 |
You're a single Christian woman, and you have in your head that you're not supposed to initiate relationships; that's the guy's role. And yet it's your heart's desire to be married, to enjoy your husband, to raise children.
So how might you get from where you are now to where you want to be?
Among other things, you can pray. While prayer seems more mystical and less practical than other things you could try, it is truly effective. After all, it consists of presenting your requests before the Creator of the universe. He not only cares for you, but is able to do something about your situation.
And you could invite friends to join you in prayer. Nothing at all wrong with that.
Speaking of practical, let me be practical: Click right now over to the Women Praying Boldly Web site and join their community. It's free, the fellowship is encouraging, and you'll have friends who'll pray for you, and for whom you too can pray.
This may seem like a shameless plug for a friend of mine, but it's really not. It's about helping you do what you can to help marriage happen.
It's a puzzling biblical truth that sometimes we "do not have, because we do not ask." I implore you to join the community of women at Women Praying Boldly, and then, with them by your side, to go ahead and ask.
Last week, I blogged about the influence the Hispanic birth rate will have on America over the next 50 years. In that same time frame, the Japanese government now projects they will lose a third of their population. In an article titled, "Japan Steadily Becoming a Land of Few Children," the Washington Post writes: Japan, now the world's second-largest economy, will lose 70 percent of its workforce by 2050 and economic growth will slow to zero, according to a report this year by the nonprofit Japan Center for Economic Research.
 Demographers discuss Japan's dramatic population reversal in a new documentary called Demographic Winter. Because Japan never had the baby boom America had, they are showing more quickly a pattern demographers are seeing around the world -- not enough children to support aging populations.
The growth of world population at this present moment, the commentary explains is not from new births -- rates are dropping almost everywhere -- it's from a health explosion that is allowing people to live longer and longer.
All the efforts around the world to control population (documented in books such as Fatal Misconception) have been rather effective, but have now made it likely that many of the readers of this blog will be asked to pay a larger share of the taxes required to care for an expanding aging population dependent on a shrinking workforce.
My concern is that this expectation might lead to resentment among young workers toward the people they are supporting and could lead to a coarsening attitude toward the elderly and even greater acceptance for euthanasia. That would be a tragic scenario, especially knowing it could have been averted if the population debates of the past three decades could have been less hysterical and more honest about what objective demographers actually knew about population trends.
We received an e-mail this morning from a young woman who's been married for just under a year. Here's an excerpt (edited slightly for brevity): Not too long ago I walked into our bedroom and found my husband reading my journal. Now, I'd never told him not to read it. I'd never told him it was off limits to all eyes but mine. I'd never told him how I felt about my journal -- because in the home that I grew up in, journals were sacred. It was a spoken rule in my parents home that a journal is totally, completely, entirely private.
And I've enjoyed that privacy between the pages of my journal for the last decade. During the ugliness of the aftermath of my parents divorce (i.e., court battles, custody arguments), my journal was my best friend. During the awkward time of my adolescence, my journal was a place of refuge. My journal has been a place I go to write when I am angry or frustrated or disappointed; when I am grateful or feeling distant from God.
For me, writing is therapeutic. And in my married relationship, it has been a "friend" for me to turn to when I am frustrated in order to sort out my feelings of anger before I react, so I can calmly approach my husband with kind words in times of conflict (and avoid situations where gossip or bias might arise if I were to verbally voice my frustrations to another person). In short, my journal has been my good friend for all these years.
After I found him reading my "sacred" musings, I was hurt. I felt violated. We talked about the situation -- or at least tried to. But because of his background and because he feels that it would be fine for me to read his journal (if he had one), he doesn't understand why I am so upset about the whole ordeal.
I've told my wife that nothing is private with me any more. She's free to rummage through my computer and read old e-mails, free to dig through boxes of stuff I've collected during my single years, free to open my mail, free to tell her friends whatever she wants about me, and so on. If she discovers anything that she has questions about, I see it as an opportunity to be more transparent with each other, for her to get insights into who I am and who I've been.
That said, I do understand this woman's desire to keep some of her thoughts private. She admits that she uses her journal to work through things before "going public" with them. And I think that's a legitimate use of a private journal.
So, though ideally (in my opinion) there'd be nothing entirely private between a husband and a wife, I think it's fair for this woman to ask her husband to not look at her private journal. And her husband should respect such a request. Perhaps in time she'll be open to opening its pages to him; in the meantime, he should trust that her request is being made out of good motives, and not out of a disrespectful desire to keep something from him.
That said, I'd love to hear what you think. Is it OK for some things to remain secret even within marriage? Should you allow your spouse to keep some things private, and not take offense that they're "keeping" certain things from you?
Hispanics have surged to 15% of the United States population according to new Census Bureau reports. That growth is increasingly from births to Hispanics more than from new immigration. A Wall Street Journal article today explains this demographic trend: Between 2006 and 2007, about 62% of the increase in Hispanics came from births.
"The Hispanic population has taken on a momentum of its own," said Kenneth Johnson, senior demographer at the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute. "If you close the borders tomorrow, there is still going to be a large Hispanic increase."
As America's leading financial newspaper, the Wall Street Journal is especially interested in the effect this trend has on America's economy: As Americans age and the baby boom generation retires, Hispanics may help buttress the economy and the Social Security system. The average white woman in the U.S. has 1.8 children, which is under the replacement rate of 2.1 necessary to maintain a stable population. Hispanic women, meanwhile, give birth on average to 2.8 children.
According to the Pew Research Center, whites are projected to make up only 45% of the working-age population in 2050, down from 68% in 2005. The center projects that the share of Hispanics in the working-age population will rise to 31% from 14%. The ratio of senior citizens to working-age people age 25 to 64 will grow to 411 seniors per 1,000 working-age people in 2030 from 250 per 1,000 in 2010, according to Dowell Myers, a demographer at the University of Southern California.
Demographics are destiny. Increasingly, the face of the United States over the next 50 years will have everything to do with the cumulative effect of millions of private decisions about getting married and having children. As it looks now, the distinct Hispanic embrace of marriage and family makes them the segment of the U.S. population with the fastest growing influence over the nation's future.
I almost laughed last week when I received a press release about the children's picture book "My Beautiful Mommy," a book about Mommy getting plastic surgery. Plastic surgeon Michael Salzhauer wrote the book to help his patients explain to their children why they were getting surgery. Newsweek reports about one of his patients, Gabriela Acosta: Acosta told Salzhauer that she wasn't sure how to talk to her son about the procedures she was considering. That's when he showed her the manuscript for his children's picture book, "My Beautiful Mommy" (Big Tent Books), out this Mother's Day. It features a perky mother explaining to her child why she's having cosmetic surgery (a nose job and tummy tuck). Naturally, it has a happy ending: mommy winds up "even more" beautiful than before, and her daughter is thrilled.
The reassuring tale helped win Acosta over—she scheduled breast augmentation and a tummy tuck. Since February, when she had the surgery, she and Junior have read the book a half dozen times, and she says it helped him feel excited rather than scared. "I didn't want him to think [the surgery] was because I was hurting. It was to make me feel good," she says.
That message seems to have gotten through. Instead of being uncomfortable about the surgery, Acosta says her son actually spoke up about it at a big party. "Did you see her new belly button? It's so pretty!" he said of his mom. "I think he was proud," she says.
