Commercialized Prayer. Wow. It's Really Come to This!

"We are disappointed in the lack of participation by the Obama administration," Shirley Dobson, chairwoman of the National Day of Prayer Committee, said in a statement. "At this time in our country's history, we would hope our president would recognize more fully the importance of prayer."

Wow.  I hope that Shirely Dobson never has the opportunity to comment on my prayer life!  I have a feeling she would have a lot to judge, especially as I would much prefer to pray in private.  Before anyone has a chance to tell me I'm evil for having the audacity to call myself an Evangelical and yet question a Dobson, let me fully explain.

First of all, the National Day of Prayer as celebrated by the Bush family...  What was that really?   He invited both Christian and Jewish leaders to his office, gave a short speech about prayer and then invited them to pray.  Now, if he's going to invite Christian and Jewish leaders, then why not Muslim?  Why not Hindu?  What's the real purpose of this?  And, why, simply because Obama chooses to pray in private, rather than make a political spectacle of it, is he criticized? 

Delving in deeper... what is the history behind the National Day of Prayer?   The National Day of Prayer was established as a fixed holiday in 1952, although since the founding of our country various leaders have co-ordinated efforts for a National Day of Prayer . Ronald Reagan made sure that the date of the National Day of Prayer was the first Thursday in May.  Some credit Billy Graham as the one who instigated the more modern version of the idea, although it strikes me that his idea might not be the same one as Shirley Dobson and the National Day of Prayer Task Force.  His idea leaned more towards a day , "on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation  in churches, as groups and as individuals."  

If that's the purpose, then I don't see where a meeting at the White House fits in, and it also appears that Obama did participate in the National Day of Prayer. 

Another confusing thing about this day is the "National Day of Prayer Task Force".  This task force is in no way an official task force in any body's mind, except maybe their own.  However, if you go to their website, their logo makes it look official:  "National Day of Pray official site"  with an itty bitty nearly hidden task force under the banner.  It confused me as I first began to research this, and I'm certain that many people are under the false impression that this task force is actually the body that organizes the National Day of Prayer or actually has some kind of official status. 

What adds to this even more, is that the woman criticizing Obama is the woman who runs the task force that has actually commercialized the National Day of Prayer!  Yes, of course, the National Day of Prayer Task Force has a store!  On it you can purchase things entitled "Event Essentials" -- things you simply can't pray without:  balloons, balloon launch kit (I guess so you can launch balloons that will eventually be litter around the country, although they are supposedly biodegradable), special envelopes, letterhead, fliers, flag pens, and of course, the essential "waving flag pens".  After you've collected your essentials for hosting a National Day of Prayer Event, then you can also purchase apparel, "theme products" and of course, visit their bookstore.   

Have we hit a new low?  We've actually commercialized prayer!  There are self-proclaimed leaders among us that don't believe a church or small portion of the body of Christ can pray for our nation on our own.  We need to be told how to pray, and we can't do it without balloons, flag pins and special letterheads.

Wow.  I don't think that Shirely Dobson really understands what needs criticized here! 

Society Without God

I just finished reading "Society Without God" by Phil Zuckerman. Although a very repetitive book, it provides some useful insight into how "secular" people view religion, and, without the author fully understanding, how "secular" people confuse true Christian with Civic Religion. Of course, many Christians confuse real Christianity with Civic Religion as well, so there needs to be even more grace for those who are completely separated from God and lack understanding. Obviously, it's a deceptive topic.

Apparently Sweden has a national church of which people can pay taxes and become a member. Any person who truly follows Christ sees an obvious problem with that (many people who like organizations such as Vision Forum probably don't). However, it is apparent that the Swedes have bought into their own version of Civic Religion, just as many in America have, and that the Swedes have brought it to it's ultimate outcome: death. Sweden, despite it's national church, is a completely secular nation.

What was interesting to me in reading the book, was the outlook of the Swedes towards Christianity. None of them had a clue as to what Christianity was, including the author, and yet they were convinced that they did. In fact, by definition, someone could be a Christian, even if they didn't believe that Jesus was the son of God!

Some of the rather humorous things I found in the book were:

1) The belief that believing in an afterlife meant not investing in this life. I find that so humorous because the entire reason I am able to lay down my life in service to others and to give up material possessions is because I am confident that there will be an afterlife! An afterlife frees me to focus on what is truly important (relationships) and not concern myself with accumulating wealth or meeting my selfish desires. The great benefit to that is that the more I have laid down my life for others, the more joy that I've had. That's probably because, as I said, the knowledge of an afterlife frees me from focusing on the wrong things.

2) The belief that life is meaningless or that believing life is meaningless will give an individual a full life. Okay, I read the entire chapter on this and didn't know if I should laugh or cry. I'm just so glad that I'm not there! I guess a meaningless life is okay if you find enough ways to inoculate yourself against the aimlessness and isolation.

3) The belief that every Christian believes the exact same thing about the Bible, how to interpret the Bible, and how to apply the Bible. What a misconception! Obviously, this author didn't talk with enough Christians (or even Civic Religion followers) to get a complete grasp of the role of the Bible in Christianity.

4) Unbeknownst to them, the bulk of the "good" in their society is based on Christ's teachings. In fact, one guy actually said something to the effect of "I was taught don't do something to other people you wouldn't want done to you." Hmmm.... As my wise husband pointed out, Swedes claiming that they can have a "good society without god" would be like John Rockefeller's descendants writing a book about how you can be rich without working.

While I get very frustrated with American Civic Religion and I can't stand how Christianity gets mixed with patriotism and politics, I'm thankful that I live in a country where there is still some passion, some life and some desire for purpose. As Zuckerman described Sweden, I couldn't help but think of the novel "The Giver". It sounded like a society where everyone was taking their pill in order to not see color, not have "urges" and just go about their business. Not messy, but not too full of life either. I'm sure that that picture is not completely accurate, but it certainly is not ever going to be America. We are far too diverse of a culture to ever all think the same, and being the same appears to be, from reading this book, a necessary aspect to success in Sweden.

"Society without God" was certainly worth reading, or at least skimming, as it strikes me as a prophetic telling of where our nation is spiritually headed.

The Gifted

I've always thought the concept of gifted kids is very funny. How much of it is really true, how much of it is the parents pushing or encouraging and how much of it is an incessant need on the part of parents to think that their genes are far superior to everybody else? Or, in the case of adoption, the incessant need of parents to think that they are providing an ultra-rich cultural and academic environment that produces gifted children?

Take, for instance, in our county, all the "gifted" programs at the schools. First of all, in the city there is a high school just for gifted kids. One whole big high school full of kids that are gifted -- now add into that number all the kids who passed the test but didn't go there, and then all the kids who are in the "gifted" program of all the other public and private schools. Don't forget the home schooled ones or the "undiagnosed" ones! You end up with a mighty large number of "gifted" kids! It almost makes you wonder just how "gifted" they all are if there are so many of them.

Malcolm Gladwell once pointed out that research has shown that while Mozart was gifted in music, he would not have been the phenomenal success that he was if it weren't for his father, Leopold Mozart, who taught, pushed and shaped him into the musical genius that he was. Could he have written his first piece of music at age 5 unless his dad was there to help? Probably not.

So, I've always thought this gifted stuff was malarkey, but, then again, I've bought into it.

Several years ago I was at Border's and perusing the workbook section in the education department. I was looking for books to work on with Lawyer/Social Advocate Boy. Of all the different series of workbooks, I, of course, was drawn to the one entitled "The Gifted Kid's Home Enrichment Program".

"Well," I thought, "That's obviously the one for my boy!"

As I looked through it, I realized the marketing scam involved. See, I had looked through some of the other series there as well, and this series, the series for the outrageously intelligent child, had the exact same concepts in it as the other ones! These, though, we're more popular because what parent wouldn't chose the workbook that calls their child "gifted"?

That got me thinking about why honest marketing schemes don't work in education. For instance, who would buy "The-slightly-Below-Average-Kid"workbook or "Your-Kid-Is-a-Slacker-In-School-So-You-Have-To-Buy-Them-a-Workbook" workbook or how about "Your-Kid's-Teacher-Didn't-Teach-It-Right-the-First-Time-So-Now-You-Must-Spend-$10-In-Addition-to-Taxes-Or-Tuition" workbook?

It just seems like those wouldn't sell so well.

