Disconnected, yet Connected to the Ones Who Matter Most

I've obviously been on a bit of an Internet fast, some of it self-imposed and some of it through circumstances. We took a two-week trip to visit my family and camped along the way. While I brought my lap-top with me, most places didn't have wireless, and when we did have it, I just realized I would rather make the most of my time with my family.

Some things I noticed while being disconnected from the world wide web:

• Social media creates clutter. It is amazing how quickly my inbox fills with junk! As we talk about clearing the clutter from our homes, social media creates a huge amount of clutter that I don't think we're aware of on a daily basis. But when you step away from it for nearly 20 days, and come back to hundreds of messages--mostly status updates and notifications from Facebook (and I can't imagine if I was on Twitter)--you realize how massively it all adds up. All of this requires an investment of daily maintenance to keep it from piling up. Is it really worth it? Do I really need to know that an acquaintance is drinking lemonade down by the river on a 100-degree day? (not a real update). 
• Those moments when we just pop on the computer real quick--what is the motivation behind that? Are we a little bit bored? Are we looking for a little spark to liven things up in a monotonous day? What would we do in that moment if we didn't have the Internet to turn to? Would that be a better use of our time? Would our children appreciate a moment with Mom? (Yes).
• Slowing down, and taking those moments to fully engage with my kids, brought us all closer in a way. Getting away from the busy daily routine gave me some time to appreciate and enjoy my children more. I wasn't nagging them, ahem, reminding them, to clean up their breakfast plates and take them to the dishwasher, do their chores, pick up their clothes... We just had fun together. And while vacation is downtime, in the even more downtime moments, I wasn't turning to the computer, I was turning to them. (By the way, I notice some of the problem behaviors we've been dealing with are vastly improved. I think in large part, it's due to the extra attention they received). 
• After the first few days of breaking that magnetic draw to the computer, I find I really didn't miss it. When I could get on the Internet, I didn't really want to anymore. I had witnessed all of the positive effects of not being plugged in.

So while I was disconnected from friends' status-updates, blog posts, online news and more, I was connected to the ones who matter most: my family members. Now that we're home, I'm trying to keep in the forefront of my mind: disconnect to connect. I'm grateful for the time away to realize this lesson.

Sharing with:
Women Living Well
We are that Family
Heavenly Homemakers
Raising Homemakers

I'm A Mommy, Not A Mompreneur (Part 2)

The Internet provides a fabulous way for moms to earn money from home. It sounds like a dream come true: stay-at-home to raise your children, wash your laundry, cook your meals, clean your house, offer hospitality to friends and strangers, and earn some money, too, without ever leaving your front door.


But is it really that easy? Or has feminism so crept into our beliefs that we as Christian women—many of whom profess to stand staunchly against the doctrines of feminism--are feminists and we don’t even realize it?

Feminism encourages women to pursue careers outside the home, but does Christian feminism encourage women to pursue careers inside the home? Even Christians who think they oppose feminism may find they have subconsciously been so influenced by it that they, too, crave career success, but justify it by working from home. But if one seeks to climb the career ladder in one’s field from inside the home, is that really any different than doing the same thing outside the home?

"The mompreneur movement is one steadily growing in the US as mothers try to find ways to make money, express their creativity or business acumen, and also to parent their children". --source

Read what World Net Daily has to say about feminism's influence in culture today and see if it applies to the mompreneur movement:

"So many women – and men – have bought into the notion that women should work outside the home that for the first time in American history, and perhaps world history, vast numbers of children are not primarily raised by their mothers or even by an extended family member. Instead they are raised for a significant part of their childhood by nannies and by workers at day care centers. Whatever feminists may say about [they’re] only advocating choices, everyone knows the truth: Feminism regards work outside the home as more elevating, honorable and personally productive than full-time mothering and homemaking." (bold mine) source

We may say we agree with those statements (or we may not), but what I'd like us to ask ourselves is:

Do we regard work inside the home as more elevating, honorable and personally productive than full-time mothering and homemaking?

There are so many moms out there earning a part-or full-time income from making products, writing articles, and marketing their sites and products online. Nothing wrong with that. The Proverbs 31 woman, who provides us an excellent example of biblical femininity, was involved in the marketplace, no doubt. Proverbs 31 tells us she sewed and sold linen garments, traded goods, and bought a field out of her earnings. Yet, all of her endeavors were for the good of her household—not for her own career success. From this, I gather that there is a distinction between a mom selling craft items or writing articles in her spare time and a mompreneur aggressively pursuing success from within her own home.

Plus, it sounds like the children of the Proverbs 31 woman were not small. They arose and blessed her. This tells us they were old enough to: 1) walk, and 2) talk. Perhaps she wasn’t involved in the marketplace when she was fully involved in raising small children?

Yet, many mompreneurs are not only trying to rise to the top in their fields, they’re usually also parenting little ones who desperately need Mom’s training and attention. They might even be homeschooling, too. They either have superhuman organizational skills and manage to excel at it all, or the work-family balance is out of balance.

