Scattered Thoughts on Being a Father

Our daughter is fast approaching two. She’s a full-fledged walking, talking child now, definitely not an infant anymore. As her second birthday approaches this fall, I offer these random thoughts on parenting a toddler.

There’s No Preparing for This

Planning is for before pregnancy. Spend that time getting ready for the kid. Spend your whole life, if you want. In fact, that might be a good idea. Once the baby arrives, the planning is over. At that point, it’s do or die.

You can get ready for her in lots of ways. Make sure your insurance is paid up. Make sure she’ll be provided for. Paint the nursery if you want. Lug that crib out of the box and bolt it together in the back room. Do all this because there will be plenty of stuff, the most important stuff, you can’t prepare for.

Here is what I mean. A few months ago, some college students told me they didn’t want to have children yet because they were too selfish and wanted to wait until they were more mature and willing to surrender themselves to another. I almost laughed.

They may never be ready. What they don’t know is that having babies is the process that makes parents less self-centered. No one wants to get up at three to change a diaper on a screaming, squirming kid. You just do it. Bleary-eyed and stumbling, you haul yourself up and you go to your child. Do this enough times and one day you’ll notice you dropped a little of your self-concern somewhere on one of those dark, groping trips.

Discipline Ain’t Fun for Anybody

As the child begins to experience her freedom, there comes the inevitable clash of wills. For example, let’s say our daughter is of the opinion that grabbing some cables and pulling the DVD player crashing down on her fragile skull would be neat. Let’s say her mother and I, on the other hand, think this would be terrifying and tell her not to touch those tempting wires. When she moves to do it anyway, someone has to discipline her.

She hates it and so do we.

Someone pointed out to me that discipline is something we do for our children, not to them. That helped. When I discipline her, I am using my superior strength and knowledge to bring about a consequence for her actions that she prefers not to endure. In this, dishing out discipline is no different from what I do for her in any other situation. I use my superior powers for her benefit all the time. What haunts me is that she may not understand that what I am doing is for her good. This is the fate of parents: to do good for your child even when she misunderstands or rejects you for it.

To Be a Parent Is To Grieve

Every milestone on her journey to adulthood is a marker on her long road away from us. Learning to speak, to walk, to climb up on the couch to peer out the window and cheer when she sees Grammy and Papaw coming up the walk–all these are gains for her, and for us too, but they are double-edged.

Every new independence on her part is a move away from those first precious months when she nestled tiny in her basinet and rocked in our arms without twisting to get free, to run to see what is around that next corner. One day, she will round some distant corner and be gone.

Nobody Told Me This Would Be Such a Good Time

People tend to stress the difficulty of being a parent. And it is difficult. What I don’t think anyone ever said was that having a child would be the most fun I would ever have. People need to stress the fun of parenting more. Tell those without children that all the sacrifice is more than recompensed by the waves of delight little ones unleash.

Just to sit and watch her, to listen to her talk, half babble, half real words, these moments are often sheer joy, amazement. To bear witness as another person grows in your constant view, and finds herself doing today what yesterday was impossible, is a source of constant grins, of laughter unshackled by love.

Almost two years in, this is my conclusion, simple as it is: being a parent, for all its toil, may be the best thing ever. The inconvenience and the loss and the frustration mostly fade away in the simple pleasure of being there, of the constant surprise of watching an emerging life and knowing its nurture depends in large part on what sort of persons we choose to be. This is the secret privilege of parents, the inner reward wrapped in the shell of all the outward struggle.

Link Tank #17

Students Loans Are Bad For America

Ten Dispatches About Place

Do Tummy Aches Disprove God?

Rediscovering the Barbershop

Theological Reading List for Youth

Gay Clubs Coming to Christian Colleges

Meet the Dumbest Generation

Four Ways for Men to Get Moving

The Myth of Multi-Tasking

The Reasons Behind the Drive to Get Out of Debt

Just Had to Post This

The High Price of Student Loans

As students and their families spend the summer trying to figure out how to cope with college costs in the fall, most will accept the ridiculously high prices as normal. Few will ask the prior question such expenditures ought to raise: Why is the price of education so outrageous?

The truth is education costs continue to skyrocket for many reasons. Many colleges depend on student tuition to pay the bills. The money students shell out goes directly to keep the lights on, or to pay the debt on that fabulous new fitness center. Some raise tuition to appear to offer an education similar to their competitors. There is no single answer.

