Want to hear something interesting?

Over the past few weeks I have been reading about the history of education (that’s not the interesting part), and I began to notice a strange trend. For a significant bulk of Western history, philosophers have agreed that an essential goal of education is the formation of ethical people. Until somewhat recently, everyone from Plato to Rousseau emphasized morality and character as a central purpose in education.

I think this is fascinating because it is so different from today. Not only has ethics been jettisoned from school curriculum, but much of education today is about job preparation, not moral transformation. Whereas the old model changed the self, the new model is more oriented toward serving the self.

Of course, old models of education should not be overly romanticized, nor should all schools or educators be characterized with such broad strokes. Nevertheless, I do think a shift has occurred, and I also believe it says a lot about the larger historical moment. Hard work, disappointment, and failure are not exactly part of the American dream. As our Declaration of Independence reminds us, the American prerogative is the “pursuit of happiness,” not moral fortitude. The kind of character transformation described by earlier thinkers can only be had by labor, discipline, and sometimes a little pain. I’m not sure our culture’s emphasis on happiness and self-esteem coheres well with those older notions of the good.

Now my intent here is not to deliver a treatise on the modern ills of our culture or the failings of our educational system. If anything, I offer the above description of American culture as a reflection on my own heart, as a product of this culture. As I have thought about my future, I have noticed an idolatrous attachment to happiness, one that always prefers comfort over growth. And in no area of my life has this become more apparent than in my thinking about having children.

This year I have come across numerous studies and articles that pit family against happiness. According to one professor of sociology, “marital satisfaction decreases after the birth of the first child and continually decreases over time.” Meanwhile, a study in the Journal of the British Psychological Association found that parents report significantly lower levels of happiness. In fact, one scientist wondered if couples make the decision to have children by deluding themselves and focusing on the positive, ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.

Studies of this nature are certainly dubious. Aside from the fact that I have many friends who love (LOVE!) being parents, happiness itself  is a relative term. It is relative to both the person and the moment. Even the most adoring parent has had an unhappy day. Even so, studies like these are discouraging to non-parents like me.  They don’t exactly motivate me to jump on board the baby train.

Add to these studies the mountains of Mommy Blogs that seem devoted to commiserating over the woes of motherhood. The more I hear about how tiring and how difficult the job is, the more my inner happiness-worshiper wants to run away from it all.

In all honesty, the prospect of having children is scary to me. And on those freak-out days, the above statistics certainly don’t help. However, as I have thought about the future and searched my own heart, I’ve had to remind myself that happiness is not really the end game. In the same way that educators have long recognized character formation as a superior good, God Himself is not content to leave us the way we are. There is richness and depth and beauty to be had by growing into His likeness. As the saying goes, God loves us too much to leave us they way we are.

Happiness is a funny thing. An undue emphasis on it thwarts our attainment of it. So while I have no doubt I will  fall utterly in love with my kids, their purpose is not to serve my happiness. God created the family, not simply because it is good and wonderful, but because it makes us better. It makes us more like Him.

And in case you’re wondering, I am NOT pregnant. These are just the honest reflections of someone committed to God and committed to human life, but still imperfect and in need of God’s grace. Just another reason why on-going transformation is such an essential part of the Christian life!

Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

- Romans 12:1-2

This month I’ve been wrapping up my summer schoolwork with an independent study of feminist theology, and I have really loved it! My research has been educational, thought-provoking, and personally challenging, which is exactly what I was hoping it would be.

As I have explored the history of feminism and its relationship to Christian theology, I’ve noticed a significant historical trend that includes, but is not limited to, feminism. To give you a little background on what I mean, one of the early criticisms of the feminist movement was its narrow scope. Although feminism sought to achieve equal rights and status for women, the movement was predominantly led by middle class, educated white women. Women of other ethnicities and nationalities consequently felt marginalized by the dominant ideologies of the movement. Although feminism set out to end this kind of social stratification, it unintentionally added to it.

Now before we villainize feminism for this hypocrisy, it is important to point out that feminism is not the first to make a mistake of this kind. Feminism is just one of many movements throughout history that initially marginalized others in its own quest for freedom.  Consider the United States’ own history. Our nation is founded on the pillars of freedom and equality,  and yet this newly liberated State was built on the backs of oppressed African slaves. White men achieved unprecedented freedom, only to withhold that freedom from women and minorities.

Examples such as these abound. When a group accesses freedom and empowerment, no matter how populist or democratic its initial intentions may be, it is likely to overlook others in need of liberation. In fact, some movements deliberately disadvantage others in order to ensure their own success.