The other night Rob and I were talking about what exactly one might find in these workbooks. We came up with "Billy and Bob's Needin' Extra Schoolin' and Learnin Workbook".

Such a book would have to focus upon logic through the use of words problems, such as:

Billy had $1 . Bobby wanted that $1. He is much bigger than Billy. So Billy gave Bobby his $1. How much money does Billy now have? (For a great two parter, they could add in "How much money does Bobby now have?")

Billy had $1. Each piece of candy cost .50. Bobby also wanted candy, and is still much bigger than Billy. But Billy had recently attended a "Boundaries" workshop and decided to say "no" to Bobby. What did Bobby do in order to get Billy to buy him candy?

Then there might be a puzzle section that contains puzzles that a bit scaled back:

Sudoku
1 _
_ 1


Crossword puzzles:

1 down, 3 letters, a "kitchen utensil that starts with the letter P and ends with the letter T."

I really believe that if they did market this, but rather called it "The Gifted Child's Home Enrichment Program", it would, indeed, sell well.

One of the things that I have always hated about organized schooling is the need to catagorize kids into the "haves" and "have nots". What really determines how "gifted" a kid is? And, even if the kid is gifted, is he more worthy of learning than the kid who isn't? What gifts matter? Doesn't being gifted with compassion or mercy have more meaning than being able to "stay ahead" of your peers?

In the context of public education, I have to question how just it is to give one child more opportunities than another just because he's "smarter"... yet, it's often justified because being "gifted" actually makes them an "exceptional learner". In education college, I was taught that the gifted are actually "special needs children". Please! So I guess it works well for schools to put them all together to work hard and improve the school's test scores?

Well, at least with home schooling I can just teach Jesus'way: Meet them where they're at and take them to the next place.

Face to Face With a Human

I understand that logical thought does not come naturally to some. I, myself, am given to the occasional illogical thought process. However, what has appeared in the news in Florida recently defies so many rules of logical thinking, that I can only think to compare this to earlier days of our nation when our leaders decided that certain people who had the same kind of blood, same body structure, same capabilities and same organs as them were only partially human, simply because they had a different shade to their skin. An argument based on emotion and a desire for power, not one based in rational or logical thinking. And so it goes on today, just a different group of people.

Several years ago, an 18 year old woman paid an abortion doctor $1200 to perform an abortion. The woman was just over 23 weeks into her gestation when it was scheduled to occur. In short the doctor, who has paid out 5 male practice settlements in the past few years, wasn't there when the labor-inducing medications he gave her kicked in. And, despite several hours warning was not in the room when the woman delivered a live baby.

The coroner's determined that the baby was live as it's lung were filled with air -- thus it had breathed on it's own before dying.

According to the woman, the owner of the clinic (not a medical professional) came into the room, cut the umbilical cord with a pair of scissors and then (after possibly throwing the baby on the floor), put it in a plastic bag and threw it in the garbage.

Police later found the baby decomposing in the garbage cans outside the clinic.

Now, if you're not ready to vomit like I was when I read the more detailed account, then I'm not sure what's wrong with you.

At 23 weeks, that baby was only needing to grow in order to live. In fact, babies have survived birth at 23 weeks, although I think their chances are significantly higher when they aren't in the room with a murderer.

The mother was irate, and is now suing the doctor. According to the FOX news article, her lawyer commented that, "She came face to face with a human being,and that changed everything."

The Health Department has filed a complaint, and there is the possibility of murder charges.

So, this leads me to believe that the young lady had not been counseled in any way regarding the human being she was carrying nor the risks involved with the abortion. She had obviously not researched her doctor, and I would have to wonder if the going rate for an abortion is always so high. I mean, this doctor got $1200 for simply prescribing medication to her, she did the rest of the work herself! How's that for lucrative? This young lady believed that she did not have the means or maturity to raise the baby that she has since named, "Shanice", but I bet that she now wishes she had been counseled towards adoption instead.

The real ringer here,though, the real logic twister in this entire gruesome story is NOW. The NOW chapter of that part of Florida was very disturbed by this occurrence. A spokesperson for NOW expressed concern over the fact that this clinic behaved in this manner and said women need to be directed toward better clinics.

Now, this begs the logical question of, "What did they do wrong?"

Honestly, if the point of the abortion was to kill the baby, they accomplished that! If the baby isn't worthy of life, what's so terrible about tying it up in a plastic bag and throwing it out in the trash? Certainly it's what most people do when they kill a rodent that's infested their home. What makes this scenario one that people want murder charges, when that doctor probably slits the throats of hundreds of babies a year, and no one says a word.

Because people came face to face with a human!

In the end, NOW knows it's wrong. The doctor knows it's wrong. The owner of the clinic knows its wrong. The health department knows it's wrong.

This time, they saw what they killed.

There is no logic in this. There is no ethical reasoning. Only emotional justification, rooted in a desire for power and control, that happened to come face to face with a human.

A Study in Contrasts

I was struck this week by a study in contrasts. The contrast? Our new president.

I was very glad when President Obama made executive orders involving Gitmo. I think that our nation's stance on abusive interrogation and unsubstantiated arrests without a speedy trial are unjust, immoral and a nasty scab on the face of our nation. I never really had a problem George W., but I sure had a problem with his administration and their views on this. I think that George W. went wrong when he chose his running mate and the majority of his cabinet. Their counsel led to so many of the international issues we face today, and the fallout from Gitmo is one of the worst. Totally ungodly. Totally wrong. They made us as bad as the bad guys, but then justified it.

So, I was so very glad to see President Obama move in the right direction.

However, I was so confounded that one individual could be so vibrantly focused about the value of one group of humans' lives and yet so blinded to the value of another. How could Obama make life-giving decisions with suspected criminals and terrorists, and yet be willing to remove a ban on monies going to snuff out the life of innocent ones?

I understand that the debate on abortion centers around the idea that not everyone believes human life begins at conception. Even if you can look past the fact that embryos have the same DNA as us, heartbeats, and the ability to feel pain among other things, what if you're wrong? What if they are, in every sense of the word, human? At what cost does that decision come? Our society and our world is only going to be as strong as our willingness to take care of our weakest members. So, with each abortion we've weakened our ability to flourish.

People can talk to me about the suffering of children with this, and they have. Most of those people have never set foot in an orphanage, so they really don't have a clue. Even if they have, though, I know that the solution is not to snuff out a life. The solution is to embrace their lives. To provide homes for them. To spend our money on giving them life, rather than spending our money on SUVs. That solution gives life to not only the "unwanted person" but to the parent as well.


Instead, like Bush's administration, we, as a society, choose the low road and then make ourselves the same as the bad guys. Only we justify it.


People have tried to convince me that it's okay in the case of rape. Yet, I personally know people whose conception happened as a result of rape. Both they and their mothers argue differently.

People have tried to convince me that their is a quality of life issue. If a person is severely disabled then it would be better if they weren't alive. I can only feel sorrow for a person with such a misunderstanding of life, and such a shallow understanding of humanity's ability to over come.

I live each day with 3 beautiful people that many in our world would have thought were "better off aborted". They live life to the fullest, with total disregard to the shallowness of most people's understanding. They are more human than the lot of humanity, and the world is a better place because they were not snuffed out, but instead given the opportunity to live.

So, these "human rights" groups that practice abortion? I've pondered how a group that is dedicated to the rights of humanity could find in their solutions the option to kill. All I can think is that this is where human rights cross the line into self-rights. It's no longer about the rights inherent to a human, it's about what an individual is allowed to do to themselves, or more correctly, for themselves.

So, what would prompt President Obama to have this dichotomy in thinking? Politics? Perhaps, as he owes his successful bid to office in part to those who prosper from abortion and those who champion it as their cause. However, I would like to believe that it has more to do with his blindness. As all people, he is blind to the dichotomy in his own thinking. What he sees as compassion, he has indoctrinated himself to see that way.

So, as I pray for myself that God will remove the blinders that hold me in my schizophrenic thinking, I will pray for President Obama that God will as well.

In the meantime, I will mourn that humanity is will lose more of it's human-ness and around the world so many people will lose the opportunity to love and be a part of a story where someone over comes.

