Fluting Around

For Christmas I bought myself a flute. The reason for this extravagance (it was a $90 flute off of eBay) was two fold. One, I was inspired by my niece who just started learning how to play flute, and ,two, I had offered to teach beginning band at my co-op and needed to do a little brushing up on something.

I played oboe,in addition to the piano, for many years. In fact, I probably would've pursued oboe instead of piano if it wasn't for those *#$&%^ reeds. Any double-reed player reading this really commiserates with that last sentence. Any other people reading this just probably think this is a really geeky paragraph. However, it's true. Reeds are the bane of an oboists existence, and being left-handed, it was even harder for me to learn (all my teachers were right handed). So, once I left my great oboe teacher in north eastern Ohio, I said good bye to the oboe.

I think I picked the flute because it has similar fingerings to the oboe, but mostly because I'm a cheapskate and the flute doesn't require me to purchase any reeds at all! That must save me at least $10 bucks a month!

So, I try to practice everyday, and have been making decent progress. In addition to my oboe experience, I also took all the instrument method courses necessary to graduate with a music education degree... some of that has come back. There is also a plethora of material on the web that has helped immensely, since it's all free.

Each evening I take my laptop and set it on the top of my piano. Then I get out my flute and the music I printed out. I sit at the piano and practice, occasionally glancing up to the laptop for assistance. I use the fingering charts I find on line and I work through a piece. This all seems very normal --the part where this gets weird is my daughters.

As soon as I get the flute out, my two youngest daughters come racing into the room. You might think that they do this because they love flute music, and don't want to miss a second of sitting at my feet as I play through Irish jigs, "Amazing Grace" and "Bist Du Bei Mir". That's not the case. They come racing into the room to be the first one there to grab one of two things: the cloth used to clean the flute when I'm finished practicing, or the stick used to shove the cloth through the flute.

Somehow they have developed some sort of transient value between the two items. It's transient because the value changes each day. s Which ever daughter gets in first gets the best one. It doesn't matter which item she grabs because it's value lies in the fact that she got it first. I'm sure there's some kind of great market principal in that.

As I sit there playing (or "tooting" as my youngest daughter calls it -- I'm sure that word choice has no reflection on my actual tone production), a brawl breaks out behind me.

"I want the cloth!"

"No, I had it first!"

"Mom! ***** isn't sharing." (Note: my 3-year-old always says someone's not sharing when they won't give her what she wants).

This continues until I take both items away. Then they beg me to give them back, because they claim they want to help me. The rest of the practice time is spent with one daughter on my right and one on my left, each holding one of the items just-in-case I need it. I feel like a Queen with her royal cup bearer and wine taster, except I have a royal stick holder and a royal cloth holder. They stay in position until I've finished practicing and their great moment of "help" occurs. One hands me the stick, and the other hands me the cloth.

They are so completely satisfied.

Just playing on my own wasn't enough to keep me dedicated, so I decided to join a community band. This is great for me, but probably not-so-great for the band. However, the band is at a local Christian University and the person running it is far too nice to boot me out. Although I'm really practicing my music so that I don't have to test that theory! My first practice was this past Monday, and started off by me almost clobbering the flutist sitting next to me. Having only played oboe in a band, I forgot that the flute goes out to the side and flutists need to make allowances for the person sitting on their right. That's one I won't forget soon.

So, now I'm worried that I won't get the music learned, and I think I might have a few too many hobbies. If I don't post as much on my blog, it's probably because I'm tooting.

Through the Roof

Today I am thinking, once again, about disabilities. What brought this to mind is that I'm reading through the Gospel of Matthew, and I just today read through the story of the paralytic that was healed by Jesus. The version rendered in Matthew is rather vague, so I moved onto the version of the story as told in Luke.

The story goes that there was a man who was unable to walk. His friends decide that his best chance for life was to take him to Jesus. Interestingly enough, the Bible doesn't say that the friends were looking for Jesus to heal him. They probably were, especially as the scripture refers to Jesus and says that "the power of the Lord was present for him to heal the sick." But still, the text never, at least in English, specifies that.