However, the influence of the availability of student loans on college costs is often overlooked. Every industry except higher education survives only by finding enough customers who want what it offers and can afford its goods and services.  If too few people want the product offered, the business folds. If millions want what’s for sale but very few can pay for it, the business folds.

The student loan program exempts colleges and universities from this reality by ensuring that anyone who wants the product can pay for it, even if it means paying the rest of their lives. As a result, schools have little incentive to keep prices down.

The freedom to charge extreme prices has led to the creation of the contemporary college experience: free cable in the dorm, all-you-can-eat meals three times a day, lavish fitness centers available at no immediate cost and, in many places, free medical care and mental health services. Add to this the prospect, in many places, of four years with very little academic or social responsibility and the widespread availability of alcohol and sex and you have a picture of the experience students and their families pay thousands for every year.

It’s no wonder then that many college graduates are unhappy. We have created a generation of people who, through easy access to student loans, are able to spend four years living in physical luxury with almost zero obligations.

Unlike previous generations who had to work decades to achieve anything like this kind of comfort and freedom from need, this generation experiences what likely will be the most comfortable and carefree period of their lives before they are out of their teens.  It’s hard then for them not to see the rest of life as a letdown.

After four years cruising down Easy Street, the responsibility of real life can be like hitting a brick wall. This is the other side of the student loan program. The loans that financed a once lavish lifestyle now become another burden that drains joy from post-college life.

Lots of people spend their post-college years pining for the ease they knew back then. Life outside the bounds of their alma maters can be drab, duty-bound, exhausting.  The loans they assumed as teens become a tether tying them to jobs they hate, crippling the pursuit of precious dreams. But loans received must be paid. And pay we do, in more ways than one.

Another Response to Donny Pauling

Donny Pauling and I have been having a conversation about the role abortion ought to play in deciding how to vote in November. See his original post, then my first reply.

I’m posting Donny’s response to my open letter to him first. My second contribution to the discussion follows.

First Donny:

Dean,

I would challenge you to think outside the party lines and consider whether or not it is life, or American life, that you value most… because if you are concerned with ALL of human life how can you justify the civilian deaths our country has wreaked on so many other countries (not just Iraq), normally under Republican orders? ALL HUMAN LIFE is sacred. I’m sure you’ll reply that you already know and agree with this, but has it truly sunk in how many lives we’ve ended in our pursuit of oil alone? If you consider JUST that, how can you vote Republican in good conscience if you’ve sort[ed] through these issues in a way that is faithful to Christ? If voting for a Democrat who is of the wrong opinion on the abortion issue is so repugnant, so too MUST be voting for a Republican who is pro-war. There are many countries in this world that are ruled by horrible men, whose people would be better off without them in power, but do we run to the aid of each of them? We do not, so using that excuse to kill thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians does not hold water. And only the most ignorant of us will believe that Iraq has anything to do with a “war on terror”.

One more thing I’d like to bring up about the topic of abortion is this: where is the long term thinking? Don’t you think God, who is outside the bounds of space and time and therefore not looking for short term results, would like His people to work on the ROOT CAUSE of the problem, rather than simply bandaging the wounds?

If we worked on root causes, abortion wouldn’t be such an issue. We need to work on hearts. We need to educate kids about WHY they should avoid sexual activity that leads to pregnancy (and not just “because the Bible says so” either). We need to foster an atmosphere where expectant mothers have options that feel “real” and not just lip-service.

Have you adopted a child, for example? Has every able bodied person in your church adopted a child? Lord knows, many of those who are of the mindset to even CONSIDER abortion are likely not capable parent material. How many of them would consider an option like the one I’m about to describe…

A church not far from the town in which I live has a big billboard they rent on a monthly basis that says “Please don’t abort your child. We’ll adopt it!” How many abortions would be prevented in this country if every single church in America ran the same campaign? If we REALLY BELIEVE abortion to be the most important issue our churches face, why do we NOT spend a huge percentage of the church budget on programs that will reduce it? The laws aren’t changing anytime soon, so why don’t we pay more than lip service?

As much as I hate abortion, I have to say that it is NOT the most important issue at hand. Changing hearts is the most important issue at hand! Legislation will NEVER change hearts, ever! The ROOT CAUSE of abortion is “heart failure”. The treatment is the pure, non-judgmental love of Jesus Christ, embodied without agenda by those who follow him… NOT another Republican appointed Supreme Court Justice. 78% (7 out of 9) of our current Supreme Court Justices were Republican appointed. Obviously a Republican majority on the Supreme Court isn’t going to make abortion go away, so why do we vote as if it will?