As I studied feminism and reflected on this historical pattern, I began to wonder whether I succumb to the same kind of tunnel vision. Have I ever focused so unflinchingly on a personal cause or call that I forgot about the bigger picture and marginalized others in the process?

I am quite sure that I have. For example, I love teaching and discipling women in the church. I feel called to serve and equip Christian women, and I feel it is incumbent on the church to do the same. However, my passion can easily morph into tunnel vision, especially when Christian women are marginalized by the church. The urgency of this injustice, which is particularly close to my heart, narrows my gaze.

As a result of this tunnel vision, I lose perspective. My determination to advocate for women in the church can eclipse other aspects of the Christian call. I can become so focused on women in the church that I ignore women outside the church who need the love of Christ, or I forget about women around the world who need food, clean water, safety, and medical support.

Whether this tunnel vision is a manifestation of sin or simply the limited capacity of human nature, it is a common temptation that takes many forms. For people like me, ministries in the church draw our attention away from ministries to the world. For others, protecting their family can prevent them from protecting the poor and the weak outside their family. And still others can become so absorbed in evangelism or social justice that they neglect the friends and family closest to them.

To be fair, none of us is called to serve in every area of ministry out there. In fact, God does NOT call us to a degree of over-commitment in which we do everything, but we do it poorly. However, ministry is not a zero sum game in which commitments are mutually exclusive. There are ways that I can serve the women in my church AND serve women outside the church.

In fact, I know women who do just that. In His goodness, God has connected me with women who exemplify the full vision of the Christian life, and here are just a few of them:

• Author Helen Lee recently published the book The Missional Mom
• Activist Shayne Moore published Global Soccer Mom
• Tracey Bianchi equips women for everyday environmental stewardship in Green Mama
• And my friend Margot Starbuck just posted a challenging blog titled “Myopically Mothering My Own as Mission?“

Although each one of these Christian women writes from the particular perspective of motherhood, each sets an example for mothers and non-mothers alike. These women resist the tunnel vision that would monopolize their time and attention, opting instead for a life that reflects the fullness of Christ’s.

These women also remind us that the different spheres of Christian ministry are beautifully complementary: Global outreach gives me patience and perspective at home. As a mother one day, community outreach will model mission-mindedness for my children. And the reality of female oppression worldwide reminds me to be grateful for the equality women enjoy in America.

When understood this way, the multi-faceted Christian call seems less like a list of duties and more like a glimpse of God’s design for humanity. We are meant to be connected to one another, loving one another and serving one another. When we sequester ourselves in one part of ministry or service, we miss out on the fullness of God’s heart for the world. When tunnel vision limits our sight, I suspect it also limits our love.

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once praised the influence of her father, saying,

“I just owe almost everything to my father [and] it’s passionately interesting for me that the things that I learned in a small town, in a very modest home, are just the things that I believe have won the election.”

I love this quote because it goes to show the power of a father investing himself in his child. What I love even more about her words is the simple, everyday-ness of her father’s investment. While the grand memories of learning to ride a bike or going to a baseball game with your dad are very special, they are not the stuff of fatherhood.

A man is most influential in the life of his child through his every day presence and intentional, often sacrificial investment in her formation. That is the standard set for fathers by Jesus himself. Both 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5 speak of the husband as the head of the family, and that headship is to be a reflection of Christ’s headship over the church. Shockingly, Christ exemplified his responsibility in two inglorious ways: First, by becoming human and dwelling among us. Second, by sacrificing himself for us on the cross.

Those two actions define Christ’s headship over the church and set a counter-cultural standard for husbands and fathers. Ironically, Christians often miss that contrast as often as the world around them. The language of daily parental presence and self-sacrifice is more often used about moms than it is dads. Mothers are frequently reminded of the eternal value of their sacrifice as they stay at home with their children and endure the day-to-day banalities of parenting. Motherhood is both a blessing and a cross to bear, so mothers are exhorted to take it all in joy as their special calling in life.

I think that message has its place, but it is a lop-sided one at best. If some women are called to motherhood, then their husbands must have a similar calling on their lives. When a child enters this world, it is the responsibility of both parents to nurture and raise her, not just the mom. In fact, the language of motherhood as a “special calling” did not emerge in the church until 150 years ago. As much as we use this language to exalt the role of mother, it simultaneously downplays the role of the father.

Fathers do have a special call to model Christ in the home, one that entails presence and sacrifice. It is not always a glorious calling by the world’s standards, and it may involve setting aside earthly ideals about manhood in favor of a more Christo-centric one. But it is glorious to God and invaluable to their children.