Americans are Made

Before becoming a delusionally bad poet due to my current illness, I’d been reading “50 Facts that Should Change the USA” by Stephen Fender, an American born in San Francisco but educated and residing in the United Kingdom. The book is well written and fairly balanced. I enjoyed expanding my knowledge surrounding facts that I already knew: There is one car for every adult in the U.S., Over twice as many Americans claim to go to church as actually do, Only 18% of Americans hold a US passport (our entire family does...I'm just not sure where that "special place" is that I put them to keep them safe), and When Bush cut taxes for the rich in 2004 the family that owns Walmart increased their wealth by $91,500 per hour.

Well, I didn’t know the specific numbers, but was fairly aware of those facts.

I also enjoyed learning some facts about America as well: that we’re generous with our time (donating more hours to volunteer work than the Japanese, Spanish, Italians or Australians), and that it’s the red states, the conservative states, that are the most generous with their time and money. New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Vermont have a few things to feel ashamed about in this area, I guess.

But, by far, the essay I enjoyed the most was, “Americans Aren’t Born; They are Made”. Now, of course, I like this one because I’ve seen it play out so fully in my life.

He begins the essay by briefly laying out the fact that our nation was founded, something not all nations can lay claim, and that that founding was ‘advertised’ by our Declaration of Independence. In retrospect, doesn't it make sense that we would have an ad as one of our first great documents? Continuing on, that founding was codified by the Constitution. Fender terms the Constitution as the “greatest artifact of the collective imagination” and states that it makes becoming an American “as much a contract as a country.”

He points out that for an immigrant to become an American you must test in its laws and that by understanding and agreeing to those terms you can choose to be an American. Now, my girls became Americans through their adoptions, so there was no test. Rob and I did, however, have to sign a paper stating that they had no intention of practicing polygamy, dealing in drugs or becoming involved in terrorist activities. It was a lot to take on ourselves as no one knows for certain just what a 2 or 3 year-old is planning to do. I did vouch for them, though, and when the plane wheels hit the ground in Detroit, they were immediately American.

In other countries you can test and become a citizen, but Fender essentially contends that while a person might become a citizen of that nation, they don’t become one of them. The example he gives is a man name Robert Maxwell. Maxwell was born in Czechoslovakia, but became a full-fledged, military serving Brit. Despite living his entire adult life in Britain, raising his children as Englishmen, participating in military service, political service and financial work, the citizens of his adopted nation never considered him fully British.

In fact, in his obituary, the London Daily Mail claimed that he never fully understood what it meant to be an Englishman!

Fender compares that to Henry Kissinger in the U.S.

“Born in Germany just 14 days before Robert Maxwell, Kissinger never felt the need…to smooth out his gravelly European accent. Did he still feel like an outsider in America? Whatever they may hold against him for his foreign policy, will his memorialists say that he never learned to understand what it meant to be an American… How absurd it would be to expect anything remotely similar being said and written by and about Henry Kissinger. He became fully-fledged as an American when he was naturalized as a United States citizen on June 19, 1943. Since then, he has been at the center of the American establishment, even serving as the country’s senior official representative to the rest of the world, as Secretary of State. As an American, he was made, not born.”

John Steinbeck pointed out that all Americans are descendants of criminals or adventurers, which is, while a very romantically Steinbeck point of view, probably only partially true. I would add to that many Americans are also the descendants of the natives whom survived what was essentially a genocide or slaves that survived horrors of slavery. And, then there are the kids, like mine, who are the survivors of life in orphanages. So, it does seem that there is a spark of some sort that unites anyone who does make it in this country, especially when you consider that a large number of people who tried to immigrate here actually ended up returning to their original country.

I've seen in my girls how, in this country, you truly can be fully American, and yet not need to snuff out what was there before. They don't have to give up a love of their birth country, in fact they can even celebrate the heritage that they left. It's like a marriage, in that there is no need to give up who you were before you married, only the need to craft yourself into a new unit, to merge those two personalities into one.

While I know that everyone who has come to this country has not had the success story that Henry Kissinger had (and that many would argue if Kissinger was truly successful), I'm proud to be a part of a country where there is hope. A friend of mine from Africa told me, "In this country, at least a child can dream and there is a hope that the dream can come true."

So, tomorrow, my Kazakh-Ukrainian-American family will watch the inauguration of our country's first African-American President, and, for the first time in a long time, my heart will be very proud that I am an American. I may not agree with all his politics, but it is so inspiring to see that God has begun to heal one of our nation's greatest wounds.

Plus, maybe now we'll start seeing a little diplomacy coming from Washington D.C.

I wonder what Henry Kissinger would think about that?

Biden Needs To Get His Little Hiney Out of Dream World and Into Reality

Could somebody out there give me just 5 minutes with Joe Biden? Just 5 minutes! Perhaps he could actually walk away with some kind of idea as to what advocating for the disabled and respecting life actually means.

In reference to advocacy for people with disabilities, Biden made the following snipe:

"Well, guess what, folks? If you care about it, why don't you support stem cell research?" asked Biden, the running mate of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama.


First of all, stem cell research is not as advanced as the proponents of it would like people to believe. I'm really tired of hearing about how the "cures" for diabetes, spinal chord injuries and other illnesses are just steps away but can't be found because we, as a culture, don't have access to enough stem cells.

For years I listened to the American Diabetes Association herald this cry. Then I actually read the research and learned that, like many of the other illnesses, the "cure" was not around the corner, but decades away and possibly not even linked to stem cells.

Secondly, most conservatives are not against stem cell research -- most conservatives are against harvesting them from embryos. Get your stem cells ethically and then research away! Personally, I just don't believe that you take one person's life to solve the medical problems of another.

Thirdly, not all disabilities can be "cured" through research from stem cells. So, advocate away for your stem cells, Joe, but your advocacy doesn't do a bit of good for someone who has a disability due to amniotic banding or their birth mother drinking alcohol while pregnant, nor thousands of other reasons that people end up with disabilities. Not to mention, it's certainly not going impact the life of any person right now.

To reduce disability advocacy to stem cell research is simply a way to politicize a new topic (disability rights and services) that both he and Obama are clueless about. In the meantime, while meaning to slam McCain and Palin, he has totally offended me by seriously implying that I don't care about the disabled because I don't support unethical stem cell research.

Thanks Joe! Glad my life counts for a hill of beans in your book!

Well, guess what, folks, if you care about the disabled, then why don't you actually research what can be done to support them and their families?

Jesse Jackson: Enough to Light My Fire to Blog Again

Well, it's been awhile since I've had the chance to blog, but Jesse Jackson has brought me out once again!

If you watch any TV at all, you're probably aware that Jesse Jackson is now the third Chicago pastor to pose a serious problem for Barack Obama's bid for the presidency. There's the Jeremiah Wright (who is a slippery snake) scandel, there's Pastor Michael Felger who used a sermon to attack Hillary Clinton, and now, not to be outdone, Jesse Jackson has appeared on the scene.

However, Jesse Jackson's derogatory comments shouldn't be surprising. Jackson has always been about one thing, and one thing only: Jesse Jackson. He wants to be president, so of course, in his angry bitter soul he's going to attack the one man who's arrived at the place where he's always wanted to be but could never obtain: the democratic nominee for president.

In addition to the immaturity of his comments, which were lewd enough to be banned from my blog, what's really sad about this is that it was in reaction to Obama's speeches addressing the need of black fathers to commit to their families. If Jackson actually spent any amount of time working with inner city children, he'd stick his foot directly in his mouth right now. Maybe Jackson would like to explain to a group of black children who have never had the benefit of an involved father that Obama was coming down too hard on black people?

Honestly, this incident reveals his character. If he wasn't a self-absorbed con artist, then he wouldn't have to watch his mouth when he thinks that camera's not there. How in the world someone who is as anti-family, anti-life, and anti-decency could even attempt to pretend to be a pastor is beyond me.

Of course, it happens on the right as well, as all these political "pastors" really need to get their heads rescrewed on. Using the pulpit to gain political power is straight from the pit of hell, and about as far away from a mustard seed revolution as anyone can get. They are aren't just missing the boat, they're at the wrong port.

First Adam, Now Alex

First Adam Race is told he can't participate in Mass and now Alex Barton is voted out of Kindergarten! What does this say about inclusion in our culture?

Alex Barton, a 5 year old who had been attending Kindergarten at Morningside Elementary School in Port St. Lucie Florida, was voted out of his class in an overwhelming 14-2 election, this past week. It would've been 12-4, but the teacher bullied two of his friends into voting against him.

