Hippiemommy

Blog

  • I want my Inhale!

    Oh maaaaaaan! 

    A few years ago the folks at Oxygen pulled Inhale from the air.  I was moping around the entire time it was gone!  It stunk!  Now its happened again!!!

    I was so depressed to see that my TiVo recorded over my beautiful yoga workouts and replaced them with Xena the Warrior Princess.  I was even MORE disturbed that my kids came downstairs while it was recording and turned on the tv and have now been subject to more violence in 30 seconds than they’ve seen in their whole life, LOL.

    I had a great response when I posted about Inhale a while back, so if you like the show too, please consider emailing the Oxygen network and asking for it back – their address is feedback@oxygen.com

  • Grace Vs. Works

    I had already planned on having this as my next post, but it works out really well considering that the comments from the last post went in this direction 🙂

    I want to say before I even start quoting that I almost completely disagree with the author’s description of Palestinian Jews vs. Hellenistic Jews, but oh well. I’m using his version in order to discuss.

    From Chapter 2 of Church History in Plain Language

    The Palestinian Christians, steeped in traditional Judaism, said, “Tell them that unless they submit to the Jewish law, in addition to believing in Jesus, there is no hope for their faith.”

    OK, I agree with most of his description, but not so much the use of the word “steeped”.

    Paul, however, found this impossible. His own experience pointed another way. If a person could gain the righteousness of God by obeying the law, said Paul, I would have been the greatest in the kingdom. But righteousness by personal effort can only lead to failure. Man can be accepted as righteous only through God’s undeserved mercy. That is grace. And grace always arises from the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

    Hmm, so perhaps a middle ground?

    Many Christians thought Paul was impossibly optimistic. They were deeply troubled by the decline in Christian morality they felt sure would come in the gentile churches. If you teach justification by faith alone, they argued, people will imagine that once they have accepted Christ by faith it does not really matter how they live.

    Again, this is too much either-or thinking. This is exactly what punitive parents say about grace-based discipline. “If you show grace, then people won’t behave appropriately.” Obviously God didn’t feel that way! I almost feel like Bruce Shelley is missing that you don’t have to say that the law was done away with in order to say that we are saved by grace. As I’ve heard it said before, I believe that people who are growing in Christ become more Torah observant whether they know it or not. The spirit of the Torah is all about grace, all about love, and a privelege, not a duty! As Crystal Lutton said – “To the Jewish mind the Torah isn’t restrictions, it’s guidelines, boundaries, the way to be holy in an unholy world!” And I think Shelley is missing that.

    On the contrary, said Paul, if they really have accepted Christ by faith, then they have accepted the way of Christ and the mind of Christ. The man who really loves God can do as he chooses, for if he really loves God he will choose to do the will of God.

    As my friend said

    Paul rebukes the Judaizers. They taught that Gentiles could not be saved UNTIL they became Jewish converts and were part of God’s chosen people. Peter and Paul both experienced God making himself available to Gentiles while they were still Gentiles. Pre-Cross there were Jews, there were converts, and there were God-fearers who lived according to Torah without actually converting. Cornelius was a God-fearer The Jews taught that if they were Torah observant they’d get in to heaven, but they were not allowed to be part of the community in this world. This is what the Judaizers were mixing up. They wanted the Gentiles to be part of the community of faith so they thought they had to BE Jews first. Paul and Peter taught that the Gospel was now for the God-fearer too–that conversion to Judaism was not necessary!

    BUT they NEVER taught that what was part of Torah was unimportant or not for the Gentiles too. When I studied the letter from the Council of Jerusalem I found a little gem in the discussion  They were talking about what to require of the Gentile in order to *become* part of the community of faith and they settled on the four things. Interestingly, I did a little study into the elements of the pagan communion and it was highlighted by these four things So they had to *abandon* being pagan Then James, I think it was, says, “The rest has been taught in the Synagogues since the time of Moses.” Remember that at this time “The Way” as it was called was a sect of Judaism and they were meeting both in the Synagogues AND in home churches of only believers. (I also believe that the purpose for women being told to stay silent “In Synagogue” was because the non-Christian/Jewish women were not allowed to speak and this was giving them a bad name!). But the new believers were going to learn everything else in time and that was enough according to the Council at Jerusalem.

