I was at a beautiful, big playground yesterday with Katie and Titus. It had little kid climbing walls, bridges, multiple slides that wound and waved. It had things I'd never seen before, but were remarkably fun. I was twirling Katie on one of these, and a line of little girls soon formed to be next. I stopped Kate's ride so the others could have a turn. Katie wanted to go again, so I directed her to the back of the line. She immediately entered into the discussion the girls were having about how hot they all were. The girl just in front of her became her good friend just like that.
I left Kate in line while I pushed Titus on the swing. I looked up a few minutes later and Katie and the girl were sitting, in the midst of all these fun activities, visiting. They sat there for at least thirty minutes chatting until they finally entered into an imaginative game running around on the bridges.
Isn't this what we still do all grown up? We girls get together to make cards, or scrapbook, or quilt, not because we can't do these things alone, but we need excuses to get together and chat. I'm sure Matt is glad I have girlfriends who help meet the need to talk, because even though I have an unusually verbal husband, not even he could sustain the full burden of my chatting needs.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
No Girls Allowed
Did you watch The Little Rascals growing up? Remember the clubhouse that had a large, misspelled sign reading "No Girls Allowed!" Apparently Titus has this strain already. After praying with Titus before bed tonight, Matt turned to me and said, "Titus only prays for boys."
"What? What are you talking about?" I asked.
"He never prays for girls. He only prays 'God bless uncles, God bless Philip, God bless new baby.' He won't pray for girls."
"What? What are you talking about?" I asked.
"He never prays for girls. He only prays 'God bless uncles, God bless Philip, God bless new baby.' He won't pray for girls."
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
It's Fun To Scare Children
I love to read to the kids. I love to try to draw them into a story by lively reading. I really enjoy it when an author can build tension well, and I can watch as my children tense and then delight in the release of the tension. I guess I can get into the reading too much, though. The other day we were reading Billy Goats Gruff and I attempted to use the harsh voice the author had given to the Ogre. Midway through the interaction of the Billy Goats with the Ogre Katie bursts my bubble by saying, "Mom, use your normal voice. That voice is really creeping me out."
Undaunted, I tried to use a deep gravelly voice described for the evil woman figure in the book we were reading today, and Titus started covering his ears whenever I used the voice. Not too many times and Titus couldn't stand it anymore. With his hands over his ears, he begged me to stop.
It's so hard for me to go back to the normal voice. I'm like my father, I'm afraid, and will do almost anything for the reaction. Somehow it's not quite so much fun to read the parts of bad guys without using the bad guy voice.
Undaunted, I tried to use a deep gravelly voice described for the evil woman figure in the book we were reading today, and Titus started covering his ears whenever I used the voice. Not too many times and Titus couldn't stand it anymore. With his hands over his ears, he begged me to stop.
It's so hard for me to go back to the normal voice. I'm like my father, I'm afraid, and will do almost anything for the reaction. Somehow it's not quite so much fun to read the parts of bad guys without using the bad guy voice.
Who Needs Parenting Books?
I wrote this post weeks ago and then Andree Seu, an essayist for World Magazine wrote an essay in the September 22nd issue of World that said much of what I was thinking only much, much better. I set this aside at that time, but enough time has passed since her essay that I thought I'd go ahead and post it now.
Years before I had children, a friend who already had one or two told me her husband didn't believe in reading parenting books. He thought they should just follow the Bible. I thought it was an odd thing at the time. I thought it should be more about finding biblical parenting books, but no books at all?
Matt and I read a parenting book together once as a spring board for discussion, but we didn't look to it as a formula for fool-proof parenting. I've dabbled in other books on my own and found helpful advice here and there. But it really has been in the course of learning more about God as a Father and the church as our mother that I have found the most satisfying answers to parenting.
I have been studying Romans lately. In the course of this study and through Matt's patient instruction, I've been developing a fuller picture of God as our Father. Since most of my time and thought necessarily goes into parenting right now, I can't help but see applications everywhere in my daily life.
Paul, in Romans, belabors the idea that the law only energizes sin and drives us away from God when we are under the obligations of the law. Yes, fulfillment of the law will gain us favor with God, but only if we can keep it perfectly. Since none of us ever can keep the law, the law only drives us away from God. Once Paul establishes the hopelessness of looking to the law to free us from the power and guilt of sin, he turns to the gospel. Now we are children, in a perpetual state of pleasing our Father because we partake of all the benefits of Christ. I still sin. I still fall way short of the glory of God, but I am ever under the loving eye of my Father. Now, I can be confident that all things that come into my life are not because God is displeased with me, but because He is pleased with me.