“One of the principal issues the mompreneur faces is learning how to balance the requirements of her children with the needs of her business. This is why many sites advise people new to running a business to create small realistic expectations that will not cause too much of a burden to especially young children.” --source


The truth is--we really can't do it all. Even Crystal Paine, the famous money-saving mom, admits that her success comes with a price—it’s not a cake-walk.

“I am a firm believer that, with God's blessings and lots of hard work, anyone can successfully work from home. However, I will be the first to tell you that working from home is just that–it's work...
I won't sugar-coat the truth when it comes to working from home: if you are not prepared to put in lots and lots and lots of time and effort, working from home won't work for you.”--http://moneysavingmom.com/2009/10/becoming-a-workathome-mom-its-work.html

Motherhood—being a good mom—is already a full-time job. Homeschooling, for those that do, is at least a part-time job. Keeping house, making nutritious meals and caring for the needs of our families is another full-time job. Since I already have two full-time jobs and one part-time job, I can’t take on anymore in this season. That’s why I’m a mommy, not a mompreneur.

I'm A Mommy, Not A Mompreneur (Part 1)

In the movie Soul Surfer, Bethany Hamilton's youth pastor tells her that sometimes all we need is to pull back from a situation to get some perspective on it. That's happened to me with blogging.

I love to write. I remember sitting in my bedroom, probably as young as six or seven, writing stories in notebooks I'd keep. In college, I majored in communications and minored in psychology and religion. I envisioned myself going into broadcast news and wanted to make it to the top. But I didn't see how that could fit with my other goal of being a wife and mother, and perhaps someday having a writing and speaking ministry.

God worked it all out. I did work as a journalist for a few years before deciding to trade in my career for a new career: Mommy. Honestly, even the tightest deadline (even a minute to air) is still not as challenging as motherhood can be some days. But what I am doing with my kids has value that reaches far beyond the impact of any news story.

For me, blogging has been a great way to continue to express my love for writing and my desire to encourage other moms. I tried to blog daily. But honestly, I just can't keep up. Not in this season, at least.

I know there are plenty of talented women who run successful, profitable blogs. Would I love to be in that category with them? Yes, and no. I think, if we're honest, we all want what we're doing to translate into some measurable success. But getting to that point takes a lot of time and a lot of effort. Right now, I can't do it. I can't devote the time it would take to write and market my humble blog and keep up with what I need to do at home, and most of all--raise my children. They're little now. They need lots of time and attention--attention I can't be giving them if I'm giving it to my computer.

Honestly, I don't know how other moms of small children (especially moms who say they homeschool) are finding time to be "mompreneurs." Either they have out-of-this-world organizational skills, or something's falling through the cracks.

As I've been mulling over posting on this topic, I just read what Sally Clarkson wrote and knew it was time for me to start this discussion here.

"Last Spring, I met with a young woman. She said, as many young women have said, “Sally, God is just opening so many doors for me, I just have to be a good steward of my opportunities.” (as her exhausted teen daughter was pushing her toddler in a stroller behind her, and complaining that her mom just never had time for her.) This happens to me a lot–young women who have stars in their eyes from money that can be made, audiences that can be found, numbers that can build up. [bold mine]


I have never had more opportunities come my way as now, but I do not like what I see going on in my heart and soul, and so, I am convicted that I need to cut back. I am pulling back from expectations. Pulling back from stress. And simplifying."--http://www.itakejoy.com/im-just-not-that-important/

That's what I've been realizing: I need to forget about trying to be big as a blogger and focus fully on what I'm called to do at home, as a wife and mother. It's my first and highest calling. It keeps me busy! It is, after all, a full-time job in itself.

I love what Paul writes, "Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load." (Galatians 6:4-5). The study note says, "Paul suggests that we focus instead on our own responsibilities. Are we faithfully living for God and fulfilling our responsibilities before him?"

I'll be blogging more about motherhood and mompreneurship in the next few days--just can't promise it will be tomorrow! (Part 2 is now up)

Raising a Genderless Kid...Really?

Today I read an incredibly disturbing story that has me fired up. You may have heard it: the parents (who, by the way, are clearly not genderless) are seeking to raise a genderless child. (Here's the link). They have two other children, who they admit are boys. The strange thing is, their 5-year old son, although he dresses in pink and wears braids, doesn't like to be called a girl and wants his parents to list on his camp application that he's a boy. He wants people to know it, because guess what? It's God-given, but I'll get to that in a minute.

They say they don't want to intervene and make choices for their newborn, choices like gender. Here's what they said in an email to family and friends: "We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now — a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...)."

Let's go with that for a moment. "A tribute," in their own words, "to freedom and choice in a place of limitation." Why pick only gender to fail to impose limitations on? How about freedom and choice in other areas where parents normally impose limitations for the child's good, such as:

• What foods to eat, or not eat? Can he/she eat five chocolate donuts for dinner if that is what the child chooses and feels like?
• What time to go to bed?
• What kind of movies to watch? Will the child be allowed to watch x-rated films if he/she would like to?
• What words to use (and not use)?
• How to speak to one's parents and elders?

Will the parents fail to teach manners, since its imposing certain rules on a child? Phone ettiquette? Language? Will the parents fail to insist on certain boundaries regarding curfews, computer use, sexual activity, and more? How is it any more imposing to say "No, you cannot have a pink stud in your ear," than to say, "No, you cannot eat a king-sized Snickers for lunch."