    The ironic thing is, once you actually go and read what is part of Torah, and start talking about the Spirit of it, most people ONLY come back with, “I do all those things already. Just don’t think I could give up pork and lobster” And, tbh, I do believe that the dietary laws are not in effect for cleanliness (though NOT based on Peter’s dream!!!) but I believe everything in Torah to be Wisdom and part of God’s standard and when I studied pork and lobster I realized I didn’t *want* to eat them

    I’ve been in the midst of a fascinating discussion with some of my friends on whether or not we have “two natures.” Once we have become a new creation in Christ, are we still naturally inclined to sin? I feel like Shelley is dancing around this topic.

    For fellow GCMers, if you haven’t seen the discussion that I’m referring to above, I can send you a link 😉

  • Church History – Why don’t we know?

    I am once again reading Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelley. This is actually my second time through it, but this time I am taking notes and really studying it rather than just pleasure reading.

    This re-reading has really reminded me of how frustrated I am that we, as a Christian community, don’t know our roots. There is this ridiculous gap between the early church and the Reformation, and it seems like much of it is just skipped over or ignored. It drives me a bit batty.

    As I was reading today about the early church and how much Christian life stood out compared to pagan lives. This has given me a lot of food for thought. I had already been thinking about this after a recent discussion on standing out in the world. I think we really miss how big of a deal it was to be a Christian in the Roman empire. We are spoiled today. As Tertullian put it in Apology, “We have the reputation of living aloof from the crowds.” Is that really true anymore? Somewhere between 77% and 86% in America consider themselves Christians. Riiiight. We’re really living aloof from the crowds. :/
    Shelley discusses it as such

    The word used to describe the Christian in the New Testament is highly significant. It is the term hagios, often translated “saints.” It means holy ones, but its root suggests different. So a holy thing is different from other things. The temple is holy because it is different from other buildings; the Sabbath day is holy because it is different from other days. The Christian, therefore, is a person who is fundamentally different.

    I’ve been thinking about this ever since I read it. It seems like modern Christianity doesn’t really embrace this line of thinking except to condemn those outside of the church. We point out others differences rather than being different within ourselves.

    Fundamental to the Christian life-style and cause of endless hostility was the Christian’s rejection of the pagan gods. The Greeks and Romans had deities for every aspect of living–for sowing and reaping, for rain and wind, for volcanoes and rivers, for birth and death. But to Christians these gods were nothing, and their denial of them marked the followers of Jesus as “enemies of the human race.”

    So to be a Christian meant that you could very well be rejecting part of every aspect of life. That’s tough.

    One simply could not reject the gods without arousing scorn as a social misfit. For the pagan every meal began with a liquid offering and a prayer to the pagan gods. A Christian could not share in that. Most heathen feasts and social parties were held in the precincts of a temple after sacrifice has been made, and the invitation was usually to dine “at the table” of some god. A Christian could not go to such a feast. Inevitably, when he refused the invitation to some social occasion, the Christian seemed rude, boorish, and discourteous.

    I wish I had read this back in high school. I think I would’ve felt a little better about blowing off parties. :/

    The Christian fear of idolatry also led to difficulties in making a living. A mason might be involved in building the walls of a heathen temple, a tailor in making robes for a heathen priest, an incense-maker in making incense for the heathen sacrifices. Tertullian even forbade a Christian to be a schoolteacher, because such teaching involved using textbooks that told the ancient stories of the gods and called for observing the religious festivals of the pagan year.

    Yet another reason to homeschool 😉

    We might think that working with the sick would be a simple act of kindness. But even here early Christians found the pagan hospitals under the protection of the heathen god Aesculapius, and while a sick friend lay in his bed, the priest went down the aisle chanting to the god.