A father is therefore a parent first and a provider second. Financial stability is important, but it is secondary to the investment of faith and love. Jesus certainly provided for the physical needs of his followers, but his greatest gift to us was himself.

I say all of that as the daughter of a man who invested himself in me profoundly. In many ways we had a traditional family structure: My dad worked every day until 4:30, and my mom taught piano lessons in the afternoon. My mom was responsible for a lot of the chores around the house while my dad managed our finances, fixed things that broke, mowed the lawn, etc. However, my childhood is not marked by the presence of one parent more than another. I can count on my hand the number of times my dad was gone on business. Every weekend was spent doing fun activities as a family.

But most importantly, my dad took a special interest in shaping my brother and me into people of character who honored God with our lives, and he did this through his own daily actions. My dad is a tough guy who survived a childhood with alcoholic parents and the premature death of his own father. He is a self-made man who is as smart as he is strong, but you’ll never hear him brag about it. His strength and wisdom instead manifest themselves in the forms of humility and gentleness. If, for instance, my dad ever responded to me in anger, he was quick to apologize and ask forgiveness, even if I was in the wrong.

My dad also believed that God granted him financial success only for the purpose of blessing others. As a result, my parents were very generous with their money and my dad instilled in us that same priority of stewardship.  Even today, my dad writes a financial blog that is primarily about the economy but is peppered with spiritual insights on stewardship from his own Christian faith.

My dad always put us before himself. Always. In fact, he does this to a fault. Sometimes he worked so hard to plan the perfect vacation for us that he would become utterly distraught when the slightest thing went wrong. When I was younger I found this tendency kind of annoying, but the older I get the more I recognize it for what it was: An urgent desire to make us happy and show us his love.

Now that I am a grown woman, my dad continues to shape the way I live out my faith on an almost daily basis. He holds me accountable if my lifestyle choices do not match up with the gospel. He believes in me more than anyone else in the world (except my mom) and regularly affirms the gifts God has given me. He helps me to be a better wife to Ike by sharing lessons from his marriage to my mom. He is unconditionally supportive of the choices we make as a couple, but he is also there to help whenever we need it.

The woman I am today is a beautiful blend of both my parents. Both of them were ever-present in my childhood, and I continue to discover new ways in which their careful sowing into my heart is bearing spiritual fruit.

Reflecting on all the things my dad has taught me, they can be summed up as this: What I have learned from my dad is both the character and magnitude of the love God has for me. That is, I believe, the ultimate calling on every Christian father–to point his children to the love of the heavenly Father by the way he lives his life. In doing so, fathers make faith a little bit easier for their kids to embrace. We can conceive of the perfect, unconditional, sacrificial, self-investing love of the Father because we’ve experienced a shadow of it here on earth.

So on this Father’s Day, I want to say THANK YOU to my dad for being the kind of father for whom I am intensely proud. Thanks for investing yourself in your kids at a time when many fathers in our country have not. And thanks for loving and serving God with a consistency that gives me something to aspire to. I am so fortunate to have a dad like you, and I pray my generation will reclaim the calling of fatherhood to a vision that looks less like worldly masculinity and more like Christ.

Last month I received a link to the following article that ran in Time Magazine entitled Meet the ‘Selfless’ Women of the ‘Stay at Home Daughters Movement’. I had never before heard of the Stay at Home Daughters Movement (SAHD for short) so the information came as quite a shock. Especially given that the article was written in what I would call an uncharitable manner.

Since that time I came across another article on Christianity Today’s blog for women, Her.meneutics (if you aren’t following this blog you SHOULD be!), that offered an arguably more balanced perspective on the movement. The post was called What Is the Stay-at-Home Daughters Movement and it was written by Karen Swallow Prior, a professor at Liberty University. I also highly recommend it. She summarizes the movement as follows:

Essentially, adherents of SAHD believe daughters should never leave the covering of their fathers until and unless they are married.

Of the movement’s strengths as listed by Prior, she included their emphasis on non-traditional, higher education and their high regard for the father-daughter relationship. I agree with Prior, and was pleased to read a review of the movement that did not throw the baby out with the bath water. While I disagree with many of SAHD’s conclusions, we can still learn from this member of Christ’s Body.

However, along with Prior I also share some concerns. Fortunately, Prior said them better than I could have in the following excerpt:

But the real issue is less “to stay or not to stay” than the underlying principle for doing so. While SAHD advocates cite ample scriptural passages to support their orthopraxy (the practice of their orthodoxy), the principle underlying that practice seems to me to lack explicit scriptural support. This principle is what they claim is a clear divide between “public and private” (terms less connected to biblical language than to Enlightenment concepts) or separate “spheres of dominion” for men and women. Vision Forum Ministries states that “men are called to public spheres of dominion beyond the home,” and “the God-ordained and proper sphere of dominion for a wife is the household and that which is connected with the home.”