After reading the article, I no longer think this book is funny. It's evident that it is a response to how mothers are already behaving. "Mommy Makeovers" are on the rise. According to the press release, more than 400,000 U.S. women with young children underwent elective cosmetic surgery during 2007. One disturbing issue is that the book makes a nose job seem "necessary." Child psychiatrist Elizabeth Berger, author of "Raising Kids With Character," likes the idea of a book for kids. "If the mother is determined to pursue cosmetic surgery, I think it's terribly important to discuss it with the child," Berger says. But she says the book is incomplete. She wishes that the mom had just said something like, "This is silly, but I really want it anyway," she says. "That is more honest and more helpful to the child."
I appreciated what one of my coworkers (a husband and father) had to say about the book when I forwarded the release to him [note: sarcasm alert]: What a relief! Just the book we need in this world, to assure young children that the best way for Mommy to be beautiful is to undergo elective cosmetic surgery! I am so glad this book isn't about the beauty of motherhood, how beautiful mommy is when she loves on her kids and serves their needs and disciplines them...I'm so glad this is cleared up so that no child will ever mistake the beauty of the heart and soul of a mother towards her child for the REAL beauty that only money can buy!
Whether this book makes it or not, the fact that there is a market for it is sad. If only a book by the same title could have been written on the mother described in Proverbs 31: "Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her" (vs 28).
For those who think that living together before marriage can act as a "trial marriage," Michael McManus, president of Marriage Savers, has some news.
"Actually, it's more like a trial divorce," McManus says in a recent article.
McManus cites some disturbing statistics. For example, 85 percent of couples who cohabitate will end up either breaking up before the marriage or divorcing within 10 years.
But, if some of those couples broke up before the marriage, doesn't that mean that they probably shouldn't have gotten married and have saved themselves the pain of divorce? Absolutely not, he says.
First, cohabitating results in negative relationship behaviors. He cites a Penn State study which showed that even a month of cohabitation decreased the quality of a couple's relationships. Cohabitators were "more negative when they discussed an issue, more demeaning, more flippant, more likely to deride the other person." Couples who had never cohabited "have much more respect for one another, and settled issues more amicably."
Second, McManus points out, that a "premarital divorce" (when cohabitating couples break up) can be just as painful as the "real" thing. It isn't that a man and woman living together avoid a divorce. It's more accurate to say that they practically guarantee that they will break up and go through an experience very similar to exactly what they are trying to avoid.
If you really want to increase your chances for a successful marriage, McManus advises, try three things. First, don't have sex before marriage.
Second, get good, solid premarital counseling. "I wrote that of couples who took a premarital inventory, a tenth decided not to marry. And their scores were equal to those who married and later divorced. So they avoided a bad marriage before it had begun."
Third, find a mentor couple.
McManus also has a word for the church: don't just marry people, get involved in making marriages successful. The only long-term hope for reversing the culture's embrace of cohabitation is for the church to exercise the moral leadership we expect of the clergy. Churches are the gatekeepers of weddings, marrying 86 percent of all American couples. If they succumb to Hollywood's standards, there is no hope. But churches can educate, equip and elevate marriage to the position of honor it deserves.
I noticed among the heartfelt comments on my post about divorce an underlying fear and reservation about marriage among adult children of divorce. This is understandable. Author John Trent concedes that "When you come from a home of divorce, making your own marriage work is even tougher than the norm."
John writes not only as a marriage and family expert, but as a child of divorce. His father went through three divorces and his mother went through two.
In his book Breaking the Cycle of Divorce, John offers hope. He writes: My parents' marital failure does not have to dictate the fate or our relationship, and your parents' divorce doesn't have to doom your marriage either. ...it is possible to break the cycle of divorce. You can learn to create and maintain a healthy, strong, lasting marriage relationship. You can learn to paint that picture of something you haven't yet seen. There is real hope for your future and your marriage.
I'm consistently surprised to find out which of my married friends are children of divorce. It's encouraging how many of them were able to work through the pain, fears and poor modeling in their background in order to craft strong families of their own. I hope this book can be of some encouragement for those of you seeking to do the same.
That was my wife yesterday.
That is all.
When legislators, lawyers, and academicians talked about the pros and cons of changing divorce laws a generation ago, they often had little to go on when it came to potential impact on children. Over the past few years, they have been given more than enough. As the cover story of the latest Newsweek magazine indicates, the divorce generation has grown up.
Like the groundbreaking book, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce that tracked people for 25 years, this article taps into the broad range of experiences encountered by those who have lived out the divorce statistics that exploded in the seventies and early eighties.
It focuses specifically on the Grant High School class of 1982: It's been more than a quarter century since the Grant High class of '82 donned tuxes and taffeta and danced to Styx's "Come Sail Away" at the senior prom, and nearly four decades have passed since no-fault divorce laws began spreading across the country. In our parents' generation, marriage was still the most powerful social force. In ours, it was divorce.
The writer goes on to describe the pain lying behind the normalization of divorce: My 44-year-old classmates and I have watched divorce morph from something shocking, even shameful, into a routine fact of American life.
But while it may be a common occurrence, divorce remains a profound experience for those who've lived through it. Researchers have churned out all sorts of depressing statistics about the impact of divorce. Each year, about 1 million children watch their parents split, triple the number in the '50s. These children are twice as likely as their peers to get divorced themselves and more likely to have mental-health problems, studies show. While divorce rates have been dropping—off from their 1981 peak to just 3.6 per 1,000 people in 2006—marriage has also declined sharply, falling to 7.3 per 1,000 people in 2006 from 10.6 in 1970. Sociologists decry a growing "marriage gap" in which the well educated and better paid are staying married, while the poor are still getting divorced (people with college degrees are half as likely to be divorced or separated as their less-educated peers). And the younger you marry, the more likely you are to get divorced.
Yet all these statistics fail to show the very personal impact of divorce on the individual, or how those effects can change over a lifetime as children of divorce start families of their own.
My brothers and I were an exception among our classmates because our parents stayed together. Now, we're watching many of our classmates follow their parents' footsteps even though they had hoped to do better.
What are you seeing?
Gender roles. Are men and women different? And if we're different, might we tend to have different roles in marriage? Do men tend to take on the role of provider, and women tend to take on the role of nurturer? If so, is this because God designed us to be this way?
In a comment left on our blog yesterday, Jennie explains how Scripture challenges us when it comes to gender roles:
Why are people so offended at this? It's biblical that women should be primary homemakers, helpers to their husbands, and caretakers to their children. It's biblical that men should be primary breadwinners. Read Genesis 3 (and the rest of the Bible).
For men: 1 Timothy 5:8 "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
For women: Titus 2:3-5 "... the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things - that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed."
I don't know what it's like in the States, but in Canada, undergrad students finish with an average of $20,000 debt. Paying that back at 7-10% interest per annum and it adds up pretty quickly. Since a woman's main responsibility in marriage is in the home, obviously she should be pretty careful about racking up that kind of debt (and often more).
That being said, if you can take care of that primary responsibility and also find creative ways to pursue a career (whether that's part time, work from home, even full time out of the home at some point), I don't think there's a problem with that. Nor do I believe it's contrary to Scripture IF you've got your priorities right. Although I'd hope you wouldn't be working full time from the month your child was born - even the secular world recognizes that's not good.