    In short, the early Christian was almost bound to divorce himself from the social and economic life of his time–if he wanted to be true to his Lord. This meant that everywhere the Christian turned his life and faith were on display because the gospel introduced a revolutionary new attitude toward human life. It could be seen in Christian views of slaves, children, and sex.

    Can you imagine if we lived that way today? Its not like our current culture is so wonderful and “Christian” that we should be embracing it. I think that many of us have come to take our faith as just something to be weaved into the rest of life, rather than a new frame for our entire life.
    I have tons more that I want to write from the early chapters of this book, but this will do for now 😀

  • Spare the rod

    I love reading different people’s perspectives on the rod verses. Even when they don’t all agree, I find that studying the verses and the interpretations of the verses is a great way to both reinforce and rethink my beliefs 🙂

    I am currently enjoying Heartfelt Discipline as one of my reads, so I thought I’d discuss his beliefs on the rod. As always, please buy the book if you want the details! It truly is excellent, even if I disagree with a few little parts 😉

    In his book, Clarkson talks about how he spanked and even fashioned his own paddle for a “rod” for his children. It didn’t feel right though. He says

    As much as I preferred other methods, I used the paddle for one reason only: I believed it was God’s ordained method of disciplining children. I didn’t want to be disobedient to God in my role as a father, and I certainly didn’t want to contribute to my children’s becoming rebels. And yet my spirit was deeply troubled every time I used the paddle. It didn’t seem to fit the character of God or be consistent with the nature of a loving parent. It didn’t seem to be proportional discipline for a young child. Neither did it seem to have sufficient biblical support. in short, it just didn’t seem right.

    He started to research it some more. In his research, he learned several things (buy the book if you want the hebrew word study! This is just an overview):

    1. The “child” in Proverbs 22:15, 23:13-14, and 29:15 (all of the “rod” verses except for one) is the hebrew word “naar”, which means a young adult… usually mid-teens – could be 16-24 according to Jewish rabbinical law. Naar was used to describe men such as Joseph when he was sold into slavery, David when he defeated Goliath, and Joshua when he scouted the lands. The only other rod verse applied to children (13:24) uses the word translated “son” (“ben”), and there is no need to assume this means anything other than a “naar”. All other rod verses refer to adult fools.
    2. The rod is literal, but not as most Christian parents use it

      The rod is an instrument of punishment and correction. It’s not a switch or a paddle or a dowel or a wooden spoon. If you accept the rod passages of Proverbs as a divine mandate for disciplining young children and you take those passages literally, you’ll find yourself beating your child with a heavy stick or branch.

      Preach on, brother! 😉

    3. Children are not the focus of these verses. These chapters are all about older teens who are to the point of deciding good and evil. Young children are not yet to that point. They are not yet believers and are expected to think like children.
    4. Proverbs are proverbs. They aren’t law. They should be read proverbially 😉

    Clarkson closes the chapter with this quote

    When I finally began to “spare the rod,” I naturally wondered about the biblical alternative to rod-based discipline. Answering that question has shown me not only a heart-oriented approach to discipline, but also a biblical relationship with my children. I was missing the relational part of discipline that would enable me to open and to win my children’s hearts; I was missing the biblical picture of discipline as a journey along a path with my children; and I was missing the life of the Holy Spirit in the discipline and training of my children.

    The link above goes to my previous article on the same topic 🙂

    Clarkson agrees that the rod was probably used on older children. Then again, as he also points out

    Should we use the rod on rebelious sons today? No, I think not… We are no longer bound to the Old Testament Law (for instance, we don’t stone rebellious sons). We are instead guided by the liberty and grace of the New Covenant, made possible by the shed blood of Jesus on our behalf… So should we be just as serious in dealing with rebellious sons as Solomon suggests? Yes, emphatically so! But we need to discipline our sons in light of the rest of Scripture, which was not available to Solomon. There is so much more to biblical discipline, as we will see in the chapters that follow, than what is found in a few passages in proverbs.