It’s possible that this bipartite division is more a social construct than a biblical one. If separate spheres were extrapolated from biblical language and principles, it is more likely such realms would fall along a more complex, tripartite division like family, church, and society. Such a trinity of spheres complicates neat alignments with the God-given binary of male and female. 

Perhaps this helps explain some of the problem. For while the SAHD movement calls for daughters to “be helpers to their mother and blessings to [their] entire family,” their attentions appear largely focused on the ministry and business of the fathers. (By the way, none of the fathers, apparently, work at the local automotive plant.)

After I read that section the first time, I read it back to my husband word-for-word because I thought it was so dead on! The distinction between public and private spheres for men and women is indeed a liberal construct, not a Christian one. And as the last line implies, the SAHD ideology would be difficult to live out in a family living within a low economic bracket. 

Now, I am always wary of setting up straw men that are easily knocked down, especially when the leaders of the movement aren’t here to defend themselves, so I must affirm that if these women feel led to stay at home with their fathers in preparation for marriage, then more power to them! Does that mean that ALL women are called to do the same? Certainly not. As mentioned above, we have to be very careful of belief systems that develop out of our financial privilege or personal convictions, lest they exclude entire populations within the Body of Christ.

What is the take-away lesson here?

In the face of these disagreements it’s important to remember that there are central issues to the Christian faith, but there are also debatable ones. Mark Driscoll refers to this difference as close-fisted and open-fisted issues. Some doctrines, such as the Trinity and the divine nature of Christ, are “close-fisted” doctrines. We do not let go of them. They are non-negotiables. On the other hand, there are also open-fisted beliefs, such as speaking in tongues or worship style. When it comes to the open-fisted beliefs, we can have union with other Christians even if we disagree with them.

I believe that  SAHD is an open-fisted belief. I disagree with some of their conclusions (some very strongly!) but they are still my sisters in Christ. In contrast with the many articles that have slandered SAHD without mercy, a response of kindness and gentleness is, I believe, more faithful to the character of Christ.

The only reason my apartment is clean right now is because my parents came to visit this weekend. About 12 hours prior to their arrival there were books strewn across every table surface, and dishes piled up in the sink. And while I normally HATE to live that way, it was the end of the semester and my husband and I were in crunch time. There were about 20 things more important and more urgent to us than cleaning our apartment.

I don’t know about you but whenever life gets particularly hectic, the organization of my home goes into decline. Sometimes that messiness is a red flag that I am over-committed–you know you’re over-booked when hygiene takes a backseat! However, those piles of books and dirty dishes are not always a red flag. Sometimes I have to sacrifice having an immaculate home in order to do the things that God has called me to. And on those days (or weeks) I take comfort from the following verse from Proverbs 14:4–

Where there are no oxen, the manger is clean, but abundant crops come by the strength of the ox.

This verse has multiple levels of meaning, but it is essentially about weighing our options when deciding how to spend our time. On the one hand, a farmer could choose to have a pristine barn where he doesn’t have to take care of dirty, expensive oxen. But then he wouldn’t make any money. He wouldn’t have the time or resources to harvest a crop. So he has a choice to make: Clean manger, or productive farm?

The reason I love this verse is that it has a special message to women who measure their value and effectiveness upon the perfection of their home. But before I get into that, let me be clear that this verse is not devaluing hygiene–your kids shouldn’t be contracting salmonella from your countertops, and you don’t want to attract critters with all the food crumbs lying about!. We are indeed called to be good stewards of our home. That said, there are also times when we need to lay down our Martha Stewart ambitions at the altar of God and spend our time doing His work–maybe having coffee with a younger woman who needs your encouragement, or planning a small group Bible study lesson, or simply spending time in prayer and reading His Word.

The point is that while a clean house isn’t a bad thing, it is not always a reflection of one’s effectiveness as a godly servant. The harvest of “abundant crops” can often be messy work, so it’s important to measure ourselves according to God’s standards, not the world’s. So whenever you feel overwhelmed and inadequate because there is dust on the shelves and a water ring around your toilet bowl, I think a modern day rendering of Proverbs 14:4 might read as follows:

Where there are no children or ministry commitments, the home is clean. But abundant crops come through faithful parenting and diligent service to God’s church.

