Christian Metaphor, part 3

(Start with part one, or go to part two)

God’s will and the meaning of life

I’ve mentioned humans wanting to please God several times now.  Is this an assumption or a fact? Well, if we believe to have been made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26), then our desire to please God is a mere reflection of God’s desire to please Himself.

Why did God put us there?  Or better yet, why did God create us?  If we read Genesis, we learn that God created us simply to please Himself (Genesis 1:31).  He didn’t need us; He wanted to share Himself (love).  He created us in His image, and He delegated to us the stewardship of the Earth. In other words, He wanted us to exist the way He exists, experience being the way He experiences being.  And in the beginning, we did just that.  This is why we call the Garden of Eden “paradise”, and why we all long to return there.

* Eternal life

Speaking of returning to paradise, this brings up a concern many philosophers and theologians have pondered.  In addition to determining the meaning of our lives, we also want to be reassured that our lives will continue... indefinitely.  Isaac Newton’s first law of motions states that “an object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.”  Now, if we allow the substitution of “person” instead of “object”, and give an existential meaning to motion, we can rephrase part of the above as follows:  “A person who is alive [wants to] stay alive”. 

This may seem quite elementary, but it’s fundamental.  Once we are aware of the fact that we are alive, and we come to enjoy said life (or at worst, fear the alternative), we begin to grasp for reassurances that we will always .... be. 

No amount of life experience seems to teach us that “the only thing that doesn’t change is change itself”.  Every school year ends with a bittersweet sentiment – on one hand, we were so looking forward to summer; on the other hand, the next year is full of the unknown.  A child’s wedding likewise can be a bittersweet moment – on one hand, we are pleased that our daughter or son has found someone to share their life with; on the other hand, we become aware of the drastic reduction in their need for us and thus may worry what their joy means to our own joy.  Even religious people often fear death, if for no other reason than because it constitutes a major change and leads to a great unknown!

But for many people, myself included, even if the details cannot be known, the underlying assumption of eternal life is necessary in order to live a life without despair.  In the end, does it really matter to us if, after we die, we simply cease to be aware of our existence, or cease to exist?  When we’re sleeping, do we ever worry about not waking up?  If you’re anything like me, as much fun as life is, sleep is always most welcome in the morning!  Therefore, I imagine that whatever being dead is like, I’m sure we won’t miss being alive!

Of course, that’s a strange thing to say.  Death implies the lack of “being”, so to say that we will “be” dead seems quite inaccurate.  And yet, we use the same existential term that God Himself uses to describe what we fear is the opposite of living.  To me, that just goes to show that death is nothing more than a transition into a continuation of life beyond what we are able to experience in the here and now.  I am satisfied with the conviction that eternal life is a reality, even if the details of what that practically means cannot be known to me until I cross over to the other side.

If we all must die and that means we cease to exist, or if we all must die and we have no way of knowing what it’s like to be deceased, then that really begs the question: what is the meaning of life?  Or put another way, why are we here?  No other creature – to our  knowledge – wrecks their brain (those that have brains) or wastes time in contemplating their purpose.  They simply exist, and without a sense of right and wrong, good and bad, we can say they exist in contentment.  Animals, and much less plants, don’t worry about the future or regret or reminisce about the past.  They spend their lives experiencing their existence. They simply “are”.  Yet we humans are not satisfied with being like every other creature.  We want to be better, more special.  There must be a meaning to our existence.  

(go to part 4)

Christian Metaphor, part 2

(Start with part one here)

* The great “I Am” wants us to experience being

In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve walked around enjoying each others’ and God’s company without giving it a second thought.  They didn’t think in terms of “us versus God”.  They didn’t wonder about life “outside the garden”.  They simply “were”... much the same way as God Himself declares His identity: “I am” (Exodus 3:14).  Experience of existence seems to be the essence of God’s desire for our lives.  We see remnants of this in psychological studies of newborn babies, and we find a symbolic explanation of this phenomenon in our creation myth.