Since they homeschool (unschool, they admit, where the child's interests drive learning), it will be up to them to teach their children math. Are they going to "impose" rules like 3+2=5, even if the child feels like it should be seven. What about language? When their kids are learning to write, are the parents going to offer corrections such as, "No, that's not how we write an 'a.' This is what an 'a' looks like." Or will they say, "That looks wonderful! That squiggle is an 'a?' Fabulous. Great job figuring it out on your own." If they parent that way, where the child is free to create his or her own mathematic equations and language, the child will fail to fit into society. The child will never thrive, because how can it? It has failed to have been taught the basics.

Shouldn't gender be just as absolute as math and language?

Sure, I am approaching this argument not from an evolutionary position, but from a strong belief that we were created male and female in the image of God. Our anatomy was decided for us in the womb, and in all but the rarest of medical instances, our gender follows suit. Coaching your child in basic common-sense about being a boy or a girl is no different than teaching a child basic societal expectations, like, "No, you can't go to the store naked", "You can't take that without paying for it", and "No, that is not the way you behave in a public place."

There are rules set for us, for the good of society. Helping a child figure out what it means to be a boy or a girl is no different, and is a necessary part of good parenting. And yes, I believe the source for how we raise our children into strong, virtuous men and strong, virtuous women is the Bible. If that makes me horribly unprogressive, so be it.

The funny thing is, the article states that the parents, "believe kids can make meaningful decisions for themselves from a very early age." The children's father said, "What we noticed is that parents make so many choices for their children. It’s obnoxious."

Ok, so fail to provide any parental guidance on an issue as important as gender, but prove yourself a hypocrite by choosing to make "obnoxious" decisions regarding food, bed-time, underage drug and alcohol use, sexual activity, and other things that caring parents set "limitations" on all the time. Or...don't make any of those "obnoxious," "limiting" choices for your child and wait for Child Protective Services to show up.

Children need guidance in all sorts of areas. This couple's children are begging for gender guidance. That's why the boy admits he doesn't want to go to school and that it bothers him to be called a girl. The mom admits: "When I was pregnant, it was really this intense time around Jazz [the 5-year old] having experiences with gender and I was feeling like I needed some good parenting skills to support him through that.” Could it be that he is struggling so because being a boy is his created, God-given instinct? Yet, he doesn't know what it means to be a boy, because his parents refuse to nurture him in that regard. I'd say that would cause some emotional turmoil.

So, as the mom states, "culture...narrowly defines what he should do, wear and look like." Yet, a California-based psychologist who wrote a book called Gender Born, Gender Made ("a guide for parents of nonconforming kids") admits "there is something innate about gender." She is quoted as saying that gender-neutral experiments during the 1970s “only worked up to a certain extent. Some girls never played with the trucks, some boys weren’t interested in ballet ... It was a humbling experiment for us because we learned we don’t have the control that we thought we did.”

If a liberal psychologist admits "there is something innate about gender," then these parents are doing a grave disservice to their children by forcing them to ignore their innate gender. I steer my kids' choices all the time. We all do. It's called parenting. Good parenting demands we teach our children not only about who they are, and how they should behave, but we coach them into who they are meant to be--gender roles and all.
 

Heaven is for Real, an Astounding Tale of a Boy's Trip to Heaven and Back: Is it Biblical?

 I recently read Heaven is for Real: A Little Boy's Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back, because I was given a copy by a family member. The book, written by Todd Burpo—a pastor in Nebraska—tells the story of his son Colton’s experience during surgery following a ruptured appendix. Although the surgery was completely normal—Colton never flat-lined and the operative report showed nothing unusual—Colton, who was four at the time, claimed months after surgery that he had gone out of his body and taken a trip to heaven for “three minutes” while on the operating table. The book reveals the details he shared about his heavenly visit.

Although encouraged to see how God spared the Burpo’s little boy's life and provided for their medical bills, thumbing through the book, I was immediately alarmed by what I was reading.

I am so thankful we are grounded in a biblical church, and that I know my Bible well enough to know that his tale is not in line with what the Bible teaches. At the same time, I am deeply disturbed that so many people are reading this book (it is a New York Times #1 bestseller) and coming away thinking it's an accurate, theologically sound picture of heaven. Far from it.

I am also deeply troubled that Colton's own father is a pastor and never once refutes Colton's claims with Scripture. He backs them up with Scripture when they conveniently seem to support Colton's stories, but he never tells readers who may have limited theological or biblical understanding that the Bible presents a different picture from his son on certain topics, such as his son’s report that all people except Jesus fly with wings and that the angel Gabriel sits on a throne to the left of God the Father. People are being misled by this book and are basing their views of heaven on what Colton says and the new information he presents.

For Colton's story of his trip to heaven to be true, it must agree with what Scripture teaches about heaven. If it doesn't, either the Bible is wrong, or Colton's story is wrong. Since no one else seems to be doing it, let me provide the Scriptural evidence to disprove some of Colton's most troublesome, Scripturally inaccurate claims.

