Loaf of Trouble

Get out your pens, Ladies.

Today I'm sharing my recipe for making the perfect Loaf of Trouble:

Ingredients

-4-6 pieces of chicken, some stuffing, and breadcrumbs

-1 cup of Fatigue (the "Monthly Visitor" brand works best)

-1 small, cabinet-raiding child

-An over-worked husband, divided. (They separate like eggs: allow your husband very little sleep over several days, and you'll soon be left with just a shell.)

-Equal parts Over-sensitivity and Self-Interest

-Poor Judgement, to taste

Method

While turning the chicken, stuffing, and breadcrumbs into a meal, the chef should trip over the cabinet-raiding child several times, until mildly annoyed. (Note: if working near a recently-swept floor, pour breadcrumbs on it.)  Next, ask the conscious half of the husband to look after baby--save the rest for later. Place over heat.  Don't worry if husband doesn't require much heat before sweetly agreeing--as mine did yesterday. Move to last step.

Use liberal amounts of poor judgement to spread Self-Interest and Over-Sensitivity on top of the remaining (exhausted shell) portion of husband. 

Sample technique:

Wife: It would be great if you'd fix the fridge today.

Husband: I already know.

Wife: You seem grumpy.

Husband: I'm tired.

Wife: You're short-fused.

Husband: Maybe you're being too sensitive.

Wife: So, I just have to deal with it, because you're tired?

Husband:  Oh, here we go.

Wife: What's THAT supposed to mean?...

Continue pounding dough in this manner, until serving raw.

Variations:

Last night, Luke took my Loaf of Trouble and sweetened it with patience and kindness until it was unrecognizable. At 3:15am--which is wide-awake time for a third shift person--Luke woke me to apologize for his part in the baking. He said his backwards-schedule complicates things; he struggles with irritability during his "off-hours." But he also called this “an excuse” which was "too easy." 

Then he promised to work on communicating better--so that it’s harder for me to cook up Trouble in the future.

Luke wrote: “A duet is more beautiful when each singer works to make the other sound more beautiful, instead of fighting to be heard above the other.”   I couldn’t agree more. And I’m grateful for the way he reached out to me, though I was equally guilty of wrong. It’s easy to harmonize with someone like that…

In conclusion, it takes two people to bake a Loaf of Trouble; thus, it only takes one to sabotage it, and make a sweeter variation instead.   

Thanks, honey, for being that person this time around!   

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.

The Service of Censorship

As a conservative--and a rampant internet user--I'm unimpressed with the current push to regulate and censor online activity.

I believe it's my responsibility not to look at things or listen to things which offend me. I can't control what other people post, and writing laws just whittles away at freedom. But I can control whether I subject myself to things which offend me.

This concept motivated my post, "If You Don't Like My Teaching..."  Anyone who stumbles onto my blog, hears my teaching, and finds the material horrendous, needs only to exit my classroom.  Nobody is making anyone stick around. The reader's counterpoint to "freedom of speech" is the "freedom to plug his or her ears," so to speak.

Yet, as a Christian, I'm confronted with the responsibility of personal censorship. To an extent, I must guard what I say to others. These two beliefs dance a complicated tango. 

Where does my call to "be considerate" "watch your tongue" and "live at peace with everyone" meet the listener’s responsibility to grow thicker skin and ignore things with which they disagree?

---

 I think audiences play a huge part in whether we censor or speak freely.  For example, with Luke, I use virtually no brain-to-mouth filter. I may tell him, "There is green slime coming from every hole in my face,” whereas, to the cashier at Aldi who asks, “How are you?” I’d simply say, “Fine.”  But this, of course, is just social etiquette. It wouldn't be wrong to tell the cashier my sinuses are full of mucous...just awkward.  What about when I tell Luke things which would be rude to say in front of others?  Is it okay to "rant" or "vent" to a trusted confidant, when popular culture says, "If you wouldn't say it to a person's face, don't say it at all"  ?   