    And I shall write about those future chapters very soon 🙂

  • Are we responsible for making sure Jesus has a good day?

    And now for my first bone to pick with Say Goodbye…

    It’s amazing what things touch a child’s conscience. Sometimes it’s a word spoken in sadness instead of anger. Other times it’s a Scripture verse graciously revealed by a parent… When disciplining his daughter, one dad said, “It makes me sad when you choose to hit your sister instead of talking things out. It also makes God sad when we don’t choose to do the right thing.”
    Appealing to the conscience is different from using guilt to manipulate. It is not a matter of telling a child, “You’re bad and you need to change.” Instead, we are trying to convey that the child is a good person who has done the wrong thing.

    Ick. I really dislike this line of thinking. As Jeff VanVonderen says in Families Where Grace is in Place, when we use scripture or guilt to change someone, then that is manipulation. I have written about this before.

    …you may get an answer like; “I’m really angry that I have to do this,” or the child may simply show his anger by stomping or complaining. In response, many Christian parents would say, “Don’t you ever let me hear you talk like that, [or act like that],” or “You are making Jesus sad by being angry,” or “Go to your room and don’t come out until you can be polite.” If so, you are provoking them to seethe.
    It is better to acknowledge their anger. Tell them that you appreciate their telling you about their anger, or the fact that they are angry, even though they may still be required to do the chore they don’t like. – Jeff VanVonderen

    Turansky and Miller must realize on some level that this is manipulative. They directly address the manipulation aspect.

    Here’s my main issue though: If kids are somehow responsible for making sure Jesus has a good day, then they should be afraid. Afraid of their power and the fact that God’s mood can change at their whim. This is not accurate! How can a child ever feel safe in this kind of God? Perhaps Turansky and Miller are of the opinion that we are responsible for others feelings, but I do not believe that at all. I think they are really off base here.

  • Honor: is it a matter of being people oriented vs. task oriented?

    As I’ve mentioned, I am reading Turansky and Miller’s Say Goodbye right now, so I wanted to keep talking about it 🙂

    In Say Goodbye, there is an overwhelming theme that includes the idea that honor does more than what is expected. I really like this definition of honor, because I think it would be very easy to teach children (and adults!)  I’ve been working on expressing honor in my life, and I hope that my positive example will be the first way that I teach my kids about honor.  Reading this book has shown me a lot of places where we are honorable (and a lot of places that are lacking in honor.)

    I am a very task-oriented person.  I like checklists.  I like accomplishing things.  I do not like to dillydaddle.  Hanging around and doing stuff that is not required is a pretty difficult thought to wrap my brain around.  Its not that I want to skimp on things, its just that I want finish it completely and move on to the next task.  I like to get things done.

    This is pretty much the opposite of what Turansky and Miller are suggesting we should do in order to honor each other.  Honor is all about doing something extra.  This is a very people-oriented line of thought.  This has made me think.

    I am assuming that their approach will be much easier to put into action if your children are people oriented.  If your kids naturally want to please, want to be around people, and want to focus on people, then I think it’ll be easy to teach them to take that next step.  My son, for example, naturally does much of what is in the book.  Its his personality.  My dh is the same way.  My dd and I do not naturally gravitate towards those types of ideas.  We want to finish and move on.

    I guess what I’m trying to figure out is if that is really wrong.  I am trying to think of ways for my dd and I to use our own natural inclinations to still show honor.  I am sure it is possible.  It just hasn’t really been covered a whole lot.  Or maybe honor will just be more difficult for us?  It won’t come as naturally as it does for some?  Hmmm.  Lots to consider.

  • FOXNews.com – Prosecutor Charged With Indecency for Workplace Nudity – Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

    FOXNews.com – Prosecutor Charged With Indecency for Workplace Nudity – Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

    HAMILTON, Ohio — A city prosecutor was charged with indecency after a security camera caught him walking around naked in a government building after business hours.