1) Colton claims people have wings in heaven.

Page 72: Todd Burpo writes,

“So what did the kids look like? What do people look like in heaven?"
“Everybody’s got wings,” Colton said.
Wings, hugh? “Did you have wings?” I asked.
“Yeah, but mine weren’t very big.” He looked a little glum when he said this.
“Okay…did you walk places or did you fly?”
“We flew. Well, all except for Jesus. He was the only one in heaven who didn’t have wings. Jesus just went up and down like an elevator.”

If you look up references to wings in the Bible, you will find passages conveying biblical truths using bird metaphors. Isaiah 40:31 talks about how those who “hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles;” Jesus says in Luke 13:34 that he longed to gather his people to him like a “hen gathers her chicks under her wings.” Birds were created with wings. Man was created in God’s image (Genesis 1), without wings.

In 1 Corinthians 15:35-58, Paul writes about the resurrection body. He says, “All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.” God created us in His image (Genesis 1), as men and women, with a human body, not as a bird with wings. Paul also writes, “And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven” (1 Cor. 15: 49).

Our bodies will be resurrected, like Christ’s. Therefore, if Jesus does not have wings, we will not have wings. Also, in the description of heaven, Revelation 21:24 says, “The nations will walk by its light.” Notice the word “walk”—not fly.

Further, in the account of Jesus’ transfiguration in Matthew chapter 17, when the disciples saw Moses and Elijah, they recognized them. “Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus. Peter said to Jesus, ‘Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah” (Matthew 17:4). No mention of them having wings.

Jesus' resurrected body did not include a set of wings, and we are told we will be like Him.

2) Colton claims people have lights over their heads in heaven.

Page 73:

“Everyone kind of looks like angels in heaven, Dad.”
“What do you mean?”
“All the people have a light above their head.”

Todd Burpo goes on to cite what he claims to be Scriptural evidence of lights over one’s head, using the examples of the angel appearing to Mary Magdalene at Jesus’ tomb (that his appearance was like lightning), Stephen’s face as “bright as an angel’s” during his stoning, and John writing in Revelation about a mighty angel with a “rainbow over his head,” and that the angel’s face “shone like the sun.”

It seems that what Colton was trying to describe was a halo, which the Bible does not say exists, but is depicted in virtually all children’s Bible stories, Renaissance art, and other drawings that a four-year old would most likely have been exposed to—even though his dad (who is a pastor) says he was not exposed to pictures like this.

The description given in the book of Revelation of those in heaven is that they are wearing “fine linen, white and clean.” (Revelation 21:14). No mention of lights above heads. Either it’s new and extrabiblical, or it’s a made-up story from an imaginative kid.

3) Colton claims Jesus has a rainbow horse and that he got to pet him. (page 63).

When the Bible talks about Jesus with a horse, the horse mentioned is always white. (Revelation 19:11, 14).

4) Colton's depiction of God's throne.
This is Colton's account:

Page 100:

"Well, what did God’s throne look like?” [asks his dad]
Colton: “It was big, Dad…really, really big, because God is the biggest one there is…And do you know that Jesus sits right next to God?...Jesus’ chair is right next to his Dad’s!”
Todd Burpo:
“It was another one of those moments when I thought, He had to have seen this…'Well, who sits on the other side of God’s throne?’”
Colton: “Oh, that’s easy Dad. That’s where the angel Gabriel is. He’s really nice.”
Todd writes, “Gabriel. That makes sense,” and then cites Luke chapter 1, when Gabriel foretells John the Baptist’s birth and says, 'I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God…'
“So I’d had my glimpse into God’s throne room, but Colton’s descriptions had me wondering: if God the Father was seated on his throne with Jesus on his right and Gabriel on his left, where was Colton?”…
“Where did you sit, Colton?” I asked.
Colton: “They brought in a little chair for me, he said smiling. “I sat by God the Holy Spirit.”
“What does God look like?” I said. “God the Holy Spirit?”
Colton furrowed his brow, “Hmm, that’s kind of a hard one…he’s kind of blue.”

He then goes on to claim that’s where he met his Dad’s grandpa, sitting by the Holy Spirit.

So that’s what Colton says about the throne room of heaven. This is what the Bible says:

First, though, let's not forget all the Scriptures that tell us that God the Father is invisible. ("The Son is the image of the invisible God."--Col. 1:15; Jesus: "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known"--John 1:18).


So how could Colton have possibly seen God the Father, and can he--the God of the Universe--possibly be contained to a "really big throne"?

If that's not enough, let's look at a biblical description of heaven's throne room:
Revelation chapter 4:

“After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven…At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it. And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian. A rainbow, resembling an emerald, encircled the throne. Surrounding the throne were 24 other thrones, and seated on them were 24 elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads. From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumbles and peals of thunder. Before the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God. Also before the throne there was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal. In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and back. The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle. Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.’ Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever, the 24 elders fall down before him who sits on the throne, and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say: ‘You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.” (Revelation 4: 1-11).

There is also another account of the Lord seated on his throne in Isaiah 6:1-4, which corresponds with the Revelation account.
Neither of these accounts resemble Colton’s account to any degree.