Obviously Ted's not advocating that women don't get educated. He's just suggesting that we women make informed decisions with a biblical perspective on the long-term that won't force us to compromise our biblical responsibilities, and that men take their responsibility as providers seriously.
And if we women are prone to bristling at the idea that we might just have to make some tough decisions about our education or our careers, perhaps the problem's with us. If we're upset about the possibility that we might just have a responsibility to our families that might just mean that we actually live our lives selflessly on occasion, and not exactly as we might want, maybe we need to spend more time studying the Word and the humility and love Christ demonstrated to us, that we're supposed to be mirroring.
I know I'm sometimes frustrated because I know that marrying (which I'm doing in 3 weeks) and having children (which Lord-willing will happen within a few years), will mean that I can't do exactly what I want. If I had it my own selfish way, I wouldn't stay home with the kids. I'd make sure I was educated and able to pursue my career as much as my little wretched heart desires. But it's good to remember that selfishness, no matter what noble guise we might hide it under, is NOT a Christian virtue.
Isn't the Christian life all about denying self? Isn't that what it means to follow Christ? Aren't we supposed to be putting off that old nature that only wants to look out for Number 1?
It doesn't necessarily mean that we give everything up - obviously it is important to use the gifts the Lord gives us, and to pursue opportunities he opens up - but there will be times when we have to make tough decisions about giving some things up that we'd really, really like.
HT: Amir Larijani's blog
Last week during the vigorous discussion about how career pursuits can undermine a woman's desire for having children, this comment came in, chiding me for suggesting it's good to "budget for everything but the babies." Oy, Candice.
I was raised that G-d helps those who help themselves. The idea that you will be provided for regardless of how poorly you plan is irresponsible and reckless. As much as you have been lucky up to this point, you won't always be in that position.
Sorry, but I've been through enough to know better than to have a safety net of savings and "Plan B," if my current situation goes south.
I grew up watching a family member suffer through a serious illness that sapped our finances. Sure we got through it (and I have a book filled with a million ways to cook beans), but we "cowboyed up" and took charge of the situation, not sit passively by and expect the Almighty to take care of the situation.
Maybe this is a topic for another blog post, but I'd love to hear how you expect to take care of things should someone become seriously ill, unable to work or the work dries up while home heating bills skyrocket.
Throughout Scripture, children are a blessing and wealth. Nowhere are God's people told to delay or forgo having babies because they are too poor, or as you say, may end up that way due to some catastrophe. Even God's own Son was born into a poor family who quite possibly faced the types of hardships you mentioned. In fact, up until recent history, the majority of people did struggle for mere survival. What's interesting is how many of them said the one thing that gave them joy in the midst of their trials was their children.
Am I saying that you shouldn't begin saving money now in the event you need it for something unexpected later? Certainly not. I'm a big fan of Dave Ramsey and other wise money advisers. By all means, be wise (Proverbs about not fearing for the days to come). But don't be afraid. Don't make decisions based on what could or might happen. And certainly don't say no to the one wealth we're encouraged to embrace—children—simply because you're not quite sure how all the finances will work out. Since the beginning of time, couples have figured things out as needed. It's time we stop being so calculated that we cut ourselves off from one of the highest joys in life.
So, does God help those who help themselves? According to GotQuestions.org, "God helps those who help themselves" is probably the most often quoted phrase that is not found in the Bible. This is actually a quote from Ben Franklin and it appeared in Poor Richard's Almanac in 1757. In fact the Bible teaches the opposite. God helps the helpless! Isaiah 25:4 declares, "For You have been a defense for the helpless, a defense for the needy in his distress, a refuge from the storm, a shade from the heat..." Romans 5:6 tells us, "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly."
It's a uniquely western notion that what children need most is money. The most important thing is not money, but a God-honoring, secure, committed and healthy marriage. What matters is marriage.
In the disorientation following my second broken engagement, I found myself struggling with the question, "What is the purpose of marriage"?
At the time, I came up with the following: "The purpose of marriage is to help each other identify and carry out God's will for their life with joy." While I still think it's a helpful definition, just this morning I came across a stronger one, provided by Dr. Al Mohler: "The ultimate purpose of marriage is the greater glory of God -- and God is most greatly glorified when His gifts are rightly celebrated and received, and His covenants are rightly honored and pledged."
Some of you might recognize a bit of the Westminster Catechism in that definition ("Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever").
Let's bring that definition down to earth. Historically, according to Mohler, the church recognized three key purposes of marriage:
1) The "procreation and nurture of children, if God should grant children to the marriage."
2) "[A]s a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication . . . that [believers] might marry and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body" (see 1 Corinthians 7:9).
3) "[C]ompanionship throughout life, through good and bad, comfort and loss, sickness and health, until death parts the husband and wife."
Sounds pretty clinical, hm? Feels like all the romance has been stripped away. Yes, the day-to-day working out of marriage is fairly earthly, but ultimately it points to something more lofty: "Marriage is the source of great and unspeakable happiness. Yet because of sin it is not unmixed happiness. But marriage is not first and foremost about making us happy. It is for making us holy. And through the covenant of marriage two Christians pledge to live together so as to make each other holy before God, as a testimony to Christ."
I guess the definition I came up with a decade ago wasn't too far off.
You can't control your fertility ... A good marriage will make you happier than a good job ... You can control where you spend your time and energy, and you should search for your mate if you don't want to face fertility problems.
Wow. So glad to be able to report that this is from the Boston Globe. If I'd written it, I likely would have received heaps of crit mail. What else does this provocative story reveal? "Women who want to have children should make it a priority in their twenties to find a partner." Why? "... because one of the most dramatic issues facing Generation X is infertility. No generation of women has had more trouble with fertility than this generation."
Xers were sold a bill of good by Boomers. And at the top of the list of "terrible baby boomer advice, 'Wait. You have time. Focus on your career first.'" Finally, a mainstream newspaper is serving it straight up. You may not like what reporter Penelope Trunk has to say in "Want to Have a Baby? Now's the Time," but you can't fault her for glossing over the facts. And without the facts, we're at a disadvantage. Our decisions will always be faulty if they're ill-informed. And when it comes to the battle between babies and career, a generation of women has been deceived. Trunk is candid, writing, ... you have your whole life to get a career. Obviously, that's not true of having a baby. If you are past your early twenties, and you're single and want to have children, you need to find a partner now. Take that career drive and direct it toward mating - your ovaries will not last longer than your career.
In addition to advising women who want children to start focusing on finding a husband, she suggests having your eggs tested for premature aging and even having some of your eggs frozen. I'm not familiar with the aging test and have written before about why egg freezing is a bad idea. (Besides, neither of these will do anything to help you marry well). But she's onto something with her advice to shift your energy from your career toward forming a family. Her advice is praiseworthy. And I'm glad to see it coming from such an unlikely source. I love truth, wherever it can be found.
Thought it was interesting that on the same day that Candice is answering a question from a young woman who wants to be a stay-at-home mom, USA Today prints an article titled: "Day Care's New Frontier: Your Baby at Your Desk."
The article highlights several companies who have decided on one way to avoid losing employees after childbirth: Let new parents bring the baby to work. According to the Parenting in the Workplace Institute, more than 80 companies across the nation have such policies.