    Hmm, OK. I can’t say that I’ve ever done that after hours at any of my jobs…

  • Researchers Say Intelligence and Diseases May Be Linked in Ashkenazic Genes – New York Times

    Researchers Say Intelligence and Diseases May Be Linked in Ashkenazic Genes – New York Times

    A team of scientists at the University of Utah has proposed that the unusual pattern of genetic diseases seen among Jews of central or northern European origin, or Ashkenazim, is the result of natural selection for enhanced intellectual ability.

    …the Utah researchers argue, evolution has had to counter a sudden threat by favoring any mutation that protected against it, whatever the side effects. Ashkenazic diseases like Tay-Sachs, they say, are a side effect of genes that promote intelligence.

    …Ashkenazi Jews occupied a different social niche from their European hosts, and that is where any selective effect must have operated, the Utah researchers say. From A.D. 800, when the Ashkenazi presence in Europe is first recorded, to about 1700, Ashkenazi Jews held a restricted range of occupations, which required considerable intellectual acumen. In France, most were moneylenders by A.D. 1100. Expelled from France in 1394, and from parts of Germany in the 15th century, they moved eastward and were employed by Polish rulers first as moneylenders and then as agents who paid a large tax to a noble and then tried to collect the amount, at a profit, from the peasantry. After 1700, the occupational restrictions on Jews were eased.

    As to how the disease mutations might affect intelligence, the Utah researchers cite evidence that the sphingolipid disorders promote the growth and interconnection of brain cells. Mutations in the DNA repair genes, involved in second cluster of Ashkenazic diseases, may also unleash growth of neurons.

    In describing what they see as the result of the Ashkenazic mutations, the researchers cite the fact that Ashkenazi Jews make up 3 percent of the American population but won 27 percent of its Nobel prizes, and account for more than half of world chess champions. They say that the reason for this unusual record may be that differences in Ashkenazic and northern European I.Q. are not large at the average, where most people fall, but become more noticeable at the extremes; for people with an I.Q. over 140, the proportion is 4 per 1,000 among northern Europeans but 23 per 1,000 with Ashkenazim.

    When I was pregnant with my second (my son), I had a really mean OBGYN who worked in the same office as my main OBGYN. The mean one sat me down in his office and told me that my son would probably have Tay-Sachs because of my Jewish (Ashkenazic) blood. My family history made it so that my son was incredibly likely to suffer from Tay-Sachs, and this doctor told me that I was a horrible mother who was risking my child’s life when I refused to take the genetic test during my pregnancy. I told him that it didn’t matter because I would have my child no matter what happened.

    Now why wasn’t that doctor telling me that my son was way more likely to become a Nobel Prize winner or a genius? 😛 That would’ve been a much more pleasant conversation.

    And hey, doesn’t this tie in nicely with my post about IQ and breastfeeding? No wonder I’m a breastfeeder! Its all about the Ashkenazic blood, baby! LOL.

  • Children Inherit Higher IQ from Mom’s Brains, Not Her Milk – CME Teaching Brief® – MedPage Today

    Children Inherit Higher IQ from Mom’s Brains, Not Her Milk – CME Teaching Brief® – MedPage Today

    The mother’s IQ was a better predictor of whether she would breastfeed than race, education, age, poverty status, smoking, the home environment, or the child’s birth weight or birth order. One standard deviation increase in maternal IQ (15 points) more than doubled the odds that a woman would breastfeed her child.

    Hmm, well OK. You can’t argue with science, I suppose 🙂

    I guess this means that a Mensa meeting won’t be too different from a La Leche League meeting. 😉

  • New highlights

    Ahhh! Don’t you love fresh hair color? OK, maybe not you, PenguinSushi 😛 (For some reason, I automatically added a “t” to the end of your name when I typed that – PenguinSushit!) Anyways, for the rest of us who appreciate haircolor. Behold!!! I did my regular colors (chocolate brown, deep red, and blonde), but reduced the blonde and did the whole underside (which is normally virgin hair) in the chocolate brown. Its very fall-y 🙂
    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

en_USEnglish
en_USEnglish