Parenting Advice from Richard Dawkins

We’re terrified of the word “brainwashed.” 

Yet, I propose to you—if parents had done it properly since the beginning of time—we’d be a far more intellectual people than “free-thinking” has made us…

What does “intellect” mean, apart from what God revealed to our ancestors? What can we know that He hasn’t allowed? How can anyone claim “freedom of thought,” if God sustains our very life, while we grope for answers in the brains we worship in His place?

Perhaps this is why the parenting advice of Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist), irritates some of us:

“Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you.”

Indeed, parents… Teach your kids how to think. But, naturally, you shouldn’t teach “how to think” is better than teaching “what to think.” Because, that would be teaching them what to think…

And definitely don’t tell them what to believe because—Dr. Dawkins believes—this is the best belief. 

If your babies reach adulthood and don’t trust a thing you say, pat yourself on the back.  After all, to quote Dawkins again, “The majority of children born into the world tend to inherit the beliefs of their parents, and that to me is one of the most regrettable facts of them all.” 

Except, some of us believe children were meant to inherit the beliefs of their parents, once upon a time, before something threw the system for a loop.

In the beginning, God walked with the first humans. He taught them about right and wrong, and He outlined the rules for enjoying life to the fullest. Thus, you might say the first “intelligent” thing men did was put their faith in the One with the answers…

 

Anyway, during all this intimate contact with mankind, God instructed His people to make sure they didn’t forget what they were learning. He said, to paraphrase, “BRAINWASH YOUR KIDS.”

“Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.” (Deut. 11:18-21)

I’d bet Richard Dawkins thinks this practice is despicable. When parents repeat “their truths” to naïve and impressionable children, it stunts their ability to ask questions for themselves.  Right? Right?

Yet how does he explain this long letter, rife with conclusions and absolute statements, written to help his 10-year-old daughter determine the “correct” kind of belief?   

Here’s my favorite part: “My dearest daughter…. I want to move on from evidence, which is a good reason for believing something, and warn you against three bad reasons for believing anything. They are called ‘tradition’, ‘authority’, and ‘revelation’.”  

I agree with Dawkins that beliefs should have some evidential support. But doesn’t it sound like he’s teaching her what to believe, in that sentence? Is this not indoctrination of the scientific method?  If Dawkins’ message to little Juliet was “disagree with me,” how far will she take it?

Much to the dismay of Dawkins’ generation of scientists, their process of un-educating children has sort of backfired. These little brains have gotten so good as asking questions they won’t even answer them anymore! Dawkins defends his use of absolute statements—saying essentially, there is such thing as “certain enough,” though no science can prove something 100%. He says agnosticism (or, “I don’t know for sure”) doesn’t have to mean a 50/50 toss-up—so he expects people to  lean safely toward one conclusion or another.

But members of the next generation of “free” thinkers don’t always agree.   After years of being told they can solve anything on their own, if they demand evidence, young people have begun to doubt the very brains they use to ask questions.  Suddenly, Dawkins’ religion of Biology ushers young minds into Philosophy, which has a history of praising people for being “intelligent” when they lock themselves indoors for hours or days, trying to solve major problems like, “How can I know that I know that I know?”   

It’s ridiculous, isn’t it? We send our children to college for learning, and their biggest lesson is they can’t learn anything. Then, they hear echoes of Dawkins’ words: tradition, authority, and revelation are bad.  Yet, when they ask for “proof” that skeptical science is good, they find none there, either. Their doubt and further questions lead, eventually, to an “infinite regress” of skepticism, until they conclude—in frustration—there are no answers for anything at all. 

All of this could have been spared if—somewhere during the Enlightenment era, perhaps?—men hadn’t gotten too “smart” for their own good.  If they hadn’t declared—without reason—that things are only true when they study it themselves, the nonsensical, immoral Religion of Thought wouldn’t have grown out of control.  Because intellectuals allowed themselves to be deceived, they gladly surrendered the only certain, God-spoken truths, which had been passed through tradition since time began.

The results are foolish.

“…what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him; but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools…” (Romans 1:20-22)

Science can study many things and produce certain-enough answers. But, it doesn’t answer all the questions of a man’s spirit. Seek God with your whole heart, and don’t let your brain drive you crazy. If you really want to find the Truth, God says you will find Him.  

And when you do PLEASE brainwash your children!  Regardless of what Dawkins says, he indoctrinated his kid, too. The only difference is—rather than the God of the Bible—he sold the impotent gods of Thought and Science…

Theoretically, if Dawkins’ parents had done their job, and their parents had done their job—all the way back to Adam—none of us would be free-thinkers. And it would be fantastic! Satan never would have converted anyone to his Religion of Lies (John 8:44), and all people would remain “brainwashed” by the Creator, who came up with the idea of “true” in the first place…

Unfortunately, no child born into the world has totally inherited the beliefs of their Heavenly Father—which is “the most regrettable fact of them all.”

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism

Please read this article, and tell me if you agree or disagree that many of today's young adults subscribe to "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism:"

"[The study showed] most religious teens in the U.S. had very little appreciation or regard for the theological and doctrinal particulars of their own religious traditions but did believe that God exists, loves them, wants them to follow the Golden Rule, and comforts them in the midst of the emotional ups and downs of adolescence... [They believe] all religious traditions are functionally equivalent, and that they provide spiritual succor, moral guidance, and emotional support in about equal measures."   

 "...a majority of the 30 percent of this cohort of emerging adults who are regular churchgoers are “selective adherents” who “believe and perform certain aspects of their religious traditions but neglect and ignore others.” ...When it comes to religion, this seems to be a generation of lukewarm believers." 


Be sure to read the author's theory regarding why this trend occurs...

-----
Rather than writing a lengthy response of my own, I'd like to borrow a few quotes from commenters at the bottom of the linked article.

20-Something Wrote:
"As a member of what would be considered the "Emerging Adult" group, I must say Christian Smith is right on. . .and totally wrong. I agree with him on the fact that a large portion of adolescents and emerging adults ascribe to "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism." I would, however, like to add that this is not a generation-specific phenomenon. Church goers of all ages have begun to adapt and edit the more traditional views of Christianity to accommodate their chosen lifestyles. As for those who fall into the adolescent category...in my opinion we are suffering the consequences of the sensationalism of churches in the 80's and 90's. (i.e. more show than substance). Things will turn around as soon as churches start preaching the unapologetic gospel again." 

Julian Wrote:
"...Youth these days...are as ignorant about religion as they are about almost everything else except their particular line of specialty and pop culture. America has always had a pragmatic bent, but anti-intellectualism has reached its zenith under the modern image-based media domination... You cannot expect them to love and follow something they do not know. The Death of reading--serious intellectual reading--has profound consequences for society. The only real opportunity to get views other then the liberal and atheistic weltanschauung of the media and other elites, is to read, from every age, from every category, from everywhere. I am in my mid-20s. I find your assessment accurate. Humanity...[may] thrive in the sense of longevity, health, comfort, safety, freedom, and opportunities for work and pleasure. But very few will really live, rise above the constraints of social norms and pop culture, and the gratification of the senses and emotions..."

What do you think?

