More Love From Craigslist

You may remember our last craigslist find. Well, we out did ourselves last weekend with another $30 couch - but with nearly 3 times the seating!

It makes our house seem bigger somehow, and makes us feel like a real live family who can all sit on a couch together. Fun stuff. Now I invite you to take a virtual tour of our second (but primary) floor.

View from kitchen

This is our new fish, Beethoven. He had a friend, Blacky, who died quickly of a white fungus. This is what happens when you decide to take a 2 1/2 year old to a pet store to see all the animals. We are seriously lucky we did not come home with mice.

This is the little people village. It is always out.

Elliot is far more interested in my books than his. Like the velour bum shot? It is looking a little larger than usual because we have switched to cloth ($15 on craigslist). Have I mentioned yet that Søren is 100% potty trained now too?!

We're still working on this view...perhaps it's time to get rid of some toys.

The couch is so large I could not fit it all in the picture

Here is the rest of it!

Here is the photo wall for the boys so that they never forget important faces.

This is our dining table. Yes, there is a mobile above it. We hung it there to keep it out of the way when we were unpacking, but then we decided we liked the whimsy it brought to the room.

This is Søren's potty corner. This sleek and wonderful chair was also a craigslist find for $8 (retails $25)!

In the wee hours of this morning...

My mother called us to invite us to lunch. We met at a small empty cafe. After greeting us she brings out our dad - who seems a little disoriented and shy. His hair is two-inches long again, and dark with flecks of gray. He wears a tee-shirt and old hunting shorts. His hands are folded in his lap as he looks at us briefly from across the table.

We all instinctively desire to embrace him and question him, but my mom holds us back and says, "He's only 3 days old," by which we all understand he has only just decided to live as a man again. Then she leaves us to be alone with him.

I tenderly brush the hair over my Soren's ear and tell him, "Remember about my dad? Remember how I told you that you had a grandfather but we just weren't able to see him? Here he finally is! This is your grandpa!"

Soren, with the innocence of a child, scrambles around the table climbing into his lap and giving him a great tender hug followed by three sweet kisses on the forehead. This sweet act embodies what the rest of us girls have wanted to do. My youngest sister, who had left him as for dead, dissolves into tears and follows Soren's lead, hugging and kissing and being embraced once more by her father.

After the crying and embracing is over he tells his story. Climbing into a taxi as Sarah, the driver studies his face and asks if his name used to be Mark. For some reason this recognition from what should be a complete stranger convinced him that Mark should not be forgotten. That though Mark's life had become quite difficult, it was still worth finishing well. That Mark was still right below the surface.

Elated, I wake up. I realize it is over. I realize he is still Sarah. I know it was just a dream, and yet, a dream where I spent the day with my dad and a family reunited...and so as irrationally as dreams sometimes can be, the memory was almost as pleasant as if it were real.

Pacifism: The Church as a Peacemaker

I am continuing the dialog on pacifism/non-violence that I have been engaged in with Dustin.
His thoughtful and compelling post this morning was: Violence & the World: A Body of Peace-makers.


Personal History

Until very recently, I would never have seriously considered Christian pacifism as a biblical demand. As self-defense has always seemed instinctual to me, it did not seem wrong (never mind that many of our instincts are still sinful...at least, many of mine are). Further, self-defense is typically a defense against evil actions, so it never seemed like instigating something wrong. I suppose I fell under a "just war" position, by which I mean, try all other methods of peaceful resolution first, but if there is grave danger/evil, do whatever it takes to fight it. Ultimately, it was a "the ends justify the means" stance...which is always a little sketchy and a little compelling.

One of my Gutenberg classmates (in a class of 9) was a committed pacifist, and now I am wishing I could ring him up on the phone and hear his perspectives again (for none of us gave him much ear at the time), but he has his hands full with either a very new baby or a very pregnant wife...I have not yet heard. At the time, it just seemed so absurd to think through the "worst case scenario's" about what one would do if... To be honest, it still is a struggle for me. I will share more on that next week as we discuss pacifism and the individual.

Up until very recently, I would have not have blinked to hear of someone defending themselves physically from attack (in fact, I still don't think I would, it seems so natural). What changed everything for me was the church incident in Colorado. It is not my intention, at all, to make this about accusing that church of anything. What the incident did for me was heighten my awareness that I do, in fact, feel that a violent response, like the one they had, does not fit with what seems the biblical call for the Church. I was shocked.


Repercussions

The repercussions of that shock are settling. If it seemed so clear that the Church should not respond to attack with violence...then how can one conclude anything differently about how the individuals who comprise the Church ought to respond in similar situations.

If someone is a member of the body of Christ (i.e. the Church), then that person is a member all the time. The allegiance and service and fellowship are not just on Sundays and not just with fellow members of a specific location - they are always and all the time. If "the Church" ought to react in certain ways (or abstain from reacting in certain ways) then it only makes sense that the individuals ought to react (or not react) likewise?

There can be no separation between the call of the Church and the call of the members. The one is determined from the other.

