversation.
Of what nature does Gillespie define things that are common to our actions and speeches/behavior and conversation"?
A. He defines them as alterable circumstances of divine worship which are left to the determination of the church to be ordered and disposed as it may be profitable to edification.
Hence, there are two things common to our actions and speeches:
1. Things universally received; unalterable and absolutely obligatory in all contexts (see Gillespie's use of the term 'common to societies' in this former sense....in 'Wholesome severity reconciled with Christian liberty')
2. Things contextually qualified, and defined as alterable circumstances common to actions and speeches/behavior and conversation.
The latter is the context in which Gillespie is describing the woman's veil, without question.
Gillespie further defines:
"And further, the Apostle shows that it is also a natural sign, and that nature itself teaches it; therefore he urges it both by the inferiority or subjection of the woman (vs 3, 8, 9; for covering was then a sign of subjection) [here Gillespie assumes morality applied in a 'contextually qualified' sense at point-blank range - NS], and by the long hair which nature gives to a woman (vs. 25); where he would have the artificial covering to be fasioned in imitation of the natural."
In reference to natural e xpressions, we find that Gillespie applies natural significations as well to things such as Kneeling, standing, lifting the eyes and hands, etc.
"Now, besides the sacred signs of God's own institution, we know that natural signs have also a place in divine worship; thus kneeling in time of prayer signifies the submission of our hearts and minds, the lifting up of our eyes and hands signifies the elevation of our affections; the rending of the garments signified the rending of the heart by sorrow; standing with a religious suspect to that which is before us signifies veneration or reverence, sitting at table signifies familiarity and fellowship [elabaration on in what sense this is necessary as it is applied to the Lord's supper, we can perhaps discuss as well...very interesting principles in operation - NS]....All these signs have their signification from nature." - pg 248
Gillespie distinguished 3 sorts of signs before this section:
1. Natural signs
2. Customable signs
3. Voluntary signs
None of these signs assume a necessary element of unalterability and absolute moral obligation, but to the contrary, are applied to things within the section that obviously do not possess such attributes (as Gillespie has clearly shown).
E xpressions of natural principle do not necessarily assume a universal and absolute (unalterable) nature, but as in many instances, are found in habits/customs/manners/gestures that "vary, ebb, flow, and alter according to Civil Government's laws, manners, customs of men"; instances that are in no way inherently moral, nor universally received - but necessary in a contextually qualified sense (See Rutherford's comments - Divine right of church government and excommunication, pg 1-7, 89, 90...more on how some have distorted at least one of these sections of Rutherford later, if time permits).
Rending the garment is a natural sign, though not inherent, nor morally obligatory in the expression of sorrow - yet having its signification from nature, and not an unalterable e xpression, as with standing, lifting the eyes and hands, etc.
Again, "Nature" is often amplified as universally assuming the idea of unalterability. It certainly carries this sense, yet not universally. "Moral" may be amplified as assuming a universal and absolute sense as well. No doubt, it certainly carries this sense, though not in every expression of moral principle.
The woman's veil is called a moral sign. In this context, the use of the term "moral" does not assume an unalterable sense, but was as well applied to the kiss of charity by Gillespie in the very paragraph before the veils were mentioned:
"Concerning the kiss of charity used in those times (2 Cor. 13:12), we say in like manner tht it was but a moral sign of that reconciliation, friendship and amity, which showed itself as well at holy assemblies as other meetings in that kind and courtesy, but with all chaste salutation (see Durham's comments on salutations), which was then in use."
Next paragraph:
"As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women covered whilst they were praying (that is, in their hearts following the public common prayer), they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human institution. This covering was a moral sign for that comely and orderly distinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their meetings; wherefore that distinction of habits which they used for decency and comliness in their common behavior and coversation, the Apostle will have them for the same decency and comliness, still to retain in their holy assemblies." - pg 254.
Gillespie also applies the term "moral sign" to the love feasts used in the primitive church, which were used for mutual charity, and further evidencing the alterablility of the practice by obviously assuming they were an element of past history, in no way obligatory in the 17th century context.
Gillespie also applies the term to the rite Abraham commanded his servant to use when swearing, when putting his hand under his thigh (Gen 24:2)...calling it a moral sign of civil subjection, reverence and fidelity which inferiors owe to superiors - pg 251 EPC (compare with Rutherford's comments on the nature of the Corinthians' covering - pg 90 Divine Right of Church Government).
So, in these correctly qualified senses, the covering is both a moral sign of subjection, and has its signification from nature:
1. As an e xpression of submission (for covering was then a sign of submission).
2. As an e xpression of the long hair that God gives to women by nature (where Paul will have the artificial covering fasioned in imitation of the natural).