Apparently, Alex, who is in the process of being diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome (basically a high functioning form of Autism), has been a bit of a behavior problem in class. So, in an unprecedented act of classroom management, his teacher, Wendy Portillo, brought Alex up to the front of the classroom and proceeded to have each of the students tell him what they didn't like about him. Then she had them vote to determine if Alex could stay in the class.

Alex lost.

In my opinion, they all lost because no matter how difficult a child is, your child has to learn how to deal with him if you want your child to grow up into an adult that can handle the realities of living in a diverse culture. Apparently, Ms. Portillo never learned that lesson. I sure don't want my kids to grow up to be like her!

So, now Alex, who was so shaken up by the incident he was sent to the nurses office where his mother retrieved him, has been sitting around his house saying, "I'm not special". Apparently he was told he was "annoying" and "disgusting." I don't think the educational experts of Florida, really understand just how cruel and injurious being humiliated in front of your peers actually is.

When I was in 7th grade, my lovely school, Howland Junior High School (North Eastern Ohio), held a pep rally. The day before we were instructed to to wear orange and black, the school colors, or we would not be admitted to the rally. That night I laid out my clothes. I didn't own any orange clothes, so I laid out some that were blue and black. Blue and black were not good enough for our spirit-filled school. So, instead of denying me entrance to the rally, they had me and a handful of other kids walk in front of the entire junior high class body-- while the other 200-plus kids booed us. It was incredibly humiliating, and I have an inkling of understanding for what Alex is probably feeling.


Another incident it brought to mind was when I was doing my student teaching, many years ago, at Roberts Paideia Academy (a gem in the Cincinnati Public Schools). During recess one afternoon, I stood by and watched as the special education teachers laughed at a developmentally handicapped boy who was trying to figure out how to jump rope. His big brown eyes were just sparkling with excitement as he tried to figure out which way to move his arms over his head to move the rope. He looked at his teacher for encouragement.

"Come on, idiot" she said, "Just put your hands up and flip the rope over!"

Then she and the other teacher stood there and laughed at the "idiot" who was too much of a "dumb***" to figure out how to jump rope.

Yes, the very people who were supposed to be advocating him, encouraging him to try new things, and celebrating his successes were instead calling him names and making fun of him.

And, yet, people wonder why I won't send my kids to public school!


The school system should be all over this, but, of course, they won't be. In addition to the fact that if she's a NEA member, she's nearly impossible to fire (remember: there are no bad teachers -- not even one's that vote kids out of the class!), they won't be because the fact of the matter is that this teacher crossed this line because she hasn't had the training or support necessary to understand how to work with a student who has behavioral problems -- be it from a disability or for any other reason -- and they know it. It's the same thing as Adam Race's priest. Those working with these kids aren't equipped and no one in charge cares enough to equip them.

In the meantime, it would be beneficial for the Morningside School District to understand that some day cute little Alex will be a 13 year old boy who, hopefully, will have had the appropriate interventions necessary to have a healthy happy life. The current road they've sent him down is sure to produce the opposite, and somebody will be dealing with that.

Deb Takes on Buddy LaRosa

With the great sauce, yummy mixture of cheese and unbelievable toppings, why would I want to take on an establishment as hallowed and revered, an establishment that is as much Cincinnati as Skyline Chili, you ask?

On Monday evening, our family went out to dinner to celebrate our Princess's fourth adoption anniversary. We always go out for pizza to celebrate this child's anniversary in honor of all the pizza Rob and I ate while staying for a month in Almaty, Kazakhstan. We ate, often to say the least, at the highly western Patio Pizza, which also has a franchise in both Moscow and Kyiv. Our favorite pizza was "Pizza Melanoma" , which didn't give you cancer, but was supposed to remind us of food served in Milan. So there the tradition started.

This year we settled on a family outing to LaRosa's. Our kids were very excited because the only time they ever see the inside of a restaurant is when we're traveling or celebrating someone's adoption day. Each kid picked their own individual pizza, and Green Bottle Boy was happy with his spicy sausage, banana pepper, pepperoni, jalepeno pizza. His brother was hoping to find a new roommate before the pizza hit Green Bottle Boy's digestive system. Other than that, though, we had a great time.

Towards the end Nappy proudly announced, "MOM, I need to go potty." I was thrilled that she was telling me before she went, and we happily wheeled to the bathroom, only to find that it was not handicapped accessible.

Now, it wasn't a problem for us, because I could just pick her up and set her on the toilet, leaving her wheelchair out of the restroom. However, it occurred to me that in a few years it would be a problem, and that there were thousands of my fellow citizens that this would pose a problem for.

Grant it, if you have difficulty using public restrooms, you should always go before you leave the house (which we always have our girls do), but there are times when you have to go no matter how far in advance you plan. People who use wheelchairs aren't equipped with fancier bladders than the rest of us, so there are times when you just gotta go.

Plus, as most people know, if you're going to each much of what's on LaRosa's menu, you should probably have a toilet nearby.

All this led me to wonder: aren't wheelchair users a valued customer of LaRosa's?

I called to find out, and the answer was a resounding: NO.

They claim that they are grandfathered into not needing to make the bathrooms wheelchair accessible, and if they're not legally responsible to, then they are not going to do it. That mentality says much about the priorities of the LaRosa Empire. Of course, I know that it's really shaky ground as far as the Americans With Disabilities Act goes -- they're hardly a non-profit organization, and the remodeling necessary to make a wheelchair accessible toilet would hardly tax their company. I also have to wonder what kind of legal trouble they'd get into with the health department as they are not providing adequate toilet facilities to their customers. However, I don't think the legal route is a way to fight their moral ignorance.

I believe that legal ramifications are important but there are two bigger issues here. The first is that LaRosa's doesn't care that they are discriminating against wheelchair users. However, if they put up a sign that said, "Black People May Not Use This Restroom", then all hell would break loose (as well it should). Or if they put up a sign that said, "Only People Who Speak English May Use This Restroom" there'd be protests to no end. In effect, without words, they've done the same thing to wheelchair users. They don't need to put up a sign that says they can't use the bathroom; they simply let their physical barriers do the work for them.

The other issue is the mindset of a company that professes to support our city with goodwill. The ADA passed years ago in the early 1990s, so, in the course of all these years, LaRosa's has seen fit to pour thousands of dollars into high school atheltics, but not to make their restrooms handicapped accessible. This from a company owned by a family that professes a Christian faith. It would seem that they would be more concerned with supporting the most vulnerable (those that Jesus sought after and ministered to) than throwing money away towards sports -- of course, quietly converting bathrooms for usage by wheelchair users won't get you any publicity.

So, our family has officially boycotted LaRosa's and we're asking all Cincinnatians that care a hoot about making our society truly inclusive to do the same. I realize that not every physical barrier can be removed, and I realize that there are SOME organizations that can't produce the money to make their buildings accessible, but truly, the money's there, LaRosa's just doesn't want to bother. They're banking on the fact that people will buy their pizza no matter what. They're believing that Cincinnatians care more about garlic crust, philly steak calzones and supporting outstanding athletes than about living in a city that values each individual.

When we entered LaRosa's, my husband told our little Swimmer Girl, "Maybe someday your photo will be up here with the other high school athletes."

But the truth is that Swimmer Girl has got far too much dignity to ever allow her photo to grace the walls of an establishment that won't let her sister use their toilet.

Rambo, sigh... MY hero.... HARDLY!

Okay, if you're reading my blog for up-to-the minute news flashes, you're not very good at assessing your sources. I'm usually behind the times, and that doesn't just refer to my fashion sense. However, I've been meaning to blog about this for some time, it just hadn't made my priority list. For some reason, perhaps reading about more killing in Africa, it finally has.

See, Sylvester Stallone is my enemy. I have to pray for him. I really do. I was never a fan of his, but then about a year ago, I read a book entitled A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of A Boy Solider by Ishmeal Beah.

That was the icing on the cake. My status changed from not-fan to enemy.

As I read the sobering story of Ishmael Beah, the tremendous loss of his family and the unbelievable destruction of life in Sierra Leone, Stallone revealed himself to be a real problem. Definitely not Good America. I learned how one makes boy soldiers from reading this book, and I learned how the adults running the war hyped the boys up to kill and slaughter entire villages of innocent people. The adults would get them high, and then have them watch.... Sylvester Stallone movies. In fact, the boys would watch the movies to get ideas of how to kill people, and try to re-enact scenes from the movies when they were attacking villages!

