Book Club: Chapter 7 - Maker of All Things/Maker of Ill Things

Dorothy Sayers discusses the problem of evil in this chapter, starting with the question, "Did God make the devil?" What are the origins and nature of evil?

She quickly concludes that this isn't the place to thoroughly examine the various theories concerning the nature of evil, but is looking for a literary analogy that might help us understand it.

For purposes of this analogy, she qualifies her use of the word 'evil' as 'bad art,' not immoral behavior. In more exacting terms, 'good' is equal to good craftsmanship, 'beauty' being artistic beauty, and 'truth' is structural truth.

Her analogy is this: the writer selects the exact right word (I would add, series of words) to convey his idea. By his creation of this 'good' thing, he has necessarily categorized all the other available words that he did not use, as 'wrong.' He didn't set out to create a list of wrong words, but by virtue of his selection of the right words, the others become wrong.

There was no way this writer could have created a good without also creating a corresponding evil. She gives an example of a man who tried to rewrite Hamlet for the purpose of improving upon it. The original writer of Hamlet, having used his idea, energy, and power is the "god" of this work. The imitator then, is grasping at equality with "god" and does all kinds of damage.

She goes on to say that we may redeem evil by a creative act. That is, to take an evil power and turn it into active good. By getting a good laugh at our imitator above, or by using his example to further make her point in this chapter, are two ways of redeeming his 'wrong' work.

All of this got me thinking about Christmas, as we are less than two weeks away from that beautiful holiday. One way in which I think Christmas has been terribly corrupted is by a series of ads I once heard/saw leading up to this holiday.

These ads were by a jewelry store and the main gist of the ad was directed to husbands and said, your wife will not be as happy with the piece of jewelry you are giving her if you don't buy it from our store. I found this ad to be particularly evil because it worked to convince a husband that his wife's thought life would most definitely yield to her base, evil nature, and be dissatisfied with his gift merely because it wasn't purchased at the right store. And if she was asked by a girlfriend to divulge where her gift came from, she would be ashamed to say Store X rather than Store Y.

This is evil in so many ways it's hard to know where to start. But rather than go through all that, I'm jumping ahead to Dorothy Sayers claim that we can redeem evil by a creative act. What kind of creative act might redeem this evil? Is it simply a matter of refusing to shop at that store or is there more to it? She does say that we mustn't pretend that it doesn't exist, as this is likened to pretending the Fall didn't happen.

This has me somewhat stumped at the moment.

Book Club: Chapter 6 - The Energy Incarnate in Self-Expression

Each of the chapters begin with a quote selected by Dorothy Sayers. When I read the T. S. Eliot quote preceding this chapter, I thought if this is any indication of what's coming, I'm sunk! The quote, from a work I'm unfamiliar with, made a small bit more sense after reading chapter 6.

Here in chapter 6, Sayers, draws an analogy between an author's autobiography and the doctrine that God "wrote His own autobiography" in His creation.

She begins again with the tribus: Idea, Power, and Energy. The Idea in our analogy represents the full personality of the writer. The Power, the power of that personality, and the Energy, the total self-awareness of his own personality, and as such, is aware of the Idea and manifests its Power into material form.

She supports her analogy with four points.

1st) That which it creates (the autobiography) is exactly like all his other works in that is suffers the same limitations. He is a character in a book being read by a person who doesn't and can't know the wholeness of the author, only what is being revealed in his written work. The author on the other hand, is aware of and conscious of his eternal wholeness, but cannot, even if he wished to, express all of that to his reader.

That sounds very much like our Creator God to me.

2nd) The autobiography, though a single element in his collection of works, is an interpretation of the whole collection. As we gain greater understanding of the author, it will reveal the relation of all his works to his Idea of himself.

By God's incarnation, He is saying, "See! This is what my eternal Idea looks like in terms of my creation."

3rd) As she explained in earlier chapters, though the autobiography *is* the author, it can never be the whole of an author. We can say it is a true revelation, nonetheless, it is only a partial revelation.

In the analogy terms, the work is equal to the Idea, as touching the author's essence, but inferior to the Idea as touching the author's expression.