Some love it. Allie Hewlett, 33, a benefits administrator at T3, brings her 7-month-old daughter, Scout, to the office most days. Bringing Scout in, she says, helped alleviate the anguish over leaving the girl in day care, which Hewlett plans to do when Scout becomes more mobile.
Hewlett had been sharing an office with co-workers but moved to a private office now that Scout accompanies her to work. Along with her briefcase, Hewlett brought a Pack 'n Play, an Exersaucer, a bouncy swing and other baby paraphernalia that she set up beside her desk.
"Scout is so well-adjusted, and people come over all the time to play with her. They jump at the chance to watch Scout if I have a phone call," Hewlett says.
Others have their doubts. The babies-at-work trend is drawing criticism on several fronts. Bringing children to the office — whether once in a while or every day — raises legal concerns for employers, creates a distraction that can undermine workers' productivity and may not be the best environment for a baby to get interaction and stimulation, critics say.
"The reality is, the parent can't pay 100% attention to the job, and the child is often distracting to other employees," says Robin Ryan, a career coach.
This sounds like an arrangement I would have thought of as ideal ... that is, before I had kids. Continue my professional life without having to leave my baby in day care? Perfect! But then, as they say, reality hits. In those first months of life, while trying to fulfill my infants' needs, I barely found time in the day to get a shower, much less take care of them and work my full-time job.
It reminds me of what one friend confided recently. She is working a part-time arrangement, two days and two evenings, while staying at home with her infant son the other three working days. "I don't feel like a good mother and I don't feel like a good employee," she said. "When I'm doing one, I'm always thinking about the other."
It seems like these employers' attempted solution does continue to highlight one thing: New parents, most especially new moms, want to be with their babies. It's so important, I think, to understand that before you have kids. I'd recommend giving Candice's advice a read.
Most Americans get married at some point and an even higher percentage of Evangelicals do so. Evangelicals are less likely to get a divorce than other population segments, but have often been divorced before becoming believers. These are some of the findings in a new Barna study released today.
Only 22% of those Barna studied had never married and only 16% of born again Christians had not married. Additionally, Barna found that marriage and divorce percentages varied among population segments: For instance, the groups with the most prolific experience of marriage ending in divorce are downscale adults (39%), Baby Boomers (38%), those aligned with a non-Christian faith (38%), African-Americans (36%), and people who consider themselves to be liberal on social and political matters (37%).
Among the population segments with the lowest likelihood of having been divorced subsequent to marriage are Catholics (28%), evangelicals (26%), upscale adults (22%), Asians (20%) and those who deem themselves to be conservative on social and political matters (28%).
Barna's closer look at divorce among Christians helps explain why we so often hear that Christians aren't very distinct from the world in their divorce patterns: Born again Christians who are not evangelical were indistinguishable from the national average on the matter of divorce: 33% have been married and divorced. The survey did not determine if the divorce occurred before or after the person had become born again. However, previous research by Barna has shown that less than two out of every ten people who accept Christ as their savior do so after their first marriage.
In fact, when evangelicals and non-evangelical born again Christians are combined into an aggregate class of born again adults, their divorce figure is statistically identical to that of non-born again adults: 32% versus 33%, respectively.
Want a healthy marriage, girls? Fox News reports you should marry ugly. According to one study, the best marriages are those where women marry men who are less attractive than themselves.
The study seems a little subjective and shortsighted to me (the 82 couples included have been married less than six months, so other factors may come into play later in their marriages), but the results are interesting: Psychologists who studied newlyweds found men who were better-looking than their wives were more likely to be unhappy and have negative feelings about their marriage.
While I'm not planning to go out and find the ugliest potential mate I can, something like this is a good reminder that marrying a guy who looks like he stepped out of a fashion catalog isn't the secret to a happy marriage.
I'm reminded of a story Carolyn McCulley shares in her article "Humility that Attracts and Encourages:" I have a friend who married a man completely unlike the one who started to court her. The man who first asked her out was quiet, willing to be in the background, and was slightly fashion-challenged. The one who won her heart was romantic, thoughtful, funny, reliable, and willing to go shopping. What changed? Nothing but her own perspective.
When he asked to court her, she said yes — in faith that her affections could grow for a man she fundamentally respected. It happened. Not only did her affections grow, so did her attraction.
After she was engaged, her other single, female friends commented that her fiancé had blossomed during their courtship. When she relayed this comment to her future husband, he simply remarked that he had done that on purpose. He wanted to be more reserved around other single women he wasn't pursuing, so that he could save all that romance, attention, and effort for the woman whose heart he was trying to win.
Moral of the story: Keep looks in their place. And while this study seems to encourage men to marry girls prettier than them, don't forget the wise words of Jimmy Soul: If you want to be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty woman your wife.
So for my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you.
HT: SingleMind.net
There are some givens on Boundless. One is that babies do best when they're born to a mom and dad who are also married to each other. Though we likely all agree that the opposite is tragic (dare I say, sinful) when it happens, we don't spend much time building that case. Still, for all the cultural orthodoxy to the contrary, it doesn't hurt to bone up on the reasons why it's bad for babies to be born to single moms.
Thursday on Slate (as unlikely a source as any), Emily Yoffe, who doubles as their advice columnist "Dear Prudence," writes about just how bad life is for babies born without the benefit of marriage. In "... And Baby Makes Two," she says, In the last 50 years, there has been an extraordinary decoupling of marriage and procreation. In 1960 about 5 percent of births were to unwed mothers; that figure is now a record high of nearly 40 percent. ... When I extol the importance of marriage in the advice column, my inbox fills with e-mails from readers who don't see marriage as the passage from single life to a life of commitment. To them, the marriage certificate is the first document in a paper trail that will end with a divorce decree...."How dare you imply that an unexpected pregnancy should lead to marriage? You are simply out of touch with modern culture." That may be. But it also means that modern culture is out of touch with the needs of children.
She then goes on to cite studies, books (like Marriage and Caste in America), and real-life examples of that show just how weighted against success life is for children without a dad who is also a husband. Having unmarried parents can be devastating for children who start out with no cushion in life. In 1999 congressional testimony, Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution said that the increase in single-parent families—mostly due to unwed motherhood in the past few decades—"can account for virtually all of the increase in child poverty since 1970." A recent study found that the stress of early childhood poverty can literally damage developing brains.
Her conclusion is a welcome one. We should stop being afraid to state the obvious, she says. We'd all be better for a little common sense. ... perhaps in our desire not to make moral judgments about personal choices, young women wholly unprepared to be mothers are not getting the message that there are dire consequences of having (unprotected) sex with guys too lame to be fathers. ...Why is it verboten to express the truth that growing up with a lonely, overwhelmed mother and a missing father is a recipe for childhood pain?
Why, indeed.
There are some seemingly godly things being said that, upon closer inspection, just don't hold up as such. I blogged earlier today about one such phrase.
Now I want to draw attention to another phrase, one that pits getting married against serving the Lord with our whole being.
I challenged this "either/or" take on godliness last year, pointing out that some things are best thought of in terms of "both/and" -- you can BOTH serve the Lord AND be married. In fact, you can serve the Lord in unique ways THROUGH marriage.