Right now I’m taking a class on theories of Christian Nurture, which essentially examines how people are led into Christian discipleship. We started by taking a look at how Christian parents raise their kids, and I’ve learned a LOT in the process. As someone who one day hopes to have kids, I feel like I’m taking a crash-course in parenting!

In particular, I read something in Horace Bushnell’s Christian Nurture that I just had to share with you. Even if kids are nowhere near your radar screen, this is good stuff. It’s important to remember that the kind of person you are now is the kind of person you’ll probably be as a parent. You can’t suddenly switch to being a thoughtful, intentional parent over night, so be thinking now about what kind of parent you want to be and whether you’re on the path to getting there.

What follows is a helpful goal:

“Your character is a stream, a river, flowing down upon your children, hour by hour. What you do here and there to carry an opposing influence is, at best, only a ripple that you make on the surface of the stream. It reveals the sweep of the current; nothing more. If you expect your children to go with the ripple, instead of the stream, you will be disappointed.”

You may know all the stories in the Bible and you may have read all the books on parenting, but what you teach your kids will only be a ripple in the stream of your character. It is who you are, not what you say, that will have the most influence–a great truth outside the home as well!

So no matter where you are right now in life, remember that it’s your character that counts. It reveals your true allegiances and can either strengthen or undermine your words. When you think about your future, are you becoming the kind of parent (or spouse, friend, neighbor or co-worker) you want to be?

For the last several months I debated whether to write a post about the increasingly common practice of in-vitro fertilization. Even within the church, this is an extremely sensitive topic due to the number of Christian families who have chosen the route of IVF and now have beautiful children as a result. There is not a lot of space to wrestle with this issue without seemingly calling into question the validity of these children’s lives.

However, two weeks ago Robert Edwards was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for developing the IVF procedure, resulting in the very first “test tube baby” in 1978. Upon winning the award, news outlets everywhere covered the story with headlines celebrating the “millions of babies” who have been born in the last 30 years. Given that millions of babies have also been aborted in that same amount of time, this seems like a glaring ideological inconsistency in how our nation values life and understands our place in the creation of it. It also compelled me to finally take on this topic. As a Christian who values life and considers every human being to contain the image of God, I need to be talking about this.

But before I begin, I have to be clear about something. If you are reading this and you have a child/children through the process of IVF, I am not calling into question their moral value. Every human life is a glorious gift from God–which is exactly why this topic is important. While I celebrate the life of every child, regardless of how they came into the world, it is still important that we reflect upon this process and whether it is fully consistent with a Scriptural worldview.

With ALL of these things in mind, I have divided my reflections into two categories: The clear areas and the gray areas. In today’s post I am going to look at two clear areas and I would love to hear your input as you think through this yourself. In Part 2 of this examination I will reflect on the less clear areas that are more philosophical in nature, but are no less practical:

The Clear Areas

Whenever the topic of IVF comes up, there are some gray areas to be sure. It can be hard to know how fully we should embrace technology. Much of technology is a true gift, but just because we can do something does not necessarily mean we should. That said, in the field of IVF there are some practices that are clearly in conflict with the Christian belief in human dignity and the image of God in every person. I have highlighted two here:

1. The Destruction of Unused Embryos–After a successful conception, some couples discard the extra embryos that they created but no longer wish to use. In 2008 The Times reported the destruction of over 1 million “waste embryos” during a 14 year period at a clinic in the UK. Once this number was released there was a public outcry, calling for an immediate reduction of this number. It is difficult to discern how the destruction of one million embryos is any different from the destruction of one, but suffice it to say that the community had a visceral reaction to such a sweeping number.

As Christians, it is important that we are clearly opposed to this practice. It is ironic that Christians are so notably opposed to stem cell research–which, at the very least, uses human embryos for a purpose–but are rather quiet when it comes to this complete and total wastefulness of embryos discarded in the IVF process.

2. Freezing Embryos–When a couple creates embryos that they do not wish to use right away, or if a couple chooses to donate their embryos to infertile couples or science, the embryos are frozen. Embryos can be preserved for up to 10 years and still be used to produce healthy baby boys and girls.

My feelings about this practice were best summarized by Al Mohler, the President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who asked, “How does a couple (or an individual) deal with the knowledge that their genetic offspring are suspended in a state of frozen non-existence?” This is an important question to ask when considering this process. The act of freezing a human life as it is just beginning, maintaining it in a “state of biological suspension” as Mohler put it, is not only a dehumanizing act but dishonors the image of God within each tiny being, and must therefore be rejected as a Christian practice.

Although there are other elements of the IVF process that Christians consider to be clear and objectionable (the Catholic Church takes a very firm stance of opposition against the WHOLE process), these two elements are, in my mind, the most incontrovertible. If you consider yourself to be pro-life, then the above practices are not consistent with your beliefs.