In theological terms, the Word is said to be equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

It's a perfect revelation, but only insofar as it goes.

4th and lastly) The truth about the writer's personality will be revealed, like it or not. The truth of what he states will be tested by the form in which it is stated. We should be unafraid of holding it to the severest tests of examinations. If a work is handled gingerly, it has the affect of revealing a fear that it won't hold up.

This certainly rings true to me. We have seen how the MSM, having chosen their winners, not only dismiss any examination, but readily cover for their chosen ones should someone else put them to a test.

With regard to Scripture, I think this is equally true. Those who are afraid to question the parts that seem implausible or difficult to understand are revealing their fear that it might not hold up under intense scrutiny. When in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. We have seen and continue to see how science supports the truth of the Word. (Not to be confused with faith, which is a necessary and vital part of inner belief. A person can believe much of the Scripture and even say, "It is true." but not be a child of God.) That is another discussion, but in terms of Sayers' analogy, I think it holds true.

There is the person whose faith says, "I don't need to put it to the severest of tests. I believe it because God said it." While laudable, this person may not be able to help the would-be Believer through his search and investigation, if he isn't willing to look at questions from other sides and answer them honestly and truthfully.

This all sounds rather perfunctory, and I don't mean it to. It reinforces to me the necessity to be in the Word constantly, studying it, and making it my life's primary focus.

Her final sentence was a good summary, "Nobody but a god can pass unscathed through the searching ordeal of incarnation."

Book Club: Chapter 5 - Free Will and the Miracle

I feel like Dorothy Sayers is getting into more familiar and accessible material in this chapter.  At least for me.  I do better with the concrete.  It will be a challenge for me to describe it well, though.

In this chapter she discusses how a character must be true to themselves, and when they are not, it creates a falsity.  The confident, trusting woman who, because of a miscommunication with the guy in her life, has a sudden turn to doubt and tormenting questioning isn't being true to her nature, character.  These are the makings for many a romance movie.

She talks about how an author has an idea he wants to develop, and as he works to develop the characters it comes to a place where the idea cannot unfold the way he wants it to without one or more of the characters being untrue to their nature.  If he proceeds, the unity of the story is upset and the reader will sense it.

There is another way to effect change in the story and that is by divine intervention.  I think this happens somewhat frequently in story lines, and as author, he can choose whatever kind of intervention is necessary to keep the plot moving forward, or satisfy the desires of a character.  Sayers says that, as writer, she is able to perform any miracle she likes (slay inconvenient characters, bring about accidents, etc.), but the question is, how desirable is it?  She believes it is artistically better to bring about 'poetic justice' in accordance with the person's character. We can more readily believe it and be satisfied with it.  "Nor let God intervene unless the difficulty be worthy of his attention."

I expected to see the phrase Deus ex machina in describing this, but she uses thaumaturge. I think they are synonymous in the way she uses it, and it makes me question whether we have moved away from Greek-based words/phrases to Latin naturally or by design, or at all.  There are far fewer students of Greek today than Latin, and far fewer of both than in her day.

I feel that I haven't grasped nor explained the depth of her point in this chapter.  Anxious to read what my fellow readers have to say.  They can be found through Ordo Amoris.

Book Club: Chapter 4 - Energy Revealed in Creation

I very much enjoyed this chapter.  (Perhaps because I didn't have to read it three times to really digest it!)  :-p

I enjoyed getting the insight into how an author of fiction must really get the mind of the character, sort of put on the character, like a set of clothing, when writing for him.  It made excellent sense to me and made me realize how much energy and thought goes into writing a piece of fiction.  I loved her phrase about an author's "favorite" characters as the "saints and prophets of his art."

Her explanation about how we really cannot pin down an author based on his writings made sense, although I've found myself crossing that line with authors like Steinbeck and Kingsolver.  She says, "The mind is not the sum of its works, though it includes them all."

Interestingly, a student (and dare I say, friend?) sent me an essay by C.S. Lewis to read before we meet for class this week.  Renee, you will know this student, Jamie, who is highly intellectual and loves to read and discuss what she reads.