Before you answer, consider the many audience-specific calculations we make.  We tell stories in front of adults we wouldn't share with children. We yell things at other drivers in the winter which we'd repress if the windows were down. And, most interestingly, we censor our choices of humor greatly, depending on who's listening. I had a friend in middle school who HATED the blonde stereotype, so she told blonde-related jokes using “red-head” instead.  A silly preference, perhaps. But, when I was in her company, I censored myself, for her sake.   What about jokes which are racist or sexist? Is it EVER okay to tease, using words like "retarded," "nigger," "faggot"....? What if you're joking with one or two people who know you're just kidding?

One thing is for certain: it would be downright mean to continue telling standard blonde-jokes to my friend if I knew she really hated them.  One-on-one with each other, we tend to be more careful. If our audience is small, we at least recognize our responsibility to be gentle, and it's easier to censor.

But what about bigger audiences…especially those of mixed beliefs?

My dad makes his living as a stand-up comic. He doesn't use filthy language or off-colored humor. Yet, there still are people who find his show "offensive" for one reason or another. He has been told he is disrespectful toward my mom (as if she hasn't seen the show and can't speak for herself); some say switching to a high-pitched voice is discriminatory against women; and one person said his use of an electronic cigarette (and playing practical jokes with it) are insensitive to someone who has lung cancer...

Dad says it just goes to prove you can't make everyone happy. Somebody will be offended about something, every time. But Dad can't control the responses of audience members any more than I can convince readers to agree with me. The only thing we can do is make sure our own consciences are clear.

So when are we released of our burden to censor ourselves for certain people?  There is no doubt the quality of a product suffers if writers, comics, painters, musicians, etc. try to please the .1% of people who dislike it, instead of continuing to work for their loyal fans. But, as a Christian, isn't it my dad's job--isn't it my job--to be considerate and live at peace with everyone?
 ----


Feel free to choose any of the offshoots to the main topic and give me your thoughts. To what extent should we censor ourselves? How does audience size come in to play? If I know certain topics frustrate somebody, should I steer clear of them at all times? Are there different rules for jokes? What if the things someone says are offensive... but true?

How can we use censorship as a service of love toward others?

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.

Good Reasons to be Selfish

Reasons to be Rude:

You didn't get enough sleep.
Traffic is moving slowly.
You don't feel like "yourself" today.
You disagree with someone.
You're under stress at work.
You're under stress at home.
So-and-so was rude first.
You have the right to free speech.
You have a "big" personality.
You were joking.
You've been un-selfish for a long time, and you just snapped.
You're online.
No one will know.
Other people are more selfish than you.
You're "right."
Someone else is "wrong."
You're just giving your opinion.
You're criticizing someone famous and he/she should expect negativity.
You learned it from your parents.
You're on a different medication.
They don't have to listen.
Your service was lousy.
You're looking out for number 1.

"I'm not the only one who thinks Barack O-blah-blah is ruining the country."  "I just want to enjoy my meal in peace, and sales pitches annoy me." "I feel bad they lost a child, but the Duggar's shouldn't have gotten pregnant again." "This is just how I am--take it or leave it."  "If you don't like it, make your blog private."  "I've been feeling lonely, and I'm tired of asking God to fix me all the time."

Good Reasons to be Rude:

.

--------------------------
 Regardless of our many, many, many excuses, rudeness is pure, inexcusable selfishness. We can't be rude and loving at the same time; we can't possibly focus on serving others while justifying a bad attitude toward them.


Comment with other common "reasons to be rude."

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.

What Does That Have to Do With Love?

A commenter recommended this article to me: I'm Christian Unless You're Gay.

It is written by a blogger named Dan, begging people of all beliefs to love one another unconditionally. Read it, and tell me what you think.