In my next post I’ll take a look at the “gray areas.” They are not gray because they are morally ambiguous, but because they are more abstract. Sometimes it’s hard to conceive of the consequences of our actions, but we need to be asking those questions. Where will our current understanding and treatment of human life lead us in the following decades? Should Christians in any way endorse an industry that leads to the destruction of human embryos? How are we to think through IVF and  infertility when there are so many orphans around the world? These are all questions that I’ll take a look at in the next post.

Hi ladies! Today is one of my “thinking days” as I’ve been processing some new reading assignments for my classes. Hopefully these reflection days will continue to stay relevant to your every day life. If not, feel free to tune out…but hopefully you won’t.

This week I’ve been reading about Horace Bushnell, a pastor and theologian who lived in the 1800′s and placed a heavy emphasis on the importance of family in the church. Bushnell felt that the family was one of God’s primary vehicles for bringing about conversion, stressing to parents the importance of raising their children in godliness.

What is interesting about Bushnell is that he belonged to a new brand of thinking about children that was considerably more nurturing than the generations before. While not all parents before Bushnell’s time were harsh toward their kids, Bushnell represented a paradigmatic change in parenting by emphasizing the importance of nurturing children. For Bushnell, nurture was not a matter of personal preference, but it was in the best interest of the child. Bushnell made this claim long before he had any statistical evidence to back it up, but later generations would prove him right. And key to Bushnell’s understanding of nurture and the Christian family was the presence and care of a loving mother.

In some respects, Bushnell’s ideas about parenting were revolutionary. In fact, we still draw from his thinking today. However, it is also important to note which of his beliefs were Biblical, and which were culturally rooted. For instance, in the Introduction to his book Christian Nurture I found the following commentary:

“In American colonial society, women were more fully integrated into social and economic life, but in the later eighteenth and nineteenth centuries a burgeoning industrial society gradually shut middle and upper class women out of economic roles, making them increasingly consumers rather than producers. Ministers and others preached sermons and wrote tracts hailing woman’s new role as mother and guardian of virtue and religion; her ‘place’ was in the home and in the church…Although Busnell is remarkably evenhanded in his discussion of the religious duties of both fathers and mothers in Christian Nurture, the special role of mothers in shaping the spiritual lives of their children forms an important theme of his book and evangelical Protestantism during the nineteenth century.” (p. xxix)

What was striking to me about this cultural shift was how quickly the consequences of the Industrial Revolution were assimilated into the church as “the way things should be done.” Of course, this assimilation had some positive, Biblical results: Children were valued and treasured by their parents in a manner that was thoroughly Scriptural, and parents were encouraged to play a crucial role in the spiritual formation of their kids. What is alarming, however, is the shift towards commending women based upon what they did. There is a fine line between valuing motherhood, and valuing women based upon their jobs as mothers. There is also a fine line between valuing the family, and raising it to a level of importance that surpasses the Church–which Bushnell was accused of doing. In both of these areas, the family began to encroach upon the centrality and the function of the church.

Even today we can see the fingerprints of Bushnell’s teaching. Consider, for instance, how often Christians emphasize the primacy of the family in our culture. As the logic goes, if men and women do not prioritize their familial duties, then the family will be compromised. And if the family is compromised, then our culture is compromised. After all, family is the foundation upon which our culture stands! Yet the New Testament does not present us with that same kind of urgent language about the family. It is the church, not the family, that is foundational. A majority of the parent-child language in the New Testament refers to the relationship between our Heavenly Father and His children, and when Paul commended women it was for their faithfulness to the Lord and the church, not their families.

Yes, the family is important. But Scripturally speaking the primary location of our identities is in the church, not our families. This fact gives proper perspective to the realms of marriage and parenting, and it also provides a place for singles to feel equally welcome and valued. Gospel centrality, not family centrality, is what guards us against the trappings of idolatry.

Of course both men and women can serve the Lord by serving their families. Please do not hear me as devaluing the family or calling Christians out of the home. But let us not confuse the two lest we slip into a works-driven faith in which we value ourselves based upon what we do (particularly in relation to our families) instead of Who we love. Being a good wife and mother is but a symptom of having a good relationship with the Lord, but it is the fallen human condition to reverse that order. That is why so many women suffer from low self-esteem and feelings of failure in the home, and that is also why we must return to the centrality of the Gospel over and over and over again, commending women first and foremost for their love of God and His church, and their families second. As a friend of ours once put it, in the world around us “blood is thicker than water”; for Christians it is water, the water of baptism,  that is thicker than blood.

Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest
is my lover among the young men.
I delight to sit in his shade,
and his fruit is sweet to my taste.

He has taken me to the banquet hall,
and his banner over me is love.

- Song of Solomon 2:3-4

In 2005 an author named Ayelet Waldman became the center of a huge controversy after publishing an article in the New York Times entitled “Truly, Madly, Guiltily” in which she confessed to loving her husband more than her children. Immediately, Waldman came under tremendous attack from angry mothers everywhere. The backlash was so intense that Waldman eventually appeared on Oprah to defend herself. Since then, Waldman has written an entire book on the topic, Bad Mother, that elaborates on the controversial subject, as well as detailing further “maternal crimes.”

In general terms, Waldman and I do not have a whole lot in common. Our moral ideologies are rather remote, but on this particular point I believe Waldman is on to something. Consider, for example, her explanation of why so many marriages fall into a sexual rut, stemming from the wife’s lack of sex drive:

“There are agreed upon reasons for this bed death. They are exhausted. It still hurts. They are so physically available to their babies – nursing, carrying, stroking – how could they bear to be physically available to anyone else?

“But the real reason for this lack of sex, or at least the most profound, is that the wife’s passion has been refocused. Instead of concentrating her ardor on her husband, she concentrates it on her babies. Where once her husband was the center of her passionate universe, there is now a new sun in whose orbit she revolves. Libido, as she once knew it, is gone, and in its place is all-consuming maternal desire.”

Waldman goes on to explain that while she loves her kids and would do anything for them, she is not “in love” with them the way some mothers are:

“Yes, I have four children. Four children with whom I spend a good part of every day: bathing them, combing their hair, sitting with them while they do their homework, holding them while they weep their tragic tears. But I’m not in love with any of them. I am in love with my husband.”

I have to say that this hearty endorsement of marital love is a refreshing change from the standard conceptions of marriage in the media. Television and film tend to portray marriage as the place where sexual passion goes to die. Yet Waldman challenges this belief with a new conception of marriage–one full of romance and heat, as well as trustworthy companionship. And it all stems out of a highly prioritized marriage.

Although I don’t have children yet, I find that Waldman’s words are very much relevant to my life here and now. In the last 6 months I have struggled tremendously to accept God’s call on my life for the next few years. He has made it undeniably clear that I go back to school, and I will be here for the next 3-4 years. Although my husband and I still practice Natural Family Planning and are therefore open to the arrival of a child whenever he or she comes, any intentional effort at conceiving will be delayed for a couple more years. That is a hard reality for me.

Watching my other married friends get pregnant and have babies fills my heart with envy. I would love to be at that place right now. But God has other plans at the moment, so I must wait. And it is during this waiting, when I feel like something is lacking in me as a woman and us as a family, that I am reminded that a strong family rests upon a strong marriage. As Andy Stanley once said, ”Kids are a welcome addition, but you are already a family.”

We live in a culture that is bifurcated by two competing views of motherhood: one that completely devalues motherhood, and one that overvalues it, placing a woman’s entire identity in her ability to have and raise children. There must be a middle ground between the two, and Waldman re-centers us onto that balance. She is not promoting parental negligence, but instead a healthy re-prioritizing.

The main thing I would add to Waldman’s thinking is the even greater centrality of God. While the marital priority stabilizes the family, the God priority stabilizes the marriage–and every other aspect of our lives.

So while this chapter of my life is a difficult one in some regards, Waldman’s essay is a helpful reminder that this season can serve as an investment in the next. It is extra free time to focus on God and my husband before adding kids to the mix. And I plan to be a good steward of the opportunity. As Waldman beautifully concludes in her essay:

“And if my children resent having been moons rather than the sun? If they berate me for not having loved them enough? If they call me a bad mother?

“I will tell them that I wish for them a love like I have for their father. I will tell them that they are my children, and they deserve both to love and be loved like that. I will tell them to settle for nothing less than what they saw when they looked at me, looking at him.”

I hope to say the exact same thing to my children one day….especially when telling them about their Heavenly Father.

To read Waldman’s article in its entirety, click here.

When a friend of mine e-mailed me a link to an article in Marie Claire about “Purity Balls,” I was a little nervous about clicking on it. Purity Balls? Sounds kind of weird to say the least.

What I found was not so much weird as thought-provoking. The article is a case study of one family who belongs to the growing movement of Christian “courtship.” The movement has its roots in Joshua Harris’ I Kissed Dating Goodbye approach to relationships, and it places a strong emphasis on the father’s oversight of his single daughter. The term “purity balls” refers to a “Father Daughter Purity Ball” which fathers attend with their teenage daughters. It is a formal affair with dinner and dancing, during which the fathers sign a pledge promising to guard their daughter’s purity until she is married. This event has taken place in 48 different states.