They can't get their friend to Jesus because of all the crowds surrounding, so they climb up to the roof of the house, cut a hole in the roof, and then lower their friend down to Jesus. While I find this part especially neat, I must say that all the numerous, and also near-disastrous, home improvement projects I've been involved with causes me to be somewhat sympathetic to the home owner. Perhaps Jesus fixed the roof for him and the Bible just doesn't mention it (since he just fixed the roof like a carpenter rather than as an omnipotent God).

So, the men lower their friend to Jesus. Jesus sees the paralytic lying there and then does something that no reader of the story would expect. He forgives the guy's sins.

Now, I know what some of you reading this are thinking. You're thinking, "What kind of sins can a paralytic possibly commit? He's just lying there."

Well, from my experiences with my girls I can tell you: he has many options. Our oldest daughter was, essentially, a paralytic when she was in a body cast. She couldn't move from the chest down, and then had only 1 arm to work with up top. It was pretty restrictive. She couldn't even sit up. But, I can tell you now that she was still able to: lie, smart mouth, be prideful, steal (or at least temporarily steal something by hiding it), and dishonor her parents. And that is without any knowledge of what went on in her head! The real problem, then, is not how to sin, but what to do as a parent. I couldn't exactly put her in time out --- she was already in an involuntary 6 week time out while in the cast! But, suffice it to say that sin is definitely possible in any phase of life.

Years ago, when I first read this story (long before any real understanding of disabilities), I used to secretly question how Jesus could just look past what so obviously needed healing on this man. I didn't doubt that Jesus was compassionate, I just doubted His ability to understand what earthly life would be like when you didn't have supreme powers. Now, perhaps, I have a bit more understanding than I did then.


First of all, I think we (especially those who have no experience with disabilities) who don't have a physical disability come at the healings with some serious presuppositions, the largest of which is that, of course, these people would be bringing their friend for his physical healing. And, yet, as I mentioned before, this is never overtly stated in the text. We presume that the most important part of the story is the physical healing, because, we presume that any person with a disability would desire healing more than anything. From the start of the story, in fact, Jesus had a different view of what needed healed.

I also think of this in connection with the time that Jesus healed the man in the pool at Bethesda. Before healing the man, Jesus posed the question, "Do you want to get well?"

I've heard teaching about this passage where the speaker points out that Jesus asks this question possibly because he wanted to see if this man really wanted healed. I think there is probably some legitimacy to that interpretation -- the paralytic probably did have some attitude issues or something of the like. However, perhaps Jesus asked this question because He understood the greater truth that life isn't over just because you have a disability. That understanding came through in the question to the man at the pool, and it comes to light here. Jesus went straight to the real issue, the sin, because He knew what could be redeemed from a life with a disability. The disability didn't have to be removed in order for the man to live as a son of God. His life could still have purpose, and his eternal reward would stay the same.

So, He healed what really needed healed.

Now, some of you reading this probably didn't think about how a paralytic could sin, or that Jesus was missing the point of how the guy needed his legs healed. You were thinking the same thing as the pharisees, which essentially was: Who is this guy that he thinks he can forgive sins?

Now, I've often found this to be one of the neatest part of the story. Jesus answers the Pharisee's thoughts! In Luke 5:22, he says,

"Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked, "Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? 23Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? "

Then Jesus goes on to heal the man, just to show evidence of his authority to forgive sins.

It strikes me that the stories of the healings have much more depth than we realize. I've read that these healings were just some of the miracles he performed, so obviously there must be a reason that these particular ones were recorded. Perhaps it was the nuggets of truth surrounding the healings that Jesus was more concerned about.

Was the man's life radically changed by his healing? Of course. It would be silly to think otherwise. It was a tremendous gift to be healed. However, in the end, the guy faced the same aging process and the same grave that every other person in the history of the world faces. At best a healing of physical nature is a temporary fix.