Safe Sex and Comprehensive Education

The only problem I have with the state's version of "sex education" is the use of terms like "safe sex" and "comprehensive education."

#1. All sexual experiences carry risks. The safest form of sex occurs within one, monogamous, life-long relationship, but even married partners are vulnerable, both spiritually and emotionally. (Personally, I think emotional consequences of sex are far scarier than the physical ones.) But, even if you believe humans are nothing but "bodies" and sex is just recreational, don't forget that pills and shots and condoms don't protect us 100%.  It worries me that parents feel comfortable their teens are being "safe," because they've learned about "safe sex" in school...

#2.  I strongly question the impact of a "comprehensive" course which omits instructions from the Creator of sex.

When I was growing up, I was taught God's command to keep the marriage bed pure, and I heard that self-control was a virtue for all ages. Now, however, parents seem to think their teens are crazy, clueless masses of hormone, at the mercy of their own sex drives. "Young people will experiment with sex, no matter what, so the best we can do is prepare them."

I believe this approach needs serious reconsideration. This attitude, held by parents and teachers alike, makes teen sex "normal." So, although I don't have a problem telling kids about penises, gonnorhea, the NuvaRing, menstruation, Syphilis, and really anything, there is a huge difference between teaching facts "in theory" and expecting kids to use their new information.


I think the situation is similar to a conversation I had with a 6-year-old at the daycare regarding "how to rob an office building."

Boy: What's that flashy light on the wall?
Me: That's the alarm system. It keeps people from coming in here at night when the daycare is closed.
Boy: Why do people want to come here at night?
Me: Most of the time, they want to steal money and computers and telephones.
Boy: Does the light lock the door?
Me: Actually, it calls the police if somebody opens the door or breaks a window.
Boy: (wicked grin*) I would just hit that light with a baseball bat!
Me:  Sorry, but that calls the police, too...and then they take the burglars to jail.

(And so, the chat continued until his bus came to pick him up)

I was willing to answer all of his questions, hypothetically. But I wasn't preparing him for a life of breaking-and-entering. In fact, a few minutes into our talk, I told him plainly I would be very disappointed if he ever tried taking something which wasn't his.

That little disclaimer makes all the difference between informing and condoning.

Frankly, I think schools can try whatever version of sex ed they want (and I'll even tolerate the term "comprehensive" despite ignoring the spiritual side of a person's health).  But they can NOT tell me those classes are necessary to keep teens "safe," when they go through their "inevitable" sexual experiences.  I was a teen who waited until marriage, and I have many friends who did as well.  All of our questions were answered about body mechanics, STD's, and contraceptives, but there was an important disclaimer at the end: 

Understanding all of these things does not mean you're prepared for "safe sex."  You are spiritual beings, with a responsibility to control your urges until you find the safety of a marriage relationship. We will be disappointed if you do not wait.

----
A couple days ago, I asked my Christian readers, what would make you remove your kids from the public school system? Is the state-version of sex ed a problem for some of you?  In my opinion, go ahead and give the kids all the facts they want, but don't normalize teen sex.  What do you think?

Put Your Helmet On

This is, hands down, my favorite Pixar short. It gets me every time!


But, why does it bring out such strong emotions in me and probably a few others? ("Alright, Amanda, how are you going to stretch and twist this, to make it applicable on a blog about service?")

Personally, I think we find this story touching because humans respond at the soul-level to examples of true, stubborn, self-sacrificing love.   Whether we're consciously aware or not, I think we recognize real love when we see it.

Nobody would have blamed that stork for finding another cloud partner. His farewell letter could have gone like this:

Old friend, it's not you...it's me! You have many great qualities, and I would never ask you to change for anyone, especially me! But, we simply don't work well together. There is another bird out there for you--I'm positive. The two of you will have more in common--he'll really enjoy being bitten by sharks--and then you'll see our separation is for the better. And I will always cherish the good times we had together.  Love, Your Ex-Stork.

Can the stork really sign that note with "love?"  I'm not so sure. Because 1 Corinthians says "love is patient" and "love never fails."  Even more applicably, love "always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres..."

Of course, nobody likes being bitten by sharks. Which means, the next person to attempt a partnership with the thundercloud would encounter the same problems. If some issues need to be addressed eventually, why not work it out with his long-time buddy and avoid the painful break-up all together?

Let's not take this metaphor too far. I'm not suggesting that women (or men) in abusive relationships need to "hope, trust, and persevere" through pain and degradation.  It isn't "selfish" to protect your life. Perhaps some people watch Pixar's "Partly Cloudy," and see a poor, co-dependent stork who can't get away from a terrible relationship, even after years of mistreatment. I could see the parallel.

But I don't see an evil or willfully-abusive cloud. I see the kind of pain and difficulty which come part and parcel to every close relationship in the world. For me, the story represents an elderly man, who feeds and clothes his wife long after Alzheimer's claims her mind, because he promised to love her until death. That's painful...but sometimes love is. Or, the stork could symbolize a mother, willing to sacrifice body and soundness of mind just to remain close to her child. 

We're willing to take a lot of "abuse" from our kids. Being a parent hurts. But, out of love, we just put our helmets on, and go back for more.

My favorite part of the movie is when the helmet-clad stork puts his arms straight out and makes the "bring it on" motion with the tip of his wings. That 's love. And I believe we should have the same attitude of perseverance in all of our relationships. On-going abuse should not be tolerated. But understand: it hurts to be selfless.

----

Personally, I think the stork has every right to demand counseling with the cloud and ask, "Darling, is there any way you can give me something a little easier to work with, now and then?" This idea we shouldn't ask someone to change is absurd. We all can understand why the stork would appreciate a furry puppy or duckling once in a while. But, my point is, whether we feel our friends or children or spouses are doing their best to make our relationship work, we should display an attitude of love.

Sometimes, in love, you have to put on your helmet and go back for more.

"Ya Guys Want Some Cookies?"

My mom brought this video to my attention a couple days ago. A 14-year-old named Taylor encourages fellow Girl Scouts to refuse selling cookies (and the rest of the public not to buy them) due to the parent organization's decision to allow transgendered scouts.



I encourage you to watch it very carefully--without allowing yourself to make premature judgements based on the hot-button word "transgender." If you praise or condemn this child without evaluating what she says, you have abandoned logic for emotionalism... 
...like this blogger (and his many commenters).

"Taylor’s an idiot, but she’s also just a stupid kid. Her parents are the ones at fault here for raising such a petty, close-minded child."

"Sickening little twerp."

"She’s going to be one hell of a condescending, uptight lay when she’s of age."

"It’s quite transparent at this point that Judeo-Christian morality today is nothing more than an empty exercise in instilling our children with narcissistic personality disorders."

"Just another hater to hate on people. I hope that she gets kicked out of the Girl Scouts for this."

"...'What do YOU personally hope to gain from this?' That’s the question I think all intolerant people should ask themselves before they go on record with their tiny thoughts on YouTube." 

Again, I encourage you to watch the video. Then, maybe you can help me understand what Taylor's "tiny," "intolerant," "hateful" thoughts are.  She doesn't bring up Judeo-Christian morality. She doesn't even suggest that transgendered kids be "kicked out of Girl Scouts," as done to her.