Whether or not there was a literal, historical human couple named Adam and Eve, as many conservative Christians believe, is really beside the point.  Does this belief help me live a life in accordance with God’s will?  If not, then who cares?  If so, then by all means, yell at me for using the term “myth” to refer to the story of our creation, just please do so out of my earshot.

Let’s review.  God said “I am” when asked to identify Himself in the Old Testament.  He is also described as “being love” by the writer of the Gospel of John.  Therefore, not veering outside the confines of the Christian Scriptures, we arrive at the following conclusion: God. Is. Love.

* The paradox of Jesus

Now, let’s see how Jesus fits into the picture.  It should start with the fact that when we look at Jesus’s life as a whole, the way it has been recorded in the Gospels, we see that his entire being was geared towards the doing of God’s will.  His every action was directed at others, in the service of others, saturated with love – love of God and love of His fellow human beings.  If Jesus truly lived out so perfectly God’s original intention for our lives by living a life full of love and nothing less, then it is easy to see why Jesus would declare that He and the Father are “one”.  Jesus lived out love.  Jesus acted in love.  Jesus was motivated by love.  Jesus expressed love.  Jesus shared love with everyone.  Jesus was synonymous with love.  Jesus essentially was what a human being experiencing the existence of God in every moment, through love, was meant to be.  Jesus was love.  As long as His life is held up as an example for others, Jesus continues to be love.  Therefore, Jesus is love.  Jesus. Is. Love. God. Is. Love.  One can see where the clear overlap is; God and Jesus both exist (“is”) and both are synonymous with love. 

* The example of marriage as paradox

There are a lot of different takes on what it means to say that Jesus and God are one.  Are they two separate individuals, or are they one and the same?  While it may at first seem that the two concepts are incompatible with each other, we do have a human example we can draw from: marriage.

A marriage is made up of two individuals.  Neither of them is the marriage, and yet without either of them, there would be no marriage.  In legal and financial terms, each individual is as much “the marriage” as the two of them together.  If one spouse goes into debt, the other one is held responsible.  Spousal intimacy is held to such high esteem, that a secret confided by one spouse to the other cannot be forced out by an outside source; it’s as if the secret-telling spouse simply held the secret in his or her own mind.  Two become one.  Yet clearly, we understand that a marriage is made up of a husband and a wife, two distinct entities (if you will), each having their own responsibilities within the marriage, but both united in that mysterious area where they are not just two individuals, but that together they are a third entity all together – the marriage.

Some non-Christians who may actually have a pretty good grasp of this understanding of the Trinity take issue with the idea that God can be something other than a single individual.  They accuse trinitarian Christians of worshipping “a family of gods” instead of a single deity.  Yet this sort of dislike for an understanding of God as anything other than a human “just like us” goes back to the fact that we humans are very self-centered.  We believe that we are the greatest thing there is, and as such, God cannot be what we deem as “less than” the best (us!).

I won’t go into splitting hairs as to a one-to-one comparison between the Holy Trinity and the example of a human marriage.  If God is like marriage, what of the Holy Spirit?  Some say the Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son, but this interferes with the understanding that God – all of God – is love.  If only the Holy Spirit is love, then Jesus and the Father aren’t love, but if God is love, no part of God can be “not love”. 

What’s more, some Christians, especially Catholics, have indeed taken this metaphor so far as to add the Church into the mix, calling it the spouse of Christ.  In my opinion, this does more to muddle the waters for those who simply want to believe in and follow God’s will for their lives.  The various details of what it’s really like beyond this dimension are mere speculation, and completely irrelevant to accomplishing God’s will.

* Pregnant woman as a paradox

An even clearer human example of what it might mean for Jesus and God-the-Father to be "one" can be found in the pregnant woman.  When we look at her from the outside, she is an individual, a single entity much the same as she was prior to her pregnancy.  She counts as only one person in an HOV lane, she is considered only one member of a household on a census form.

