I grew up in one of those Judeo-Christian homes that apparently strike terror in the hearts of the likes of Betty Friedan, Alan Grayson and Kathryn Joyce. My parents never had sex until they got married to each other. Theirs is an enduring...
View my complete profile
Friday, March 03, 2017
Thursday, March 14, 2013
This and That
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
We Interrupt This Blog
For instance, after two weeks of "needing to", today we finally managed to leave the children with grandparents and go into town, just my husband and I, (not the little town, six mile drive from here, but the town-town, an hours' drive from here, what folks call the city), to accomplish some much needed errands, and for some much needed conversation, between the two of us. Which is to say, I haven't been in Southern California since the middle of August.
But something urgent came up, and it needs to be broadcast, now, primarily to Californians, and I am interrupting my stagnant queue of posts. (So if you know any Californians, please do be considerate and pass this along.)
Thursday, January 12, 2012
The Bride Wore a Red Hat
The real miracle taking place that evening (or Wednesday morning, as the Thais have it), was the joined lives of a Kachin believer from Myanmar (Burma) and a dear friend of ours from small town Washington state. Yes, she has brown eyes. No, she does not look like she could have been born in Asia. It was very cute to see her wearing the traditional make-up and big dangling earrings. I don't think she wears make-up or earrings as a general rule.
Of course we had to celebrate by eating Thai food (somehow it turned into Japanese food), and looking at pictures of Thai wedding food.
As all good marriages are a testimony to the supernatural, may God's grace be on this unique union, intervening throughout their married life to the praise of His glory.
Our friend wore the dress of the traditional Kachin wedding. And here is a video of a Kachin bride (I presume), getting married in the United States.
*It wasn't actually last Tuesday evening. It was three Tuesdays ago.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Nonfunctionally Tired, and I Write
What are your thoughts on this article?
I'm kind of bummed, because I hoped to delve into the topic of clothes one day, and this is not what I had in mind. But, I'm way behind in my average of one post a month, so here it is.
It was a great article. Um, it described one aspect of what Mrs. Albert Mohler has been up to lately. I did completely crack up over her not allowing her daughter to wear this reasonable list of articles of clothing which could be problematic and don't ever need to be worn anyway, and then adding "or anything made by Abercrombie and Fitch". I thought that was funny.
Modesty is really a hot-button issue, for several reasons. One is that contextually (and in a cultural, historical context as well), when the word "modesty" is used in the Scripture, it has little to do with refraining from wearing mini-skirts or short shorts. There is no record that any woman, pagan, barbarian, Greek, Roman, Christian or Jew... or even prostitute for that matter, ever saw the light of day in a mini skirt or short shorts, or in a skin tight shirt, in, say, 30 to 300 AD. What a woman wore in that day to be seductive was made without elastic, without sewing machines, actually, without powered weaving machines, without electricity and like as not without scissors. It was washed without the aid of a washing machine. Cloth was actually hard to come by, let alone clothes, and your average woman like as not owned two garments, possibly per year, because with daily wear, they would, well, wear out. In the context of the New Testament passages regarding modesty, from a face-value reading of the whole passage, it seems women were cautioned against extravagance or finery in the choice of their garment(s). They were not to try to impress people with their clothes.
What we call modesty today is advised in the New Testament where women are cautioned to be chaste. But the current culture of dressing to invite lust is nearly impossible or at least extremely unlikely in a society in which every woman's clothes must be hand-woven from scratch out of hand-spun fibers. The very existence of said culture springs from an effort to sell people more clothes than they need, because of a new ability to handily make far more clothes than are needed. Otherwise, what are they going to do? Put several hundred-thousand people out of work? How many clothes do people really need? A person probably absolutely must have two sets at a time: a set to wear, and a set to wash. And when you go to all the trouble to spin fiber to weave cloth- if you can get by with one item instead of two, it's probably better to wear clothes that are too warm than too cold. I guess in a warm climate, you could own an over-cloak for several years because you wouldn't wear it every day. So in a purely [edit 2/11/12] subsistence society, what we call modesty is a very different kind of issue. It's an issue without stores, without marketing, without models, without mannequins, and without peer-pressure.