She just says she contends with the statement, "Girl Scouts is an all-girl institution...without respect for gender." It's inconsistent. And, due to the mixed message, she wants the leaders to specify membership policies which seem to be changing. Taylor argues that admission of boys-who-feel-like-girls complicates Girls Scouts activities--which ought to be apparent to everybody! So, regardless of your feelings toward transgender individuals, we must admit troop dynamics WILL CHANGE, and Taylor wants leadership to address related concerns. We shouldn't be surprised when loyal (money-making) scouts want to be consulted about sudden, far-reaching decisions. 


I just can't get over how quickly people play the "hater" card, when somebody says anything other than "transgender kids ought to rule the world." If she isn't singing the praises of the LGBT community, Taylor must be intolerant of them. As a society, we're losing the ability to hear stories with our emotion filters, and--fueled by the brainless mob around us--we trade logic for grotesque labeling and name-calling.

Further, this pack of wolves posted contact information for Taylor's mother (address, email, cell and land phone, Facebook page, everything) so the sweet, thoughtful opinions of the Anti-Taylor mob could be directed in mass, directly to her home.  

Ridiculous.

So, what would somebody interested in discussion (rather than silencing opponents) say regarding this cookie-ban story? Here's where I think we should find common ground:

You can't question somebody's actions without examining their beliefs and getting involved in a whole-worldview debate. Unfortunately, it's easier to just throw mud and call names.

We probably will never know whether GSUSA was trying to deceive or sneak past their loyal members by admitting transgendered scouts without advanced notice. But, regardless, any shift they make toward political correctness (in favor of the GLBT group) is a shift away from traditional values.  And this puts everybody's personal values at the center of a zero-sum game. 

Somebody is going to have to sacrifice here.

Those who agree gender is a choice will approve of the policy-change completely. But I think many traditional-valued scouts will end up leaving all together. In fact, it's possible Girl Scouts of America will need to change its name to Transgendered Scouts of America eventually. My point is, if GSUSA allies with transgendered kids and allows boys-who-feel-like-girls into their troops, then the girls-who-only-want-to-camp-with-other-girls are going to leave.

None of that is a "problem," per se....until somebody tries to scold the traditional girls for boycotting, dropping-out, or generally disapproving of the new GSUSA policy. Again, we cannot evaluate an action without examining the merits of that persons individual beliefs. So, telling her to stop hating is too easy. Calling her 'bigot' skips too many important steps: namely discussing how she defines "girl" and why.

GSUSA's actions stem from the organization's belief that boyhood and girlhood have nothing to do with anatomy (or Divine will). Taylor's action of boycotting cookie-sales stems from her belief that girls have two X chromosomes, and God made no mistakes when he arranged it that way.

Anyone wishing to debate must spend time researching more than just "how to spell intolerant."

----

Part 2: Questions for Parents and Future Parents

Turns out, I was correct about traditional-valued Girl Scouts slowly dropping out. Read this article about the American Heritage Girls, and tell me what you think.

I like the idea of an organization which shares my emphasis on faith. But, is it wise for Christians to "surrender" and start our own cliques instead? Where is your line between protecting your kids from indoctrination and helping them become lights to the world?  Finally, for those of you who want your kids to be exposed to other beliefs: do you have a "last straw," which would make you remove your kids from secular programs?

Why Did God Make Babies?

My little girl makes my heart swell.

She has the best giggle, the most beautiful eyes, and the strongest will of any child I've ever met. She is smart and determined. She is a blessing.

But, this week, she's also a challenge.

Before Cami got a fever, two teeth, and a croupy cough, I planned to write an update for my Adventures in Marriage collection of posts. (I mean, hasn't it been too long since I proved relationships require patience, hard work, and constant self-sacrifice by sharing something unstable I said/did to my husband?)  :)   But I haven’t had time to mistreat Luke lately because we’ve been embarking on Adventures in Miserable Babies.
Soooo you get one of Amanda's Parenthood Ponderings instead.
----
Why did God create babies?

Some say babyhood is important for the parent-child relationship; their sweet faces and total dependency encourage long-term attachment. But I'm not particularly attached to the whining, the night-wakings, and the loss of my free time. Yes, babies are cute, with good-smelling breath and soft skin. But they're a lot of work, too! If their sole purpose is making us fall in love with them, the  pooping, crying, and constant-attention-requiring part all seem counterproductive. God should have seen that coming…

It also seems logical that babies “must” start small because  they come packaged in a tight space. Naturally, after birth, they have to spend time growing. But I believe God is fully creative enough to invent a quicker way. He could have programmed babies to crawl, walk, and run within hours of birth--as with horses. Or, He could have arranged humans to be independent immediately, never even meeting their parents (like sea turtles).
Why are human babies immature for so long? If God could have eliminated babyhood--or at least sped it up--why didn't He?

----

I'm lucky my little girl plays fabulously by herself, most of the time. But lately, when I try to wash a few dishes, or write for my blog, or even brush my teeth, she crawls after me, crying. Her moodiness has confined me to the rocking chair (in my PJ's, with no makeup) trying to console the inconsolable--considering the irony of "Miss Amanda--the unshakable, unstoppable, Teacher of dozens" begging for mercy from ONE red-faced 8-month-old.

Desperately, I want her to get over this illness or growth spurt or whatever, so we can get back to normal. I want to play with her, sing with her, take her to run errands, and all the other important mommy-things…

But what if these difficult, tear-filled days, when my to-do list is neglected and I feel like a failure are the most important mommy-things? What if bonding and teaching are only secondary purposes of Cami's babyhood—with the main point being to challenge me?

Like teaching special education and marriage, parenthood is hard.  And if all the "incentives" had to come from Cami herself, it might not be worth it. Perhaps, since I have a "good baby,” this seems unfair. Her good days outnumber the bad. It should be easy to press through a rough week knowing it probably will get better, right?

But what about children who aren't so "good?" What about colicky babies? Or, what about those with disabilities, whose challenging behavior shows no end? Let's face it--if parenthood hinges on physical rewards, like giggles and hugs, there are kids whose extreme needs aren't worth it.

That's why I think parenthood has more to do with becoming better people than raising them. It's precisely the most un-cute, un-productive, un-pleasant days which have the most to teach us.  
----

I’m confident Cami will be easy-going again soon…and it will be a relief. I don't LIKE when my patience is challenged. Unconditional love isn't easy to learn. And, when Cami goes back to normal, eventually I’ll go back to taking her for granted, complaining about small things, nagging her father, and other self-serving activities, too.  

 But I’m glad that God made babies—cute, needy, sweet, whiny, selfish babies—to put parents like me in our place now and then.

Little, White-and-Red Lies

My disillusionment with Santa began when I started working with preschoolers. Every year, without fail, the parents with the wildest children would stand near the door, with hats and mittens in hand, yelling across the room, "If you don't come put your coat on, Santa won't bring you any presents!"  I realize not every parent who encourages the Santa myth uses him (unsuccessfully) to manipulate their ill-behaved kids. But this scene got me wondering how and why parents ever started willfully deceiving their children in the first place.