This essay by Lewis is titled De Descriptione Temporum and is his inaugural lecture from The Chair of Mediaeval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University in 1954.  The essay is about where to make divisions in history; where is the line between the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages; between the Middle Ages and the Modern Age?  He argues for a revision to the hitherto demarcations.  But, in the midst of this lecture he touches on something that Dorothy Sayers spoke about in the previous chapter.  It is his 4th supporting point on redrawing the lines.  I will quote him here:

"Lastly, I play my trump card.  Between Jane Austen and us, but not between her and Shakespeare, Chaucer, Alfred, Virgil, Homer, or the Pharaohs, comes the birth of the machines.  This lifts us at once into a region of change far above all that we have hitherto considered.  For this is a parallel to the great changes by which we divide epochs of pre-history.  This is on a level with the change from stone to bronze, or from a pastoral to an agricultural economy.  It alters Man's place in nature.  The theme has been celebrated till we are all sick of it, so I will here say nothing about its economic and social consequences, immeasurable though they are.  What concerns us more is its psychological effect.  How has it comes about that we use the highly emotive word "stagnation," with all its malodorous and malarial overtones for what other ages would have called "permanence?"  Why does the word "permanence" suggest to us clumsiness, inefficiency, barbarity?  When our ancestors talked of the primitive church or the primitive purity of our constitution they meant nothing of that sort. Why does "latest" in advertisements mean "best?"  Well, let us admit that these semantic developments owe something to the nineteenth-century belief in spontaneous progress which itself owes something either to Darwin's theorem of biological evolution or to that myth of universal evolutionism which is really so different from it, and earlier.  For the two great imaginative expressions of the myth, as distinct from the from the theorem-Keats's Hyperion and Wagner's Ring-are pre-Darwinian.  Let us give these their due.  But I submit that what has imposed this climate of opinion so firmly on the human mind is a new archetypal image.  It is the image of old machines being superseded by new and better ones.  For in the world of machines the new most often really is better and the primitive really is the clumsy.  And this image, potent in all our minds, reigns almost without rival in the minds of the uneducated.  For to them, after their marriage and the births of their children, the very milestones of life are technical advances.  From the old push-bike to the motor-bike and thence to the little car; from gramophone to radio and from radio to television; from the range to the stove; these are the very stages of their pilgrimage.  But whether from this cause or from some other, assuredly that approach to life which has left these footprints on our language is the thing that separates us most sharply from our ancestors and whose absence would strike us as most alien if we could return to their world.  Conversely, our assumption that everything is provisional and soon to be superseded, that the attainment of goods we have never yet had, rather than the defence and conservation of those we have already, is the cardinal business of life, would most shock and bewilder them if they could visit ours."

That's but a very small portion of his talk and I'll say just one more thing about it.  He believed we have lived to see the 2nd death of ancient learning.  And that we (as Believers) have much more in common with the ancients who worshiped other gods than with our contemporaries who worship none.

Hopefully you can see the parallel with Dorothy Sayers that I was getting at; that belief that just because some is new, doesn't necessarily mean it is better.  But we are conditioned to this.  I thought Lewis expanded on that fact very well.

Book Club: Chapter 3, Idea, Energy, Power

Dorothy Sayers argues in this chapter that every work of creation is three-fold, "an earthly trinity to match the heavenly:"  She posits this as a means of saying that we do, in fact, live a life analogous to the Trinity (which is a difficult and not-oft addressed concept).

1st)  the Creative Idea
I was really stumped how to put this into words, so I turned back to the introduction to read how Madeleine L'Engle described it.  She says it is "the imagining of the work" that began from the time she was born; before she was aware of any particular book.  I take this to mean, all the experiences that went into making her, her, or you, you, or me, me.  This part corresponds to God the Father.  After rereading this section of the chapter, I noted this, "If, that is, the act has a beginning in time at all, it is because of the presence of the Energy or Activity."  I think I am wrong in trying to describe this first part of the analogy with any words relating to time; afterall, it is indivisible from the other two.  A little perplexing to my finite mind!

2nd)  the Creative Energy
The sum and process of all the activity which brings the book into existence, the incarnation.  This corresponds to the Word, "consubstantial with the Father."