5) Colton claims to have seen Satan in heaven, which was revealed three years after his supposed “trip” to heaven, ironically after watching the battle scene in The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.

Page 132:

Colton's mom: “Well, I guess that’s one thing you didn’t like about heaven—no swords up there.”
“There are too swords in heaven!” he said.”
“Um…okay. Why do they need swords in heaven?”
“Mom, Satan’s not in hell yet,” Colton said, almost scolding. “The angels carry swords so they can keep Satan out of heaven!”…
Dad: "Hey, Colton…” “Did you see Satan?”
“Yeah, I did,” he said solemnly.

The rest of the page goes on to describe how Colton shut down and never did want to talk about seeing Satan.

He also claimed that he saw the coming great battle known as Armaggedon—that, “in heaven, the women and the children got to stand back and watch” the future battle while the men fight.

Refuting these claims is a bit more involved, as doing so requires a comprehensive biblical theology about heaven, evil, Satan, and his eternal doom. But let me begin with Isaiah 14: 12, which says,

“How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star,…You have been cast down to the earth…”

Some scholars believe this refers to Satan. Scholars also believe that Ezekiel 28 offers information about the fall of Satan, through allegory with the king of Tyre.

Jesus said in Luke 10:18 that He saw “Satan fall like lightning from heaven.”

Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 12 about a time when he was caught up to the third heaven.

 “Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows. And I know that this man—either in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows—was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.” (2 Corinthians 12:2-4).

Paul refuses to speak of them but says they were wondrous. Would angels walking around on patrol to keep evil out be your version of paradise?

That is also certainly not the vision of heaven portrayed in John’s vision, recorded in the book of Revelation:

“And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.
Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
‘Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ. For the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down….Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows his time is short.’ When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child…Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.” (Revelation 12:7-17).

Numerous passages present that Satan lost his place in heaven and was “hurled down” to the earth, along with his fallen angels. While he may be “roaming throughout the earth” (Job 1:7), Scripture also says that until he is bound for eternity, Satan maintains access to God. In the words of my pastor, Jack Olsen:

“Rev. 12:10 says he accuses the brethren before our God day and night. There is some debate about where to place this passage chronologically, but I believe this describes a yet future casting of Satan out of heaven for good. He was cast out of his original position in heaven (Ezek. 28:16), but still has limited access to accuse the brethren before God (also Job 1:6).”

For a clear picture of the eternal heaven, we can look at Revelation chapter 21:

“There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Rev. 21:4).

“Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” (Revelation 21: 27).

“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.” (Rev. 22:14, 15).

In conclusion, I fully agree that heaven is for real. But since there are so many elements of his story that contradict Scripture, Colton didn't take a real trip to heaven. Besides, his operative report (included in the book) shows he never left his body. This isn't being passed off as a "vision," or a possibly fictitious story from a then four-year old. (Besides, kids have great imaginations and have a hard time distinguishing fantasy from reality). It's being passed along as fact. That's where the problem lies. If you want a true peek at heaven, check out the Bible.

“This is what the Lord Almighty says: Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they will fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord.” (Jeremiah 23:16).

Have you read the book? What do you think about it all?

Other reviews I recommend:
http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/heaven-is-for-real
http://responsivereiding.com/2011/03/18/heaven-is-for-real-a-review/
http://thebereanlibrary.com/archives/1802

Preparing for Rising Food Prices

Photo credit

At the grocery store this weekend, signs were everywhere in the produce section, alerting consumers that severe weather in the South and Southeast means--for the next several weeks--prices on winter produce will be higher and supplies will be limited. In Japan, food shortages are already being experienced, grocery stores are closed, and people are waiting in lines for rationed amounts of food and water. The earthquake and nuclear catastrophes there are likely to affect food prices worldwide as well.

All of this has me thinking that I'm glad I have prepared a pantry. It's not terribly extensive, but there is enough to last us at least for a little bit through a natural disaster or emergency. Even if there isn't an emergency, I am thankful to be able to dip into reserves I have purchased on sale when their prices climb at the grocery store. I don't have to pay an exorbitantly high price for items our family needs.

If you haven't done it already, I encourage you to stock up on some pantry essentials--especially when you see them on sale. You can do it a little at a time to work it into your budget. That way, you'll have things on hand if prices rise higher than you can comfortably afford for a season; plus, you'll be prepared with some food in the cupboard in the event of an emergency.

There is some helpful information here about building up a pantry. Brandy tells the story of how she slowly stocked her pantry to be able to feed her family for a year. You can also use a food calculator on her site to find out how much your family would need if you were trying to build up a year's worth of storage. Even if you don't do a year, it's helpful to see what kind of items you may want to keep on hand.

(Disclaimer: she links to an Latter Day Saints site about food storage. I am not LDS. So while we disagree theologically, I appreciate the practical tips on building a pantry frugally. There is some really helpful advice there.)   

Oh, The Places You Won't Go

So I have my own version of Dr. Seuss' Oh, the Places You'll Go!

Oh, the places you won't go,

The things you won't see

When gas prices climb higher than three

It's time to stay home,

Find new things to do,

Projects and games and outside walks too.

What can you sort?