Those who interpret Gillespie as if he were referring to practices of an unalterable nature, have to be consistent, and interpret the other references in the same light. Context is critical, and logical consistency is inescapable. Such interpretations should, in all consistency, be evidenced in their present practice.
Seeing as these men were ministers of the highest reputation in Scotland, I can only conclude they (in their ministrations) applied the assumptions underlying their practice according to these same assumptions. In other words, the application (historical practice) was not inconsistent with their assumed principles, but the very fruition of these principles as applied in civil and ecclesiastical contexts. These books were public as well. If the contrary position was historically accurate, I can't imagine it would have gone unoticed before the General assembly of the Church of Scotland.
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
The Living Years
Sung by Mike and the Mechanics
The Living Years
Every generation
Blames the one before
And all of their frustrations
Come beating on your door
I know that I'm a prisoner
To all my Father held so dear
I know that I'm a hostage
To all his hopes and fears
I just wish I could have told him in the living years
Crumpled bits of paper
Filled with imperfect thought
Stilted conversations
I'm afraid that's all we've got
You say you just don't see it
He says it's perfect sense
You just can't get agreement
In this present tense
We all talk a different language
Talking in defence
Say it loud, say it clear
You can listen as well as you hear
It's too late when we die
To admit we don't see eye to eye
So we open up a quarrel
Between the present and the past
We only sacrifice the future
It's the bitterness that lasts
So Don't yield to the fortunes
You sometimes see as fate
It may have a new perspective
On a different day
And if you don't give up, and don't give in
You may just be OK.
Say it loud, say it clear
You can listen as well as you hear
It's too late when we die
To admit we don't see eye to eye
I wasn't there that morning
When my Father passed away
I didn't get to tell him
All the things I had to say
I think I caught his spirit
Later that same year
I'm sure I heard his echo
In my baby's new born tears
I just wish I could have told him in the living years
Say it loud, say it clear
You can listen as well as you hear
It's too late when we die
To admit we don't see eye to eye
Sung by Mike and the Mechanics
The Living Years
Every generation
Blames the one before
And all of their frustrations
Come beating on your door
I know that I'm a prisoner
To all my Father held so dear
I know that I'm a hostage
To all his hopes and fears
I just wish I could have told him in the living years
Crumpled bits of paper
Filled with imperfect thought
Stilted conversations
I'm afraid that's all we've got
You say you just don't see it
He says it's perfect sense
You just can't get agreement
In this present tense
We all talk a different language
Talking in defence
Say it loud, say it clear
You can listen as well as you hear
It's too late when we die
To admit we don't see eye to eye
So we open up a quarrel
Between the present and the past
We only sacrifice the future
It's the bitterness that lasts
So Don't yield to the fortunes
You sometimes see as fate
It may have a new perspective
On a different day
And if you don't give up, and don't give in
You may just be OK.
Say it loud, say it clear
You can listen as well as you hear
It's too late when we die
To admit we don't see eye to eye
I wasn't there that morning
When my Father passed away
I didn't get to tell him
All the things I had to say
I think I caught his spirit
Later that same year
I'm sure I heard his echo
In my baby's new born tears
I just wish I could have told him in the living years
Say it loud, say it clear
You can listen as well as you hear
It's too late when we die
To admit we don't see eye to eye
Monday, February 24, 2003
Homeland Security
Homeland Security has announced they will soon be implementing new software
which will record every click of your mouse. It is their belief that it
will operate completely transparently and that the average user will not
notice any difference in performance.
Homeland Security has announced they will soon be implementing new software
which will record every click of your mouse. It is their belief that it
will operate completely transparently and that the average user will not
notice any difference in performance.
Rabbit Whisperer?
As I had mentioned in previous posts, my sons Ben and Trahern have decided to go into the rabbit breeding business. So far, their attempts at raising rabbits has been hard on the rabbits. I have never really thought that rabbits were highly intelligent creatures, Bugs Bunny notwithstanding. And so far they have done nothing to change this opinion.
I speak of the suicidal tendency of rabbits to escape their hutches in front of a couple of dogs who, wanting to please their masters, dutifully catch said rabbits and return them to us, albeit in a dead, frozen and poker stiff manner. (The dogs can't seem to understand why we do not leap with delight at seeing the rabbits piled like cordwood at our back doorstep or dismembered on the driveway.)