3rd)  the Creative Power
That which flows back to the writer from his own activity, corresponding to the Spirit.

A couple of sections really piqued my interest. In the first, Dorothy says that she will use language that may seem out-moded to persons brought up in "scientific" habits of thought.  I'm not exactly sure what she means by the 'scientific habits of thought,' but I think I understand her to say that much of the language has been abandoned for being too absolute.  She says, "This difficulty which confronts the scientists and has compelled their flight into formulae is the result of a failure to understand or accept the analogical nature of language."  And, "The confusion and difficulty are increased by the modern world's preoccupation with the concept of progress."  This last part resonates with me.

She further states that this imposes two inaccurate suggestions on the human mind: 1) any invention or creative act will necessarily tend to supersede an act of earlier date, and 2) once an invention has been brought into being and made public by a creative act, the whole level of human understanding is raised to the level of that inventiveness.

Both very much untrue and both run counter to the law of humanity.  I appreciated her spelling that out so succinctly.

The other section that has me a bit baffled is the second to last paragraph of the chapter, which ends like this, "Metaphors become dead only when the metaphor is substituted for the experience, and the argument carried on in a sphere of abstraction without being at every point related to life."

I understand she is making an argument for the continued use of old and dated metaphors so long as they are used to interpret direct experience.  They are still useful and vital regardless their age.  But I wish she had given an example of a metaphor that has become dead, because I'm not sure I fully understand what that is.  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.  Is this a dead metaphor?  Or am I being way too literal?

Looking forward to Chapter 4!

Book Club: Chapter 2, The Image of God

I found this chapter fascinating and full of revelation.  Dorothy Sayers states that man, made in the image of God, shares the characteristic of Creator.  Quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, she points out that all language about God is necessarily analogical; even the word creator, but it is none the worse for it.

She takes this thought further by saying "all language about everything is analogical; we think in a series of metaphors."  And especially so about things which we have no direct experience.  "Man measures everything by his own experience; he has no other yardstick."

We know we use metaphors and analogies and we instinctively know exactly where they begin and end.  (with the good)  Language is an expression of experience.

We are all makers in that we spend our lives putting matter together into new patterns.  The closest we come to being like our Creator (creating ex nihilo) is when we produce art.  An artistic work is more than the sum of its parts.  It is limitless and comes from the imagination.

For this reason, it is the artist we should look to for an unfurling of the truths surrounding God as Creator.  His experiences can shed light on this facet of Him.

I found the last part of the chapter good food for thought when Dorothy described the analytical bias of the previous three centuries saying it has encouraged us toward confining ourselves to a specific sphere of knowledge and, therefore, a special metaphor.  She states that she "sees signs that the human mind is beginning to move toward a synthesis of experience."

I'm trying to apply that belief to our age of technology, information, and immediacy.  Are we tending toward a synthesis of experience?  I really don't know.  Certainly more information is available to us.  What I see in terms of the secular world and its methods of communicating is language that is deliberately selected to evoke a particular meaning/image in its hearers/readers, when in fact another meaning is intended.  Intentional deception.

I think a lesson I might take from this chapter is the importance of truth in our metaphor.  Refining and molding it to be as near to the truth as we can make it.  One might say, Of course! Naturally!  But naturally we are lazy and tend toward the easy path.

I think I've perhaps gotten off on a rabbit trail, here.  But, then again, perhaps this is one of the many hidden discussions in this chapter that Cindy wrote about.

Book Club: The Mind of the Maker, 1:The Laws of Nature & Opinion

Dorothy Sayers begins chapter 1 of The Mind of the Maker by saying that the word "law" has two distinct meanings and when people use/read that word they may or may not have the correct meaning in mind in relation to the context.  This is cause for confusion, says Dorothy.

The two meanings are arbitrary and necessary.  Briefly, arbitrary is a regulation made by man with the consent of man.  Things like Roman Law, the laws of civilization, and the laws governing the game of cricket (or football to us Americans).  Arbitrary laws are not necessary in that, if a football is run by a player into the end zone but the six points are not awarded, it doesn't cause a cataclysmic affect on the world.  The rules can be changed, and if everyone is in agreement, the game is operated under the new rules.