Much of the Bible's records are about the actions and history of Jesus and the Apostles early ministries when the whole concept of Christianity was brand new. They were not so compartmentalized as modern man. Converting to Christianity as a Jewish person meant a whole-sale rejection of all else that was previously their normal life and relationships. They made a permanent congregation together sharing all things in common, for truly, where else could they go? It is not until later, when Paul takes his missionary journeys to the Gentiles, that we get a glimpse into people who are converted, but maintain some level of normal life. These people did suffer various forms of persecution and were told to rejoice in them. These are the letters that resonate so strongly because they are so practical: how to live in light of this good news and other kingdom while going about normal life. Yet even here, there is no compartmentalization; they were called to "strive together for the faith of the gospel" at all times.

If all of life is seen as ministry, if we are always and at all times being the Church, then there is no time at which we are immune from the demands to be at peace with all men, to seek God's blessing and identity marker as a son of God by striving to be a peacemaker. If we allow modernism's compartmentalization to tell us that at times we are a worker, at times a citizen, at times a mother, at times a church-goer, etc, then we are in danger of falling into confusion about where our true self lies, about who we are. We are Christ followers all the time. We are in ministry all the time. We are all missionaries all the time.

How ought a missionary respond to attack? With a turned cheek? Then each of us individually and collectively need to as well.

Taken together we become the Church, who is no more than a Christ-follower-writ-large standing in stark contrast to the World, who is an unrepentant-sinner-writ-large. As the Church we do not become a corporate other with new rules, rights, and hierarchies that allow for behaviors that are "above the law". If this is the case, there is nothing that the Church can justify that its individual members cannot.


This Question Remains

Can physical consequences be present in peace-making? Can a peacemaker insist on boundaries that will be maintained. Could the Church (or an individual believer) say in times of conflict - if you make this choice, I will enact this consequence, so choose wisely. That is largely what I do as a parent. Sometimes the consequence is a spanking done in love because pain is such an effective teacher. Perhaps there a qualitative difference in the kind of authority a parent has over their young children than the kind that any other human could hold over another.

Throw Away The Spoon? **more details**

I had not seen the spoon in a few days. It was not in any of my regular locations. I did remember seeing Søren with it a couple days ago dangling it over his belly saying "I'm checking my babies, momma". So, I asked Søren if he knew where my spoon was.

"Yeah. I threw it in the garbage."

"What?! Why would you throw Momma's spoon in the garbage?"

Blank stare.

Andrew and I exchange the glance that says, "This reeks of truth, has happened before, and is slightly comical."

So...no more spoon (we take our garbage out daily). Well, I do not have much jewelry. My wedding ring is platinum, and my heirloom ring from my grandmother is white gold. I also found an old skeleton key that I kept because I have some strange obsession with old keys. I decided it was time for some more research.

Skeleton Key: Moves like silver. In fact, easier to wield because it is lighter and better shaped. So now, I have a key to wield. Less homey, but just as effective. This will be kept away from my dear Søren, and I will be a little better at keeping the garbage cabinet locked.

White Gold Ring: Also can be wielded, but the movements are different! Over the "girl" it moves hip to hip, and over the "boy" it moves head to feet.

Platinum: Takes longer to get started (probably because it is so heavy), but then moves in the same pattern as silver, circle for "girl" and pendulum for "boy"

Why are there two different movements when they are not strictly tied to gender? You've got me, but I have never seen the spoon/key/ring move over something that was not actually alive. Unless, of course, I can be definitively proven not pregnant....then the spoon theory really needs help.

I have another idea for "blind" testing on this phenomena. Some people are, understandably, concerned that I somehow make the spoon move myself. I can only assure you that I do not, and many who have watched me do it can tell that I am not doing anything to induce movement, BUT Science demands more objectivity than that. What about testing it on animals?! I have already determined that it works on my cats. I presume it would word on most anything living. I can not tell a cat or dogs gender from looking at it. Perhaps if I could do it on animals we could see what the percentage of accuracy is? I think I will just start testing it as often as I can and create more sidebars to keep track. Sound fun!?

**So, I just decided to do still more experimenting. I took my key and one of Søren's magnetic wooden trains and tested to see how it would respond to the different magnetic fields created by the opposing ends of the train. Sure enough, on one side it moves in the circle, and on the other it moves in the pendulum. So, the question remains, what sorts of things create magnetic fields? And what makes it "positively" or "negatively" charged?

Here is a great wikipedia source on magnets. I am developing a theory....I will let you know when I have more.**

Science vs. Self: A Dialog

Science: Don't you think that after two failed blood tests and 7 failed urine tests that it is fairly obvious that you are not pregnant?

Self: Well Science, that is a good question. I can see your point there. The problem is, I don't see those tests as definitive. They are very good statistically...but I am more interested in the truth than the statistics.

Science: What prey tell would be definitive!?

Self: Well, a menstrual period, or a heart beat.

Science: You are still nursing, you might not have a menstrual period for years! In fact, as one of those crazy women who sleeps with their infant, it is bound to take you longer.