Someone recently commented: "As Christians, our priorities must be biblical priorities if we want to live biblically. Jesus and the apostles placed a high value on marriage and family, but they did not make those things the be-all-end-all of our existence. Bringing Christ to the world in all we say, do, and think gets much higher billing in Scripture than these secondary matters."
There's some truth in this paragraph. The Scriptures do focus on the evangelistic activities of the Apostles rather than on the day-to-day of their marriages, for example.
But there are also some subtle misconceptions in this paragraph, starting with that pivotal word "but" and ending by disparaging marriage as a mere "secondary matter." The Scriptures focus on the Apostles' ministry to the unsaved; but that doesn't mean that their ministry within their own families, and through their own families, is somehow of less value before the Lord. Indeed it is THROUGH family that we reflect the marvel of the manifold nature of God, something that honors and magnifies the Lord.
Also note that some of the most crucial leaders in the church were to be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2, Titus 1:5-6), the implication being (at the very least) that people could serve the Lord and His Church just fine in a married state. Single adults may serve, of course, and serve well; I think back on how I served my church effectively for years as a single adult. But married adults are not disqualified from church leadership because of their having married.
Yes, Paul is clear in 1 Cor. 7 that those who are neither married nor struggling with their sexual drives are able to serve the Lord in a peculiarly undivided way. But if you're like most of us, wanting to share your life in an intimate way with the opposite sex, then you are not sinning by pursuing marriage. You are not shunning God's will to serve Him wholeheartedly by wanting to be married.
In other words, put your mind at ease: You truly can BOTH serve the Lord with your entire being AND get married. You're not settling for second best by pursuing marriage.
I heard this phrase recently: "When you stop wanting marriage, God will give it to you."
On one hand, it does feel like a humble and deferential sentiment, deferring to God and trusting in His gracious providence. It has the sense of being content, rather than discontent, with where the Lord has you. It communicates a kind of anti-idolatry.
But then I think of what Jesus had to say about desiring good things (and be assured: marriage is a very good thing).
Consider Matthew 7:7-11, which has Jesus saying, "Keep on asking and it will be given you; keep on seeking and you will find; keep on knocking [reverently] and [the door] will be opened to you." The implication is that when we desire something good and within His will, it is appropriate for us to ask God for that thing, and to keep asking. We're not to stifle such desires, but to confess them to our Lord.
Or consider the story Jesus told of the man who kept knocking at his friend's door, asking for three loaves of bread. Jesus explains that "because of his shameless persistence and insistence he will get up and give him as much as he needs" (Luke 11:8). As such persistence proves effective with a friend, such persistence will prove effective with God.
Are you single, and wanting to be married, and are you losing heart? Jesus directly addresses this, offering a parable "to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart." Jesus speaks of a widow (interestingly, an unmarried woman) who kept petitioning a judge for something. Finally that judge relented because "this widow keeps bothering me." In the same way, Jesus says, God will come to the aid of those "who cry to him day and night."
Jesus did not condemn people for strongly desiring good things. He affirmed persistent, even bothersome, prayer. Whether you're wanting your daily bread or a husband, taking your concerns to the Lord is a very good, and very appropriate, thing. Be encouraged and, as Jesus said, "Do not lose heart."
HEY GUYS. Is it time for a manogram? Did you get your manimony check? Or is what you really need a (shudder) manzilian?
That's the lead from a Boston Globe article about the rise of "man words" we've seen recently in pop culture. Have you noticed this "menaissance"? I have. And I've laughed at some of the portmanteaux. But it may not be a laughing matter.
As Globe writer Mark Peters notes, these blends "say a great deal about our ever-in-flux gender roles" and are used primarily "to describe men behaving like women." Here's one theory behind these creative keywords: How to act like a man is a humdinger of an issue if you are one. The late Steven L. Nock, a professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, said in an e-mail to me last year that it doesn't take much for women to prove that they're "real women" in the widely accepted senses, but men are in a more slippery situation, especially with the role of father/protector/provider not considered as necessary or desirable as it once was. "[M}asculinity must be continuously earned and displayed. It is never won," Nock wrote. Without a traditional role to embrace, being a man requires constantly defining yourself in opposition to all things female: "No wonder things like man-purses attract attention."
Dr. Albert Mohler blogged about this article just after it was published saying that men should be uncomfortable if their view of masculinity isn't based on these roles. While the Bible clearly honors men who forfeit the blessings of wife and children for the sake of the Gospel (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 7:7-9, 32-28), the history of the Christian church indicates that these represent a minority. The normative expectation is that a young man will mature to take on the role of "father/protector/provider" that Peters correctly sees as "not considered as necessary or desirable as it once was" within the secular culture. Those men who are faithfully living out these responsibilities are not likely to be too concerned about finding true masculinity. They are living it.
So that's why I've never had a desire to get some manscaping so that I can wear a mankini while on some European mancation. Have you?
I found myself over at Focus on the Family's marriage forum again this morning. And was freshly reminded why I do what I do here at Boundless.
Consider some of the recent forum titles:
- My Marriage is falling apart
- trying to Deal
- How do I make dh understand?
- 36yr marriage, 2yrs since affair, now issue w/desire
- Wanting to save a marriage
- Lord hear my cries
- New Marriage on the rocks!
- Pastors and infidelity
- my husband needs to cut apron strings
- In-laws telling us what to do!!
- Confused
- I have So many Questions
- Is it okay for a husband to fantasize about other women?
- Lonely and unhappy in marriage
- Unequally yoked and hurt but still here...
- Heartbroken and Despondant
- Please pray for marriage restoration
- I have had enough...
The pain and confusion and heartbreak and devastation and broken trust go on and on.
And so I'm reminded of my passion and motivation as editor of Boundless: helping single adults make the most of their years of transition, yes, and more importantly helping singles prepare to have rich, successful, happy marriages.
So that instead of finding themselves posting comments on the Focus on the Family marriage forum with titles like "Wanting to QUIT" or "After 4 affairs - Divorce is my option," you'll be visiting the marriage forums and offering gracious, heart-felt encouragement and godly counsel.
 Last summer, my husband, two kiddos and I headed to Colorado for some mountain relaxation. Our first day's itinerary: hiking at Garden of the Gods followed by a cog railway trip up Pikes Peak.
The day was absolutely gorgeous. In fact, we had to do a quick change in the Garden of the Gods' parking lot from jeans to shorts because it was so warm. After spending the morning enjoying God's creation and getting rather sunburned, we headed over to the base of Pikes Peak.
Having spent a few years in Colorado, my husband and I knew it would probably be chillier up on the peak. So, another quick change back into the jeans. As we walked to the office to buy our tickets, though, we noticed groups of people with some serious winter coats. Nervously, I inquired of a lady passing by, "Hey there, how's the weather up there?"
"Freezing," she replied, matter-of-factly. "There's snow expected later."
"Snow?" my six-year-old asked incredulously, peaking out from behind me. "Mommy, how could there be snow in summer?"
I smiled. After all, her cheeks were still red from the morning's sunburn. I tried to explain a little about altitude and air pressure and changing weather, but then just boiled it all down to a "we need to trust this lady. She just came down the mountain."
So, back to the car to lose the sandals and don heavy coats. As we pulled out of the railway station, the sun was still blazing. My daughter gave me a doubting look.