However, Jesus fixed the real problem.

Me and My Buddy, James, part 2

On to chapter 2.

One thing that's really bothering me about this book is that he has a tendency to quote scripture to support something, but then not fully explain how scripture supports what he's saying. Chapter 2 (Render unto Caesar) is an excellent example.

The story of Jesus telling the pharisees to "render unto Caesar only what is Caesar, and to God the things that are God's" is actually one of my favorite Jesus stories. I also like the one where he calls the pharisees a "brood of vipers". I just can't come up with stuff this good! I mean if one of the leaders of the Moral Majority came up to me and said, "Tell me, wise teacher, do you think it's lawful to pay taxes when our government is involved in so many immoral things?"

Aside -- I realize this will never happen. First of all, people don't ask those kinds of questions when they already have all the answers, and secondly, they'd never ask a woman! But just stick with me here.

"Tell, me, wise teacher, do you think its lawful to pay taxes when our government is involved in so many immoral things?"

"Well,"... I stammer a response, "Ooohhh, we might have a reason not to pay taxes! goodie."

So, I just get amazed when Jesus comes up with such a great answer. I've also always liked the response because it's given me peace of mind that I can pay taxes and not be sidetracked with concern over what the government is doing. Keep a clear mind of what is God's and pay the appropriate respect and obedience to the governing authorities.

Kennedy is extending this passage to mean that, in this day of democratic government, rendering unto to Caesar includes political participation. There, I would question the argument, but for the sake of reading the book, I'll allow that it could pertain. Let's just say I think he's on shaky ground.

Now, he goes on to talk about "imposing morality" on our culture. And, in truth, I agree with him there. I agree that the Judeo-Christian ethic should be pushed on our culture. I don't want to live in a culture where thievery is accepted (I've dealt with governments like that, and I've seen, first hand, the effects on the people), sexual morality is abandoned and the people are constantly struggling to survive. However, I also have read about and seen cultures where morality is pushed to a point beyond legalism. Do we really want to just push our morality on a culture and force them all to comply? Do we really want to be little Talibans?

In the end, God gives us a choice, and there is a certain amount of grace and respect that I think we need to extend to our fellow citizens. For instance, when I argue the point of abortion with a person who is pro-choice, I don't pull out my Bible and start to lecture. Why would I do that when we've already lost the culture war, and the Bible has no meaning to them? I argue it on these points:
1) We are all better off when we protect the most innocent life --be it unborn, old or disabled. It's better for humanity in general if we preserve the least common denominator because humanity is better off when we are compassionate.

2) Medical evidence shows the existence of life from conception. As the evidence grows for this, do we want to believe we haven't protected life when we should have?

3) We are not in a position to determine if a life is worth living or not. There are three people who are living in my home, living a better and more full life than a majority of the world, who had been written off as not worthy by many many people. Where do we presume to devise the criteria for whose life is worth living?

Of course, I also support birth mothers, adoption and the foster system, as well as trying to provide support and assistance for teen mothers in any way I am able.

What I don't do is take out my Bible and systematically apply scripture to the cause. Of course the scripture shapes the morality, but I'm smart enough to realize that that isn't going to fly in our culture anymore! Thankfully, scripture reveals truth, and so we can use the truth that scripture reveals to shape our arguments.

Anyways, he goes on to the "Goal of the Founding Fathers." Eee gads.

I could write an entire book on my thoughts about the founding fathers, the constitution and the birth of our nation. How in the world did we get where we are today unless there were some problems from the start??? I'll spare you the ramblings, if you've been nice enough to read this far. However, I have to crack up at the point he makes about something the Arthur DeMoss Foundation (which has been involved in some really good things) said in a newspaper many years ago, "Religion's influence on public policy has had a long and distinguished history. Over the past 200 years religion has been a stabilizing force in this country. Suddenly Americans are being told that religion and morality were never meant to influence politics. To believe this would require a disregard for our history...even the desertion of the principles of our forefathers."