I'm sure Sylvester's very proud of what he's inspired. What a legacy.

Well, now, my enemy (God love him), is offering his services, in the form of Rambo, to some poor Christian missionaries. Really, this was never front page news when the movie came out in January because, well, Rambo is so.... yesterday anyway. But, in search of a plot for yet another Rambo movie, this was the best they could come up with.

Never mind the fact that Christians are supposed to love their persecutors and pray for them, Rambo has to save them! Never mind the fact that God is WAY MORE POWERFUL than their enemies and could easily save them if that was His intent.

What is really disturbing, though, is that people who call themselves Christians have actually watched this movie and given it a positive rating!

Here is a quotes from christiananswers.net:

"I was simply overjoyed by its obviously Christian themes and good portrayal of justice and allegorical display of God's wrath.' -- yourmom, age 25

I wonder what Christian themes she means? Turning the other cheek? Praying for your persecutors? Loving your enemies?


How about this one:

What bothered me about the movie, and this may seem trite, (and it don't mean for it to) is that Stallone is apparently a new Christian. I don't know if he was converted before or after filming. However, Stallone used the f-word several times in the movie, and it stunned me hearing this, if he is a Christian. --Bill Boylston, age 49


First of all, I think if Rambo has truly become a Christian then the public would see a completely repentant Stallone who would openly disavow all Rambo movies and put his wealth into stopping what his movies have inspired in Sierra Leone. He would repent like Zacheus.

Secondly, what in the world is wrong with the world view of a person who can watch hours of bloody violence, anti-christian choices, rape and who-knows-what else and be offended at someone using the F-word!!!!!!

This website listed 11 positive/neutral reviews by people who had watched the movie, and only
2 negative (including a Christian who walked out of the theater while it was still playing).

What is wrong/sick/disturbed with the church in America that people don't see how the theme of this movie is completely anti-Christian? That people don't see that killing people is worse than saying the F-word? That people think that justice and God's vengeance (which, from my understanding belongs to God, not humans) win out over Christ's love, and mercy. That people don't understand that it takes MORE courage to be Christ in those situations that to be dumb stupid violent Rambo?

I guess we can apply the gospel when we want to and then hire Rambo to kill whenever the gospel doesn't fit us. Maybe we can even run a war that way --- and claim it's God's call to bring peace by killing...

We're really really messed up.

Ethanol: Enough to Make Me Throw Things At My Treadmill

Let me start this blog entry by saying I really don't understand the American fascination with big cars, luxury cars, "sporty cars" or trucks. I really don't get it. Talk about temporal. A car loses value faster than most any big thing you can purchase, will inevitably break down, and, deep down, everyone knows that the more expensive the car you drive, the lower your self-esteem. We know that because it is the God-honest truth. People who are secure in who they are have no problem driving a simple vehicle that will get you safely from point A to point B. Yet, as a nation, we just can't shake this big car thing.

Or the driving to the moon and back each day, thing, either. It's a really telling issue.

And, now, we're paying for all our stupid driving, our big useless vehicles, and we're making innocent people pay as well.

About a year ago, I read an article on the use of ethanol. When I first heard the idea, I thought it was a great idea. One that could potentially keep us from being so dependent upon foreign oil. That's because I was buying into the consumer idea that we can have lots of something without SOMEBODY having to pay for it at some point. The Walmart Nation Way: Get lots of Stuff Cheap (and don't concern yourself with what the actual cost is to the people who produced it, the environment or our sense of morality). That article quoted agriculture experts who warned that the cost of using ethanol was too great to justify.

Why? Because you are talking about tapping into a nation's food supply in order to fuel vehicles. Corn, of course, is the plant from which ethanol is derived. Corn is also the plant from which about 85% percent of our food is derived -- even foods such as baloney and applesauce have some trace amounts of corn (via syrup) in it! Pigs, Cows, Chickens and all other meat animals are feed corn before being slaughtered.

So, if you tap into a nations corn supply to use it to make gas for your car, what happens to the supply? It diminishes, and therefore becomes more expensive. Voila! You have rising food prices across the board.

Of course, food prices are also rising because of the recent natural disasters and the increase in oil prices. However, why would we, as a culture, continue to even consider using ethanol when we've already had a taste of the potential problem?

Then, this morning, while innocently walking the treadmill at our Y, I became incited to the point where I was nearly throwing my water bottle at my neat little personal TV attached to the front of my treadmill. It was pictures of women in Cameroon physically fighting over a bag of corn that started my protest, then pictures of mothers holding their starving children that rose the ire even more. The food crisis in developing countries has escalated to the point where food is so scarce people are fighting over it! Where food is available, the prices have escalated so high that people are spending 80% of their income on what little food they can get.

Humanitarian aid agencies are simply not getting the amount of donations that they used to get, and the number of needy people has increased. What are they attributing this problem to?

1) Natural disasters wiping out crops
2) Increases in oil costs causing increases in food costs (at that point I was lifting my water bottle)
3) Weakening of the U.S. dollar, so therefore less donations from the U.S. (now I'm aiming the water bottle)
4) Use of corn for ethanol production (ready- aim- fire)

Okay, I didn't throw the water bottle, but I was pretty close. What really saddens me is that the U.S. did once have a reputation for donating generously to humanitarian aid, but apparently we've become a nation that would rather drive around a lot in bigger cars than we need, go home and play on $500 gaming systems, and send our kids to circus camp than to share our blessings with people in need.

In addition to all the other problems, from an agricultural stand point just about the last thing our nation needs is to grow more corn. The number of monoculture farms across the nation are already creating soil problems, and creating problems with animal waste (which was once a natural fertilizer for polyculture farms) soiling ground water.

But, I guess we still get to drive a lot, and all the other people who go to the Y between 6:30 and 7:30 will continue to get a little entertainment from me when I see the news reports.

Showdown at the Mount of Olives: Judge Roy Moore

I've never thought that I would have to choose between the Sermon on the Mount and the Ten Commandments. Nor, do I have to. If I did, though, I would go with the Sermon on the Mount. This is an issue raised in Grand Theft Jesus, although McElvaine is hardly the first to address it.

Long ago I read Randall Balmer's Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America: An Evangelical's Lament. While I found much of the book lacking in solid research and riddled with vast generalization -- although in a much much more mature voice than Grand Theft Jesus -- Balmer had some very interesting insight. Some of that was in regard to Judge Roy Moore.

During the great scandal of Moore's refusal to remove the 10 commandments from the Alabama State Supreme Court Building, the first thing that caught my attention was the film footage of protesters that had surrounded the court house. At one point a woman threw herself down on the ground and said something to the effect of , "Don't take my God out of this government."

"My." I thought to myself, "Judaic Law is not my God. I wonder what religion she is."

Sadly enough, she believed herself to be a Christian. Last I checked, God is not the 10 commandments, and Jesus is Lord. Perhaps I'm confused.

After Moore was removed from office, I was struck by all the unnecessary pity that rose among many evangelicals for their fallen hero. In their minds, he had sacrificed, he had suffered. He lost his job, his income.

Malarkey! Baloney! I knew from the start he'd have a prolific speaking career (and he does) and that he'd probably write a book about it (and he did) and that he'd probably go on to practice as a lawyer (and he does). I've even heard talk about him running for political office.

If that's all sacrifice, boy, count me in! I'm all for sacrifice of that nature.

In addition to all that, when reading Balmer's book, I learned more about the start of the entire controversy, part of which was Moore's unwillingness to place other monuments in addition to the 10 commandments at the court house.

His lack of grace towards homosexuals, his ability to profit from his "sacrifice", his misunderstanding of who the real God is, and his lack of flexibility in dealing with people of different backgrounds would certainly keep him from my hero list.

One point, raised by Balmer and then by McElvaine and a plethora of others, was that no one ever argues to keep the Sermon on the Mount in any public buildings. Now, that has captured my imagination.

What would our culture be like if we, as a group, were striving become the meek, to be poor, if we looked for blessings in our mourning, if we hungered and thirsted for righteousness and justice, if we strove to show mercy, if we were constantly reminded that we need to be peacemakers....

