The Road Not Chosen

Sarah Palin (For Molly)

Molly left a comment yesterday that she couldn't believe I hadn't blogged about Sarah Palin yet. I've been out of town and have spent the last 2 days listening to my 86 yr. old beloved mother-in-law rant (which she rarely does) about Sarah Palin. Mom's very definite opinion is that Palin shouldn't be a governor much less a VP pick because she has 5 kids, including a 4 month old baby w. DS. Keep in mind that Mom has had a front row seat in seeing what it takes to raise a special needs child: the work, the therapy, the dedication it takes to make sure the baby gets everything needed from the start to make the path easier in future years.

While I personally love the idea of a woman VP, over the last 3 days several things have bothered me. Here they are.

1. How is she going to give Trig what he needs during the important first years of his life? Parents & professionals know how vital Early Intervention is to babies with special needs. This is hard to do without mom & dad being very hands on. Sure, a nanny or sibling or therapist could do it but part of what makes it successful is the bond between parent & child. You just can't get that a couple of hours a day. I went back to work when Evan was 18 mths. old. I got up early in the morning to do his therapies. I worked with him from the moment I got home until he went to bed. (There is a lot to do, tactile stimulation, play games that are helpful for muscle, speech & brain development, etc.) That intense period of time laid the groundwork for his success in school and now his adult life.

2. She has 5 kids. As a VP how involved is she going to be able to be in their lives? Is her husband going to become Mister Mom? What's the plan? She wouldn't be around very much. It's not like being a VP of a small company, it's the U.S.of A. for crying out loud!

And this sad news just in:

3. Her 17 year old daughter is 5 months pregnant.

All of the above, in my opinion, means that Sarah Palin has unfortunately put her political aspirations above the good of her family. Honestly, she needs to be there for her family big time right now. Not gone for 8 weeks on the campaign trail. Not holding the position of V.P. for 4 years.

Yes, women should run for political office, but not at the cost of their families. If McCain had the same stuff going on in his family, I'd say the same thing. Pull back and regroup and make sure your family is healthy first.

Our children are our responsibility, our legacy, our priority. Sarah Palin needs to remember that.

P.S. McCain can kiss the Presidency good-bye. He knew that Palin's daughter was pregnant. He's been in politics since dinosaurs roamed the earth. He had to know what a fire storm this would cause. He and Palin have exposed that poor girl to nationwide ridicule and viciousness. McCain made this decision for purely political reasons in a desperate bid to look more "current" than Obama. McCain had a lot more experienced people (women included) to pick from. If his judgement is this poor when it counts the most, I am worried what his judgement would be like as President.

P.P.S. Do they still have write-in votes???

Some Trust In Chariots

"Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God." Psalm 20:7

and

"Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, who rely on horses, who trust in the multitude of their chariots and in the great strength of their horsemen, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel, or seek help from the Lord." Is. 30:1

 

I spoke on this subject a week or so ago, but I feel compelled to come back to it briefly. Our responsibility as Christians who live in America is to use the tools God has given us: prayer, the Bible, wisdom, to help know whom He wants us to vote for as President or for any other elected office.

A good way to help discern which candidate to vote for is to perform a simple litmus test doing two things. First, find out what the candidates have voted for if they have held office previously. Not what they have said in a flowery speech or promised in an interview, but what they really have supported through their actions. Second, compare that to the values given us in the Bible. How does it stack up? Which candidate more closely follows what God says?

I will point out here that a candidate who is not a Christian may more closely follow biblical principles in their politics than one who says they are Christian. Many people will automatically vote for someone who proclaims their Christianity without examining that person's political actions. Would you buy a house based solely on what the outside looked like or would you make sure to examine the interior and check the foundation? To go strictly by appearances is foolish.

I first voted when I was 18 years old and the Vietnam war was still going. Now I am 50 and have lived through a lot of elections, people! I've seen 'em come & go, promises made & broken, promised made & kept, wars ended and wars begun.