Last night the boys and I watched a video about Monty something or other, the original Horse Whisperer. It was a very fascinating video about how this man learned the secret body language of horses and then used that to train them to wearing saddles and accepting a rider within hours without traumatizing them. I am wondering if any of you know of a similar video on Rabbit Whispering? We are learning in a trial and error way what rabbits are trying to convey by their body language, but it would be easier on the rabbits and us if we could learn this a bit faster rather than using the trial and error method.
Case in point: The other day Trahern thoughtfully brought his black dwarf mini-lop doe (the most recent replacement for the other bunnies) into the house to hop around and deposit little raisins on my floor for Elodie to find and eat. Elodie was quite enthralled and squawked with delight as she crawled rapidly in the rabbit's wake. After a while she tired of this and found one of her rattles laying on the floor. Picking this up, she began to bang the floor with gusto. The rabbit, demonstrating a distinct lack of intelligence and instinct for survival, was foolish enough to wander into reach of Elodie, who, tiring of banging on the floor, used her rattle to deliver a few hearty whacks on the rabbit's head. The rabbit gave her an indignant and astonished look and then stamped its hind feet in what looked to be a display of extreme chagrin. Next thing we knew, Elodie flew over backwards like a ninepin before a furry black bowling ball. The rabbit took exception to the clubbing and bunted Elodie in the stomach with its head. After we dusted Elodie off and soothed her wails to silence, we found the rabbit sitting in the corner with a smug look on its face.
If I had thought about rabbits before, it was to regard them as soft furry creatures that are kind and gentle. The well-hidden truth is that they resemble the killer rabbit on Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail. I had foolishly thought that the bloodthirsty rabbit in that show was merely a playful and silly sketch meant to cause laughter. Little did I know that this was actually a documentary on what rabbits can actually be like. If you want proof that the Fall affected all of creation, and not just the nature of man, then you need look no further than a female rabbit. Female rabbits are famous for their ability to breed rapidly. We have been careful to keep them away from the bucks in order to prevent that ability from being displayed right now. Instead of pregnant rabbits, we now have rabbits with PMS.
A rabbit with PMS is not a pretty sight. The owner may want to demonstrate kindness and consideration to his pet by giving it fresh water and food. But when these does start into "that time of the month" they meet these demonstrations with slavering jaws, terrifying squeals and charges across their pens looking for blood. The bucks don't seem to have this problem which leads me to conclude that the homicidal bunny in the Monty Python movie was a doe who really wanted chocolate and was enraged when she couldn't get any.
Anyhow, if any of you know of any books or videos on rabbit whispering, we would appreciate it if you would direct us to them.
As I had mentioned in previous posts, my sons Ben and Trahern have decided to go into the rabbit breeding business. So far, their attempts at raising rabbits has been hard on the rabbits. I have never really thought that rabbits were highly intelligent creatures, Bugs Bunny notwithstanding. And so far they have done nothing to change this opinion.
I speak of the suicidal tendency of rabbits to escape their hutches in front of a couple of dogs who, wanting to please their masters, dutifully catch said rabbits and return them to us, albeit in a dead, frozen and poker stiff manner. (The dogs can't seem to understand why we do not leap with delight at seeing the rabbits piled like cordwood at our back doorstep or dismembered on the driveway.)
Last night the boys and I watched a video about Monty something or other, the original Horse Whisperer. It was a very fascinating video about how this man learned the secret body language of horses and then used that to train them to wearing saddles and accepting a rider within hours without traumatizing them. I am wondering if any of you know of a similar video on Rabbit Whispering? We are learning in a trial and error way what rabbits are trying to convey by their body language, but it would be easier on the rabbits and us if we could learn this a bit faster rather than using the trial and error method.
Case in point: The other day Trahern thoughtfully brought his black dwarf mini-lop doe (the most recent replacement for the other bunnies) into the house to hop around and deposit little raisins on my floor for Elodie to find and eat. Elodie was quite enthralled and squawked with delight as she crawled rapidly in the rabbit's wake. After a while she tired of this and found one of her rattles laying on the floor. Picking this up, she began to bang the floor with gusto. The rabbit, demonstrating a distinct lack of intelligence and instinct for survival, was foolish enough to wander into reach of Elodie, who, tiring of banging on the floor, used her rattle to deliver a few hearty whacks on the rabbit's head. The rabbit gave her an indignant and astonished look and then stamped its hind feet in what looked to be a display of extreme chagrin. Next thing we knew, Elodie flew over backwards like a ninepin before a furry black bowling ball. The rabbit took exception to the clubbing and bunted Elodie in the stomach with its head. After we dusted Elodie off and soothed her wails to silence, we found the rabbit sitting in the corner with a smug look on its face.