Then, you can read below to hear my thoughts.
______
 

In general, I think this guy is totally right. He wants people to be kind, respectful, and loving, regardless of the differences which separate them, and he reminds readers this same principle is found in all the most dominant religions. He's right!

If I had to label his thesis statement, I think it's this one:

“I know there are many here who believe that living a homosexual life is a sin. Okay. But, what does that have to do with love?...What does that have to do with love? Come on. Don’t we understand? Don’t we get it? To put our arm around someone who is gay, someone who has an addiction, somebody who lives a different lifestyle, someone who is not what we think they should be… doing that has nothing to do with enabling them or accepting what they do as okay by us. It has nothing to do with encouraging them in their practice of what you or I might feel or believe is wrong vs. right. It has everything to do with being a good human being.” 

Those actions: putting your arm around someone…walking through life with them…treating them with dignity even though they are different--that is the very definition of love. 

Jesus said it’s too easy to “love” someone who agrees with you. Even evil people love their friends and family. But you don't really understand the term until you've learned to "love your enemy." Jesus was hated both by critics in his day and many since then, but he died for all of us anyway. That’s real love. He was spit on by the guards nailing Him to the cross, but He said, “Father, forgive them.” 

That is real love.

Dan was sooooo very right with the above paragraph, that I was a little concerned when he said, "[loving people are] able to look at [others] and only see strength. Beauty. Potential. Hope… Isn’t that what love actually is?"   (emphasis mine)

Part of love is recognizing beauty and potential. And, like Dan, the Bible associates love with the word "hope."  (Love is patient, love is kind, it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.)

But this last part about "persevering" makes me believe there is more to the story. What are we supposed to persevere through? That seems to indicate a change is coming, doesn't it? What did Dan mean when he said loves sees potential and "hope?" I think it suggests we are optimistic regarding the future of the person you love? If you really see potential in a man or woman, wouldn't you hope he or she reaches it? I don't think that "love" would leave people in a bad place, if there are things they can do to be better. Consider the alcoholic, or similarly self-destructive person. Their loved ones are the people who MOST want to see them change--not because they hate who they are, but precisely the opposite. 

I realize this is a delicate balance. Too many “religious people” think they can save strangers from their sin if they preach long enough, and it ends badly--even though taking biblical advice ultimately would help the sufferer. The fact remains, we must prove our love for others before we earn the right to speak about delicate issues. Without love, pointing out a person's flaws only hurts feelings and starts wars. 

For the most part, I think Dan would agree with me on all of the above. There was just one thing he said, which I'd like to question:

"[all religions teach] love for others as the basis for all happiness, and never did they accompany such mandates with a list of unlovable actions or deeds."     (emphasis mine) 

I believe this is the only sentence in the whole post with which I flatly disagree. Maybe he just worded it carelessly and actually believes differently than the quote sounds. But it seems to me that every, single religion (and every non-religious individual) DOES keep a list of unlovable actions. We each have a moral code--a sense of right and wrong--which is not a bad thing.  

 Our lists of unlovable actions often include: murder, greed, dishonesty, and selfishness, which we have good reason not to love.  Dan himself writes this entire post about something on his unlovable list: the act of being unloving.

He meant to say, I believe, that none of the religions have a list of deeds or actions which make a person unlovable, though the actions themselves are despicable.

I wouldn't call his actions "unloving," even though he speaks pretty harshly about the human condition because his "beef" is with behavior. He is allowed to write about how awful we treat each other and how we need to show love without being contradictory because “love” doesn’t mean “celebrating everything everybody does all the time.” Love is treating somebody with the same esteem and kindness you would IF YOU DID agree with everything they did. It is acknowledging a person's worth and making everything you say to them--whether praise or reprimand--retains their dignity.

When you truly love someone, you will have their best interests at heart, at all times. And that is why I returned to agreement with Dan when he wrote:

“I wish with everything inside of me that [my friend’s homosexuality] didn’t make any difference to others. I wish we didn’t all have to find ways that we’re better than others or more holy and saintly than others in order to feel better about our own messy selves. I wish people wouldn’t cluster entire groups of people together and declare the whole lot unworthy of any love and respect.” 