Through all this I have come to believe that God will hold us responsible for who we back as our country's "king". Because of this, I do my best to not vote lightly, not vote my emotions or vote my party. I do my best to try to hear from God on what to do and sometimes He has surprised me! 

So this political season, do the hard thing. Dig deeper. Do your research. Don't be moved by speeches or promises from either side. Refuse to be impressed by what appears to be a show of strength. Examine the candidates. Pray and ask God for wisdom. Most of all, be open to what God may say to you, even if it goes against your party leanings. And finally,

Check the foundation!

History Has Been & Will Be Made

Tuesday night was, has already been said everywhere, a historic night for our country. An African-American is the presumptive nominee of his party for President of the United States. Those of you who are younger know that this is historical but exactly how much so will elude you. I say that not because I think you don't understand the significance of the moment but you cannot feel the moment the way those of us who lived through the turmoil of the Civil Rights era feel it.

I was 8 years old in August, 1965, when the Watts Riots occurred in Los Angeles. My parents had good friends, Ben & Pearl, who lived in Watts at the time. A couple of days after the riots my parents & I went to Watts to help them clean up. I still remember how angry Ben was that his own people burned their neighborhood down. I also remember how sad he was that his ethnic group was still having to fight for their basic rights as Americans and how that rage had turned to self-destruction of a community. Seeing the still-smoking ruins of a neighborhood was shocking to me, but I had wonderful parents who explained how God loves everyone and how we can't hate people because of the color of their skin. And, most importantly, they walked the talk! Even though I was young, they didn't try to shield me from the realities of poverty, discrimination and hatred. (And I am grateful for those lessons learned early not only in Watts but on Navajo reservations and tiny villages in Mexico.)

I have also know older African-Americans who lived in the South and were not allowed to vote without literally risking their lives. I've listened to their stories and admired their bravery and wondered if I would have been as bold. So I was glad to see on Tuesday that our country has come so far in such a relatively short amount of time.

All that being said, The Constructive Curmudgeon has a great post on presidential politics and Obama in particular which I encourage you to read. It sums up a lot of what I think. While I applaud the nomination of an African-American, I cannot applaud the man's politics or some of his moral judgements. (I will also say I'm not super-crazy about McCain but his views are more closely aligned to what I feel is important.)

We do have a responsibility as Christians to vote for the candidates who are most closely aligned to the moral absolutes God has given us. There may even be candidates who are not Christian in belief but whose ethics and morals line up with the Bible. And, as I feel the case is now, it's really almost picking the lesser of two evils.

I encourage you to pray for Obama & his family's safety during this time, and for him to draw closer to God. As much as I want change in this country, as much as I'm ready for something new and fresh, for me it unfortunately isn't going to come from the Congressman from Illinois.

Stray Thoughts

A couple news items have piqued my interest this week so I thought I'd share them with you.

The first item was an article on msnbc.com titled "As food prices spiral, farmers, others profit" . Just the title alone irritated me. I've read/seen a few articles in the last couple of months about how farmers are making big bucks, inferring that they are profiting at the expense of others. If I still lived in Los Angeles I would probably be saying "Hey! That's not fair!!" and getting all uppity about it. Fortunately I have had the privilege of living in a rural farming community for the last 17 years which has given me an entirely different perspective on things.

For instance, yes, farmers may be doing well this year but more often than not, family farming isn't a money-making venture. If you know anything about growing things, you also know that you are always at the mercy of the elements. What looks like a great crop in May can be devastated by any number of events in June, ruining the entire growing season. So I say "God bless the farmers" and I'm glad they are seeing some good profit this year. Hopefully it will make up for the years when they have lost money or barely broke even.

In my region there has been so much rain that the corn farmers are in danger of losing their crops, as the ground is too wet for the corn to grow properly. Once you have prepped the ground & planted corn, it's too late to plant something else, like soybeans. You're just out of luck. So the farmers here may not end up doing so hot this year.

If you are a city person who is unlearned in the ways of farming, just be glad that some family in the Midwest can pay off their bills from the previous years when they fed you and didn't make a profit from it. (Yes, I know about subsidies and, yes, I know about corporate farms. But I'm talking about the independent family farmer here.)