What can you do?

What can you read to thing one and thing two (and three and four and more)?

You'll find if you stretch how long you can go

Whizzing out and about

Why, wouldn't you know?

You'll save money and gas,

and even better than that...

You'll be content to be home,

You'll learn to like it like that

Many adventures await,

Many dollars are saved

When you say no to load up and go.

On a practical note, I fill up our minivan every two weeks when my husband gets paid. Gas prices where we live are just under $3 a gallon right now. It costs about $50 to fill up. This fill-up must last us until the next pay-day.

We really don't go many places during a week, and I honestly prefer it that way. Too many errands and appointments on the calendar for too many days in a row just stress me out. We have church on Wednesday night for AWANA, Sunday morning and Sunday night (Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace University is starting up). I take my boys to a homeschool art class on Wednesday afternoons, but it's only a half-mile from our house. There is a homeschool phys ed class on Tuesday's and Thursday's, which we attended once a week in the fall, but I'm not sure we'll continue this semester. (Besides, the boys get plenty of physical activity during the day anyway!).

Maybe you prefer your family to be involved in many activities and don't mind paying for the gas it takes to drive everyone everywhere they need to be during the week. It's a personal decision, as your budget allows. I am lucky to live in the center of town, where everything I need is quite close. But if it wasn't, and if I wanted to save money (and gas is a biggie), I would take a hard look at where we're going and if those trips are really necessary.

On a tangent, since I used to work in the media, I find it so interesting how the media is choosing not to cover the rise in gas prices. The media claims to be neutral and unbiased, but that's so not true. Their bias comes through in so many ways: in the stories they choose to cover (and not to cover), and the ways in which they cover them. During the Bush presidency, for example, the media constantly reported on how high gas prices were going and what the president was, or was not, doing to address the issue. That same media coverage seems to be absent from the Obama presidency. Sometimes I wonder if the rise in gas prices, and the apparent lack of doing anything about it, is an intentional decision by the administration to drive us all toward solar-powered vehicles.

Regardless of what the government does, or doesn't do, to affect the price of gas, I can affect how much we pay for it simply by limiting the places we go.

How are you dealing with the increase in gas prices?

(Linked to Works for Me Wednesday)

Having a Baby Without Maternity Insurance

The exciting news is we are expecting our fourth child in August. The not so exciting news is we don't have maternity coverage, and the company our policy is with (Insurers Administrative Corporation) will not cover any complications to me or the baby if they arise, since we do not have the maternity rider. So what is the point of paying hundreds of dollars a month to have insurance? (Plus, we have had so many problems with this company that I have ethical problems with paying them).

Through prayer and lots of discussion, my husband and I decided to cancel my insurance policy altogether. At least that way we will be able to save the money we were paying for my premium. His employer generously agreed to pay my husband the other half of premium they paid for me, so that will allow us to save quite a bit each month to use toward our medical expenses.

Here are some of the other ways we will be saving up to pay cash for baby #4:

• We are already on a bare-bones budget, so the only way I know to trim expenses further is to reduce our grocery expenses. That is why I have started posting the "Healthy $10 a Day Menus," and I will continue to do this.
• We received some Christmas cash, which will go into the baby fund.
• I know it would be less expensive to use a midwife and have a home birth. However, during my last pregnancy, I had a problem with my placenta and bled quite a bit at delivery, so it's just too risky for me. My husband and I prefer to use a hospital for safety reasons.
• I plan to call the hospital and see what I can do, or bring on my own, to reduce fees. Also, if there are not any complications, and we can leave a few hours after delivery, it is likely that we can save dramatically on room and board. (As a side note, hospital costs can seem so excessive. Each of my boys roomed in with me, yet the hospital charged two room and board fees of more than $2,500 each--one for me and one for the baby. I called once and asked if, since we shared a room, the hospital would be willing to reduce one of the fees. Nope.  Same with the circumcision: my doctor charged $400 for the procedure, the hospital charged $400 simply because the procedure was done at their hospital and the doctor used a tray of their instruments. Whether one has insurance or pays cash, these charges illustrate the problems with the medical system). Plus, the honest truth is many times hospitals are more willing to negotiate with those who do not have insurance, than those who have insurance but it won't cover their services, or have a high deductible (over $5,000).

Sure, it's a little unsettling to not have insurance, but again, this company will not cover anything related to the pregnancy or birth, so it is a waste of money from my perspective. Plus, medical insurance is a relatively new concept. Prior to the 19th century, people paid a fee for services. Here is a bit of interesting information about the start of health insurance as we know it, from the article "A Short History of Health Care" and the book Sick: The Untold Story of America's Health Care Crisis---and the People Who Pay the Price:

What we recognize as modern medicine, Cohn writes, began in the 1920s. That's when doctors and hospitals, having only during the previous decade learned enough about disease that they could be reliably helpful in treating sick people, began charging more than most individuals could easily pay. To close this gap, which worsened with the advent of the Great Depression, the administrator of Baylor Hospital in Dallas created a system that caught on elsewhere and eventually evolved into Blue Cross. The Blues were essentially nonprofit health insurers who served local community organizations like the Elks. In exchange for a tax break, Blue Cross organizations kept premiums reasonably low.