I don't believe the Bible supports the usage of "little white lies."  It says, "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much."  Furthermore, Jesus is called the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

If Truth describes God Himself--I want to imitate it as closely as possible. But does this impact that famous, white-and-red lie many parents adopt at this time of year?  Would truthful parents encourage belief in the North Pole. elves, flying reindeer, and the "Big Man," too?

I think the author of this blog post, Why Lie to Your Kids About Santa, makes some excellent points.

------
Often, when someone questions a trend that LOTS of people embrace, there is backlash. This case in no exception. But, if you read the comments, Clint (the author) responds to each criticism with respect. I appreciate the way he distinguishes between playing pretend with your child (when he/she knows it's just a game) and telling them something is real which isn't. I also appreciate the way he reiterates that parents must decide what is best for their own children. But, even with all the disagreement, it seems to me the commenters largely failed to address Clint's bottom line:

"I want my children to grow up knowing that their dad never, ever lies to them. About anything."

Many commenters argued, "I believed in Santa, but I didn't consider my parents liars!"  Maybe you didn't, but can you see how some children might? Were they being totally truthful? Another person said, "I guess I should take ALL the fiction books off the shelf and throw them away, so my kids don't get confused..."  (Even though Clint already explained he thinks fantasy is fun, if kids are in on the "joke.")  I realize the issue is not related to "salvation"--which is Christianese for "not that important," and I don't think Santa-selling parents are "bad"....

But I also agree with the commenter who summarized:  There is a big difference between reading fiction for entertainment or lessons and selling fiction as truth.

And I want my children to grow up knowing that their mom never, ever lies to them. About anything.

 The article continues:
"This may lead to some awkward moments in life, like a premature discussion about where babies come from. But surely adding a stork to the catalog of misinformation can’t be a better tactic than opting for truth in every situation."

I can almost hear the critics now....
"Oh, so you're going to explain sex positions to your 4-year-old?"

Of course I am! We all know "don't lie to your kids" means "tell them everything you know, before they go to bed tonight."

NO! It's my job to present the truth on whatever level my audience can handle. Let's be honest. We're smart enough to give the kid-version of where babies come from without adding untruths about a stork. We should be able to get our kids to mind without making empty threats about coal in the stocking. And, regardless of where you draw yours, there ought to be a line between "truth" and "falsehood." I don't want my kids to think mine shifts.

I want them to know mommy never, ever lies to them. Whether black, white, or red-and-white.  About anything.

Pseudo-Condolences: Where Is the Love?

Yesterday I posted several disgusting comments by internet-users, who had just learned the news of Michelle Duggar’s miscarriage. Two days ago, I reviewed an article about loving those with whom we disagree (What Does It Have To Do With Love?), and the two posts intersect in several places…

Truthfully, I understand it’s hard to show compassion for somebody you believe invited the problem themselves. Many feel Michelle "should have known better" than carry a high-risk pregnancy, and they declare, "Maybe this will teach her!” It is not Christ-like, but it is understandable. I, too, struggle with impatience and frustration toward people who make bad decisions...

Yet—I state firmly with Dan from the article I reviewed—this should have nothing to do with love. How can someone possibly support the statement , "You don't deserve my pity"?  Who refers to a grieving mother's uterus as a clown car? Who really believes the family deserves ridicule because they tell their story in a public forum? Since when is there any excuse to be completely, unapologetically mean?

 ------

Some of the comments are nothing but unveiled ugliness--sin natures, unchecked and screaming. But the comments by people who mask their hatred as "concern" make me the most sick. Many pose as advocates of Michelle's safety--saying they worry for her health. However, they don't come across very concerned for her spiritual health, encouraging her to worship God the best she can. Nor do they consider if their comments affect her emotional health.

Similarly, some declare concern for her babies....recommending that, instead of carelessly risking a little life, Michelle simply stop giving life altogether. I'm not suggesting that declining to get pregnant is the same as taking a life. But I AM saying that giving a baby a chance to be born--even through complicated pregnancies--isn't barbaric when never getting pregnant always means no chance. I don't buy that people are really worried about theoretical, potential children when they admit they'd prefer if the babies never existed in the first place.

Other good citizens fear that the Duggar children are "publicity stunts," even though the family was independently wealthy before the TV show. They have said repeatedly their real estate properties support the children without the extra money earned from the "sin" of being interesting. The family’s only public “stunt” is remaining dignified while society rips them apart. (A pretty impressive one, I might add.)

Finally, a common accusation remains that the Duggar parents aren't doing their job because they rely on support from the older kids. It seems those critics think all parents need to spend four hours a day, one-on-one with their two kids, teaching them the world revolves around them and the finer points of bad-mouthing reality families on the internet, but it doesn't have to work that way. No, I’m not trying to suggest that parents-of-two always train their kids to be jerks--so don't let the last sentence twist your panties. I don't mean that small families are "wrong," while bigger is better. But, I'm mad at the many, many, many, many people who DO say "smaller is better," and they don't understand all the benefits of sibling support.  They assume the same thing about having lots of children as society does about getting married 'too soon'  :

"Kids should spend time being kids…enjoying their childhood!"

 But what does this really mean? What 'should' kids do with their precious childhood, which gets ruined by spending lots of time together, meeting each other’s needs?

 “Their 12-year-olds handle responsibilities which rival a typical 20-year-old’s workload, and that’s just…just…just…bad!” 

Really?  Then describe the “ideal” childhood. Watching TV? Dancing? Not having a care in the world, besides your own interests? Or maybe just having at least a little time to be at least a little selfish?

Is it a big, unforgivable loss to miss out on those things?

As far as the effects on the children who "don't spend enough time with Mom and Dad," you'd think all the working mothers would stand up for poor Michelle on this one. Child psychologists have been reassuring them for years that 'quality' of time matters, not 'quantity.' Single moms march bravely forward because they hear promises like, "There's nothing wrong with leaving kids in childcare, with strangers, 10-12 hours a day, as long as they know you're doing it for their benefit." Yet. we dare suggest the little Duggars will be damaged, surrounded 24/7 by a huge group of people who love them? Nonsense.

Finally, what about the writer who thinks Michelle's fertility somehow affects another person's infertility? Some accuse her of wrong because "many couples can't have any kids," and obviously this is Michelle’s fault. It's like they think there is just a small pile of babies at the stork factory and the greedy Duggars keep snatching up more, before other mothers get a fair share. Folks, the good fortune of others does NOT automatically result in your misfortune. Baby-making isn't a game with winners and losers…one where Michelle constantly enjoys success at other people's expense. It’s not a competition! 

 And, that commenter who "feels more sorry" for infertile couples needs to write this down: compassion shouldn’t be a competition, either. To say one person (a childless couple) deserves sympathy "more" than another (woman with many kids) assumes that kindness is a limited resource. It eliminates the option of having sympathy for both.

Love shouldn’t be a limited resource.

There is no reason some people should “win” our goodwill, while the rest lose out.  A person who justifies their insensitivity on the grounds they'd rather feel sensitive for someone else resigns their human responsibility to treat everyone with respect and tenderness. These people--who do not understand that the ability to love only increases with the more love we give--are the real examples of people who shouldn't parent. Anybody who lacks compassion, throws insults, or considers children "burdens" if they arrive after "too many" others, probably shouldn't have any.