As I was reflecting on this and what this means for me as a parent, I realized that I had this exemplified for me as a child. Sure, my parents lost their tempers, but even at those times, I did not feel banished from their good graces. One of my strongest impressions from childhood was that my dad delighted in me. It seemed to me that he took every opportunity to take us kids with him, even if it was only to the hardware store. He delighted in having us hanging about him in the garage (until he hurt himself, then we scattered) as he worked on cars. He would take us for drives for no other reason than to have an excuse to spend time with us. He showed amazing patience with our endless questions, and entertained us with stories from his own adventure-filled childhood. He delighted in me, giving me a little taste of the delight my heavenly Father has for me. For if my earthly father, being a fallen man, could love me so dearly, how much more must my heavenly Father?
Overall, I felt my parents were pleased with me as a child. I never thought my disobedience would end my parents' delight in me. What was my response to this? Was my response to be flagrant in my disobedience because I couldn't lose my parents' favor? Absolutely not! "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" Romans 6:1
Rather, my response is exactly what Paul, and the Heidelberg in its third part on the law, teaches us it will be. In response to this unmerited favor, I wanted to please my parents. I wanted to adopt their values and please them by being their child in deed. My question is this: If the Bible tells us that being under the requirements of the law as a means to favor only increases our anger and rebellion toward God, why would we expect it to have any other effect on our children? Ought we not love our children unconditionally and use the law only as a means of instructing them on how to love us (and really primarily God)? Our children, born into the covenant, baptized with the sign and seal, are assumed saved until they prove otherwise by their own rebellion. I want to treat Katie and Titus with the Gospel.
The child of God can read Psalm 119 with a big Amen in his heart, while, as Paul teaches us in Romans, the unbeliever responds to the revelation of God's perfect nature in the Law with agitation and rebellion. For now, Katie delights in who her Father is, and we rejoice to see it.
So then, when Katie has sinned against me or her brother, my concern ought not to be with punishing her, or obtaining justice, but my concern ought to be primarily her good. I don't want her to be at the mercy of her passions, for that will bring her destruction and pain. Out of love for her, I ought to instruct her in what will bring her happiness and contentment. Matt and I have begun viewing spankings as a later tool to be used with Katie. We begin with instructing her in what the Bible says the end of her behavior is, and that we don't want these bad things to come upon her. When we do spank her, we do not present it as punishment for sin (her sins were punished in the person of Christ, just as mine were), but as our way of helping her remember the instruction she has been given.
Years before I had children, a friend who already had one or two told me her husband didn't believe in reading parenting books. He thought they should just follow the Bible. I thought it was an odd thing at the time. I thought it should be more about finding biblical parenting books, but no books at all?
Matt and I read a parenting book together once as a spring board for discussion, but we didn't look to it as a formula for fool-proof parenting. I've dabbled in other books on my own and found helpful advice here and there. But it really has been in the course of learning more about God as a Father and the church as our mother that I have found the most satisfying answers to parenting.
I have been studying Romans lately. In the course of this study and through Matt's patient instruction, I've been developing a fuller picture of God as our Father. Since most of my time and thought necessarily goes into parenting right now, I can't help but see applications everywhere in my daily life.
Paul, in Romans, belabors the idea that the law only energizes sin and drives us away from God when we are under the obligations of the law. Yes, fulfillment of the law will gain us favor with God, but only if we can keep it perfectly. Since none of us ever can keep the law, the law only drives us away from God. Once Paul establishes the hopelessness of looking to the law to free us from the power and guilt of sin, he turns to the gospel. Now we are children, in a perpetual state of pleasing our Father because we partake of all the benefits of Christ. I still sin. I still fall way short of the glory of God, but I am ever under the loving eye of my Father. Now, I can be confident that all things that come into my life are not because God is displeased with me, but because He is pleased with me.
As I was reflecting on this and what this means for me as a parent, I realized that I had this exemplified for me as a child. Sure, my parents lost their tempers, but even at those times, I did not feel banished from their good graces. One of my strongest impressions from childhood was that my dad delighted in me. It seemed to me that he took every opportunity to take us kids with him, even if it was only to the hardware store. He delighted in having us hanging about him in the garage (until he hurt himself, then we scattered) as he worked on cars. He would take us for drives for no other reason than to have an excuse to spend time with us. He showed amazing patience with our endless questions, and entertained us with stories from his own adventure-filled childhood. He delighted in me, giving me a little taste of the delight my heavenly Father has for me. For if my earthly father, being a fallen man, could love me so dearly, how much more must my heavenly Father?