Necessary law is that which creates unalterable consequences if broken (put your hand in a fire and it will be burnt).   Necessary law includes those things than express tendency.  These could be historical fact (Grimm's Law) and physical fact (an apple falling from a tree will hit the ground unless something (Newton?) arrests it in mid-fall.)  Historical fact expresses something that has happened (and one might imagine a world in which it did not happen and the world would remain substantially the same), and physical fact expresses something that does happen (and imagining a world in which it doesn't would be very unlike our world).

Confusion occurs when the word "law" is used to describe these two very different things (an arbitrary code and a statement of unalterable fact about the nature of the universe).  Dorothy says it is at its worst when we talk of moral law.

She says there is a universal moral law (distinct from moral code) by which man enjoys true freedom.  The closer the moral code is to this universal moral law (UML), the more it makes for freedom in human behavior.  The more widely it departs, the more it enslaves mankind (and produces catastrophes called Judgments of God).   Dorothy says that UML is discoverable by experience.  The moral code can be written to prevent man from doing violence to his own nature.  Unlike matter, which isn't tempted to diverge from its own nature, man continually suffers this temptation.

Societies may agree or disagree on these, however, the closer it adheres to them, the more the people will flourish.  In creating the universe, God put this UML into motion, and because it was made that way, it cannot be altered just as the law of gravity cannot be altered.

A creed claims to be statements of fact about the universe as we know it.  As we make an intelligent apprehension of what the creed is saying and what it means, it enables us to decide if it is or is not a witness of universal truth.

That is my summary of chapter one.  I think I understand what she is saying.  Something came to mind while reading about UML; I am hesitant to write about it because it is somewhat controversial today.  It was the first time I saw, in physical terms, the intent behind God's law.  I tended toward a view of God as a critical, judgmental Father with a set of rules I really didn't understand.  In the early 1980's as the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome began to spread rapidly, devastating whole specific communities with the disease and death, I "got the picture."  God's laws are intended to protect us.  They are for our good.  They are not arbitrary.  I felt I could trust Him more with this greater understanding of Him.

I appreciate all the foundational work Dorothy is giving us.  I think it is particularly relevant today.  Who hasn't heard, "You can't legislate morality."  in their political discussions?  This gives me a broader but more stable framework for discussions like this.

Am I even on target with what Dorothy is communicating in this chapter?  I'm not sure. 

Political Correctness and Its Goal

 The other day I read an article in which Franklin Graham addressed the issue of political correctness in American culture.  He wrote about the withdrawal of an invitation he received in 2010 to speak at the Pentagon on the National Day of Prayer.  He had earlier in the decade spoken out against the radical elements of Islam, calling them evil and wicked. This was an offense egregious enough to cancel an invitation to speak publicly.

It seems we live in a culture today that punishes those who speak truth.  In fact, it seems that our culture denies even the existence of truth.  Everything is relative to something else; radical Islamists kill innocents for reasons that are true to them, and even though we may not understand them, we cannot condemn them their actions.  It seems there is nothing that crosses the line and qualifies as condemnable.  That is, except Truth and those who insist on speaking it, like Franklin Graham.

Consider for a moment this:  a decision is made by the Department of Education and State school boards that, beginning in elementary school as the very young and impressionable members of our society begin their formal education, there will be no truth allowed in classrooms.  Truth in the form of absolutes.  Teachers and counselors are allowed to speak about all sorts of things, but nothing is to be stated as a definitive or absolute truth.  How must that child grow, develop, and mature?  Upon what is he to grasp and hold as an anchor?  There is nothing these children can hold onto as a foundation; absolutely everything is relative.  How must this child view the world and experience life?  A once-young and tender heart created to recognize truth and beauty in their own existence as an individual created in the image of God, being robbed of their birthright by sinful man who claim to know better.