The other item that got my attention was a piece on NBC the other night that talked about how we are all suffering because we can't afford to buy (insert pricey grocery item here). Many of us have become incredibly spoiled and lost all perspective when it comes to "wants" and "needs". We have even raised our kids to think that "wants" are "needs". Well, hello reality check!

I wonder if we would be so cranky about having to "do without" if we had been through the Depression? My parents aren't complaining much about the economy. They're just adjusting like they've had to do before in their lifetime. Of course, because they went through the Depression, they have been more wise with their finances than we Baby Boomers. Their generation, generally speaking, has not taken the time of plenty for granted.

Ecclesiastes speaks eloquently about the seasons of life. In Chapter 11, Solomon says:

"Divide your investments among many places for you do not know what risks might lie ahead...Plant your seed in the morning and keep busy all afternoon, for you don't know if profit will come from one activity or another-or maybe both."

I know there are people who are genuinely in need. CNN reported last night that visits to food banks are up 55% in the last few months and that a lot of those visitors are first-timers. I do believe, however, that we may have lost perspective on what we "need" to get along. Is it important to buy name-brand chips instead of store brand? Why do we feel deprived when we have to conserve our resources? Can we just acknowledge that there are economic seasons of life and we are currently in a tough time that will likely pass in a year or two?

There is an interesting article on The Art of Manliness blog about sacrifice that points out what Americans were willing to go through during WWII to help their nation. A quote from President Roosevelt really resonated with me:

Here at home everyone will have the privilege of making whatever self-denial is necessary, not only to supply our fighting men, but to keep the economic structure of our country fortified and secure during the war and after the war. This will require, of course, the abandonment not only of luxuries but of many other creature comforts….

I encourage you to read that post. It really helps put things into perspective for the sacrifices we must make during this time of war and of economic downturn.

As Christians, we have the assurance that God is the one who supplies what we need when we need it. All that we have was put into our hands because of His grace and provision towards us.

My goal is to complain less about cost of living and concentrate more on the many blessings that already are in my life. I also want to look more outside my four walls and ask God where to plant my seed so that it will do the most good.  There is always someone worse off and perhaps I can be of service to them instead of being a discouragement to myself.

Technorati Tags: economy, farming

Can You Define The Word "Rock" Please?

Sunday night the 2 main TV events were hilariously at odds with each other.  First was the "Compassion Forum" discussions with Obama & Clinton where they fielded questions about faith, compassion, Darfur, AIDS, etc. and tried to prove that each of them was the only one who was the most...whatever. It was really just a continuation of the previous umpteen debates and forums that have taken place this long, long political season. Snipe, stab, innuendo, veiled accusation. "A vote for me will take you into the promised land."

The other event was the grand finale of Rock of Love 2 where aging rock star Brett Michaels picks the chick who will be his one true "Rock of Love". (This out of a gaggle of 20 women of questionable values who fought for his attention.) Obviously it didn't work out for Brett the first time around on ROL 1! "When at first you don't succeed" I guess.

It was overwhelming in it's ickyness factor. I'm not just saying that because I'm a Christian. I'm very certain the previous me would have felt the same way, and I was an L. A. rocker chick. I did have some sense of values though, however minimal. And trying to out-skank a bunch of other girls for one (old) guy with a hair weave was not what I would have considered cool!

What the heck does all this say about our culture? It is so schizophrenic. We're intellectual. No wait, we're debauched. No,no, intellectual.  Uh, uh, can't we be both? Such is the fruit that the 60s has produced in America. (Well actually the Enlightenment had a lot to do with it also!) It reminds me of something I saw on Discovery Channel a couple of weeks ago. A young man who worked in a business environment and wore a suit to work everyday had a very different "suit" under his clothes. His body was covered with tattoos with the exception of his face, neck, hands & feet. He explained how great it was that he could be one person at work and another "wilder" person away from work. He could live both of the lifestyles he wanted.