LOVE wins. LAWS do not.

Then me:

Donny,

Thanks for your reply.

I am surprised you ask me to “think outside party lines.” Where, in my previous comment, do you see some ringing endorsement of the Republican Party?

Nowhere. Instead, you should see that I am not a party loyalist. I am a person concerned to do what is best for unborn children. If the Democrats had nominated a pro-life candidate, then there would be a real contest. As things stand, there simply isn’t.

Your contention that the death of innocents in war is somehow the moral equivalent of abortion is off base and the rest of your first paragraph is confusing.

You assert that our country has taken thousands of innocent lives in war, usually under Republican leadership. Do you mean like in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as we did under Democrat Harry Truman? In Vietnam under Democrats Kennedy and Johnson? On the fields of France in WWI under Democrat Woodrow Wilson?

Next, you try to poison the well against anyone who disagrees with you. You assert “only the most ignorant of us will believe that Iraq has anything to do with a ‘war on terror.’” Such statements usually only serve as attempts to shut down discussion by labeling your opponents “ignorant” before they have even presented their case. It’s unfair and a logical fallacy to boot.

You ask why we don’t go into every country ruled by a bad man. This is a fair question and gets to the point of our discussion. The reason we don’t invade every country with a bad ruler is because no one in leadership is actually “pro-war” as you characterize them. War instead is seen as a last resort, and if we are able to affect change and ease the suffering of people around the world without war, why shouldn’t we?

You may have seen that North Korea recently has begun dismantling some of its nuclear arms program and has made overtures of being willing to change. This was accomplished without war. Surely you don’t think that because we invaded Iraq that obligates us to have invaded N. Korea as well. War is not our blanket policy. These decisions have to be made on a case by case basis.

This bears on our discussion of abortion in this way. While mostly everyone sees war as a sometimes necessary evil in this fallen world, Obama does not see abortion as a necessary evil, but as a positive good. Everyone can imagine a just society without war. Obama’s claim is that there can be no just society without abortion. He believes that any limitation on abortion is an injustice, a violation of women’s rights.

Therefore, a vote for a Republican candidate will be a vote for someone who believes that war is awful but sometimes necessary. It will be a vote for someone who believes that, even in war, civilians, especially children, ought to be protected as much as possible from suffering and death. It also will be a vote for someone who believes the same concern ought to be extended to children in the womb.

A vote for a Democrat will be a vote for someone who believes in limiting civilian casualties in war, but also will be a vote for someone who believes children in the womb are fair game, someone who wants to deny them even the flimsiest legal protections.

You say we ought to work on the root causes of abortion. I completely agree. You say legislation will never change hearts. That is also true, but in no way indicates we ought not to continue pursuing such legislation.

If “HEART FAILURE” is the root cause of abortion, it also is the root cause of every other kind of murder. Laws against murder do nothing to keep people from getting angry, do nothing to prevent people from wanting to kill. Does that mean we shouldn’t have laws against it?

The purpose of laws against murder isn’t to change people’s hearts but to dissuade those who can be dissuaded by threat of punishment and to show the population that the power of the state stands ready to avenge potential murder victims. I believe the unborn deserve this same legal consideration.

I never said legislation and politics were, by themselves, the keys to ending abortion. I said ending abortion has a legal and political component. Law and politics are arenas where our efforts are required. In recent years, Christians may have over-emphasized these areas, but that doesn’t mean we can abandon them.

As for other means of combating abortion, you ask if I have adopted a child. Whenever I interact with people who hold your views, they ask this question. It seems as if they (maybe you) think that the truth or falsity of my claims rests on what I have or haven’t done.

I usually refuse to answer this question, but for you I will. The answer is not yet. My wife and I will begin the adoption process sometime in the next two to three years. Does that make my arguments true?

Babies don’t get aborted because there aren’t enough people willing to adopt them. There are many, many, many people on adoption waiting lists who desperately want those children.

I agree with you that as Christians we aren’t doing nearly enough about this issue. You suggest spending huge amounts of our church budgets to stop abortion. I say, “Sounds great.” Let’s do it.

Donny, you and I aren’t really that far apart on this. We both hate abortion. Thank you for initiating this discussion. I hope it proves fruitful for bridging the differences that do exist in our understandings of how to handle this painful issue.