If we are entirely honest, we will recognize this scenario as one presently in place and has been for quite some time.  We are allowing the government schools to rob society's children of their birthright to know and appreciate truth and to recognize that all truth comes from the Creator.  This in turn robs them of the ability to recognize those things that are incongruous to truth and form value judgments.  Instead they grow up hapless, with no foundation upon which to place their existence; awash with the belief that to be a good and acceptable person in society, they must allow for all possibilities as equal, unable to take a stand on anything.  They have been programmed for deception.  When a person molded from childhood in this manner hears another take a definitive stand on an issue, who even goes so far as to call something evil, wrong, or something else in absolute terms, what is he to think?  He may react with surprise at first and that surprise may likely be followed by criticism and condemnation.  Who is he that speaks with such certitude?  What arrogance! 

But what if his interest is piqued?  He has no foundational beliefs or skills to evaluate such a statement.  What is there to weigh it against?  Here, a grown and 'educated' man has not a single tool at his disposal to give thoughtful consideration to such a claim.  Imagine a whole generation unable to think critically.  Imagine two of them.

So what is the aim of political correctness?  Is it not a focused effort to herd a society into one way of thinking?  One worldview?  And the greater success there is, the faster it grows, for success breeds success.  Who would choose to go against the mainstream and be ridiculed?  Is it not better to give no thought or credence to such claims right out of the gate rather than think them through and possibly be led to a place they fear to tread?  There is no appetite for truth and this is by design.

It seems this and previous generations have been taught to give consideration to and accept as that person's truth just about anything.  Anything except an absolute, especially the absolute that there is right and wrong, evil and good, objective beauty in the world.  These are the worst offenders; committing a crime worse than any we are urged to gloss over. 

For the Believer, all this is an ugly sight.  As we watch Romans 1 played out on a national scale, the truth of the glory of God exchanged for a lie and then worshipped, we cannot help but be startled by the seemingly obvious hypocrisy.  We find it difficult to understand their continued willingness to exchange truth for lies, and lies so preposterous.  We begin to realize that political correctness and all that goes with it is an other-worldly scheme designed to cause the fall of as many human beings as possible.  We come to know the urgency and importance of staying near God and His Word, of raising our own children with a worldview based on Godly principles alone, and bringing as many along with us as we can.

Being a Good Teacher

I find that every year about this time I assess how I'm doing with my students; how did we do now that we've reached year-end?  Or rather, How did I do?  What should I have spent more time on?    How were the year-end results in relation to my objectives for the students?  How can I better reach and teach certain students?

I very recently discovered an institute developed by author Michael Gurian that does brain research into how boys learn and how girls learn, and the fact that they do not learn in the same ways.  I intuitively know this, but being a girl, I still don't fully understand boys, let alone know the best ways to reach them with motivation and encouragement to own their education.  The Gurian Institute holds seminars and conferences to help parents and teachers understand these differences and to provide methods based on brain science.  I should probably attend one, but, finances dictating these kinds of decisions, I probably wont.

But, I love that stuff!  I want all the key concepts lined up for me to read, absorb, and put into practice, right now, tonight.  If I'm honest, I'll admit that I have a couple of books on similar subjects sitting on my bookshelf that I haven't finished reading.  I get bogged down in the stories and anecdotes; I'm impatient for the facts and strategies.

What I'm figuring out is that it takes time for me to learn new things, just as it does my students.  And I don't like that!  I need to accept the fact that learning better teaching skills, slowly, over time, is better than putting down the book in frustration and not learning the methods at all.

That's one of my goals this summer and I'm starting with this one:



Boys and Girls Learn Differently

Maybe summarizing the interesting points here will keep me reading and provide that succinct outline I so desire.

Honesty

I've recently discovered a BBC Series titled, "Lark Rise to Candleford." It's a wonderful depiction of life in a small hamlet in 1880'ish England. Eight miles (a short walk in that day) from Lark Rise is the market town of Candleford. Candleford is a somewhat busy place with stores for shopping, a small hotel, and most importantly, Her Majesty's Post Office and Telegram Service.