Another reason is that the issue is full of hypocrisy. There is the hypocrisy of people who preach it while their wives and daughters wear things that are inconsistent with their message, evidently with their complete blessing. There is the hypocrisy of the attitude of acceptance or dismissal of the character of an individual based on, actually based on the individual's behavior, which, if God overlooked our behavior and accepted us, who gives us the audacity to reject another person based on behavior? There is the hypocrisy of an inconsistency in clothing standards. To one person, this garment is immodest, to another it's that other garment, until, well, some cultures have solved this hypocrisy by banning the appearance of a woman from society altogether, save for her eyes. And there is the hypocrisy of calling repeatedly on a passage in the Word of God which clearly says not to try to impress people with your clothes, in order to justify an attempt to impress people with how godly or "modest" our clothes are.
The issue is also very two-sided (maybe four-sided). It is very difficult to tackle both sides well, in the same discussion, and unfair to tackle only one side. In which case, the article you sent did splendidly. Mrs. Mohler is evidently, as a woman, addressing women and girls. And that is where the discussion of chaste clothing, pertaining to girls, probably ought to take place. Chaste clothing will not eliminate lust. Nor will unchaste clothing cause lust. And yet, to wear clothes which deliberately invite lust is distinctly unloving and unlovely. For a guy to try to urge a girl toward more chaste dress is probably as awkward as it would be for a girl to try to urge a guy to control his thought life.
In this regard and I may be wrong, I suspect guys need men, and girls need women. And most men should have a wife to capture their imaginations one day, and Doug Wilson says the "power on her head" verse indicates that in all of the submitting, this is one area a woman should exercise authority over her husband. I'm not completely sure what I think of this, but Paul says that each married person's body belongs to their spouse... And most girls should have a dad and one day a husband, to provide insight into the weaknesses of men and instruct their wardrobes.
(Other sides to the issue, rarely addressed in the Christian community, making it possibly four-sided, are women who lust, and immodest men, though a man probably rarely defrauds a woman through her eyes.)
I don't know if this is anywhere near what you wanted, but you asked what I thought about the article, and not having any outstanding thoughts about it, other than my first paragraph, I made some up. Basically, I agree with Mrs. Mohler, somewhat, or mostly, and think she's doing a great thing. Why?
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Perfect Timing and Peppermint Pajamas
So when my friend chose to have labor induced for her seventh born, after six natural births, I could see where she was coming from. "I'll know my husband will be there, not stuck in Los Angeles, fighting traffic to get home. I'll know my doctor will be there."
Waiting is all so uncertain, kind of like wondering if you'll ever meet that special someone you are meant to share your life with, or like hoping to conceive a child.
The second time around, I anticipated it would be a bother, and prepared for it.
Then out of the blue, whammo, I was struck with a sore throat... and a runny nose... and a fever... and a sinus headache... and my eyes turned black and blue. I was better in a couple of days. The next weekend my husband was sick. Then my son caught it. The week after that, I got sick again. And then they got sick again.
And my baby "dropped". I understand not all babies do this, but two of mine have. All of the sudden I can no longer walk. I am reduced to an awkward waddle. I become slow, very slow. Actually, I was already slow, but this is ridiculous.
But as I bend around my belly over my toddler's crib each night to wipe his nose, put chapstick all over his irritated face, and brush peppermint oil on the front of his pajama suit, I breathe a little prayer. "Lord, I don't know when we're going to be well again! Then we might get sick again! I'll be happy to keep carrying the baby until You say so. You pick the day."
A few days before my baby dropped, in a phone call with my grandma, she pointed out that with three premature births, she never had the foggiest clue when her babies might be coming! My hat's off to all those whose blessings came early, late, or without a due date, or came two or three at a time without any prior warning. Maybe we have less control over life than we thought we did. Maybe it's better that way.