So, religion did play a big part in the founding? Was it Jefferson's disbelief in miracles and the divinity of Jesus? Was it Franklin's interest in marketing Christianity while not believing in it? Was it in the form of the freemasons? Think rationally James! The actual Constitution of the United States tell us that we have the right to the "pursuit of happiness" -- that's GODLY?

But, in addition to that religion did get used to justify taking of land from the natives, slavery and even, hundreds of years later, segregation. Of course, you can also site Islam, Mormonism, Taoist, and even Hari Krishna as religions that have influenced our government.... is this all good?

Another thing that befuddles me is his insistence on quoting dead supreme court judges and politicians, like what they thought about this topic is pertinent in any truly apparent way. Just because they sat on the bench sure doesn't mean I need to heed what they said! You're going to have to do a little better than that to convince me.

He ends the chapter by stating the we should always vote for Christians. Sure. And we know they are Christians by... their words? Because someone is a pastor? Because they drive a minivan and wear clothes from J.C. Penny? Hasn't he realized that they all say they are Christians, and that some even say they have the same values as us?

In addition to that, even if they are Christian, that doesn't mean they're competent or able to lead a nation or run a state.

We've got to go beyond this somehow because we really can't trust any of them.

Deb Takes on Beer.

Here's a pretty funny video...with some fairly legitimate points.

How Would Jesus Vote? Believe it or Not, Someone Actually Knows!

Always looking for blog fodder for me, my husband brought home a book written by the late D.James Kennedy, PhD. The book, co-authored with Jerry Newcombe, is entitled: How Would Jesus Vote? A Christian Perspective on the Issues.

This book deserves a look, not because there appears to be anything of true merit in it, but because it does provide a look into how the leaders of the "Christian Right" think. It saddens me, as I read this book, to realize how these men have bought into their own form of politics, as well as their inability to see right from rhetoric, despite their many years of education. They're as confused as the "Christian Left", but much more outspoken, and, for some insane reason, they're believed by many more Christians. Some critical analysis, though, shows just how off-center their thinking is.

The first thing Kennedy laid out in the book is his assertion that politics and the Bible really do mix. In fact, his first chapter is entitled, "Do Jesus and Politics Mix?". The chapter is expounded upon nothing except his own opinion. He throws in a couple examples, the "Christian branch" of the Nazi party for one -- which to me seems to implicate the Christian Right more than anything -- and generalizations about Christians who he claims say we "should look only at what Jesus said as opposed to the whole Bible". Of course, he goes directly to the extreme, and I know few Christians that believe we should only look at what Jesus said as opposed to the whole Bible. I do know many Christians, myself included, who believe that the direct words and actions of Jesus should be taken with more thought and study than the entire Bible. I mean, when God comes to earth in the form of a person, it seems to me that you have direct access to the mind of God and should take advantage of that! Not that the rest of the Bible isn't important, but I have to wonder about a pastor who appears to not understand the direct authority and importance of Jesus Christ and his teachings.

In the same chapter he provides two Biblical examples of Jesus stating that politics and Christianity mix. Those two examples are: "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are God's" and that we are called to be "salt and light". Then he goes on to... not explain how these verses (which "salt and light" aren't even specific verses!) imply political involvement on the part of Christians today. He does delve deeper into that in the second chapter, but still offers no explanation (but whole lot of rhetoric!).


He finishes the chapter claiming that he's not looking for a theocracy and that it is the call of Christians to make this world a better place. While I do agree with him that it is the call of Christians to make the world a better place, I don't agree that we do so by trying to defend the immoral history of our country or by pretending that we can do so by forcing people to accept Christian moral law. Whether he wants to admit it or not, he is looking for a theocracy, just simply a thinly veiled one. In fact, in chapter 2, he talks about how the government should "encourage" the church. I don't want the government doing anything with the church or my Christianity. It is that nature of government and bureaucracy to grow! What starts as "encouragement" quickly grows to "involvement" and then moves onto "control."