Overall, I felt my parents were pleased with me as a child. I never thought my disobedience would end my parents' delight in me. What was my response to this? Was my response to be flagrant in my disobedience because I couldn't lose my parents' favor? Absolutely not! "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" Romans 6:1
Rather, my response is exactly what Paul, and the Heidelberg in its third part on the law, teaches us it will be. In response to this unmerited favor, I wanted to please my parents. I wanted to adopt their values and please them by being their child in deed. My question is this: If the Bible tells us that being under the requirements of the law as a means to favor only increases our anger and rebellion toward God, why would we expect it to have any other effect on our children? Ought we not love our children unconditionally and use the law only as a means of instructing them on how to love us (and really primarily God)? Our children, born into the covenant, baptized with the sign and seal, are assumed saved until they prove otherwise by their own rebellion. I want to treat Katie and Titus with the Gospel.
The child of God can read Psalm 119 with a big Amen in his heart, while, as Paul teaches us in Romans, the unbeliever responds to the revelation of God's perfect nature in the Law with agitation and rebellion. For now, Katie delights in who her Father is, and we rejoice to see it.
So then, when Katie has sinned against me or her brother, my concern ought not to be with punishing her, or obtaining justice, but my concern ought to be primarily her good. I don't want her to be at the mercy of her passions, for that will bring her destruction and pain. Out of love for her, I ought to instruct her in what will bring her happiness and contentment. Matt and I have begun viewing spankings as a later tool to be used with Katie. We begin with instructing her in what the Bible says the end of her behavior is, and that we don't want these bad things to come upon her. When we do spank her, we do not present it as punishment for sin (her sins were punished in the person of Christ, just as mine were), but as our way of helping her remember the instruction she has been given.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The RCUS Did It Before It Was Cool
I'm hearing a lot these days about the Patriarchy movement and the Family Integrated Church movements. People, even some from denominations within the Reformed family, are discovering these revolutionary ideas. I have friends who are making names for themselves touting the crazy ideas that men ought to be heads of their homes, their wives ought to be in submission and parents ought to take responsibility for the education of their children. I am hearing them decry the modern day church's practice of separating children and age groups from one another, with a group for every need: Singles groups, Young Couples groups, Young Couples with Children groups, etc.
While these people are finding excitement in associating with these revolutionary groups, I have been privileged to be in a denomination whose taught these ideas before it was cool. The RCUS has always been a champion of men being loving, sacrificial heads of their homes. The pastors of the RCUS taught me years ago that God intended children to learn to worship God corporately by the example of their parents, and that they were important, legitimate members of the congregation. They taught that the younger people need to be with the older members of the church, and we impoverish our fellowship by removing the elderly to their own separate group. But they didn't make a great show of it. They didn't call themselves part of the XY and Z movement. They simply presented the Biblical doctrines and conformed to them. They have been about the business of shepherding the flock God has given them and striving for faithfulness to the Word.
I'm thankful biblical ideas are getting greater attention. I rejoice that God is opening hearts to see the importance of a more God-centered worship. But the one thing that concerns me in some of these movements is when one defines themselves by their movement instead of by the fellowship of Jesus Christ. The temptation can easily become to judge others Christianity and worthiness of fellowship on whether they practice courtship, or homeschool, etc. Our fellowship can become defined no longer by the cross-centered Table which we share, but our movement.
To give them due honor, I have been a member in two different OPC churches when I lived in communities without RCUS churches, and they too were committed to biblical, God centered worship. I can't speak too highly of the two OPC congregations which nurtured me.
While these people are finding excitement in associating with these revolutionary groups, I have been privileged to be in a denomination whose taught these ideas before it was cool. The RCUS has always been a champion of men being loving, sacrificial heads of their homes. The pastors of the RCUS taught me years ago that God intended children to learn to worship God corporately by the example of their parents, and that they were important, legitimate members of the congregation. They taught that the younger people need to be with the older members of the church, and we impoverish our fellowship by removing the elderly to their own separate group. But they didn't make a great show of it. They didn't call themselves part of the XY and Z movement. They simply presented the Biblical doctrines and conformed to them. They have been about the business of shepherding the flock God has given them and striving for faithfulness to the Word.
I'm thankful biblical ideas are getting greater attention. I rejoice that God is opening hearts to see the importance of a more God-centered worship. But the one thing that concerns me in some of these movements is when one defines themselves by their movement instead of by the fellowship of Jesus Christ. The temptation can easily become to judge others Christianity and worthiness of fellowship on whether they practice courtship, or homeschool, etc. Our fellowship can become defined no longer by the cross-centered Table which we share, but our movement.
To give them due honor, I have been a member in two different OPC churches when I lived in communities without RCUS churches, and they too were committed to biblical, God centered worship. I can't speak too highly of the two OPC congregations which nurtured me.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Playing With Dinosaurs
Katie and Titus do their fair share of bickering, but they do have moments when they play like best friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)