But, for upstanding people like the Duggar's, the inability to have another baby is nothing but a tragedy.

...one which deserves true, kindness-filled condolences rather than the fake concern of people who do not understand love...

Condolences, Internet Style

The Duggar family, whom I have written about before, lost their 20th baby today. Below are just a few things the glorious, anonymous internet (which I also have written about before) had to say:

The womb is not a clown car.

Posted by: Gigi | December 8, 2011, 9:45 pm 9:45 pm 

Get a clue! ——-God

Posted by: RomeWasntBurnedInaNight | December 8, 2011, 8:39 pm 8:39 pm

Why are the reproductive issues and decisions of this idiot national news? Who in the world announces to the world that she’s had a miscarriage and actually thinks the world cares? These people need to get over themselves already.

Posted by: Mary Kaye | December 8, 2011, 9:02 pm 9:02 pm 

My condolences to the family. maybe time to shut down the oven?

 by AttentionDeficit December 8, 2011 5:48 PM EST

I dont understand anyone on here who is defending this woman. Ive lost a child as well and understand her pain but...... NOBODY needs that many children. She cannot possibly give every one of those the INDIVIDUAL attention they NEED, not to mention she is abusing her body by putting it through that much. The human body was not meant to bear that many children.

Posted by: Anonymous, about an hour ago  

(in response to someone saying the Duggar's choices are no on else's business)

You’re absolutely correct. It is no one’s business. So why is this in the news? Oh yea, because [the Duggar's] issued a press release telling everyone, thus making it our business and open for discussion! If they don’t want to face public opinion they should go raise their herd in private!

Posted by: Jenn | December 8, 2011, 9:28 pm 9:28 pm 

 

I'm glad I'm not alone in not quite feeling 100% sympathetic about it. Yes, miscarriages are tragic. However, I feel a lot more sympathy towards the women in this country who cannot carry their first or second child to term, or who cannot conceive at all, than for a woman who has child after child after child, and then turns to reality TV to help provide an income to raise them. Those who lose child #1 or child #2 to a miscarriage or who cannot conceive deserve my empathy a lot more than Michelle Duggar does. If that makes me callous or unfeeling, so be it, but someone who has 19 kids and opts for more when there are people out there who can't have even one should have little expectation of sympathy for their own sadness at missing out on #20.

Posted by:  AZ, 1 hour ago

Can you imagine if everyone thought like these nutballs!!!!!

 by deohgee December 8, 2011 6:04 PM EST

 -----

If everyone thought like the Duggars, the next generation would know how to work on a team, to live on a budget, and to act on their beliefs even in the face of intense criticism. The world would be full of optimistic individuals too busy thanking God for their blessings, helping their neighbors, and enjoying life to waste time in front of a television...or worse, spewing venom from behind a computer. Comments about clown cars and nutballs would disappear, in favor of prayers and wishes of peace. And, no one would try to justify abandoning morals and attacking fellow humans personally on the basis it's "public news" so it's "fair game."

If everyone thought like the Duggars, every single child would know he/she was desired and deeply loved by Mom and Dad.  

 

This baby's death, ultimately, is a loss for the entire world, which--if his or her siblings are any indication--should mourn the passing of a future self-supporting, God-fearing, life-loving citizen at a time we desperately need more of them....

Prayers for you, Duggar family. May you feel the presence of God and the support of the thousands of internet-users who wish you well...ignoring all the rest.

Just a Clueless Kid

Why would any self-respecting young person listen to the teachers, doctors, and politicians making excuses for them?

Supposedly, if kids see a cartoon camel on a pack of cigarettes, they will have to smoke. If their bodies desire sex, they probably will give in. And if their friends drink or use drugs, we expect our children to run alongside, like so many sheep. This offended me as a teenager, and it should continue to offend youth today.

Where is the faith in our young people? And, if kids really are incapable of making good decisions, where is that magical line between grown up and "too stupid."

When I was sixteen, I gave a speech in public speaking class outlining why I thought the death penalty should be extended to teens. I don't remember all the details, but my biggest point was, "You don't turn 18 and suddenly become aware of right and wrong." Even a toddler, I argued, knows when he or she is forbidden to do something, and will act appropriately sneaky when approaching the cookie jar. Can we really say a 13 or 14-year-old simply misunderstands that killing is a no-no?

You might as well say they're stupid.

Well, friends, (and especially my young ones), the Bible says let no one look down on you because you are young, but set an example for other believers..."  It would be nice if we had a get-out-of-trouble free card--and many adults are trying to hand us one. They call us immature and impulsive. But God says, even in our youth, we are not clueless.  We can set an example.

Nothing in Scripture suggests that kids aren't smart enough, informed enough, or controlled enough to be accountable. Be wary of people who say otherwise. 

In fact, be ANGRY.

Insurance

To what extent should Christians prepare for the "just-in-case" scenario? Where is that line between faith in God and taking unnecessary risks?

It's complicated. And, I have no doubt, it MUST be an individual decision.

This topic was brought up by a friend, who is weighing the pros and cons of vaccinating young girls against HPV--a disease contracted through sexual contact which often leads to cervical cancer. Without dispute, two individuals who come together as virgins and remain faithful to each other will not get HPV. But the question becomes: how often does that scenario play out? Can you be sure your child will conform to the plan?

Everybody knows teens experiment with sex, while STDs among them reach epidemic proportions. So, wouldn't a caring mother elect to vaccinate her daughter out of concern she will make a mistake?  Shouldn't I, as a Christian, teach Cami what God desires and then prepare for the worse?

I don't believe so.

Personally, I believe the vaccine is unnecessary if I'm trusting God has a plan for her life. I believe encouraging my daughter to get a vaccine reveals to her that I don't trust her--which sends a mixed signal. That said, I should mention my own mother argues with me.

When I was 20-years-old, I visited the gynecologist for the first time, for a premarital check-up. (This was about 6 months before the wedding.) The doctor really tried to sell me on the Gardisil (HPV) vaccine, and I remember being frustrated by the way he worded things:

 "It only takes having sex one time to catch it!"
"So some people are just born with it?" I asked for clarification.
"No, it's an STD. But it's spreading like crazy, and having sex with an infected person once puts you at risk."
"But, my fiance and I are virgins," I told him.
Again, he repeated, "The virus causes the most common cases of cervical cancer, which could put your unborn children in danger. Is it something you're willing to gamble?"
Finally, I demanded a straight, this-is-the-situation answer: "If two people have sex with ONLY each other, for life, is there a risk for HPV?" I asked.
"No."
"Well, then that sounds like a prenup to me. Thank you, I will opt out." 

I felt comfortable with my decisions, but my mom wasn't happy. She asked, "Are you willing to risk your life on the belief that Luke will be faithful?!" I was dumbfounded. Uh, yeah, that's why I was marrying him. It wasn't just my physical life at stake--my emotional and spiritual health were being invested in him as well. We would become one flesh, eternally united, dependent on each other in every, single way. This way my vote of faith in him--and in the God who oversees our lives. But Mom made the point many, many others are making: "What's wrong with just-in-case protection?"

-----
Now I'm a mother, too, and this issue will present itself AGAIN when Cami is about 9 years old and a candidate for the shot.