Before moving on in this book, though, I have to state what I think appropriate Christian involvement in politics is. Unlike Dr. Kennedy and Mr. Newcombe, I don't believe I have the final answers and I don't believe that I really know how Jesus would vote. But, I do believe I have some idea on how a Christian can approach this topic without becoming caught up in political rhetoric, or dragging the name of Jesus Christ through the mud and into the mess.

I do believe that God cares that we vote. I do believe that we have been given a tremendous blessing and realized an inherent right to run our own government. It is wrong to not take part in the political process of our nation. So, then the question is how do we do that?

On the voting end that can be difficult. First of all, Christians have a natural tendency (and God-given responsibility) to protect life. I believe that when I finally get to the chapter on Life Issues, I will be in almost complete and total agreement with Dr. Kennedy and Mr. Newcombe. But, we also have a responsibility to look beyond just the abortion and stem cell issue and look at how a candidate views all aspects of life. For instance, is the candidate going to further screw-up things in the middle east and throw away the lives of thousands of more U.S. troops and Iraqi citizens while professing to be pro-life here at home, and yet not moving any legislation to change abortion laws? Is the life of a yet-to-be born U.S. baby more valuable than an Iraqi child or father?

I'm not saying that one is more important than the other, but I am saying that making a decision on a candidate has to go past valuing just the life of an unborn child. I am unequivocally opposed to abortion, and yet 8 years of a "pro life" president has not changed much on the abortion scene in the U.S. , and for someone who is "pro-life" he sure jumped into war awfully quickly. We have to think beyond the issues that the "Christian Right" are always throwing in our face. It's interesting to note, too, that if you go back to the founding of the "Christian Right" that at its inception, it was not a pro life organization. See the book Thy Kingdom Come: An Evangelicals Lament by Randall Balmer. While I don't agree with everything Balmer puts forth in the book, his history of the Religious Right is extremely interesting.

I also think that God does want to preserve marriage, protect the innocent and keep our children safe from predators. All these things are important to vote on. They are not issues for us to use to bash our opponents with, exaggerate the facts about or slam the Bible on non-believers with. There's enough evidence to argue with that we don't need to shove the Bible down anybody's throat in order to present an argument for or against any legislation.

As people who shape policy, I think we need to change gears.

First of all, I think that it is completely wrong for the church to be politically active. I especially think it is out of line for pastors, ministers or any other professional staff to take on politics. Yes, individual church members can be called by God to political action. But, no, the church shouldn't be political. I'll get more into that when I discuss chapter 2 from this book.

Once I read, perhaps in Christianity Today, about the start of the pro life movement. The original founders were, indeed, Christians. But when they first began the public battle about abortion, they fought it on medical and ethical grounds. Yes, their faith shaped how they viewed abortion, and yes, the Bible teaches that abortion is wrong. But they didn't use their faith and the Bible to fight a fight that wasn't in a religious venue. They used logic and medical facts. They started to get somewhere with the struggle and then the Religious Right joined. They injected faith, the Bible and God. We're they more godly than the original pro-lifers? I would argue that they were less Godly (mostly because of their views on race). Certainly they were less logical (or wanting to incite emotion in a large group of people...), because they changed the argument and made it one that couldn't be settled unless everyone in the nation agree with the Bible.

So, maybe these politicians who are trying to shape policy need to keep that in mind. Honestly, I saw a picture of Huckabee standing next to his touring bus the other day. On the bus is painted, "Faith, Family" and something else. The thing that struck me, again, is that he's playing the "faith card". Is he trying to say that none of the other candidates , like Ron Paul or Barack Obama have faith? Even if he is the only Christian running, then don't we still have to ask questions like: Is he able to handle international relations? Does he understand the complexities of the war in the middle east? Does he have the education and training to handle those issues on an international level?