Self: Yes, I know that, but, as you may remember, after Søren it only took 10 months...which was 10 days ago for Elliot. I also felt myself ovulate (though I was in denial about it...hence my current predicament).

Science: Irrelevant to me. Women are not that in touch with their bodies and cycles. And who do you think will be willing to listen for a heart beat when all my tests have said negative?

Self: Well, that has been a bit of a problem, but I have found people who are willing, but just can't fit me in yet. In fact, I had an appointment for last week, but due to a flight delay, we had to cancel. The bigger problem I have had in finding willing people has been your comrade Insurance. I think my husband is working on that today. Once we have satiated Insurance, I think we'll have smooth sailing towards a definitive answer.

Science: You realize how crazy it is to think you might be such a statistical minority?

Self: Yes, I do. In fact, I am willing to be wrong. I just want to be definitively wrong.

Science: You realize that there are better statistics that you are psycho-somatically creating your so-called symptoms AND that crazy spoon movement of yours.

Self: Yes, I do, but I believe (and, in fact, my eternal hope is staked on this) that there is more to truth than certainty and statistical compliance.

Science: I beg to differ.

Self: I know. But speaking of statistics, I have never seen the spoon move over belly that was not pregnant. In fact, I have recently done it over 8 women, only moving on the pregnancy bellies, nothing on the non-pregnant ones. Further, 5 of those women did the spoon on me, and it moved for them (reading twins, "boy" and "girl") too.

Science: You only amuse me, and give me more fervor for my own cause.

Self: That figures. What about my wieght gain, Science?

Science: Are you kidding me!? Look at all the butter, whole - I can't even mention RAW - milk, and eggs you eat EVERYDAY. Lady you are lucky to be alive.

Self: Well, I was eating nearly the same amount of eggs, butter, and milk before and was losing the belly.

Science: No matter, your stubborn insistence to eat like you are expecting twins is bound to grow that waist of yours.

Self: I know, that has occurred to me...but why is it only where my maternal stores are? I mean, if I was just overeating, wouldn't the weight gain be more evenly spread?

Science: You ask too many questions.

Self: Sorry. I am naturally curious.

Outdoor Adventures in Pictures!

With spring almost reliably here, we are increasingly outside.

On our way to try out the new pool (I simply love pictures of the two of them together).

Discovering a nearby park and recreational center (i.e. more well maintained grass than we know what to do with!). Elliot is increasingly determined to keep up with his big brother and is threatening to walk much sooner than Søren did.

Happy in grass.

Søren is enjoying the grass as well....can you find him?

Elliot finds more grass during a family picnic at an elk reserve on the way to the coast.

Søren enjoys his lunch.

Elliot thoroughly enjoyed the swings we found at a park in Astoria while waiting for Andrew to collect leads at the annual Seafood and Crab Festival down the street.

None of the parks near our house have swings for the kiddos, and my how we have missed them. I think we spent about 45 minutes swinging. We have the color to prove it.

Then we meandered down to Seaside and Søren experienced his first bumper cars, finally understanding the bumper car scene in "If You Give A Pig A Party".

After bumper cars, we found the beach! A first for Elliot, and the first time Søren really appreciated it.

This was about as far as he would go. We somehow accidentally scared him into thinking that sharks would come eat him if he got much closer.

Elliot had NO fear, just joy, joy, joy.

Sandcastle making with Dad

Elliot studies

The Scrivner men at play

No wind, and perfectly comfortable temperatures. Lovely.

Dad took the camera so that when the boys are older they will really believe I was there (instead of some stranger photo-documenting their adventures with Dad). I often forget to include myself in the pictures!

Buried

We had such a lovely time that I didn't even mind us all getting coated in sand.

Pacifism: The Peacemaker and The Nation

I did not do justice to last week's topic, but my attempts did keep me ruminating all week.
I hope that the next few weeks will truly help me grapple through what I believe a biblical world-view of violence vs. peacemaking would look like.

Dustin's thoughts are here.

------------------------------------------------------------

A Christian Nation and Government?

If one concludes that the biblical authors taught a stance of non-violence, calling believers to be peacemakers at all times, what is the consequence for the nation state?

The nation seems exempt. Nations as such, are not called to follow Jesus. Individuals are called to follow Jesus. Nations are more like "man-writ-large" than man. "Man-writ-large" is not a man after God's own heart, rather he is a unrepentant-sinner-writ-large. Nations will war, and war increasingly, until the one true king, Jesus, returns who will put a definitive stop to all war, death, and sorrow.

If a nation would like to claim to be a "Christian nation" - which is not actually probable given the narrowness of the path - then that the Nation would have to act in accordance with the Bible's commands to individuals.

Yet, some may point out pacifist nations, or pacifist reigns in the history of certain nations (I do not know enough history to give any examples). This would be different than neutral nations, as most neutral nations are still armed, and can fight if aggravated, but refuse to take sides hoping to ensure peace for themselves. I do not know of any truly pacifist states, and can only imagine that the segment of India under Ghandi is the closest any have become (Dustin, I am trusting you for better information in this regard).