The control-freak in me wants to make SURE my baby stays out of trouble. I want to take precaution to guarantee her safety. But the Holy Spirit in me knows that's impossible.

First of all, none of us takes EVERY precaution to ensure physical safety. Kids die in car wrecks all the time, but we still drive with them. Kids choke, but we still feed them. If we wrapped our children in cotton and never let them out of the house, we'd be considered paranoid. So, clearly, there is a fine line between good, protective mother, and clinically insane. So, which risks are worth risking?

Of course, those who say I can't be sure my daughter will remain a virgin until marriage are correct. But those trying to keep their daughters from every pitfall cannot do so, either. Thankfully, it's not my job to worry about it! I'm supposed to teach Cami Jo what God expects of her, and then trust HE will guard her heart and body. Even at 9, I can have an age-appropriate conversation with her about the shot and why Mommy is refusing it. Something to the effect of: "If you follow God's plan for your life, you won't need to worry about getting sick." The rest is up to her...and her Savior.

But, I recognize than many--even other Christians--feel differently, and that is why I stressed the need for an individual choice. This push to pass a law requiring the vaccine for all girls assaults my parental rights. Throughout history, mothers have disagreed about what is best for their children, and no law forcing us to make the same choice will solve the problem. (Some people think feeding a kid fast food is akin to child abuse. Should we outlaw it? Some mothers think it's appropriate to let a boy wear dresses. Should we make a national vote of it?)  

But, specifically about the vaccine. How do you feel? And, while we're at it, how do you feel about Christian couples signing prenuptial agreements? They promise to be together until death, but prepare for the possibility of breaking that promise... Is this wise or wrong?

This Post is Not About the Baby (Volume Two)

When I first got pregnant, I promised  not to submit post after post of baby-news, pictures, and other items typical of an expectant mother in the blog world. For the most part, I think I did a good job keeping baby updates on Facebook and reserving this space for musings on marriage, education, politics, and the like...

But, when I spent about two weeks on the couch dealing with morning sickness and had nothing else to talk about as a result, I published a piece I titled "This Post is Not About the Baby"--in which I thanked Luke for being a great partner during my nauseated, moody stage. 

Well, folks, I've reached another phase in my life where--if I'm going to post at all--it HAS to be related to the baby. Obviously, she kind of dominates my days now. But, as with "Volume One" of the posts "not about the baby," Cameran only plays a supporting role in my musings today. As I expected, the drastic change she caused in my life has taught me much more about myself than anything else.

In just three weeks, Cami has rocked my world completely. I no longer decide whether to work on one project or another based on how many hours are in the day. Now, I have to figure whether those hours are truly "available," or likely to be spent feeding, rocking, or otherwise caring for Cami.  No longer can I count on a full night's sleep just because I put myself to bed at a decent hour and have nowhere specific to be the next day. Now, it all depends on how long Cami sleeps...  And, for a control freak like me, this has been hard. 

At first, the majority of the New Mommy Stress came from my haywire hormones. I experienced intense anxiety, trouble sleeping, and a sense of loss for my "old" relationship with Luke right off the bat. One night, while he was at work, I was sitting in the middle of the nursery floor, feeding the baby, with tears streaming down my face for no discernable reason except that things were different.  Eventually, I recognized body chemistry was a big factor in my feelings. AND, I knew a good way to preserve a part of my "old" identity was to keep writing. So, I journaled all those emotions. Here is an excerpt:

It’s been hard the last few days… This is what “they” mean when referring to the “baby blues,” I think. But it feels very similar to every time I turn a big corner in my life. Big changes tend to throw me for a loop, emotionally and spiritually. Combine that tendency with the fact that my hormones are out of control, and you can imagine a very tear-filled, fear-filled start to motherhood.


I Googled “Postpartum depression,” and almost every, single site said something like, “If you have thoughts of harming yourself or your baby, get help immediately!” Good Lord, I’m not that bad! But things feel kind of unpredictable right now, leaving me anxious, uncertain, and more-than-a-little-weepy.


When I went through puberty, I had somewhat of an identity crisis. I put a lot of pressure on myself to figure out whether I was athletic or brainy, tomboyish or girly, funny or serious—and I distinctly remember breaking down a few times when I couldn’t settle on certain categories. It seemed crazy not to be sure of who I was, and yet I struggled to “pick one.”


Similarly, when Luke and I started dating and I realized it was getting serious, I panicked while trying to define the relationship. Will we or won’t we get married eventually? If not, why continue to date? (And yet, I hated the idea of a break up.) If we will get married, then….yikes! That’s a lot to think about at 17. How will this affect our college plans? How will we support each other? What does the average couple need to make, per year, to survive? Would this union please God?

For a third example of a change-induced-crazy time, I struggled right after we got married—and right after I started working at the special needs daycare. I found myself reeling from all the “different” surrounding me. We moved out of our parents’ houses, and both of us got jobs for the first time (while continuing our full-time schedules as students). I knew I was capable of handling everything, but I still felt insecure and, most worryingly, doubtful about my decisions. Did I REALLY promise this man FOREVER? (We’d been joined at the hip for over four years at this point, and there was no specific reason to question things. But the permanence and the rapid change FREAKED ME OUT.) Eventually, all the newness caused me to neglect my prayer/journaling discipline, and I fell into a year-long downward spiral from “trying to survive” to “nothing-left-to-give-depressed-and-miserable-rut.”
Two things helped me in all of these milestone crisis situations.
1. Back-and-forth communication with God.
2. Communicating with myself through journaling.
In Junior High, I decided to let God define me, and I learned the important lesson that we don’t have to “pick” one personality over another. I discovered I’m girly AND tomboyish, funny AND serious, brainy AND…well, okay, there isn’t much athleticism in me. But, I realized it’s okay to be a walking contradiction sometimes. Different circumstances call for different responses, and I can be lots of different people when I need to be...
When going crazy over my dating relationship, I finally threw the responsibility to God there, too. I told Him to remove Luke from my life—shut the door in an obvious way—if he wasn’t the man for me. But I asked Him to bless us as we sought His will and to fill our marriage with love if it was meant to be.
And my blog was born the day I realized God was missing from my life yet again. I needed a place to express my thoughts. And, though I felt a little out-of-control, I wanted to write to others about how service to God is the highest human calling, regardless of how we feel. That’s how a rather emotional girl began journaling straight-forward, no-nonsense, unemotional selflessness—sometimes offending people with how detached I'm able to appear regarding certain topics...
Eventually, new things become old things. Crisis situations feel more manageable. And…eventually…even out-of-control situations can begin feeling comfortable.

Well, wouldn't you know that JUST as I was starting to adjust to the latest "crisis situation," my little girl threw another curve ball. For the first two weeks, she slept like an angel and literally only made noise when she absolutely had to. That is, if she was near starvation, she would fuss a little. But the rest of the time she only grunted her disapproval of things from time to time. When she wasn't sleeping or eating, she was staring us in the face--apparently reading our very thoughts with those big, blue eyes. And she rarely saw fit to cry.
 