The lives of the families of these two places intersect and intertwine in mostly beautiful ways. And even when it isn't beautiful, it is always honest.  But then, honesty is beautiful, is it not?  This is a series that, I am convinced, makes one a better person just for the watching. The characters are open and honest with their feelings and the motives of their hearts, even when, or rather, I should say, especially when they find fault in themselves. It is a refreshing thing to see an individual catch himself behaving in a less than noble manner and stop to confess his faults. And it is equally refreshing to see the quick forgiveness and forbearance of others.

It has made me wonder if we truly were closer to truth and honesty about ourselves when times were harder; when there were fewer comforts and the sense of community and dependence on our friends and neighbors was necessary. When I view society today en masse I wonder if one could find truth and honesty in themself were they to try. Or have these truths been covered up, layer upon layer with distracting things and a self that is deceived by its sense of importance, (self)devotion, and aggrandizement.

It has also caused me to deliberate with myself as to whether I would be willing to give up the comforts and excesses of today's life for the life of that in Lark Rise or Candleford. I want to enthusiastically answer "Yes!" but can I say that honestly? Would I trade this easy life of the 21st century for a life of struggle, hard work, discomfort, uncertainty, intimate community, joys that are magnified due to their contrast, beauty that comes with living close to the land, days and weeks without a clock or timepiece.

My heart says yes, but here I am, situated by God in a different age. I believe Him when He says He knows our hearts better than we know them ourselves. I trust Him to have placed me where He knows is best.

Where We Are

I feel profoundly sad at this time. I miss my country. I miss the ideal of asking my neighbor for a cup of sugar and having her respond cheerfully. I still do this, but I believe this sort of thing happens rarely in neighborhoods and communities across this country. I'm trying to figure out how we got here and where we're going. I'm not the kind of person who can 'imagine' that all is well and be happy in that. I'm obsessed with what is true, and the truth is, we are not a very good community to one another anymore.

I loved the America of my childhood; walking the long walk to the neighborhood market with my friends for a 15 cent piece of candy and then walking back home; playing outside with whomever came out to play; being accountable, not only to my own mom, but to every other mom on the street while outdoors during the long summer days, and to my teachers during the school year; not having heavy cares and burdens, but being free from the weight of concepts like dwindling resources, an over-heating planet, and trillions in debt.

This week I read that a public school teacher in another state was fired for not keeping a close enough eye on her students (her 3rd graders were having sex under their desks/tables). My jaw still drops when I think of that. My friends and I didn't know what sex was in third grade. How did we get to this place in less than half a century?

Parents have stopped raising their children; I mean really raising their children; guiding, teaching, nurturing, teaching some more.

Why?

I have vague memories of the women's revolution going on in the late 60's and 70's, but I was pretty far from that. I was a late-blooming girl who paid no attention to news or current events, choosing instead to keep my nose buried in books. By the time I was mature enough to begin feeling good in my own skin, the national discussion was whether or not daycare was as nurturing an environment in which to raise children as that of home with Mom. (Of course, the answer was decidedly "Yes.")

I think some of our current problems begin there. Moms wanted to believe that daycare was just as viable an option so they could have a career, and the national press made sure to give them a thumbs up. Having now raised three children, I couldn't disagree more with that premise. In fact, I think all of us mothers know this instinctively, but society (via the press and universities) has given us the free pass we desired so that we could do our own thing anyway.

Guilt-free selfishness.

And having started there, it grew and made itself manifest in all sort of areas. Whether it be selfishness or any other sin, it increases. It finds a way to justify the next small desire, and then another one after that, and before long they add up to something ugly.

These children are now grown. How have they chosen to raise their own families? Day care is just the example I use; I don't think it would be a stretch to say that these children learned the art of selfishness from their own parents. They didn't learn it themselves in small degrees, but were raised with it; watching Mom (and Dad) see to their own needs first and then to those of others (if at all).

What are we willing to sacrifice to give our children the very best upbringing?

What is sacrifice? Is that a word/concept present in today's discourse? Even among the most conservative I would put forward that its meaning is skewed, and if not its meaning, then its practice. It is not a sacrifice for me to give up my Tuesday Starbucks triple-vente latte for a week or two.

I'm trying to understand the causes and affects of where we are today, while meanwhile learning to be content in all circumstances, as I am exhorted by Paul. Perhaps I have loved this old world more than I should have.