As for a nation acting with non-violence domestically, the same problems arise (in that there are no truly Christian nations). How could a nation operate this way? The bible seems to grant government as an authority to punish and reward. If a nation was expected to act as an individual believer, they would have to forgive everything, creating utter chaos, and truly no government, so it is useless to discuss "Christian government" in that sense. "Christian government" must mean something else, or else be a term reserved for when the Kingdom of God is actually put into action. Of course, at that time, men will no longer be sinners, and thus there will be much less to govern with regard to punishment.


The Peacemaker's Relation to the Governing Authorities

How does the peacemaker then interact with this nation who makes decisions to behave in ways that the peacemaker could never personally condone? This seems a place where each peacemaker has to strive to understand how to best pursue making peace in these conditions. There will undoubtedly be various convictions about how to help make peace in each given circumstance and community.

For some, it might mean removing oneself from the political games, refusing to contribute and condone the non-peace-seeking aims and activities. For another it might mean actively voting in the community to give a voice to those who cannot raise it to ask for fairness and justice to live in peace.

The continuation of the passage in Romans that we looked at last week gives some direction.

"Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

"For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

"Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them; tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

"Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law..." (Romans 13:1-8)

I have been stewing over this all week. Out of my alliegence to Another Kingdom, being a peacemaker here as an ambassador, I strive to be at peace with my temporary government as well. It means I do comply and pay my taxes. It means I do submit to their laws, though in America, I can also tell them I disagree if I do. All in all, I demonstrate my faith and confidence in God by entrusting myself to Him, knowing that if He wanted to destroy or remove any nation He could - instantly. If He wanted me to be born somewhere else, I would have been. If He allows it, it must be for a reason.

This reopens the Hitler case for me. I do not think it was wrong for Germans to "break the law" to save lives. Is a hell-bent tyrant a governing authority? He certainly did not seem to be concerned with rewarding good and punishing evil. What exactly are we called to in submitting to authorities and when can we "opt out"?

Does a peacemaker implore the nation/rulers to change the laws to be more in accordance with the peacemakers personal convictions? It seems not. Laws do nothing for the soul. We could outlaw all violent weapons, and people would just run others down with their vehicles, or injure each other with their forks, or chairs, or whatever is convenient. Men are creative. The peacemaker is not trying to bring about world peace, but rather striving to be at peace with those around him. Ultimately the peacemakers call will be the same regardless of the nation he lives in. The nations decisions are irrelevant.

Pacifism: The Dialog Map

Below is the full previous discussion on pacifism/non-violence. I will continue to update this post as we continue to post blogs in this conversation.

D: Violence and the World: Preface
ME: Pacifism Preface

D: Violence and the World: Pacifism vs. Non-Violent Action
ME: Pacifism and Non-Violence: A Definition of Terms

D: Violence and the World: The Old Testament
ME: Pacifism: Defining Violence & Old Testament Examination

D: Violence and the World: A New Testament Vision
ME: Pacifism: New Testament Evidence

D: Violence and the World: The Nation State
ME: Pacifism: The Peacemaker and The Nation

D: Violence and the World: A Body of Peace-Makers
ME: Pacifism: The Church as a Peacemaker

D: Violence and the World: The Work of the Individual
ME: Pacifism: The Individual Peacemaker

D: Violence and the World: Common Objections
ME: Pacifism: Examining Common Objections

Welcome Sabine!

Hurray! Colin, Summer, and new big sister Indy welcomed Sabine Selby into the world early this morning at 6 pounds 3 ounces and 19 inches long! I am so excited and will hope to meet her next weekend.

I am sure pictures will posted soon on Summer's blog!!

(And to those keeping track - this marks a third false reading of the spoon!)

Pacifism: New Testament Evidence

Dustin's post for this topic can be found here. He calls our attention to the times where Jesus calls us to love our enemies, and then cites examples of how to do so (turn the other cheek, give your shirt and your cloak). For me this is the strongest case, biblically speaking, for pacifism. It does beg a few questions for me. Namely, "Who is my enemy?" and "In which circumstances does Jesus call us to this kind of love of enemy?" and "Is this only required when there is an opportunity to be a witness?"


Who Is My Enemy?

If enemy simply means someone I am in relationship with whom I do not like, and who works against me for my ruin (be it financial, or of reputation, or physical) because of my faith, well, then he is my enemy and I, as a known "Christian" in his life, ought to turn the other cheek as a witness against him.

What if enemy means something akin to what Jesus teaches that neighbor means? In the parable of the good Samaritan the neighbor is some complete stranger who, moreover, is in circumstances that are entirely undesirable. This seems to imply that neighbor means anyone you happen to come across who is in need. Everyone I encounter is potentially my neighbor.

I am inclined to think that enemy would work in a similar way, namely, anyone who happens to be in any form of conflict with me. I am called to LOVE them.


In Which Circumstances Does Jesus Call Us To This Kind of Love of Enemy?