The success of the Blues persuaded commercial insurers, who initially considered medicine an unpromising market, to enter the field. Private insurers accelerated these efforts in the 1940s when businesses, seeking ways to get around wartime wage controls, began to compete for labor by offering health insurance. If government regulators had thought to freeze fringe benefits along with wages, we might have avoided making the workplace primarily responsible for supplying health insurance, a role that most people now agree was ill-advised. Instead, the government jumped on the bandwagon by exempting from the income tax company expenses associated with health care...

The Blues, in their early days, charged everyone the same premium, regardless of age, sex, or pre-existing conditions. This was partly because the Blues were quasi-philanthropic organizations, Cohn explains, and partly because the Blues were created by hospitals and therefore interested mainly in signing up potential hospital patients. They were sufficiently benevolent that when Harry Truman proposed a national health-care scheme, opponents were able to defeat it by arguing that the nonprofit sector had the problem well in hand. As private insurers entered the market, however, they rejiggered premiums by calculating relative risk, and avoided the riskiest potential customers altogether. To survive, the Blues followed suit; today, they no longer enjoy a tax advantage and are virtually indistinguishable from other health insurers. Meanwhile, large companies, which tend to employ significantly more young people than old people, began to self-insure. The combined result was that people who really needed health care had an increasingly difficult time affording, or even getting, health-care insurance.

So that's where we're at today. People are paying more for fewer services. I don't know what the solution is, but for me, it's to pull out of the system altogether right now. I don't want fear of what could happen to dictate my life (and force me to shell out hundreds of dollars a month that I could be saving). Also, in what, or in whom, am I trusting? Am I trusting a system to provide my needs, or my God? I choose to trust in God. I choose to make responsible choices to do what I can to save the needed money, and I choose to trust that God will keep us safe and provide for all our needs.

Have you ever had a baby without insurance, and how did you make it work?

Devoted Followers of What?

Coffee Talk Thursday

Recently, (I think it was on "Earth Day") I caught the tail-end of a radio program, where the guest was contrasting environmentalism with Christ's Great Commission. The call for Christians is to "go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation" (Mark 16:15). The guest said Christians today are emphasizing less the making of disciples and more the advancing of a "green" lifestyle. His point was: While we can take steps to be wise stewards of creation, we should not replace evangelism about Christ with evangelism toward going green.

I thought his point was a good one--definitely something to chew on. There are so many blogs, books, and other sites that are dedicated to sharing the "dangers" of dairy, deodorant, sugar, flour, conventional chicken and beef, non-organic food and much more. (For the record, while I am committed to providing my family a healthy diet with as many whole foods as possible, I don't buy into much of this propaganda).

We can become devoted followers of pursuing an organic, green lifestyle and sharing that "gospel" with others; or we can aim to live healthy lives while keeping the emphasis of our time and attention on growing as a follower of Christ, and sharing His Gospel with others.

"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." (Romans 14:17).

So what do you think about all of this? Are we replacing growth as Christians with growth as organic foodies and environmentalists? What can we do to put priorities back in their proper places?

(By the way, just a reminder that our once-a-month cooking festival will fall on the 1st, a Saturday).

It’s a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood

photo by Linda Aslund

In For the Family's Sake: The Value of Home in Everyone's Life(one of my all-time favorite books), Susan Shaeffer Macaulay writes with fondness about her childhood in what is today inner city, St. Louis. She shares about riding her tricycle up and down the sidewalks, warned not to ignore strangers but rather to be courteous to adults and turn to them if in need of help. She and her neighborhood friends had freedom to go in and out of each other’s houses, playing while their mothers hung out wash on the line. Yet, no matter where in the neighborhood their play took them, they were always “under the caring eye of some grownup in the neighborhood.”

Granted, she’s writing about the 1940’s, and yes, things were different back then. Still, I cannot help but wish to emulate that kind of neighborhood in today’s era. Yet today, instead of knowing our neighbors , many people keep completely to themselves. With such a strong sense of individualism, one cannot possibly feel comfortable trusting neighbors enough to know they’ll be keeping a close eye on one’s children if they ride trikes or bikes on the sidewalk in front of their house. Of course the primary responsibility for watching one’s children rests with the parents, but wouldn’t it be nice to live in a neighborhood where one had the assurance that all the neighbors truly looked out for each other?

We live in a neighborhood that has been deemed by our city as a “Weed and Seed” area—weed out the bad and seed in the good. Many people, not just in my neighborhood but throughout the country, are becoming intentional about neighborhood renewals—not just accepting the way things are but actively working for redemption. Along with some other neighbors, we just started a neighborhood watch program with our local police department, and I like how it has already brought neighbors—not just immediate neighbors—closer together. I feel hopeful that a day is coming when my children will be able to ride their bikes and trikes down the sidewalk, and I will feel confident knowing they are being watched—not just by me but by neighbors who have become friends as well.