 The climb was beautiful and, little by little, foot by foot, we saw the clouds move in. Halfway up the mountain, we had to close the windows because the chill was too much. "Brrr, that's freezing!" my daughter sounded amazed. Just before we headed down, the snow began.
I was very thankful to the lady in the parking lot. It wasn't that she was smarter than me. It wasn't that she was judging me. She had simply been there and I hadn't.
That's why I wrote today's article about my choice to be a stay-at-home mom. I've been on both sides of motherhood. Before babies, I guessed it would be different. But, just like my daughter in the Pikes Peak parking lot, I couldn't imagine how different it has turned out to be.
Martin Luther and I have at least two things in common: We were both born in Germany and we both married later in life than the average person. Oh, and a third: We both married women more than a decade younger than us.
Today's featured article, written by blogger Justin Taylor, focuses not on Luther's involvement in the Reformation of the Church, but on his influence on reforming marriage.
Luther, apparently, initially put off marriage because he had taken the oath of a monk. Later, as he came to question Church policies, he found himself putting off marriage for the same reason William Wilberforce put off marriage -- he feared he would soon be killed for his stances, and didn't want to leave behind a widow.
Somewhere in his late 30s he changed his mind. Dramatically. Like other celibates in Scripture, he held a high view of marriage, going so far as to outright advocate it. He said, for example, "I urge matrimony on others with so many arguments that I am myself almost moved to marry."
Then it became personal, though a little ... odd. He wrote, "If I can manage it, before I die I will still marry my Katie to spite the devil." Pretty romantic motivations there, Martin.
He did marry Katherine, a nun he had freed from a nearby convent, an event that (I was surprised to hear) transformed the church and culture. On scholar wrote: Little did the sixteenth-century world realize the tremendous significance — both religious and social — of this simple and reverent ceremony in the backwoods of rural Germany.... Luther's marriage remains to this day the central evangelical symbol of the Reformation's liberation and transformation of the Christian daily life.
The rest of the article goes on to provide four lessons we can learn from their relationship. I especially liked the one where Katie play-mocked her husband by putting on a black dress.
So how about you? If you're an older single man, how have you seen your motivations to marry change? What do you think of the 40-year-old Martin marrying the 25-year-old Katherine? What have you learned from Martin's wonderful example? Would you consider Martin Luther to be (and I hesitate to write this) mandating marriage for the vast number of men and women?
I was over at Modestly Yours (a blog by Wendy Shalit and other women "who value modesty in its various forms") and read about a contest whose prize is a hope chest. And not just any hope chest, but an "authentic, cedar-lined chest filled with $1000 worth of fantabulous stuff for her future marriage and a $500 contribution toward the big day."
A hope chest -- for those not versed in the custom -- is a chest where a young woman stores things she plans to bring to her future marriage (often linens, clothing and dishware). Wikipedia informs me it is also called a "glory box" in Australia and the United Kingdom.
Contest aside, the blog's author expressed her enthusiasm for the tradition of hope chests: I actually think it a shame this tradition has died out. Many of the happiest couples I know, be they newlywed or not, admit that much of their marital happiness is due to being dedicated to their spouse, even before knowing who their spouse would be. In other words, before marriage (and sometimes even before meeting their future spouse) they would pray for him/her, and certainly they would save themselves sexually for him/her.
Their love for and fidelity to each other did not start upon saying "I do," but was rather developed and strengthened long before then. A hope chest could very easily assist such spousal commitment by orienting a young woman's thoughts and heart in that direction. The more she thinks about her future husband and prepares for life with him, the less likely she will be to get distracted from this goal through casual relationships. Her hope chest would serve as a reminder of her future husband and their life together, thereby strengthening her love and commitment to him.
Although filling a chest with linens and dishware doesn't seem practical to me for our times (most of us no longer sew our own linens or quilts), there are two things I really like about the general idea.
First, it shows intentionality. Young women who packed their hope chests weren't just waiting around for marriage, they were preparing for it.
Second, I love the use of "hope" in this context. It is not just wishing. It is not just dreaming. It is a very biblical definition of hope -- present action in the joy and expectation of a future event.
It got me to thinking. What could a young woman in 2008 do to prepare, and not just wait, for her marriage? What could she put into her "hope chest," even if she doesn't have a big cedar box?
Carolyn McCulley, over at Solo Feminity, wrote yesterday about an article she came across doing research for her current book. The article, titled "Soccer Mom Wannabe," details one mom's struggle with the choice she has made to continue her full-time career after her child is born. The mom writes: The screen updates every five seconds or so. It reminds me of dancing under a strobe light. Flash: He's sitting on the floor. Flash: Here comes a little girl. Flash: She whacks him on the head. Flash: He's crying. Flash: Here comes the teacher...
Now, where is he? Flash: He's crawled over to the cubby holes. Flash: What's in there?
Every morning the alarm screams at 6:00am. We get up, get washed, get fed, get dressed, strap his flailing body into the car seat, and haul him out to the daycare where two 18 year old girls watch him and ten other kids so I can go to my job that pays the daycare bill. And I become the voyeur. Welcome to postmodern child rearing: I watch my son at daycare over the internet. He is growing up in Technicolor, right on my screen...
Then, after acknowledging how hard our mother's generation worked to open doors for women, this mom admits her frustration: Problem is, this world sucks. I miss my family. On a typical day I am with my son (awake) for about 30 minutes in the morning, 30 minutes at lunch, and about 2 hours in the evening for a grand total of 3 hours per day. I spend more time with my co-workers than my husband or son.
There's such a haunting sadness about this article. This mom seems to understand in her gut that something is wrong, but is either unwilling to make a change or feels powerless to do so. If she is unwilling, that's a chilling commentary on our society's priorities. If it's that she feels powerless, it makes me wonder how much we've gained in the "women's movement." Do women really feel like they have more choices, or are the choices just more painful?
I was enjoying the off-topic discussion over at Heather's "Matchmaker, Matchmaker, Make Me a Match" post, but think it's probably best to give the conversation a place of its own.
A bit late, yeah, but better now than never.
For those of you who've been missing out, here's your chance to get caught up. Read Candice's Boundless Answers column, "Adopt or Have My Own?" first. Then skim through the relevant comments here. And then join the discussion below!
A frequent comment on BoundlessLine is the question, "Why do you talk about marriage so much?" Initially, this question makes me wonder if people really don't know that Boundless is a service of Focus on the Family, a group that specializes in Christian marriage and parenting principles.
Our editorial mix for years now has been divided between 1) Christian worldview, 2) Christian community, 3) stewardship of time, money and calling, 4) purity and 5) vision and preparation for marriage and family.
Here are some of the reasons we included #5 in the mix:
- 85 to 90% of the general population eventually gets married. Some back their way into it, or as Leon Kass puts it, "they stumble on to the altar as if by accident." Once people marry, half of their pregnancies are unplanned. That means a lot of the families out there are made up of people who backed their way into the whole family enterprise. As with any major initiative in life, vision and preparation make an important difference.
- You can't talk effectively about the Biblical standards of absolute sexual purity among unmarried Christians without talking about how people can have their natural sexual drives fulfilled within marriage or within the high calling of lifelong celibacy.