I think God knew I couldn't handle more stress during those first tender days. Even though Cami was a good baby, her very presence was change enough to make me crazy. But, as I made it over the emotional hurdles through prayer, praise-singing, and journaling, the REAL Cami was unleashed.  :)
 
She still isn't a bad baby. But she has been unusually cranky the last couple of days. I've suspected gas, since she has been extra wiggly and unwilling to let me hold her (unless she's eating)! And I've also thought maybe she's hitting a growth spurt and just needs lots of extra food. Regardless, her daytime sleep has been reduced to less than an hour per nap, and she has done more crying in the last 48 hours than in her first two weeks TOTAL.  (sigh) 
 
----
This post is not about the baby. It's about me. It's about the way I will choose to handle this situation. I've already declared round one, battling the Baby Blues, a victory for me. Instead of letting a dark cloud of depression consume me, I looked to God for my help.... But now, round two has arrived. Will I continue to praise Him, over the noise of my fussy baby?
 
It's difficult to praise when I'm tired and unable to sleep whenever I want. It's difficult to serve my baby girl selflessly when I've gotten comfortable in my selfishness. And, most of all, it's hard to relax and relinquish control of my life to a demanding infant and an invisible God....
 
But, that's what I choose to do.

You Really Can't Stay Pregnant Forever

My daughter, Cameran Joelle McKinney, was born Wednesday, May 4th, at 10:17am--after much, much, much waiting and anticipation. I can hear my mother now: "Amanda, she wasn't really THAT overdue." But Mom's part in this Birth Story Blog Post will reveal she was awfully excited herself!

True, Cami Jo came in her own “perfect time,” as all babies do. But, this is a story with a pretty steep narrative arc. The night before her arrival didn't feel like we were gearing up for "perfection."

(Reader, beware! I worked on this post all morning, between feedings and cuddlings. It is a shamelessly-long, detail-oriented account. I tried not to use embarassing biological terminology--but I didn't censor in length! Grab a cup of coffee before you try to tackle it.)  :)
----

On Monday morning, my doctor told me to prepare for an induction on Wednesday night, if nothing happened on its own sooner. I really hadn't wanted interventions unless necessary, but my impatience and all the things looming on our calendar were tempting me with the idea. (An out-of-state friend's visit and a wedding were the big things approaching too quickly for comfort, if Baby wanted to be two or even THREE weeks late...) I'm not a fan of over-planning every one of life's events, and yet I was ready to have my baby!

Unfortunately, if I let Doc induce me on Wednesday, three out of four grandparents were going to be gone for different reasons and wouldn't be back all weekend! In other words, I needed to have the baby naturally before Wednesday, or go through with the induction and celebrate the birthday without my own Mom and Dad, OR just sit around anxiously for four or five more days hoping baby DIDN'T come until Sunday--all while we inched closer and closer to those big calendar events. Only the first option appealed to me, and I prayed hard my stubborn one wouldn't be stubborn a day longer...

I was absolutely thrilled when contractions started around 2:30am on Tuesday. In fact, I was too happy to fall back asleep, and I spent all day tracking the time between pains and keeping friends/family updated on Facebook. Obviously, I became increasingly uncomfortable, but I couldn't stop cracking jokes and singing to God--who had clearly answered my prayers for miracle timing. When contractions were 5-6 minutes apart and the most intense they’d been all day, we went to the hospital.

These days, I thought the medical community pretty much reduced labor/delivery to a convenience-centered science, for which they have different levers and buttons for different situations and almost ALWAYS provide you with a baby by dinner time. That is to say--I thought sending people away for "false labor" and instructing them to try more natural remedies was basically a thing of the past, particularly since THIS pregnant lady was scheduled for induction 24 hours later anyway. But, apparently it's a different story if your personal OBGYN is off-duty for the day. In that case, they'd rather do what they can to slow the process...

When the nurse examined me, she discovered I was only dilated 1.5 centimeters and 80% effaced. That was exactly what I measured at the doctor's office Monday, before 19 hours worth of contractions! I was devastated my body had done all that work with no external results. AND, I was going on 36 hours with only 2 hours of sleep. The on-call doctor instructed that Luke and I try walking the hospital halls for an hour, to see if I made physical progress. But otherwise they would call it "Braxton Hicks" and send me away.

People, these were not Braxton Hicks, and I knew it. I realize that young, first-time mothers like me have the potential to become over-excited and jump the gun. Or that those with less pain tolerance may be sure they’re dying long before things really get going. But, when I tell the nurse the pain level is at a 5 or 6 (and had been growing all day) I’m not just looking for drugs!

Luke and I decided to oblige with the hall-walking attempt, but I was pretty skeptical an hour would do much good after all day of no progress. We stopped every couple of minutes so I could grab the wall and breath through a contraction, AND we prayed some more… only to have the nurse announce “no change” at the end of the hour.

I was frustrated because the biggest pains I felt were LOW, in my pelvic area, and the monitors weren’t registering that far down. I explained to the nurse where all the pressure was, and she said, “We monitor up higher, because contractions start at the top of the uterus.” Then she declared, “Yours just aren’t hard enough to cause dilation yet.” This brought me to tears. They think I’m just a can’t-hack-it, I thought to myself. And—because I was mentally and physically exhausted, and because I was starving, and because I was in pain, and because I knew I wasn’t going to sleep again that night (yet would be expected to find energy to labor and deliver the next day), I cried. The whole way home, I blubbered to my very sweet, also-tired, also-disappointed husband.

Bitterly, I thought, “So much for miracle timing, God!”

Seriously, I could barely think straight, and my eyes kept closing spontaneously. But then a sharp pain in my abdomen would jolt me up so I could cry some more. (I kept thinking, “We are driving the wrong direction! You’re not supposed to send a woman in labor AWAY from the hospital!!!) They gave me a pain shot and sleeping pill before discharge, but those only allowed me about 2 hours of very rough sleep at home. At about 4:30am, I couldn’t even pretend to sleep anymore. I woke up Luke and said, “We have to do something.” My plan was to go back to the hospital and demand that they simply start the induction a little earlier than scheduled. There was no need to start contractions! So, they could break my water, administer Pitocin, or whatever—I didn’t care.

At first, Luke was hesitant. (He was still tired and didn’t want to make the drive if they were going to turn us down again.) But, while I was standing at the bathroom sink, I had a contraction that lasted at least a minute, and I felt the baby’s head move down about 2 inches. I marched to where Luke was in the living room and said, “I’m NOT having another contraction like that one in this house! We’re going!”

We checked into the hospital at 7:00am, and (praise the Lord) I had dilated to 5 centimeters. I remember getting this news, but I don’t remember much else except the back of my own eyelids, answering a few registration questions, and breathing through very, very frequent contractions. The pressure in my lower abdomen was intense, and I kept thinking “I NEED AN EPIDURAL!” I still thought we had 6-7 hours to go, at least, and I wanted to be numb enough to take a nap and recoup for pushing.

But, as it turned out, the epidural didn’t work like I’d hoped. It only really took the edge off. (The nurse said it “takes out the sting” but “doesn’t always take away the pressure” which had been the worst part all along!) My emotionally lowest point came while I was trying to hold still as he inserted the needle and I had THREE contractions while sitting on the edge of the bed. I could feel Baby’s head like it was poking out already, but I didn't realize that meant delilvery was close!