Of course, those things haven't shaped our civil law, and they are more ambiguous than "Thou shalt not steal" or "thou shall not covet". But, really, if we were pursuing the beatitudes, wouldn't so much of the 10 commandments follow? If you're content being poor in spirit, are you going to covet? If you are striving to be meek, would you steal?

Wouldn't we live in such a great society if everyone was encouraged to live out those values? Of course, it would be impossible to enforce (imagine being arrested for arrogance!), therefore, not law. But, wouldn't the most amazing laws come from those ideas!

Grand Theft Jesus -- Thoughts from the Opposite of the Religious Right

I usually read about three books at a time. That way, I can read a book until I'm tired of it, and then switch to a different book until I'm tired of it, and so on and so forth. Right now I'm reading How Much Is Enough? Hungering for God In an Affluent Culture by Arthur Simon, Lust For Life by an author I can't remember, and the book Grand Theft Jesus; The Hijacking of Religion in America by Robert S. McElvaine.

Written in what is supposed to be a humorous voice, Grand Theft Jesus comes off as flippant, immature and incredibly mean-spirited. The jokes, whether tongue-in-cheek or not are simply not funny. There is really no humor in this book, although many a reader has probably inwardly groaned at a horrible attempt at humor. The only real humor in the book is unintentional. His point in writing the book is how unchristlike the religious right really is. Of course, he's just as unchristlike in his attacks and judgements. His real agenda comes through loud and clear towards the beginning of the book when he says that many Christians voted against Jesus when they voted for George Bush.

Am I the only one who gets to incredibly sick and tired of people on both sides of the political spectrum using Jesus to tell me who to vote for?

He shows a fundamental misunderstanding of scripture by the 6th chapter, when he attacks the inerrancy of scripture -- claiming that all the many contradictions in the Bible prove that it's not the infallible Word of God. While there are debatable points to scripture, one of the amazing aspects of it is that a book can be written by so many authors over such a long period of time and NOT contradict itself. He provides two examples for his purpose, showing a real lack of content that is prevalent through out the book. He starts in Genesis.

Yes, there are two different orders to the creation story in Genesis, and no that doesn't mean it's a contradiction. Perhaps the point isn't the order -- perhaps the point is just that, in fact -- the order of the creation is not what the story is about. Certainly, though, this only proves a contradiction for those who take the Bible completely literally. It appears he hasn't done the necessary research to really go beyond the tip of the ice berg with this criticism.

Then he goes on.

"For now, it should be sufficient to note that Jesus disagreed with the notion that there was no "mixture of error" in scripture. In the Sermon on the Mount, he unambiguously revised some of the early regulations of the Hebrew Bible ("You have heard that it was said to the men of old....But I say to you...").

Wow. That shows a total misunderstanding of the old covenant and the new covenant. Jesus consistently pointed out that things were different once He came, not that things were wrong in the old testament scriptures! Honestly, it leads me to believe that McElvaine has never really studied scripture and has no context for any opinions or thoughts that he shares. This only serves to prove the point that this book is not about Jesus, but truly about convincing people to vote democrat.

When he also points out, in Chapter 6, that God is bigger than "one holy book" (or holey book as he quips -- I told you the jokes were terrible), and bigger than one religion, he points out his own contradictions. Though he's trying to pass himself off as someone who follows Christ, apparently perfectly since he's comfortable judging anyone who isn't a member of the democratic party, he finds no problem in blowing off Jesus' statement, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me."

Another thing that I find incredibly annoying with this book is the lack of content. Even worse, McElvaine tries, unsuccessfully, to cover up the lack of content by being extremely repetitive. In that way he's like the leftist version of John Elderidge. If I could edit out every sentence where he says something about how "ChristianityLite" is taking over the country, I'd be reading a 140 page book rather than a 280.

However, all that said, as much as I am disgusted by the attitude and beliefs of the messenger, I agree with a good portion of the message. So, for the next few blog entries, I'm planning on sifting through his junk and studying the nuggets of truth he happens to have stumbled upon.

Lies My Teacher Told Me

So, I finally finished the book, "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James Loewen. Overall, I found the book extremely interesting. Chapters 1 and 2 discuss the topics of hero-making and Christopher Columbus. I found both to be enlightening, and agree with Loewen's assertion that history books try to create heroes out of historical figures -- something that is detrimental to teaching children accurate history. I think it's interesting to note that the Bible is not afraid to show the "dark side" of it's historical figures, and does a superb job of telling the story of God's redemption and plan for the church, despite human failings.

The chapter on Christopher Columbus was especially enlightening. I love how Loewen annually asks his college students, "Who were the first settlers on our continent?" and they routinely get the question wrong. (Remember, the first settlers were actually the native Americans). He also points out the strong possibilities of visits to America by both Africans and Phoenicians, long before even the Vikings who proceeded Columbus. I found it interesting to note his identification of the fact that most people did, indeed, know that the earth was round, that the "discovery" of the Americas was a perspective unique to Europeans, and that Columbus was also at the root of a number of serious human rights violations.

The chapters on the treatment of the natives, slavery and racism were also fascinating. The Civil War (which was really about slavery, not preserving the Union -- ha! ha! to my 7th grade history teacher. You were totally totally wrong!!!) and Reconstruction were presented in a totally different light than my text books growing up, and most that I have perused through as a home schooler. I found especially interesting, the chapter on Abraham Lincoln and John Brown. It was inspiring to read about Lincoln's personal struggle with racism, and that he made the choice to do what was right despite his inner struggle. John Brown was painted as a fascinating individual, who, quite possibly, might be the most interesting "civilian" in American history -- yet painted as a crazy man by textbooks.

By the middle of the book, though, his bias started to show through. The main issue I found was that he insists that America is not a land of equal opportunity -- well, historically that's obvious. However, he tends to blame the system more than the individuals. Any system that supports racism and slavery is a product of the individuals that make up that system. I think personal responsibility makes up a big part of why someone "makes it" or not in this country today. I see this on a daily basis, when my daughters get out of bed, and do there work despite their disabilities. Then I drive downtown and see men begging for money on the road side because they "have no legs and can't work." Seriously, I want to stop the car and lecture those people. The missing legs ain't the reason they're not working!

Anyway, he goes to blaming "the system" far too quickly. You can't deny that people here have overcome tremendous odds, something that just can't happen in many places in the world, no matter how diligent or tenacious someone is. While I do believe racism is still an issue in this country, I think that, like disability rights, it's gone beyond the system and it's an issue of changing people's thoughts and hearts. People do move from class to class in this country -- I think of my own family where my grandfather and grandmother were not college educated people, yet raised both their children to be college-educated professionals and now, collectively, all 7 of their grandchildren are as well. I think the vast majority of the reason that people don't "make it" here has less to do with systematic injustice and more to do with personal habits, laziness and priorities, as well as thought patterns and practices that take generations to change.


However, he points out that textbooks try to portray America as a place where everyone is middle class, which is, of course, not true. But to that I would also say that while I have been personally involved with some children who are very poor and live in situations that are far from healthy, I can walk the streets of my city and not have 2 and 3 year-olds come up begging. No, everyone is not middle class. But, there is definitely more here for the impoverished than elsewhere in the world.

In addition to that, is the "American dream" that everybody should be rich, or is it that everybody should have the opportunity to provide for their family in a safe and healthy way?

At the end of the book, he had an interesting section on the use of history textbooks for the purpose of "socialization" of our students. I found this fascinating. The books are written to create nice little patriotic students who can list dates, recite all the great things America has done (and exclude the not-so-nice stuff like our involvement in the Phillipines and the Mexican-American War or some of our involvement in Haiti not long after the American Revolution). They also like to down play slavery, and bias against women and racism to produce a nice "Godly" nation that we will all love and serve. The Iraq War, especially, is ill treated -- much in the manner of the actual war itself!

After reading the book, I'm even more thankful that God has led our family to home school. I have never liked what I've seen in secular history textbooks, and most that I've seen published by Christian publishing companies err in the opposite direction. For now, we read history from "living books" (historical fiction, biographies, topical books etc) and plan to use primary sources for the upper grades. What could be a subject that prompts great thinking has really been reduced to various types of indoctrination.

"Lies My Teacher Told Me" -- I give it two thumbs up!