Friday Video Shot #7: John Taylor Gatto on Public Schooling as Adoption

Film Review: “Mad Money”

“Mad Money”, a 2008 film starring Diane Keaton, Katie Holmes, and Queen Latifah as a trio of crooks who devise a plan for ripping off the Federal Reserve, ultimately misses the mark. What begins as a tale of the moral dissolution of these women and the pressures that lead them toward crime ends up celebrating their actions.

The movie is worth the time for its clever scenario, good performances, and numerous laughs, but surrenders its potentially powerful moral insight in the last few scenes. Much of the film tells the story of how ordinary women slowly become thieves. The economic pressures on them don’t so much transform their characters as reveal them. These women, we learn, were always the kind of people who would steal if they had opportunity and a means of justifying their actions to themselves.

In revealing these women’s nature, the movie says much about human nature, perhaps especially about human nature in our time. A great movie would have followed its set-up to its natural conclusion. The women would have ended the story having learned their lesson and making restitution, or they would have continued on their rebellious way until they had lost more than they had gained through thievery. Either ending would have worked to show the consequences of breaking the civil and moral law.

Instead, these crooks manage to evade the consequences of their actions. They begin the film as poor, potential thieves and end it as rich, actual thieves. There is no substantial character change. Moreover, the characters are shown getting away with crime. The end of the film shows them enjoying the spoils of their wickedness free from every consequence, even from mildly guilty consciences. Recommended with reservations.

Link Tank #16

What to Do with a Controlling Husband

The Risks of Premarital Sex

The Coming World of No Babies

“Planned Parenthood is a lying, racist organization”

The Bible and Conservatism

Christianity Flourishes in China

Obama Supporter: Gas Prices More Important Than Abortion

When Is It Okay for a Man to Cry

At Home with Down Syndrome

When Credit Card Payments Don’t Make A Dent

On Wednesdays We Take Cash, #8

Guidelines for Succesful Door-To-Door Evangelism

Last Wednesday, I argued door-to-door evangelism could still be effective in our culture in spite of the widespread belief to the contrary. Though many claim such methods are now passé because changes in our cultural climate make approaching people in their homes improper, the real reason such techniques are out of favor is that most Christians are uncomfortable using them.

The use of door-to-door evangelism by both Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses proves such tactics still can be effective. However, the role of shifting cultural conditions shouldn’t be discounted. While in-home Christian outreach ought to be revived, that revival ought to be shaped by an understanding of our cultural milieu. To that end, I suggest the following guidelines for bringing back old-fashioned door-knocking.

Don’t Expect On-The-Spot Conversions

People have been through a lot. The person who opens the door is more likely now to be divorced, or the child of divorce, than ever before. They’ve lived lives where broken promises and overwrought sales pitches are the norm. They’ve learned to be careful, even suspicious.

Perhaps this was not so much the case in the past. Maybe there was once more of a general cultural consensus that the Bible was an authority to be respected. Maybe in that context, calls to immediate conversion made sense.

Anyone willing to try some door-to-door evangelism these days should be prepared to stay with people over the long haul, to answer lots of tough questions, to demonstrate faithfulness.

Make Invitation the Primary Point of Your Visit

People who are leery of religious claims are more likely to respond well to a simple genuine invitation to be part of the life of a local church than to a hard sell for Jesus.

What makes people uncomfortable about this approach is that it violates the tacit cultural agreement to leave one another alone, that people should only have to engage with others whom they choose, when they choose.

In light of this, invitation into the life of a local church body makes good sense. By issuing such an invitation we ask them to make a voluntary association. Rather than pushing people into commitments they aren’t willing to make, we ought to be willing to seek connection and invite them into our life together.

Make Service the Secondary Point of Your Visit

In addition to inviting people to our churches, we ought to seek to serve. The number of people who would volunteer their needs, whether that’s answering questions, praying for a family member, or doing work on their property, if we would only show up and ask, would surprise most of us.

The secondary goal of our door-to-door work ought to be to build relationships and rain blessings on our neighbors. We need to show up not just to talk about God’s grace and love, but to show it as well.

Never Go Alone

There are both practical and theological reasons for this suggestion. Nobody knows what will be behind that door, so it’s important to have a friend along as a protector or as a witness.

At the same time, the point of our visit is to invite this person into the community of saints. It’s hard to make community visible if you show up by yourself. Jesus sent his disciples out two by two for a reason and we should do the same when we think about approaching strangers to invite them into a new life among his people.

There are, no doubt, plenty more ideas for effective door-to-door evangelism in this culture. But these few get at the essence of how to revive the technique and see it yield good fruit in the rocky soil of our times.