Do you know your neighbors? If so, how did you build that relationship? If not, what are some ways you could build a relationship? Here are a few of my ideas:

• Say hi and be friendly when you see them outside, getting mail, doing yardwork, etc. This is often the first step, and perhaps one of the biggest. We can keep to ourselves, and ignore them, or we can bridge the gap by taking a little extra effort to be friendly.
• Bake cookies and take them to them at Christmastime, and at other times too.
• Invite neighbors over for a BBQ (summer grilling time is almost here!)

Since it is Coffee Talk Thursday (up late), I'd love to hear your ideas on how we can be neighborly,  build fellowship in our neighborhoods, and redeem them when applicable.

Why I Said Goodbye to Ads

Offering ad zones on one's blog allows a blogger to write for fun and earn a little money at the same time (in my eight months of blogging, I've finally earned enough to pay for a couple of lattes). The bigger the blog, the more advertising revenue one generates. Unfortunately, there is also room for a lot of sleeze--however inadvertent. That's why I removed all Adbrite zones on my page.

Although ads must be approved before they show up here, one horribly offensive ad slipped through. I am so, so sorry if you saw it. I was appalled when I saw it. The picture was against every single one of my values. I could have just deleted the ad, but again, I don't know how it got there, since none of the approved ads bore any resemblance to this vulgar ad. So to be on the safe side, I deleted every Adbrite ad zone.

Making a few extra dollars is just not worth the cost of something that egregious. If we blog with integrity, our ads should reflect our integrity. While we cannot control the content of every single ad, we can control what we allow on our pages. They are, after all, our blogs for which we are selling ad space. So ultimately, the responsibility rests with us.

Again, I want to apologize if you saw that ad. Apparently, different ads will pop up based on your browsing habits, so not everyone will see the same thing. Modesty, traditional marriage, and fidelity are virtues I cherish; having an ad on my blog that promotes something different is just not something I am willing to do, even if someone pays me for it. The cost is too great.

Linked to We Are That Family.

Focus on the Family Leaves The Tough Questions Unanswered

For several days now, I have been mildly irritated with the new tone of interviews airing on Focus on the Family. I've listened for as long as I can remember and have been so blessed by the content of broadcasts under the former leadership of Dr. James Dobson. My husband and I support the ministry financially, as we are able. Now it's just different.
Now that Dr. Dobson is off-the-air, I am really struggling with getting used to Dr. Juli Slattery as a host. Her training is in psychology--not communications. I have no doubt she is a brilliant psychologist, and I have enjoyed listening to her as a guest, but why she was chosen as a daily host is beyond me.

Interview questions for on-air broadcasts are much different than the kind of questions you ask a patient sitting in a chair in your office for a session. You only get so much time in a broadcast. The questions have to be relevant to what the majority of the audience wonders, you have to make the guest sound like the expert (not yourself), and you have to move. You need to cover a lot of ground in a short amount of time.

All that aside, I am shocked at irresponsible interviewing of late. You may have heard the interviews with Chantel Hobbs, author of Never Say Diet: Make Five Decisions and Break the Fat Habit for Goodand the new release The One-Day Way: Today Is All the Time You Need to Lose All the Weight You Want.

Apparently, her broadcasts were the most popular of 2009. I listened to all four of them the other day. Never once did I hear anyone ask her about her choice to undergo a "breast lift and augmentation." She writes about it in her book, Never Say Diet. (She also writes about liposuction and body sculpting, and when she believes they can be appropriate).

Here's what she wrote:

"I honestly did not consider any surgery until I had my last child, more than three years into my transformation. Once I had maintained my weight loss and continued to get even more fit, I realized I had excess skin that had lost its elasticity and wasn't going back, and there was nothing I could do myself to change that. I decided to have a breast lift and augmentation, and this was a difficult decision. I understand that we need to accept our bodies as God created them, but God did not intend for me to balloon up to 350 pounds. There were ramifications from this that I knew could be fixed. I fixed everything I could through clean eating and exercise, then got help from experts for what I couldn't do on my own...

Yes, I discussed it with my husband first and then my mom and daughters. I wanted them to understand the frustration of losing a lot of weight, becoming superfit, and then being disappointed with my body as a result. They...understood this was not simply vanity. But as I moved forward with this decision, I wanted to consider the message I was sending my children. I wanted my girls to know their mom was fixing a problem that she had created herself, that this was not simply a matter of wanting bigger breasts.


My problem is not that she underwent plastic surgery (although I personally don't agree with it), but that Focus on the Family failed to tell its audience this key piece of information while touting her story and books. In my old news days, if I left out such a huge key to someone's story in an interview, I would be hauled into my news director's office for irresponsible journalism. And I would deserve the chastisement. I would have failed to have done my job.

So if you listened to the Focus broadcasts and heard Chantel's story and were inspired to eat better and exercise more, remember--as you look at pictures of her, you will not have identical results...unless you, too, "get help from experts," in Chantel's words, for what you can't do on your own. I think Focus on the Family owed it to its listeners to tell us all this key piece of information. Either somebody didn't do decent research, or Focus just chose not to bring it up. But what message does this really send to young women and moms who are working on losing baby weight--all women, really? "Time to get some plastic surgery, honey, because this belly just ain't going back."

I will be writing a letter to Focus, and I encourage you to as well.
Now back to regularly scheduled posting... :)