While there is a strong call to love our enemies (and all men) in the new testament, it is not absent in the old testament. Most of the new testament writers were devote Jewish men who were compelled by Jesus' claim of Messiah because of their familiarity with the old testament.

How are enemies loved in the old testament?

Elisha prays for blindness to come upon a group of men who are seeking to kill him in order to render Israel defenseless. He deceives them, once blinded, into following him to the king of Israel himself. The king asks if he ought to kill the men (they were intent on killing Elisha and overthrowing Israel after all), and Elisha instructs him to feed them and let them go, which the king does. Those men never again sought conflict with Israel. (2 Kings 6:8-23)

There are several impressively cunning and witty and non-violent instances of conflict being avoided throughout the old testament histories. I do not have time to find them all right now.

Proverbs instructs us this way: "If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; For you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you." (Prov 25:21-22)

It is these old testament examples that are echoed in Romans 12, (which is also a powerful call to acting as a peace-maker at all times):

"Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY, says the Lord. BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

What is striking in the above passage is the usage of "Never" and "Any" and "All". It does no good to try to limit the definition of enemy to a personal relationship; my enemy is anyone. There is not a list of people whom I know who are my declared "enemies" (though I am certainly called to love them as well) and then an unspecified group of "bad guys" for whom the call to love and to be at peace with does not apply.

Is This Only Required When There Is An Opportunity To Be A Witness?

Perhaps I am called to turn the other cheek and give my mantel along with my cloak when the other person knows why I am doing it. Perhaps the times where Jesus and Paul and the apostles accepted abuse is was because of their ministry, and not because there is anything absolutely wrong with defending oneself physically.

This is an intriguing argument, but ultimately not a satisfying loop hole to be at peace with all men. We act as we ought because we ought, not because another will realize it. We can never know what may come of our righteous actions. We can never be assured that someone will not later discover what motivated us to behave as a peace-maker and be humbled. We minister as a way of life, never knowing the heart of the people we encounter.


Still Un-concluded

While I have yet to discover any satisfactory biblical case against pacifism, that does not ipso facto imply that the bible does in fact demand pacifism. I think I am increasingly convinced that the bible does demand that I, as a believer and citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven, act as a peace-maker at all times. What is still to be determined, in my mind, is whether there is room for physical consequences while still acting in love as a peace-maker. My experiences as a parent will weigh heavily in this aspect of the dialog.

For Dustin, I think that the crux of his non-violent position lies in his commitment to an understanding of what and where the image of God is and how it is affected by violence. I need to do more thinking on this before I can address it. Perhaps next week I will be able to present some ideas regarding that.

Further, I still have a question concerning believers who may be peace-makers in all personal encounters, but have decided to submit themselves to an authority who/which does use violence. For example, believers who choose to enlist in the armed forces. I have several friends and family who have made this decision, and I am extremely humbled by the willingness of my friends and family - and all members of the armed forces - to lay down their lives for the sake of me and my freedom. I am so grateful to live in so mild and so free a country as I do. I have experienced being stopped by armed police who pull people over on a whim in Africa, forcefully restricting travel unless they are bribed sufficiently. For all my complaints about the declining freedom in America, it is still one of the most comfortable places to live. I am grateful for the freedom to engage in discussions like this, and to present ideas which confront the status quo. It is not from lack of appreciation nor disrespect that I am engaged in this discussion. I hope that my thoughts regarding this aspect of the topic will surface better when we address pacifism's implications for the nation, church, and individual. I am curious what motivates Christian men and women to join and serve in the armed forces and be willing to kill for their country. What is the higher end(s) that justifies such violent means?

At some point we will have to address "the Hitler question", for I think it is a significant obstacle to absolute pacifism.

Seeing

A couple guide their small children to a park where a large gathering is happening due to the pleasant weather. The children run and bound and play while the adults shift their weight awkwardly from the side walk smiling with a little head bow at the other parents a few paces away.

A man types away on a lap top in the middle of a bustling coffee shop. In the corner a woman reads the paper. Old friends relax and banter at a table near by. The barrista prepares the drink for the regular walking in the door.

Another man sits at home, mildly aware of the diminishing daylight through his closed blinds as he drinks himself into oblivion with the company of a blue flickering screen.

Strangers gather in large windowed rooms to sing, hear, pray, and then go home for lunch.

Others watch others outside from the windows of their second story home.

A beautiful woman cruelly snubs those who smile and make eye contact as they pass.

Another embarrassed, averts her eyes from those who might smile so as not to be snubbed.

The children meet but once, but play. They laugh. They chase each other to the end of the meadow and back. They prepare feasts of bark dust together. The little ones stare with affection at the elder ones who stare back proudly and pleased with love.

They revel in the wonder of human contact without fear, without awkwardly shifting their weight and avoiding eye contact. They are all eye contact, penetrating, loving eye contact. They are best friends for 5, 10, 30 minutes, until their parents beckon them home.