- While we know that marriage will not meet all your needs, will not solve all your problems and will not remove all your loneliness, we still believe that Genesis 2 demonstrates that in His goodness, God specifically designed marriage to meet some needs, solve some problems and remove some loneliness (and that's putting it conservatively). As a result, we want to encourage singles in this honorable aspiration.
- We believe that too many men and women have been unable to experience the marriages they desire because of Christian subcultures that don't talk about it. These subcultures might have the intention of not wanting to frustrate those who haven't achieved their goal of marriage or of not pressuring someone into a bad marriage, but their silence has often left Christian singles without a compelling alternative to the complete dysfunction of our post-marriage culture.
We continue to appreciate your constructive feedback as we seek to be as accurate and Godly as possible in how we talk about marriage, but these are the reasons why we plan to keep the topic as an integral topic within our editorial mix.
There are many stories of mothers choosing life for their babies; Lorraine Allard is just one of them. According to FoxNews, the 33-year-old Allard learned that she had advanced liver cancer when she was four months pregnant with her fourth child. Allard, of St. Olaves in the U.K., had a choice: Delay treatment to save her baby, or terminate the pregnancy to save herself.
She chose the former, waiting until the fetus was viable before scheduling a Caesarean section.
"If I am going to die, my baby is going to live," Allard told her husband, Martyn, according to the [Daily] Mail.
Two months after giving birth to her son, Liam, Allard died.
Perhaps what is heartening about this story isn't only that Allard chose life for her baby, but that this article was at the top of the "most read" list yesterday. In our basic nature, we humans cherish life. And we acknowledge the beauty of a mother's sacrifice for her child. In the words of Allard's husband: "Lorraine was positive all the way through," Martyn Allard told the paper. "She had strength for both of us. I can't begin to describe how brave she was. Towards the end we knew things weren't going well, but she was overjoyed that she had given life to Liam."
 It's been many months in the making. Long hours praying and pondering about what to include, and how best to say it. Receiving input from family and friends. Typing and re-typing deep into the night after the kids are in bed and early in the morning before the kids are up.
The galleys arrive, and more last-minute tweaking. Dr. Albert Mohler writes a glowing forward to the book. And finally ... the book that Boundless founder Candice Watters has been pouring her life into -- Get Married: What Women Can Do to Help it Happen -- is ready for you to read.
It's already received very favorable reviews: Refreshing! Practical! Encouraging! I'm confident you'll find the book to be those things and more.
 We wanted to do something special for Boundless readers, so we asked Candice to come in and sign some copies. Which, of course, she did. We had 112 of these signed copies on Tuesday; today we've only got 42 left. If you place order #43, you'll get one powerful read, but the title page will merely have a title on it. No sig. Let me encourage you to not delay placing your order.
Here's the link to get the book. After you've read it, let us know what you think!
And whether you get the book or not, you're free to join Candice's hip new social network just for single Christian women: Women Praying Boldly.
Oh, I almost forgot. We published an excerpt from the book earlier this week on Boundless: "Marriage: An Idol?" Now there's a provocative title.
Bonnie Eslinger doesn't believe in marriage. She says she doesn't "need a piece of paper from the state to strengthen [her] commitment to Jeff" or "a white dress to feel pretty." She says that and a lot more in a short essay in Newsweek magazine designed to raise a ruckus. And it has. On both sides of the debate.
Dr. Albert Mohler blogged about it on Tuesday, concluding that Eslinger's article, "Yes to Love, No to Marriage," is an "eloquent testimony to the absolute victory of personal autonomy as an ideal." In one short paragraph, notes Mohler, "the first-person pronoun appears no less than eleven times."
As a staunch defender of marriage both because I've experienced its benefits first-hand and I believe in the God who made marriage for our good and His glory, I'm so glad leaders like Dr. Mohler are publicly exposing the problem with Eslinger's thinking. He wrote: Marriage is not primarily about what we as individuals think we want or need. It is about a central public commitment that the society needs, that couples need, that children need, and yes, that the spouses need. Marriage is a public institution, not merely a private commitment. It identifies the couple as a pair committed to lifelong marriage and thus to be respected in this commitment. The fact that our society has weakened marriage offers only further incentive to get it right and to strengthen this vital institution.
The traditions of the wedding ceremony are important as a part of solemnizing and recognizing this covenanted relationship -- but the traditions are expendable. Marriage is not. There is a universe of difference between a private promise and a public pledge. Marriage is about a public vow made by the man to the woman and the woman to the man whereby they become now husband and wife.
I didn't need a white dress to feel pretty, either. Eslinger knows better, or should. Women who believe in marriage as God made it are about far more than a dress. We know that marriage is the building block of our society. Without it, democracy crumbles and pathologies abound. That's why the divorce rate is so tragic.
As Mohler says, "There are things we really cannot not know, and one of these truths is that marriage really does matter."
(For more on the Boundless perspective on marriage, see "What if We Love Each Other?")
Do you know anyone who has claimed to have a midlife crisis? Writing in the New York Times, Dr. Richard A. Friedman says we may be too generous in letting people use that euphemistic description. He writes, "With the possible exception of 'the dog ate my homework,' there is no handier excuse for human misbehavior than the midlife crisis. ... But you have to admit that "I'm having a midlife crisis" sounds a lot better than 'I'm a narcissistic jerk having a meltdown'."
Dr. Friedman's plain spokenness about this phenomenon resonated with me because it hits close to home. One of my family members is having his heart ripped out by a wife who is excusing her reckless behavior under the label of a midlife crisis.
The piece comes around to a point that I found relevant to BoundlessLine readers: The main culprit, I think, is our youth-obsessed culture, which makes a virtue of the relentless pursuit of self-renewal. The news media abound with stories of people who seek to recapture their youth simply by shedding their spouses, quitting their jobs or leaving their families. Who can resist?
Most middle-aged people, it turns out, if we are to believe the definitive survey.
Except, of course, for the few -- mainly men, it seems -- who find the midlife crisis a socially acceptable shorthand for what you do when you suddenly wake up and discover that you're not 20 anymore.
What does this commentary on the link between pursuing endless youth and midlife meltdowns say about how we should spend our twenties and thirties?
"Our learning must be seasoned before it can be put to use in full effectiveness. Experience has its lessons to impart and we will profit by them. Struggle and stress and strife will give the fiber which is the basis of character, and that we my not be lacking in humility less adversity come upon us. So we set forth for our work in the world not blindly, but hopefully, not carelessly, but with seriousness of purpose, resolved to give our best to the struggle which is life. Each in her own particular task will render service in accordance with her natural endowments plus learning."
Those were the marching orders given to Mercy Hospital's graduating class of nurses in 1933 by the valedictorian. It's a visionary statement of purpose the likes of which fill books of famous quotations. But this quote wasn't uttered by a statesman or actor or author. It was written, and delivered, by my grandma. And until my uncle worked with an archivist at Mercy Hospital to pull together an alumni display, I'd never seen it before. I didn't even know she was valedictorian.
"Born in Toledo, August 22, 1912, Helen Marie Weissenberger was the youngest of six children. In 1930, she entered nurses training at Mercy hospital. After graduation, she went on to work for two OB/GYN physicians. She was also a nurse with the American Red Cross."