By the time the medication “kicked in” 45 minutes later, it was time to push! The pressure never went away, but I finally had a job to do besides “try to relax.” I told the nurse I couldn’t handle a long episode of pushing—I was too tired. But she told me if I worked hard for just a little while longer, I could sleep as a reward! That inspired me. Cameran arrived after 20 minutes of pushing, and only 3 hours after we checked in. In fact, the doctor tried to say “okay, stop pushing” once the head came out, but Cammie literally jumped into her arms after that anyway. I was out-of-my-mind exhausted immediately before hand, but hearing her cry was the adrenaline rush I needed.

Luke had a phone in each hand and was taking pictures/texting as soon as she popped out. (Actually, my dad ratted on him because my parents got a text that said, “I see hair,”—meaning Luke was texting even before she was born. Dad intentionally didn’t reply so as not to get Luke in trouble, but I was way too disoriented to notice!) And, within minutes of Cami’s vitals being taken (while the doctor was still cleaning me up) my mom walked in! She had gotten the call we were in the hospital approximately 2 hours earlier. And the drive to the hospital takes at least 1.75….legally. She even missed her exit and had to drive 18 miles out of the way! I have no idea how she did it.

So, I guess there are two morals to that part of the story. One is: despite what you see in the movies, sometimes people don’t get pulled over while racing to meet a new baby. And, two: God’s perfect timing triumphs, all the time.

Anyway, that’s the full-details version of the McBaby’s arrival. Since then, we have enjoyed a very alert, very strong, very happy little girl. She’s a great host—staying awake to look at EVERYONE who comes to meet her. The nurses say they’ve never seen a newborn’s eyes as much as we see hers.

It may take several days, or even weeks, for me to start blogging regularly again.

But I think Cameran is the best excuse I've ever had...

More Thoughts on Love vs. Enabling

Awhile back, I wrote a post called CANI Get Free Money, Please? in which I asked the question "What is the REAL root of poverty" which we should be attacking? Do people just need "a chance?" A little boost of money and encouragement? (I would say some do.) But what about those who receive one opportunity after another and still don't learn? Often, our best charities even have the opposite of their intended effect, causing ingratitude and then absolute dependence.

Several readers commented saying, "Yeah, there is someone like that in my family..." Despite the efforts of friends and loved who try lending a hand, these individuals continue making the same bad choices that get them into trouble--financially and emotionally. And that leaves even compassionate people asking: when do we step back and let them fall on their rear ends? Does that make us mean? And at what point does our service and love turn into enablement?

Though that was several weeks ago, the topic has continued to spin in my mind. Then, after talking with my mom, I realized a bit of GOOD news for anyone struggling while observing the poor choices of another.

----

When I was training my replacement at the daycare, she observed I had a "different style" than some of the other teachers.

For one thing, I was very matter-of-fact with the kids. There wasn't much coddling and cooing. I was to-the-point with my expectations, clear about what would happen if they weren't met, and swift in discipline when the kids challenged me. So, when my friend said I was "different," I laughed and said, "You mean I'm 'mean'?"  She nodded, but added, "Except, the kids don't seem to see it that way!"  I took this as a compliment. But, more importantly, she was right about how the kids viewed me.

I was a mean teacher. I plan to be a "mean" Mommy. Because kids--like wise adults--know when they've messed up and appreciate the correction that comes from a loving source. They may scream "I hate you!" in the heat of the emotion. But at the end of the day, they don't really feel "wronged" when stuck in the corner for hitting a friend. My kids knew when they were to blame because I did my best to teach them real justice always has consequences...

There was a chair in the classroom with very thin legs--meaning, the kids loved to stand on it. I literally can't count how many times a student challenged that chair and wound up crying in a tangled heap on the floor. So, of course, everytime I saw somebody climb up, I warned, "You are not supposed to stand on that chair. You will fall."  That chair--with it's perfect track record for taking down children--is the perfect example of God's Moral Law. 

Many, many times, God says "If you do THIS, then THIS will happen." It's inescapable. The law of the earth is as contant--rather, more so--than the law of children falling off that chair. Sex should be kept within the context of marriage. One man, one woman, for life. What happens when you climb onto THAT chair? Aids and other STDs, unwanted pregnancies, affairs and broken families. Even if none of those happen, there are psychological and spiritual consequences. Period. God says enjoy food and drink in moderation. Want to challenge that rule? Take a look at obesity and alcoholism, for examples of the consequences.

I didn't enjoy watching my students scrape their knees (I would have preferred they take my verbal warning and not require the hard way of learning). But I am glad to know they were learning the cause-and-effect pattern that follows all of us for the rest of our lives. Inescapably.

Unfortunately, many kids figure this out in preschool and then UN-learn it later in life. Too many of us tries to dismiss the Moral Law, with the belief they are the exception to everything...  ("Well, Miss Amanda, maybe the chair was dangerous for YOU. But, it's different for me...")

----
My mom surprised us with a visit on Easter Sunday. (And it really was surprising, because my parents live an hour and a half away!) She brought us Easter baskets, since we're not traveling any more until Baby arrives, and then we chatted for a couple hours. At the time, I was upset over three or four different incidences in which a hard-headed, less-informed person refused the advice of a wiser party. It used to be that people respected others with more experience than themselves. Younger generations went to their elders with questions, rather than being offended by suggestions. But the world truly is full of unteachable people these days--people who think what applies to one doesn't apply to another. And, I was pretty worked up over one of the incidents in particular, where several young adults verbally ripped into an older lady with all three of my "favorite" culturally-acceptable defenses: "Who do you think you are?" "This is my life." AND "Don't judge me."  I wrote this post somewhat in response to that.

So, when my mom started talking about the ladies at the homeless shelter in which she worked--and when she mentioned the strict rules and consequences they enforce there--I just assumed the women who get in trouble are equally defensive about it.

"Let me guess," I said to Mom.  "You hear things like, 'Who are you to tell me what to do?' 'You are mean!' all the time.'"

But, Mom shook her head.

"No, the ladies at the shelter have hit rock bottom," she said. "Most of them are well aware they've messed up, and they're ready to listen when people tell them how to fix it."

Eureka! The good news! Sometimes allowing someone to experience the consequences DOES work, and the most "loving" thing one can do is wait for the attitude of humility that comes from a broken and fallen individual.

My mom's words made me think of that chair in the classroom and realize sometimes people do learn lessons. In fact, her ladies and my children, because they learn, are wiser than a sad majority of the rest of us. Yeah, they make poor choices and fall hard--but neither group truly hates the messenger for saying, "I told you so." Instead, even a child recognizes when his or her own choices come back to haunt them. And, after dusting themselves off, the kids and ladies both are humble enough to come back and listen to the warnings next time around.

-----
The REAL root of many problems is enablement, when a "nice" teacher or "nice" parent can't bear to watch a loved one fall. When someone--for all their good intentions--absorbs the consequences or makes excuses for the poor choices of another, it causes complete ignorance of true justice. 

There ARE consequences for every action.

Those who can take advice about cause-and-effect will have an easier life in general. BUT, when someone simply won't learn from verbal warnings, we have to let them crash.