If I had thought about rabbits before, it was to regard them as soft furry creatures that are kind and gentle. The well-hidden truth is that they resemble the killer rabbit on Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail. I had foolishly thought that the bloodthirsty rabbit in that show was merely a playful and silly sketch meant to cause laughter. Little did I know that this was actually a documentary on what rabbits can actually be like. If you want proof that the Fall affected all of creation, and not just the nature of man, then you need look no further than a female rabbit. Female rabbits are famous for their ability to breed rapidly. We have been careful to keep them away from the bucks in order to prevent that ability from being displayed right now. Instead of pregnant rabbits, we now have rabbits with PMS.
A rabbit with PMS is not a pretty sight. The owner may want to demonstrate kindness and consideration to his pet by giving it fresh water and food. But when these does start into "that time of the month" they meet these demonstrations with slavering jaws, terrifying squeals and charges across their pens looking for blood. The bucks don't seem to have this problem which leads me to conclude that the homicidal bunny in the Monty Python movie was a doe who really wanted chocolate and was enraged when she couldn't get any.
Anyhow, if any of you know of any books or videos on rabbit whispering, we would appreciate it if you would direct us to them.
Wednesday, February 19, 2003
Quilting
I am doing my very first full-blown pieced quilt project for myself. It is a wall hanging on twelve house blocks with a strip of one inch squares in various patterned pieces beneath each row of four houses. If it turns out well, I shall probably do one for my mother's birthday and make one for my daughter Trista, to hang in her livingroom. So far it is going pretty well. I am even thinking that this is easy enough that I may introduce my daughter Hannah to the fine womanly art of quilting.
I have often wondered why very few women have produced works of art that last for centuries. I don't think women are less creative than men are. Perhaps it is because most of our artwork is of the edible or wearable variety...
I am doing my very first full-blown pieced quilt project for myself. It is a wall hanging on twelve house blocks with a strip of one inch squares in various patterned pieces beneath each row of four houses. If it turns out well, I shall probably do one for my mother's birthday and make one for my daughter Trista, to hang in her livingroom. So far it is going pretty well. I am even thinking that this is easy enough that I may introduce my daughter Hannah to the fine womanly art of quilting.
I have often wondered why very few women have produced works of art that last for centuries. I don't think women are less creative than men are. Perhaps it is because most of our artwork is of the edible or wearable variety...
Parenting Blues
Does any parent out there go to bed at night feeling like they did a good job that day? Or is it just me that makes a habit of going over the day and seeing all the places I have failed and then lamenting over whether or not these children will turn out okay?
The parents of yesteryear seemed so confident in the advice that they gave and the actions they took. Do thus and so and you should get this result. If you get something different, the fault lies with the child and their corrupt nature. Parents today are very tentative and I am one of the tentative hordes. I don't know if this is because the surrounding culture encourages us to look to experts for answers (and there are no expert parents) or because I am daily faced with the realization of what a corrupt sinner I am and I see it in corruption reflected in my children.
I love my children, but I am often left with the feeling that I haven't loved them enough or wisely.
Does any parent out there go to bed at night feeling like they did a good job that day? Or is it just me that makes a habit of going over the day and seeing all the places I have failed and then lamenting over whether or not these children will turn out okay?
The parents of yesteryear seemed so confident in the advice that they gave and the actions they took. Do thus and so and you should get this result. If you get something different, the fault lies with the child and their corrupt nature. Parents today are very tentative and I am one of the tentative hordes. I don't know if this is because the surrounding culture encourages us to look to experts for answers (and there are no expert parents) or because I am daily faced with the realization of what a corrupt sinner I am and I see it in corruption reflected in my children.
I love my children, but I am often left with the feeling that I haven't loved them enough or wisely.
Tuesday, February 18, 2003
Disarming
I find it very disarming to read the blogs and details of the homelife of people with whom I may have significant differences in theology. The little details of homelife make them more real and three dimensional and therefore someone I am less likely to let have it with both barrels. I sometimes think that one of the reasons that discussions or debates grow so heated is that it is easy to forget there are people behind the words that are written. We say things to one another that we wouldn't dream of saying in person. The subjective feelings of the recipients of our words are lost in the objectivity of our arguments.
Everybody should blog.
I find it very disarming to read the blogs and details of the homelife of people with whom I may have significant differences in theology. The little details of homelife make them more real and three dimensional and therefore someone I am less likely to let have it with both barrels. I sometimes think that one of the reasons that discussions or debates grow so heated is that it is easy to forget there are people behind the words that are written. We say things to one another that we wouldn't dream of saying in person. The subjective feelings of the recipients of our words are lost in the objectivity of our arguments.
Everybody should blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)