What we shouldn't be doing is simply voting for someone because some lobbying group says that they should be voted for, and we shouldn't be voting for one specific issue (like voting for Huckabee simply because he supports home schooling -- I doubt that we'd be homeschooling if the Taliban takes over the country because we don't have good foreign policy!). God expects us to critically think, pray, and follow the convictions that he places in our hearts.

And, because we all think differently, we aren't all going to vote the same way!

Let Me Take A Moment to Brag, part 1

Here is my official time to brag about my children's artistic endeavours. These pictures were drawn by my 11-year-old son. This first picture was his first attempt a shading and dimension. He was 9 when he drew it.













This one was drawn about 5 or 6 months ago....


This one was drawn last night!

Coulrophobia

When we adopted our middle daughter her medical file was riddled with horrible sounding conditions, but with all the diagnosis attached, there was one missing: coulrophobia.

We first encountered this condition when she was undergoing her first of six hand surgeries at Shriner's Hospital back when she was only 3 years old. This particular hospital has an enormous rec room for the children, filled with not only toys, but basketball hoops, Foosball, air hockey, books, movies, video games and craft supplies. She especially enjoyed Thursday afternoon bingo, where she was often a big winner.

However, as we played in the room one afternoon, she suddenly stopped her play and walked up to a portrait hanging on the wall. The portrait was entitled "The Magnificent Koko." It was a portrait of a clown.

"He's ugly," she stated, her eyes wide with horror, "so ugly."

"Don't you think he's funny?" I asked, a bit suspicous about "funny" when, in truth, a portrait of a man with a painted face, red nose, and rainbow hair, staring gently at a flower, was a bit creepy. "He's a clown."

"I don't like clowns."

Now, this can be a problem when you're a kid in the hospital. Somewhere in humanity's history, someone, perhaps a clown marketer, came up with the idea that children love clowns. This particular hospital had these portraits all over the place -- Koko looking at a flower, Bonzo holding a poodle, Buttercup wiping a tear, and, of course, Puddles with his umbrella. As we walked the hospital after her surgery (pulling her in a wagon), we'd stop by various pictures and ask her opinion.

"What about this Minnie Mouse?"

"She's cute!"

"Mike from "Monsters,Inc"?"

"I like him!"

"Puddles the clown?"

"Hate him."

"Bozo?"

"Hate him."

Several weeks later, we visited the hospital again, for a check up. The nurse informed us that it was our lucky day. A troop of Shriners were making their yearly visit from Tennessee, all of them dressed as clowns. We scurried through the rest of our appointments, hoping to leave before the onslot.

Unfortunately, just as we were headed out, our daughter toddling ahead of us, in they streamed. She stopped in horror as not 1, but 25 clowns came waltzing (literally) into the rec room. She was the only child in there, so they all made a beeline (literally) for her.

"Hi there little girl," the fastest of the creatures bellowed down to her, his booming voice not in the least matching his painted face (and the stubble from his beard poking through the makeup!) "Want me to make you a balloon animal?"

"AAAAAHHHHHH!" She screamed in terror and headed toward me, informing me that we needed to sneak out the building -- immediately.

Needless to say, we don't often visit the circus.


Well, recently, we've learned that she's not the only one. Coulrophobia is quite common, in fact, so common it actually has a name! A recent study done by the University of Sheffield has confirmed what my daughter has always believed. 250 children were interviewed about clowns, and all of them (all of them!) hate clowns, and expressed a fear of them. Apparently, clowns are not the tactic to take when trying to comfort a sick child!

Not too long ago, though, my daughter shared her thoughts about clowns with me. We were walking at the park, and I found her insights very touching...

"Mom," she said, showing all her 5 years of wisdom, "I've been thinking. I think that a clown is just a person in a costume with lots of make up."

"Of course he is, honey." I replied, "Did you think he was some kind of different species or something."

"Of course I did. How can that be human?"

"Well, now that you know it's just a person, are you still scared?"

"Yes. Aren't you?"

Maybe I should be.