We, all of us, crave community. Whether we awkwardly seek it, pretend we are too strong to need it, or painstakingly avoid it for fear of rejection, we want it. They are not afraid to grab it right where it is in the moment. Whether their humility to ask it of each other comes from ignorance or not, it is still beautiful. It still humbles and amazes me and implores of me to seek to know those who share the air with me.

"Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." (Jesus, as recorded in Matt 18:3-6)

"Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of god belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all." (Jesus, as recorded in Mark 10:14-15)

May we be willing to learn from little ones. May we learn to foster community where and when we find it!

Goat Farm!

One of the benefits of moving back to Oregon is that we are much closer to "Aunt Summer's goat farm."

This might be Søren's favorite place on earth, and today it was paradise playing with the 10 baby goats, meandering around through the orchard, and exploring up on the play ground (and enjoying the swirly tube slide 4-5 times before we discovered that Søren had snuck Andrew's, - now bent - glasses into his pants pocket).

The baby goats try to teeth and suckle on everything, but it's quite endearing. I tried to catch some pictures of some of the cuteness...but the goats were always hoping all over the place and did not care to freeze to preserve any Kodak moments.

All the same, here are some pictures from our adventure:

Søren made himself comfortable right away.

Tug of War!

Aunt Summer!

Worried papa hovers while Søren easily manages himself on the goat play structure.

This should have been video as 5 baby goats jumped up on my hubby and tried nursing on his shirt.

If you are ever in need of an adorable pet goat, for milking or not, do let me know and I can point you in a good direction =)

This was going to be a surprise...

After my *masterful* rendition of Søren done with his crayola watercolors the other day, I realized that doing something creative (I originally wrote "art", but decided that my little paintings do not deserve such a title) in such a limited medium actually freed me up from my perfectionism in a really nice way. It was nice to just put some drippy paint on a poor little plastic brush and let it all run together and see what happens. This is a part of what I am learning about cleaning my house - sometimes a little effort for a limited time still improves my surroundings and mood. It doesn't have to be perfect.

So today I decided I ought to paint some other things that I love (and think are beautiful) - and set a time limit so I didn't ruin it. I am determined to overcome my perfectionism (since I cannot ever attain it anyway, why not let it go?)

I was going to keep this private and mail it to the intended recipient as a surprise, but after reading her most recent post, I thought I would throw it out here, mostly for her, but also for all to see that at least someone (me) thinks she is not only lovely, but paint-worthy.


Like it or not, dear friend, you will still be receiving it in the mail. It just won't be much of a surprise now.

Long Overdue Photo Update!

After seeing the photos that Erin took, I realized anew how terrible our little camera is. I stopped taking pictures for a while, but then realized that my boys are adorable enough that they'll still be cute even with poor resolution. So, after months of neglect, here are some photo updates of all the brotherly love happening lately (wish I could say it always looked like this):

Elliot grows more capable by the hour.
That also means we've entered the phase of bumps and blood for boy number 2.

These photos were taken before I started the whole keeping-the-house-clean and getting-dressed-everyday thing (which by the way, we're still doing well!)

Elliot has taken a strong interest in my yarn

Here is the yarn for the sweaters I mentioned.

Søren and I broke out the water colors. I painted him...

And then he said, "Momma, wait one minute. I paint you."

Here he is proudly showing me where my head and hair and eyes are.

Can't you see it?

Knee Deep

**I just realized I never posted this (as of 5/23), so I am leaving it post-dated for the lovely record that it is**

Søren is nearly potty trained. This means less accidents, but really messy ones, as he is no longer wearing pull-ups, but rather "big-guy underwear" (with a cartoon train engine on them...wish I could find Andrew a matching pair, because then I think Søren would really believe they were "big guy" unders). Today there were waterfalls coming off my dining room chairs and while I had a little moment of panicked despair, I also comforted myself by remembering that I did cover them in plastic for such a time as this.

Between Søren's accidents (which, for some reason, were aplenty this weekend with family in town), and switching Elliot to cloth, I am feeling WAY to close to all things waste. I am fairly surprised at how easy cloth really is, but I confess we are really still only half and half with Elliot until I can figure out a better cloth night-time solution. While I am feeling rather impressed with my homemaking abilities of late, I am getting tired of washing my sheets! I think I also need to find a few more cloth diapers before I could switch full time. We only have enough for one full day right now, but we have no pail, so I find I want to wash them every night anyway.

Andrew has gotten a good taste of my average day as well. A few days ago he was cleaning up after an accident with "number 2" and stuck his finger smack in it. I died laughing at his composure as he uttered "oh...thank you God" while trying not to hurl rather than uttering some of the other things that have occasionally been known to escape his lips from his contractor days.

Pacifism: Defining Violence & O.T. Examination

This is week two in the pacifism conversation with Dustin, whose post for today can be found here. I apologize for being tardy again, but this was a long one for me. Don't say I didn't warn you.
---------------------------------------

A Definition of Violence

When speaking of avoiding violence, we should emphasize that there are more forms of violence than the physical. We are looking for perhaps the heart attitude that lies beneath violence. For violence can manifest itself emotionally, spiritually, mentally, and physically. When dealing with the politically charged term "pacifism" it seems most people mean a non-physical way of conflict resolution. If we are truly after an understanding of what it means to be a peace-maker - not simply a pacifist - it seems all levels of violence need examination.