The article itself focused on one family, the parents of whom also happened to be the founders of the Father Daughter Purity Ball. In this particular family, the father helped to arrange his daughter’s marriage and after a short courtship they were wed. Until that day, there was zero physical intimacy. Not even hand holding.

Although the author of the article was somewhat sympathetic to the cause, there was a predictable breakdown in communication due to their conflicting worldviews, further exacerbated by Christian lingo such as the father’s commitment to be the “high priest of the home.” But articles likes this are certainly thought-provoking, and after thinking on it and talking to my husband about it, there are a number of great strengths about this model of courtship, yet I have some reservations as well. I’ll start with the positive:

1. Strengths:

It is a helpful means for guarding your dating relationship in a way that is above reproach.
Anyone who has ever dated knows that it is hard to keep your head on straight when your hormones are raging. While many Christians have all the best intentions in the world and create lots of different boundaries to hold themselves accountable, it’s just plain difficult to live up to them. And contrary to the author of the article, I am NOT thankful for all the mistakes I made in the past. We live in a culture that lives by the mantra of “no regrets,” which is the height of selfishness. When you screw up and hurt others, you should regret it. I regret hurting others, and I regret the hurt that my past relationships have inflicted on my now husband. In many ways I am the woman that I am today because of my mistakes, but that is a testimony to God’s redemptive grace, not the rightness of those decisions.

So in some ways, I wish I had worked harder to wait. I affirm that desire in other women. And this particular approach to courtship is an aggressive method of achieving that end. While a father cannot/should not force his adult daughter to abide by this set-up, if it is her desire to draw on the resource of her father as a form of accountability, then I support that.

It encourages tremendous intimacy within the family.
This approach to courtship puts an enormous burden of responsibility on the father. If he is going to help his daughter find a mate, then he better know her, and well. He better understand her personality, her strengths and weaknesses, and the deep desires of her heart. If he doesn’t, then he risks guiding her in a dangerous direction, but if he takes this role seriously he will invest a great deal of time into knowing his daughter. He will also have a great foundation on which to build a relationship with his son-in-law. The family could potentially be strengthened and unified by this practice.

2. Preliminary Concerns

It is not universally applicable.
This practice, though helpful for some families, is not generalizable. If a woman’s father is not a Christian, then it breaks down. If the woman lives far away from her father, then it breaks down. Although there was nothing in the article to suggest that this family believed ALL Christians should approach dating this way, I felt that this point still needed to be said. We must be careful about generalizing specific family practices as God-ordained practices for all.

It can be misleading.
One of my favorite books on abstinence is called “Real Sex: The Naked Truth About Chastity” by Lauren Winner. In it, she warns Christians about telling lies about sex. For instance, it is a lie that sex outside marriage is not enjoyable, or that sex before marriage will ruin your sex life in marriage. Yet these are the kinds of arguments you hear Christians making. The subject of the article ran into this exact problem when she shared that her sex life was so “amazing” because she waited until marriage, and that she didn’t have to worry about her husband straying since he’d never been with anyone else. The author was clearly offended by these comments, given that she herself is married and professes to enjoy a healthy, full marriage defined by trust.

Abstinence is not about a cost-benefit analysis in which we decided to abstain simply because, in the end, we’ll have better sex lives. While adherence to God’s Word will always yields fruit in our lives, we are not earning a better sex life by waiting, nor are we guaranteed a marriage free of struggle. The MAIN reason for abstinence is that God cares about what we do with our bodies and He created them to be locations of worship and honor. Rebellion in this one area is symptomatic of a much deeper heart issue with God. So rather than try to out-do non-Christians with your sex-life, remember that the terms of your behavior are not set by the world’s standard’s of goodness, but by God’s.

There is a lack of emphasis on the role of the mother, as well as the purity of the son.
The article in Marie Claire was about a very particular vein of the courtship movement, which may be the reason that no mention was made of the mother role, or of a father’s obligation to his sons. But again I have to add that a woman’s mother should also be equally invested in her life, and it would be a bit strange to leave this oh-so personal realm to the dads. It would be equally strange to put all the emphasis on a daughter’s purity until marriage, while totally overlooking the son’s. God cares about men just as much as He does women, and their bodies are just as precious. As much as we fight for the purity of women, we must fight just as hard for men.

Well those are my thoughts. Let me know if you have any of your own–this is certainly a very interesting topic!