King Solomon said in Ecclesiastes 6:7 "All people spend their lives scratching for food, but they never seem to have enough." (NLT) It seems that this is true of the hunger for power or for love or acceptance. No amount can ever satisfy us. Whoever ultimately wins the White House will never be fulfilled unless their life is given to God. Whoever ends up with Brett Michaels, and he himself, will never feel truly loved until they fall in love the only true Rock Of Love, the God who created them. True acceptance ultimately doesn't come from within or from society but from becoming a part of God's family because that is where we all really belong.

This week I think I'll poke around inside my heart to see what areas I'm trying to satisfy with worldly ambitions and desires. I'm sure there's some and if I ask my Rock to show me, I know He will. King Solomon also said "Look straight ahead & fix your eyes on what lies before you. Mark out a straight path for your feet; then stick to the path & stay safe. Don't get sidetracked; keep your feet from following evil ." (Prov. 4:25-27 NLT) And that is what I will endeavor to do.

Sins of the Father

I am a cynical person. I admit it. Too much seen, too much experienced, many things barely survived. It just isn't easy to shock me. Thus it was odd to find that I was shocked that someone had the bad taste a couple of weeks ago to ask Chelsea Clinton a question about her father's affair with Monica Lewinsky. Since then at least two other people have asked similar questions, basically in reference to how this event affected her mother.

As I read these accounts in the news I couldn't help but see in my mind the photo of Chelsea walking towards the Presidential helicopter with a parent on either side of her, as she held each of their hands. It was the day that President Clinton admitted to the affair. His daughter was 18 years old at the time and a Stanford University freshman. Untold thousand upon thousands of kids have had to deal with a parents infidelity, but not as publicly as Chelsea. What a hell that must have been for her!

One thought that occurred to me as I read about all this was how a similar thing seems to happen to Christians often. Has a non-Christian ever said to you, "How can you be a Christian? What about all those people who were killed during the Spanish Inquisition? Or on the Crusades? Or what about (fill in name of famous immoral or greedy Christian here)?"

Each of us is responsible for how we live our own lives. We answer ultimately to God for the days that he gives us on earth. Did we use our time wisely? Were we kind, compassionate, generous? Did we follow the example of Christ as best we could? We can't answer for what other people have done just like Chelsea can't, and shouldn't, have to answer for her father's or her mother's actions.

What the !*@$

I'm sorting through sample textbooks in preparation for my L/A class for next year. This is always a tedious/exciting/harrowing experience. I want to find the magical books that will hold my students interest, inform and challenge them. Next year is Lit year so I'm going to break it up into one quarter each of poetry, drama, short story and novel.

My first sample came yesterday, a poetry anthology. I was really looking forward to this one because how often do I get an excuse to sit at working reading poetry? I dug happily into it, pleased to find a wonderful selection starting in the 1500's. Things were going great until I got to the 1960's and whomped into the "F" word. Stunned, I checked to make sure I hadn't ordered the college edition by mistake. Nope, this was the high school edition. That particular poem was followed by several "R" rated poems that made me have to exclude the book from my list.

Look, I know people are much more potty-mouthed nowadays. I understand that, being a former world champion cusser myself. Even T.V. commercials can be some of the raciest stuff around. But really, Pearson Education, do we need the "F" word and descriptions of sex acts in high school poetry texts? I know that sexuality is common currency in the hallways of most public high schools but some of us don't want our students to have to go there yet. And yes, we are Christians at this school, and no, I will not apologize for our not allowing or encouraging porn lit. Our kids will hit college soon enough and wade daily through the sex-infested world of higher education. Let them have high school to mature and grow without being exposed to the things they will have to battle the rest of their adult lives. I'm just asking for 18 years of relative innocence, that's all. 

Pregnancy As Punishment

Have you heard the one about the politician who thought pregnancy outside of marriage was a punishment? Is that what kind of God we serve? A God who punishes by giving life? That doesn't even make sense does it? Barack Obama, in a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania on Saturday, said the following in response to a woman who asked him to "stop these abortions":

"This is a very difficult issue, and I understand sort of the passions on both sides of the issue," he said. "I have two precious daughters — they are miracles."