Proverbs 31 -- You Knew I'd Get To It Some Day

Several weeks ago, a well meaning blog reader of mine told me that I have been too influenced by the world. When I finished laughing about that (consider the fact that I home school my kids, don't drink, don't smoke, don't have cable television, and the only secular radio I listen to is classical wguc 90.9), I had to consider what she said. I'm sure, in part, she was right. I am really influenced by the world. I can't avoid that, but I, like her, am influenced by far more than just the obvious "sins" of the world.

She saw my obvious devotion to the world in the fact that I see Vision Forum as more like a cult than a ministry of Jesus Christ. I see the confusion in understanding just what the "world" is. Is the world the list of sins that our cultural forefathers decided were the worst sins in the world? Or is "the world" any thinking that deviates from the mind of God?

Of course, it's impossible to know the mind of God, so trying to understand Him and his intent is much more difficult than telling people to follow a formulaic set of rules for your life. It's messy and people can easily mess that up. Of course, on the flip side, you see women following "the rules" and then they end up going nuts and drowning their children or something equally grim and horrible. That's pretty messy too. However, if you are in a tight enough church then you can suppress that kind of stuff and it only leaks out every once in a while (in things like finding out your pastor has been visiting male prostitutes for the past 15 years -- incidentally, I was in Ukraine when that story broke. I wondered if I could find a t-shirt that said something like "Yes, I'm an American, and yes, I'm a Christian, but no, I have nothing to do with that guy you've been reading about." Talk about embarrassing on an international level.).

So all of this takes me back to the original thought behind this post, which is Proverbs 31. I think that Proverbs 31 is a passage that has been so taken out of context, and then exalted to a bizarre position of authority and insight.

The first thing I think is interesting is how people choose to interpret scripture the same way they choose to use statistics. The tendency is to make it fit the preconceived notion that you already have. If I'm brutally honest with myself, I approach scripture in the same way. It is very rarely that I actually approach the Bible with a heart that desires to change. Way deep in my motivation, that's there, but my flesh is generally looking for a way to justify my line of thinking because that's just much nicer for me.

So, if I want to be honest in my understanding of Proverbs, I have to first ask myself what the purpose of Proverbs is. I don't think that Proverbs is hard core theology that should be taken literally. If it is, then there have been many nights that my husband should've set up camp on the roof. I also don't think that Proverbs is a book of promises. If you think think it's a book of promises, then how can you explain the number of people who have been "raised in the way that they should go," and then departed from it? Or people who have been wise stewards of their money and then lost everything from someone else's dishonesty? Proverbs is a book of wise sayings, insight into God's wisdom.

Yet, so many Christians have taken Proverbs 31 and taken its literal words with the same authority that Jesus spoke! That makes no sense to me, because to do so would mean having to take everything in the Old Testament as a literal promise or order, and I don't know too many people following all the Levitical laws.

So, then you have women who, literally, define themselves by Proverbs 31. There are even entire ministries that base themselves on it! But, the thing that I find so befuddling is that I can't find any place in the Bible where it says that Proverbs 31 (or any other isolated verse for that matter) is the only scripture to define all of how a women serves the Lord. However, historically, this culture has had one role for women (as a wife), so people interpret it in that light. In other words, Proverbs31 is the defining verse for being a woman.

What you end up with, then, is quite a conundrum.

First of all, if this is what a woman should be and what we should raise our daughters to be, then what do we do with the women who don't marry? What should define them? What about a woman who doesn't marry until she's 45? What about a widow? What about a childless couple?

Next, if we ignore all the problems with believing that a woman should strive to be a Proverbs31 woman, then what does that mean? The Proverbs 31 woman worked. So, should all women work? But I thought that all women should be home makers? Maybe it means a woman should only run a business from her home. Well, what if she doesn't have the skills or talents to do that, but is a great physical therapist or surgeon? Some people, like my blog reader, think that woman should only help out sometimes with the family business. So, where is the line drawn?


I have to wonder if it ever occurs to people that maybe Proverbs 31 is just simply defining what a really neat wife is. Since it's doubtful Solomon wrote it (although with his 300-plus wives, he seems to have been looking for his perfect match), it logical to think that whoever did was simply showing praise for the wife he admired. She certainly does seem to be someone to look up to, aim for as a goal, but not define yourself by.

I take my role as wife and mother quite seriously. Obviously, I do, as the time I have given over to those roles far exceeds anything I've ever given. However, I choose to define myself as a servant of Christ in whom, according to Paul, there is no male or female, gentile or greek.

Value and Comfort -- Not Just Terms for WalMart

I think perhaps one of the things that has us confused about how our Christianity should play out is comfort. Somewhere along the line we have mixed up value and comfort. So, we think that what makes us comfortable reveals our value. In other words, "If God values me then He must want me to have a bigger house." or "If God really does care about me, then He'll get me a job I like better." Or, my personal favorite, "If God really does love me then certainly our main drain won't back up again." (That one came directly from my own mouth!)

Even the big societal and political fights that so many Christians come up with are based in our need for comfort. I mean, come on, would it hurt our country to be even a little less selfish and produce a little less trash and carbon emissions? How many Christians drive a 45 minute commute to church every Sunday, in a large SUV, without a thought to how living such a geographically spread out life effects other people? And, how many Christians (myself included) have been laughed at, pooh-poohed and worse, because we've said something about how American Christians should be thinking about the environment?

The true motivation behind the culture war (whether it's the environment or homosexual marriage or anything else), I have become convinced, is preserving a comfortable way of life. If our culture changes enough to show its true nature, then that will certainly be uncomfortable for us!

So, combine our desire for comfort with constant messages about how the individual is so important, then add to that all the secular messages about comfort and taking care of yourself, then put on that the beautiful stamp of the Christian publishing industry, and, voila, you've got a culture full of self indulgent believers. Myself included.

On the flip, side, though, God does value the individual. I think back to the time that my husband and I were scraping by to make ends meet, and God provided for us a rent-free apartment. In typical God fashion, the apartment was not anything ordinary. It was above a funeral home. However, we could live there in exchange for caring for the grounds and answering the phones.

On the way to the interview for the job, I imagined many things. I imagined the owner of the funeral home to be old, peculiar smelling and creepy. I imagined the apartment to be dirty, dark and small. In a real Hollywood flourish I pictured a dark kitchen with a light dangling from a wire over the table -- complete with scampering rodents.

What I found, though, was different. The owner was only a few years older than us, wasn't creepy and had no noticeable odors wafting from him. And the apartment was HUGE. It was over twice as big as our old apartment, and was a great place to live.

Why? Because God does take care of the individual. He does love and value each of us, and He does love to give good gifts (although it seems to me that we're pretty clueless about what good gifts are). There does come a time when it's right to stand up for ourselves and to request for ourselves. We do need that. Somewhere along the line, though, that became the focus.

Go back to the couple with the SUV and the 45 minute commute to church. What if they sold the SUV for a much cheaper vehicle and lived in the community where church resided? They could take the difference in money from their budget and invest that in missions, adoption, support to foster families, boy scouts, the salvation army -- any number of things. They could also use their church to impact their community. Living simply would mean less time in the car, which would be good for their family and the environment. Was the expensive car and commute a sin? Hardly, but was it really contributing to an eternal perspective?

I guess I do think everything must change.

Spiritual Realities Revealed

Lately, I've been reading "Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises and a Revolution of Hope" by Brian D. McLaren. And, he is not kidding with the title. He is really challenging the way I've thought about every aspect of life and the story of the world. The perspective of the book is so different that I'm sure I'll have to re-read it when I'm finished in order to glean and retain everything he's saying.

He states in the first chapter of the book why he has put so much energy into researching the biggest problems that the world faces.

"More personally, I'm a rather ordinary person. I care about my young adult kids and the kids they may someday have. I care about my friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens and our common future on this beautiful, imperiled planet. I care about the billions of people I've never met and never will meet, including people who might be called my nation's enemies. I also care about our fellow creatures -- brown trout and blue herons, raccoons and gopher tortoises, red dragonflies and royal palms, barrel cactus and woodland ferns. I care about all of these for a lot of reasons, especially because I am a committed follower of Christ, and people with this commitment, it seems to me, can't help but care about all these things. " (Italics mine)

It has always seemed to me that it should be a natural overflow of our love for God to love all his people, and yet, it's so easy to love the lovable and simply by-pass loving those who are our enemies and those we don't ever know or see. However, if love is an action, then my life should be lived in such a way that I am considering all those people. Loves comes alive in my own willingness to be a loving and responsible steward of my time and resources.