What is violence? Causing injury? Abuse? Destruction? What about distortion (mental, physical, spiritual, emotional)? Or infringement? Marginalization? What about profanation? What about manipulation?

It seems that a peace-maker is interested in resolution that takes loving consideration of all sides while attempting to move all sides toward truth. To accomplish being heard, or helping another justly be heard, the peace-maker will still act in a person-honoring manner towards the other (who is perhaps un-listening, or non-understanding) party, even if that party is hostile.

Dustin and I agree, it seems, that violence is far more than physical. I would like to suggest that violence might be understood as any number of actions (or inactions) that stem from a hatred or indifference to another human being, or perhaps simply from a dogged-selfishness that refuses to love anyone else as much as they love themselves (most of our sinful natures are this way apart from the work of God transforming our hearts and minds).

For example, one could inflict emotional violence by neglecting their spouse to manipulate them into responding a different way. This is not the behavior of a peace-maker. We might just call it immaturity, or manipulation, or we might call it emotional abuse, depending on the severity of the behavior.

As people who are striving after a Jesus-likeness, we need to hold one another - even our enemies - with respect and kindness and love. We are striving to love in recognition that "God demonstrates his own love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom 5:8) Asking God to "forgive us our debts," ought to humble us into "forgiv[ing] our debtors." (Matt 6:12) Jesus claimed that the entire law could be summed up in loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself (Matt 22:36-40). When can love use violence?

Yet here I think Dustin and I may diverge paths, I am open to the idea that sometimes punishment and consequence are not violent (in the above mentioned manner) - though they may be physical in nature. If the story of Noah is factual or not, it is presented and recorded to tell us something of the nature of God (I realize this is an assumption, and I will attempt to address that in a moment). As the story goes, God destroyed the world by flood because of the world was filled up with violence. Yet, presumably, God drowned the world by catastrophic events. In Sodom and Gomorrah, at least, it seems God quickly annihilated the inhabitants, but with a flood, we must assume that some people struggled to stay afloat as long as they could, and then in a weakened state accepted death by drowning. Fairly brutal.

It could be argued that God actually did the most loving thing by ending their lives and putting a stop to world violence (well...temporarily, since it is still ever present). Then of course, another could argue that if He's God, he could have found a more "humane" way to do so.

In these cases of God "inflicting" violence on man/men, we tread dangerous waters ourselves when we question what God can do. God is God. He does as He likes. He does not answer to me, nor any of his created beings. I am not the judge of His goodness or rightness - He defines goodness and rightness.

How can I allow for a God who uses violence, but potentially requests that His followers do not? Well, for one, because I think God wholly other than me, and creator of me, he can ask of me what He will and be who He is, and I ought to keep my hand over my mouth.

Of course, it is in my nature to analyze and examine - even my limited understanding of the creator of the universe - so I am not always good at keeping my hand over my mouth. I think that with a definition that allows violence to be rooted in an attitude of the heart - God is free to do actions that, for me, could never come from the right heart attitude, but for Him can. So, even if it is demonstrated that God has historically acted with violent behavior, that does not excuse an individual's personal use of violence.

Old Testament Examination

Yet, you will ask, what about the God-instructed violence in the history of Israel? Is not Rahab written down in the "faith hall of fame" while sending a tent spike through the head of a spy? Did God not direct Joshua's battles to take the promised land? And to direct David's wars to defend his throne? What of Ehud, the left-handed judge who sneakily gutted an evil king? What of David's psalms celebrating (or requesting) the violent conquering of his enemies?

While all this blood soaked history took place, it was certainly not the case that there were not also peace-makers throughout the Old Testament who accomplished much by peaceful imploring, life-demonstrations, and personal protesting (Ester, Hosea, Ezekiel, Jonah, the list is long really, so I won't go on).

To do this topic justice, one would have to read through the entire old testament histories with this question in mind, highlighting the instances of God-directed violence/conquest and contrasting the times men took violence into their own hands and were rebuked for it (the retribution for the rape of Dinah comes to mind).

Back-Tracking to Hermeneutics

***disclaimer: this section will lean heavily on the teachings of the MSC/Gutenberg staff, and is probably all written much better in "The Language of God", which I have not actually read, but feel I have gleaned from 4 years under their mentorship. I.e. I do not take credit for any of this as an original idea. At the same time, I don't pretend to be adequately defending or explaining their theology, nor claim that my conclusions about genre's would be theirs.***

There is a growing body of scholarship who are ready to do away with large portions of "controversial" scripture, attributing it to men rather than God. This is one way to understand many Old Testament cases where God seems to act differently than Jesus might have, or differently than our modern sensibilities can allow. I fear that there are many scholars who hold this position to the peril of their souls. Though, at the same time, I trust that there are many people who hold this position earnestly in their search of truth and in the face of the obvious need to reject many of the adamant biblical literalists conclusions. I, however, cannot hold to this view of scripture. In claiming human imprint, it opens the door for much more human imprint.