But politicians must trust women to make the right decisions for themselves, he said.

"This is an example where good people can disagree," the Illinois senator said. "The question then is, are there areas that we can agree to that everybody can get behind? We can all agree that we want to reduce teen pregnancies. We can all agree that we want to make sure that adoption is a viable option.When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence education and teaching the children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

He's tired, I'm sure. Maybe not thinking clearly. He probably would have chosen a different word than "punished" had he thought about it. I think, however, that the use of that word in connection with pre-marital pregnancy and STD's is revealing. Those two things are a "consequence" not a "punishment" and there is a difference between the two. If you chose to do action A, then result B can happen. No one is forcing result B on you. It happens as a result of you choosing action A.  A consequence can certainly result in a subsequent punishment from an outside person or institution but it all began usually because of a choice freely made.

Does it say anywhere in the Bible that children are a punishment? No. In fact, the Bible is very clear that God is the one who opens & closes the womb, He is the one who decides when a child is to be born. (Gen. 30:22, Ruth 4:13) Not us, even though we'd like to think with all our scientific advancements that man is the creator of life. That's just not true.

Are there more optimum circumstances a child can be born in than outside of a marriage relationship? Sure. But I personally know several people conceived outside of marriage and God has a destiny for them because He has a destiny for every human He puts on this planet. God, unlike man, does not judge us on whether we were born to legally married mom's & dad's. If a human is on this planet, it's because GOD WANTS THEM HERE! That means handicapped or not, illegitimate or not, cute or not.

And, while we're at it, I don't think that God punishes people with AIDS or other STD's. Again, they are a consequence of a chosen action. (Actually of millions of people's chosen actions over the course of centuries.) How do I know? Because I have yet to get an STD for swearing or being angry or eating too many Oreo's. If everyone on the planet had remained a virgin until marriage & stayed faithful in that union, there would be no STD's. Period.

My closing thought on all this is why is it so popular to want to erase, excuse, abort, or otherwise try to get rid of consequences in today's society? If that was taken to its logical conclusion (you can do anything you want) the result is anarchy. It makes me think of a quote from Cormac McCarthy's book The Road. In the midst of nuclear holocaust chaos reigns but a father teaches his son that they must choose to do right because "someone has to carry the fire". I pray that we will have leaders who will truly carry the fire.

Outrageous Faith

I subscribe to a Catholic journal called First Things. I don't remember how I originally came across it, but I liked what I read. Their by-line is "The Journal of Religion, Culture & Public Life." Intrigued I signed up and what I have found is an interesting look into not only the Catholic Church, but at devout people digging into the Bible and their theology, arguing sometimes, agreeing sometimes, but always thinking about how to bring a knowledge of Christ into our culture. Every month I get at least one thought to mull over, which to me is worth the price of the subscription.

At the end of each journal, the founder & editor, Fr. Richard Neuhaus, writes an article. After the article is done he throws in several things he's been reading about, talking to people about, thinking about, basically very stream-of-consciousness in an organized intellectual way. Below is an excerpt from the article The Possibilities and Perils in Being a Really Smart Bishop by Richard John Neuhaus in this month's issue:

The comedian Bill Maher recently delivered himself of some rather decided views on religion in general and Catholicism in particular. He said, “You can’t be a rational person six days of the week and put on a suit and make rational decisions and go to work and, on one day of the week, go to a building and think you’re drinking the blood of a 2,000-year-old space god. That doesn’t make you a person of faith. That makes you schizophrenic.” He added that anyone who is religious is schizophrenic, “sort of.” ... (We) might ask whether the Maher's, at least at times, do not, however inadvertently, render a service in pointing to the astonishing nature of Christian truth claims. Astonishing if they are not true, and more astonishing if they are. We are not schizophrenic, but we are keenly aware of the tension and, at times, the conflict between the gospel and culturally conventional understandings of reality. Christianity is indefatigably dialogical but never without an edge. Matthew Lickona puts it nicely in his memoir of a young Catholic, Swimming with Scapulars: “Let’s be open and clean. Let’s drag this out into the light and discuss. Let’s not be shocked and resentful; let’s love the lonely. Perhaps, coming from a fanatic, the message of God’s love will regain some of its wonderful outrageousness. ‘Listen. I have a secret. I eat God, and I have His life in me. It’s the best thing in the world; it leads to everlasting life. But first, you have to die to yourself.’” **