 

Part of me wants to get defensive along the lines of:

"Just who are these people 'declare whole groups of people unworthy of any love and respect?' Dan already mentioned the Westboro Baptist Church is hated by almost everybody else in the country precisely because the mainstream belief is they are WRONG. I can say with certainty that every, single church I’ve ever attended teaches that we all sin, and we should love our neighbor regardless of how his sin looks. Everybody I know agrees that telling "fags" that they will "burn in Hell" is NOT love, so just who is Dan talking about?"

But, I can't be too defensive because I realize the fact that churches preach unconditional love doesn’t mean their members practice it 100% of the time. And--just because we aren't radical, sign-carrying, name-calling bigots doesn't mean we always have a pure, graceful, loving attitudes.  Yes, I worry that telling Christians "not to judge" causes the pendulum to swing the other way--to a point where we aren't willing to confront anybody about things God clearly commands against, even when they are leaders in our own buildings! But, Dan wasn't talking about a Christian who gets away with sin because other Christians are too spineless to correct it. He was talking about communicating with love--with the believer AND the nonbeliever, whether in agreement or disagreement. Never, ever, ever forget love.  And, with that I will repeat, I completely agree.

----

To Sarah, the commenter who brought Dan's post to my attention, I want to repeat my apology.

The last time we spoke (under my post “If You Don’t Like MyTeaching…”) you told me you understood getting carried away with beliefs and struggling with words. You said, “I think it is a common issue for people with passion...” and I agree completely. There have been times my loving intentions have gotten lost behind the WAY I’ve delivered the message.  And, since love is an action, the delivery is important. If I didn’t deliver the message with love, then I wasn’t loving at all. There have been times I handled critics with respect (for instance, the comments section of Teaching Little Apes.) But, recently, I got off track.

You also said, “To be honest, I would rather be passionate and struggle with how to express it than lack passion.”   And I agree with this, too. Intense passion is bound to ruffle feathers, but it sure beats apathy. And, depending on the importance of the topic, sometimes we SHOULD be extremely passionate--and loud, in-your-face, and urgent.  

The reason I am passionate about some of the topics on this blog, is I believe it's more than opinion. This is about ultimate truth and whether my actions and your actions please the Creator. All of us must be here on earth for a reason, and it turns out we face a life or death issue: SIN. We deserve Hell, but the Son of God came and died on a cross so that our sin doesn’t have to separate us from Him.  We can be forgiven and spend eternity in Heaven, but we must actively accept Jesus’ offer. Those who get to know him personally will be saved.  When God asks me to account for all the things I’ve done wrong, Jesus will say, “She is with me. I paid for her ticket.”  But those who do not know Him personally will be sent to the pit of fire.  

So though I agree with Dan that our beliefs should not affect how we love, I do not believe that love ignores sin.  This would mean letting a loved one go to Hell. I will continue writing about selfishness, and how we can allow God to erase it a little at a time, because it is important. And I also write so that fellow believers can know they aren’t the only ones struggling to be good. (Some former posts about my struggles can be found in the “confessions” tab.)

 

But, in the meantime, my passionate hatred for unholiness probably will continue to flare, and some of my posts will come across as hatred for the people who DO unholy things, even though that isn't my intent. (As I explained, I'm a person who does unholy things myself sometimes.) I also recognize that some of the Bible’s messages leave people feeling uncomfortable no matter how loving we are. None of us LIKES the guilt and sorrow we experience when we realize we’ve messed up in God's eyes. But I will continue praying God makes me more like Jesus so that I can share even those hard-to-hear truths with love.

Jesus took the message, “You’re going to Hell without me” and made it sweet by doing what Dan recommended…putting his arm around sinners and giving them hope.