I am not a literalist...at least not in the literalist definition. This, however, does not let me off the hook with portions of scripture that make me uncomfortable. I think a better explanation of my biblical lenses would be a "radical biblicist" (to borrow a McKensie Study Center term), who insists on reading the scripture with the genre in mind. In some books (Genesis especially) the genre's shift several times. Hence the 2-3 different creation accounts. Could one be a "blue-print", one be an allegory, and one be a limited history? Could the book of Job be a morality play rather than a history? Obviously the psalms and proverbs are a different kind of literature. It is important to asses what it is God has given us in the Bible.

I believe God desires to communicate with us. I think it makes sense that he would communicate through a tangible way - like a book. It may sound sacrilegious, but the bible is just a book to be read like any other book. We read to discover the author's intentions in the faith that God was working in their lives and that their efforts to revealing through writing the character, nature, plan, and good news of God, worked and are authoritative.

So, there is no part of the bible that I believe "God wrote" in some mystical sense. It was 100% written by men (though men being used by God). There are records that God did sometimes speak to the men and tell them to record certain things and accounts and dreams and prophesies - but then the men wrote those things down - not in a trance - but perhaps with supernaturally gifted memories (this seems to be what the apostles were given to authoritatively remember the teachings and perspectives of Jesus).

Given that, we ought to be careful not to ask questions of the bible that the biblical authors did not intend to answer (like what our diet ought to be, whether the earth stands still, etc.).

I also believe that for people that lived before the prevalence of the written word, that God still communicated himself to them in a way they would understand. So for a story-telling culture - the book of Job. For a polytheist - through an authoritative, wholly-other, daimon. For the Hebrews and the nations around them - History itself. God continued speaking through history in placing Himself into the creation, in His story, as Jesus the Christ.

Who is this God who wants to be known?

More Non-Conclusions

Even if God is violent, and He asks me not to be, this does not make his violence wrong. He is creator writing a story for His own purposes. His violence does not come from the same character flaws as mine. His violence is no more wrong than my decision to erase portions of this post (ha! which you might wish I had). Further, we all deserve God's wrath and violence, we qualify for it as sinners. I do not know that we can ever have that right over one another, but God certainly has that right over us.

Even God-directed violence through men in the old testament does not per-se defend violence for the believer. God was working through Israel's history to communicate to them and the rest of the world something about His nature and His purpose in creation. This is a unique relationship.

To act with violence or not to act with violence may be a side issue to the point of God's intervention in history. Ultimately, God seems concerned that I become a person of faith - a person who sincerely desires to know Him. Many actions follow from that process as I understand more about Him and seek to be consistent in action with what I claim to believe - actively pursueing peace with all men might be one of those things. All men. Think on this.

Questions to Ponder Further

Is the new testament wholly pacifist? Was Jesus? Were the apostles? Would there have been a difference in accepting abuse for the sake of the gospel, verses defending your household from a crazy person who happened to pass through?

More Tests, More Waiting **updated**

So we are now awaiting results from yet another blood test - after yet another failed pee test.

**Update: Test says Negative**

This time, at least, the medical personnel no longer think I am crazy for believing I am pregnant as I now look pregnant to the naked eye. People don't even hesitate to ask me if I am expecting and when I am due. Third pregnancy, week ten, with twins...yeah, the belly is there alright.

The nurse was a kind man who looked EXACTLY like Rose's husband from the show LOST. I couldn't figure it out until after I left the clinic, but it helped me like him all the more. He told me if the blood test comes back negative (which I should know possibly this afternoon, or else sometime Monday), I need to get in for a doctor's appointment immediately to see what is going on as "there are other things (he seemed afraid to say the T or C words - tumor and cancer) that can mask as pregnancy." So, I said them for him, and assured him that I really believe I am pregnant and not cancerous. I didn't mention the spoon. People seem to think I'm off my rocker when I do, so I try to play normal when I'm out and about =)

Anyhow, I know there are several readers out there VERY curious about what's going on in here...so I thought I'd give you this little update with hopes of more news soon.

Also, in good faith, I have begun a knitting project for coordinated knit baby sweaters. I am sure I will post pictures of the feeble-and-jumbled-attempt (otherwise known as progress).

This acorn has not fallen far...

A few mornings ago, my dear injured husband managed to come downstairs with Søren before I had snuck out of bed so as not to disturb Elliot (who, yes, is still sleeping most the night with us, due to my lazy unwillingness to go put him back in the crib in the middle of the night).

Søren requested "Aisen Bed with bubba" (raisin bread with butter).

Andrew accommodated him, toasting then well buttering his bread and then handing the lovingly made daily bread over to the little man.

Søren hands it back, "No Daddy, more bubba!"

"More butter? There's a lot on there, it just melted in," Andrew attempts a hand back.

"No Daddy. More."

"Okay, okay," Andrew proceeds to add more so that it is visibly buttered, much to Søren's contentment.

That's my boy.