And yet, as McLaren reveals in the book, these thoughts of practical nature are rarely taught in the church. In fact, a trip to Africa revealed to him a shocking truth. At a meeting, a leader in the church there opened his eyes.

"Friends, most of you know me. You know that I am the son of a preacher, and as a result, I grew up going to church all the time, maybe five times a week. What may surprise you though is to learn that in all of my childhood, in all the church services I attended, I only heard one sermon... That sermon went like this: 'You are a sinner and you are going to hell. You need to repent and believe in Jesus. Jesus might come back today, and if he does and you are not ready, you will burn forever in hell.' "

And, while I would have to say that that is not the sermon I'm hearing every week, it is the general thrust of what I've heard over my lifetime. I'm thankful that the sermons I'm hearing every week are very practical, life and community changing, and Jesus focused. But what is disturbing is that if I look at all the books, sermons, magazine articles I've read in the past 15 years, the teachings are not just about afterlife. They're about me.

Even our worship is self centered. Many times, during a worship service, I can't even get myself to sing the words to a song because the focus is on me. Take, for instance, how singing this is worshiping God:

Running through the forest
Dive into the lake
Barefoot on beaches white
Standing in the canyon
Painted hills around
And the wind against my skin

The song then goes on to sing about how I will not be silent anymore -- focusing on me, rather than the eternal attributes of God as a creator that we should be worshipping Another one is "Our Love is Loud" , again focusing on us and how great and exciting our love is. These songs are fine (if you're into that kind of stuff) but are they worship? I don't think so, unless you're talking about using worship time to think about how great we are at adoring God. I've always understood worship to be a time when you express to God just how amazing and wonderful He is, and yet it's just hardly ever about that anymore.

I don't think mis-focused worship music is the problem, though. I think it's a symptom. All the books on self-help, counseling, emotional healing, prosperity, books such as "Your Best Life Now" have all made Christianity about the individual.

This is totally missing the mark! God blesses us when we take our eyes off of ourselves and put them onto Him and others. God heals us when we risk to love in His name. It's like our minds are riddled with some kind of illness that distorts our thinking. It's the same illness that causes people to tell me how I'm just "so special" for adopting handicapped children, or how I've been given a "gift of compassion" or how someone could "never do what I do". It wasn't compassion, it isn't a gift, and anyone can do it! I traveled to difficult nations to rescue children because I love Jesus and Jesus loves them. If you radically love someone, then you care about what they care about. Their passions become your passions. Will your love always take that form? No, but it will take some sort of sacrificial and active form, as that is the very nature of love.

Acting on your love for Christ is the very visible expression of spirituality, and yet, as a nation, we're looking to feel rather than do -- with a significant chunk of our leaders telling us that that's okay. I don't see how anyone can read the book of James without coming to that conclusion.

So, to start off. I do agree with McLaren -- everything must change. How we think about our life, our time and our resources. We can't just think about ourselves anymore.

WalCreep

"Save Money. Live Better."

I pondered that while I was at my favorite superstore, Walmart. It seems a bit better than an earlier slogan "Buy More. Pay Less.", but it still struck me as a bit ridiculous. Seriously, what do the people who run Walmart, especially their advertising campaigns, really know about living better?


Most of the time, I avoid shopping at Walmart like my youngest daughter avoids going to the dentist. However, as much as I hate to admit it, I'm addicted to the simplicity of one-stop shopping, so I often find myself there. I love to think about how neat it would be to go to stores that actually offer quality products that they specialize in, but my life is as hectic as everyone else's and I usually end up at Walmart. Of course, my one stop shopping experience is never as simple as I expect it to be.

Take, for instance, the time I went to Walmart to buy black metal paint for our front porch railing. After laboriously looking for the exterior metal paint, I came to find that they had plenty -- in purple and green.

Who, besides an ardent Barney fan, paints porch railings purple?

On the same trip, I needed to purchase a potty chair for one of our kids. I bought a basic white potty chair, brought it home, opened up and found it .... USED! UGGGHH! GROSS!

After that unsuccessful and disgusting visit, I vowed never to go to Walmart again. For years I kept that vow. But then one opened up right around the corner from me. It's foxy new exterior, beautifully paved parking lot and mammoth sized building all seduced me back. Like a woman hoping to rehabilitate her undevoted and gluttonous lover, I decided to give Walmart another chance.

My first trip overwhelmed me. This place really has everything, I thought to myself. This store did, indeed, have something for everyone: food, fabric, electronics, pet supplies, garden supplies, toys, jewelry, clothing...

As I walked the isles overwhelmed by all that was there, an announcer came over the loud speakers.

"Ladies, do you need a manicure? Stop by our nail department for a moment of rest and relaxation!"

I continued my shopping, and soon another announcement came on.

"Looking for a stylish new look? Stop in our in-store salon and have a high quality cut for a low price."

That's likely, I thought to myself, and continued my shopping. The next one made me stop in my tracks.

"Are your eyes tired? Squinting? Stop by our opthamologist for a full eye exam and glasses fitting, all for the low prices you expect at Walmart!"

Okay, I thought, what's next?

"Ladies, miss your yearly exam? Not a problem! Stop in to our gynecological department while you wait for your car's oil change! "

Or

"Did your water break while you were shopping? Was that just a braxton hicks or are you in labor? No need to worry, our full service obstetrics department is here to help -- at the low Walmart prices you've come to expect!"

Of course, to my knowledge, no Walmart has come to that point. However, it really wouldn't surprise me if they did.

I realized when I was there that it was downright creepy to go to one place for so many services, and you have to believe that the best opthamologists are not working for Walmart. While I'm looking for the lowest prices on many things, health care is not one of them!


Another grudge I have against Walmart is that their quality of product stinks. I bought a weed remover from their garden department this past spring. I took it home, opened it up, stabbed it into the dirt next to a weed, pushed back like the instructions said to and snapped the handle off!

Another time I bought pants for my oldest son. They were in his size, but when he put them on they were so loose that they instantly fell down. They were so cheap there were no belt loops.

Of course, my husband told me that's because Walmart sizes their clothing according to their customers: bubba, extra bubba, and extra extra bubba. But, I swear, these pants really said "Size 8 -10" on them!

At any rate, I hate the idea that is insinuated by "Save Money. Live Better." -- in the end, they are implying that by buying more stuff you get a better life. To that I'd say one thing:

HA! HA!

Most of what they sell at Walmart is stuff that detracts from a good life. Wii, game cubes, Nintendo DS, trinkets, home decor and the such are all fun things, but what they really are are distractions. They distract us from the great things in life that make it possible to live better.

How many children are playing inside on their Wii, instead of outside in the snow? How many married couples are watching endless evenings of tv rather than talking or spending time with other adults? How many children and teenagers are listening to music or watching videos that are training their minds in unhealthy thinking? How many families are working two jobs to pay off credit card debt because they bought tons of stuff they didn't need at Walmart? How many mothers are out there trying to duct tape pants to their son's hips because they don't have belt loops? And how many women across America are gagging as they see crusty pee in a used potty they bought at Walmart?

I don't think "live better" means what the Walmart people think it means.

"Wah wah wah wah wahwah wah"

Sometimes I know that I appear to my children like the teacher in the old Peanut's Gang Cartoons.

"Mom, what does flabbergasted mean?"

"Well, honey, it means surprised, but so much more than that wah wah wah wah wah wah wah..."

"Yes mom, I understand mom...."

I have come to believe that there's good reason for this. Since I am both mom and teacher, my kids are constantly learning, right? Case in point:

We were driving down the road, listening to my favorite Christian radio station, when my 8 year old asked a question.

"Mom, what's a prophet?"

"Well," I replied with a scholarly voice, "a prophet is someone God speaks through. You know, of course, that the Bible was written, in part by prophets...wah wah wah wah ....prophecy today...wah wah wah wah wah.... false prophets....wah wah wah wah... lots of debate about that....wah wah wah.... but I think that.... wah wah wah wah wah .... Elijah... wah wah wah... minor prophets....wah wah wah wah wah wah and..."

"Uh mom, I guess I get all that, but then I'm confused about one thing. If that's a prophet then what's a 'non-prophet'?"

Ahh.... pledge drives on Christian radio.