These facts and more, part of an exhibit at the hospital, made their way to me via email from my Dad. Reading through them I realized how little I know about my grandma. And they're all I have left. She died when I was a young woman.
How I wish now that I had taken time to ask her about her life. She was always just grandma. The loving woman with the immaculate house and wonderful tin of cookies in her kitchen cupboard. I didn't appreciate till just last week that she was once a woman like I am now: a mother of three young children with dreams and aspirations, some realized, some shelved for the greater good of her family. It's a gift to have this memoir of her life. I see much of myself in her story and am reminded how much I am a product of my family.
If your grandparents are still living, don't miss another opportunity to ask them about their youth. What was it like to date and marry back when they were in their 20s? What were their kids -- your parents -- like when they were babies and little kids? What's changed since then? What's the same? If you can get it, their story, your heritage, is one Christmas gift worth asking for.
Everyone loves a feel-good story at Christmastime. And my favorite feel-good stories have to do with adoption. The New York Sun reports this story of the unlikely adoption of an Iraqi orphan by a U.S. soldier. Captain Scott Southworth first met Ala'a four years ago: On September 6, 2003, halfway through his 13-month deployment, Captain Southworth and his military police unit paid a visit to the orphanage. They played and chatted with the children; Captain Southworth was talking with one little girl when Ala'a dragged his body to the soldier's side.
Black haired and brown eyed, Ala'a spoke to the 31-year-old American in the limited English he had learned from the sisters. He recalled the bombs that struck government buildings across the Tigris River.
"Bomb-Bing! Bomb-Bing!" Ala'a said, raising and lowering his fist.
"I'm here now. You're fine," the captain said.
Over the course of 10 months, the two developed a relationship, and Ala'a, who suffers from cerebral palsy, secretly began calling Captain Southworth "Baba," which is Arabic for "Daddy." Even though he was a single man with no wife and children back in the states, Captain Southworth felt compelled to adopt the boy. Captain Southworth's decision was cemented in spring 2004, while he and his comrades watched Mel Gibson's film, "The Passion of the Christ." Jesus Christ's sacrifice moved him. He imagined meeting Christ and Ala'a in heaven, where Ala'a asked: "Baba, why didn't you ever come back to get me?"
"Everything that I came up with as a response I felt ashamed. I wouldn't want to stand in the presence of Jesus and Ala'a and say those things to him."
Captain Southworth was able to adopt Ala'a and bring him to the U.S. in January 2005. Today the boy is 13 and thriving. It's apparent Captain Southworth has embraced his unexpected calling. Ala'a — who picked out his own name, which means to be near God — knows he's where he belongs. Captain Southworth always says Ala'a picked him, not the other way around. They were brought together, Captain Southworth believes, by a "web of miracles."
HT: Justin Taylor
It was Christmas break and the campus was closing down, so I went back home for a few weeks. As the days passed, I grew restless and bored. I missed spending time with friends between classes. I missed the mental stimulation. I found myself increasingly eager to leave the emptiness of small town Upper Michigan and return to the normality of college life.
It's been over a decade since that particular Christmas break, but the memories of that time are still there. I imagine many of our readers are finding themselves in the same place: restlessness, boredom, loneliness. Maybe there's some family conflict, maybe the gifts you received for Christmas were lame, maybe things have changed too much (or too little) from the last time you visited home.
Let me encourage you to spend a few minutes reading "Making it a Merry Christmas," an article we published a few days ago on Boundless, something Suzanne had written a couple of years ago. I'm confident it'll help you make the best of your time back home.
Does this article resonate with you? Are you anxious to get back to college, with its routine and friendships?
It's that time of year again.
Time to go home for Christmas. Or stick around and make Christmas traditions of your own. Either way, the events surrounding such a wonderful and emotional holiday can create stress. Today, Boundless is featuring an article I wrote two years ago about overcoming holiday blues. I also talked about it for a Focus on the Family TV short.
A few weeks ago, I received an e-mail from Pamela, who wrote: I just wondered -- this is Christmas 2007 -- how have the situations you described evolved? I just wanted to hug each of you!
Thank you, Pamela. I am very glad to report that since writing that article, each Christmas has been better than the last. An others-focused game plan makes all the difference. It doesn't allow you to feel sorry for yourself. (I also send out a little gift list with appropriate gift ideas instead of expecting family members to read my mind.)
Last year, I spent a lot of time in the days leading up to Christmas cooking, wrapping presents and cleaning the kitchen. This kept me busy, provided quality time with my family members and alleviated household stress. By Christmas Eve, duties were done and we were able to drive to my brother's town in Oregon to attend the Christmas Eve service he'd put together.(Note the picture of me and my nephew Ben taken that night.)
The improvement in my Christmas experiences could be maturity, but I also notice a huge difference when I don't let my time with the Lord slide. That is something I have absolute control over. I wish each of you a Christmas full of joy and laughter -- and most importantly, full of Christ!
Lynne Spears (mother of Britney and Jamie Lynn) is writing a book about parenting. Apparently this book has been put on hold ... indefinitely. The publisher declined to comment about why, but I'm wondering if it has anything to do with the fact that Britney Spears is constantly in the news for her antics, and now 16-year-old Jamie Lynn has announced that she's pregnant by her boyfriend.
Maybe it's a good idea to wait on the book.
Although it doesn't directly affect me, the situation with the Spears family is disheartening. I don't know why these kids turned out the way they did, but there's certainly room to speculate. Both Britney and Jamie Lynn were entered into show business at a young age. Not all childhood stars drive on the freeway with their children in their laps or get pregnant at age 16, of course. But everything I hear about Britney lately seems to indicate that she has serious problems, and now her sister seems to be following along.
This is not to say that those raised under the best conditions always make wise choices either. It looks as though the shooter who killed people at YWAM and New Life Church was raised in a Christian home. I know rebellious people who grew up knowing what the Bible taught and how to live lives that were glorifying to God.
There doesn't seem to be any foolproof way to raise kids. Although I am nowhere near being a parent yet, hearing stories like the Spears' just makes me realize that once I have children, I need to be in prayer for them every single day.
All of us make our own decisions. Britney has chosen to become a partier. Jamie Lynn chose to have sex. Matthew Murray chose to take the lives of innocent victims.
I can only hope that my life will be a model of mainly right choices to my children, and that they will choose to follow in those footsteps.
Right now, I must try my hardest every single day to model what it means to love Him and love others -- and continue that into parenthood. I think I'll try that and maybe skip Lynne Spears' parenting book.
A study published yesterday in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (JECH) reports that abortions increase the risk of low birth weight in future pregnancies by a factor of three, and of premature birth by a factor of two. Though the data contained in the study is 40 years old (I wonder why it didn't see the light of day sooner), it is the most thorough and conclusive U.S. study of its kind. According to Time: The study not only found a link between abortion or miscarriage and low birth weight, but it also found that the risk appears to increase with every subsequent miscarriage or abortion. The accruing risk, says co-author Tilahun Adera at Virginia Commonwealth University, suggests that termination of pregnancy is a true cause of low birth weight and preterm birth rather than a variable associated with such conditions. "It's not just an association," he says. "The risk of premature birth increases with the increasing number of abortions."
Women who had had one, two or three prior abortions or miscarriages were three, five and nine times more likely, respectively, to have a low-birth-weight child, the da
|