The quote from Matthew Lickona really grabbed me & got me thinking. As Christians our tendency can be to not really talk about the outrageous claims in the Bible. We try to make it more "acceptable" or "palatable" for those outside the faith. We sometimes act as if parts of the Bible are the crazy old aunt we love but don't really want to bring around our friends. Those parts embarrass us by their bluntness or political incorrectness (sorry, Mr. Maher). We want people to love Jesus like we do, but part of us thinks that if we hide certain parts of Him, people will like Him right way & later on, when they are as madly in love with Him as we are, we'll take them out to coffee & explain the whole "eat my body, drink my blood" stuff and we are sure that they'll understand by that point.

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Lickona. Let's just let God be God, let the Bible be the Bible, and not apologize or "tone down" any part of the message God has given to the world. After all, God gave the scriptures in total to us for a reason. He in divine wisdom put it all in there: the parts that soothe us, the parts that cheer us and, yes, the parts that shock us.

Barack Obama has a book titled "The Audacity of Hope". The definition of audacity is:

• Fearless daring; intrepidity.
• Bold or insolent heedlessness of restraints, as of those imposed by prudence, propriety, or convention.

I suggest we have the "Audacity of Faith". Let's dare to believe that generations numbed by overexposure to sex, violence, consumerism, etc. can be shocked out of their complacency by the "wonderful outrageousness" of the Gospel.

 

** Copyright (c) 2000 by First Things. This data file is the sole property of First Things. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware," without charge. This data file may not be used without the permission of First Things for resale or the enhancement of any other product sold.

Giving Is Where The Heart Is?

Last Sunday the program 60 Minutes had a heart-breaking piece about the (obvious) lack of medical care for the working poor in America. It is titled "Lifeline" and you can watch it online here. An organization called Remote Area Medical, originally founded to take medical care to hard-to-reach areas of the globe, now spends most of its time helping under or uninsured Americans.

We all know the stories or know someone personally, who has difficulty paying for medical or dental bills. Harold & I were so moved by watching this story. My husband & I are unable to afford any kind of medical insurance so it was a kind of "there but for the grace of God (& the help of our doctor friends) go we" moment. People had driven hundreds of miles to be treated by R.A.M. They slept in their cars overnight in the dead of winter to be first in line to see someone who could help them. I kept thinking, "Really. Really. This ought not to be in our country." which is something we all know.

After the show was over I switched to CNN. In a very surreal moment the ticker-tape news feed at the bottom of the screen noted that actress Drew Barrymore had just given $1 million to the U.N. World Food Program (of which she is an ambassador). That money will go to feed Kenyan children. Reuters News reports that "WFP hopes the United States will be able to donate enough money to feed 10 million...children (this year)."

So here is my question: does Hollywood give more money to causes overseas or causes here at home? Just off the top of my head the only "famous" people who come to mind who fund raise for causes here at home on a regular basis (disasters such as Katrina not included) are Willie Nelson & John Mellancamp (Farm Aid), Michael McDonald (Artists Against Hunger & Poverty and Salvation Army) and bunches of Country singers. I am quite sure the list is longer but I sure had a hard time digging up any info.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying we shouldn't share our wealth with the rest of the world. But when the poor in Appalachia, the poor in the ghetto, those in America who are working but still can't make ends meet no matter how hard they try, can't get medical care or feed their families decent food, where should the money go first? Where are the Hollywood people who are willing to be as vocal about caring for America's poor & hungry as George Clooney is for Darfur or Angelina Jolie for...well, all the other poor countries in the world?

Just wondering...

Technorati Tags: Poverty