Yet thanks to the marvel of modern technology in the ultrasound, we can clearly see that her one body actually contains two hearts, two brains, two sets of limbs.... literally a whole second little body inside the one "main" body they both share (since the baby is attached to and dependent on the mother's body for survival).  And so, expectant fathers may take turns talking to their wives and their babies via the baby bump.  We say the mother is "eating for two".  Many people are tempted to reach out and touch the baby bump as if somehow this would connect them closer to the mystery that they know is taking place - two are simultaneously one!

Where the mother goes, so goes the baby.  Where the Father goes, so goes the Son. In John 5:19, Jesus says: "the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner."  In other words, the two are one.  Jesus is not the Father; the unborn baby is not the mother.  Yet the two are interdependent on each other.  Without a child, a woman is not a mother.  Perhaps then, without Jesus, the Father wouldn't be God?

(go to part 3)

Christian Metaphor, part 1

My religious upbringing cautions me to not even venture into the realm of suggesting that certain of our religious teachings, held up by years of theological discussion, and seen as divine truths, ought to be considered in any light other than that of literal understanding.  Yet I shall dare to do so anyway, because I believe that the value of our religious truths may actually be found in their symbolic meaning, rather than in their literal interpretation. (Or at the very least, it’s found equally in both, regardless if the truth is seen as metaphor or literal fact.)

I do want to provide the caveat that I am merely trying to think outside the box, and this series is not a statement of my faith (or lack thereof), but rather a train-of-thought deliberation, the likes of which I've often had in the past but failed to capture in words.  Since such philosophical wonderment occurs to me periodically and never fails to somehow deepen my conviction and clarify God's will for me, I am confident that by being open to the moving of the Holy Spirit, anything contrary to righteousness will be made evident to me in the course of this exercise.

The Personification of God

Let us start with the most difficult concept for many non-Christians to wrap their minds around – the personification of God in the person of Jesus, especially as part of a divine trinity of persons.  If God is One, how can there be three persons of God?  I think the problem begins already with the personification of God as a “being” rather than as an abstract concept. 

* God is Love

We often hear it said, “God is love” (1 John 4:8, et al).  Yet love is an abstraction.  Love is not a person, like Cupid or Aphrodite.  Love is an experience of affinity towards another being, a sense of drawing near and desiring the company and welfare of a given individual.  Love is that which keeps us together and links us into units of couples, families, groups of friends.  What do we all have in common?  Love! 

Yet for some reason, it seems terribly inadequate to the modern ear (perhaps more accurately: to the modern, western, Christian ear) to define God as “just” an abstraction.  Already, we are faced with an undeniable truth of human nature: we are self-centered.  Original sin, after all, is nothing more than the putting of our own interests first!  (More on that later.)  Therefore, if we are to believe in a God, that God must be bigger and better and more impressive than we are – somehow “more than” human, but certainly not “less than” human, and we see abstractions as lesser than persons. 

And so we personify God as a “He”, likening Him to a Father.  There is definitely value in so doing.  Because we share love with other people, we want to feel closeness to God in the same way we experience closeness to family and friends.  What we fail to remember is that God isn’t at the other end of that which connects us to each other; rather, God is actually the “thing” that connects us.  Connections can be severed; individuals can be separated.  But nothing from the outside can interfere with a person’s experience of love.  Once felt, a person will forever reminisce over specific instances when it was most obvious, and long to experience it again and again.  So we personify God because we cannot think of Him in terms that are not familiar to us, and abstractions are not very familiar to us. 

* What we knew as babies

But if we allow for the lines to get blurry between what constitutes a person and what constitutes an experience (this may take a lot of effort and imagination), we begin to catch glimpses of what Jesus must have meant when He said “the Father and I are one” (John 10:30).  We don’t remember this, but we actually do have human experiences that mimic what Jesus is talking about.

When a baby is newly born, she does not yet have a concept of self.  She doesn’t understand that there’s such a thing as “not-I” versus “I”.  She doesn’t have object permanence, so what she is currently experiencing is the only thing that exists for her.  There is no hoping for the future, no regretting the past, no comparing self to others. Where is the baby before birth?  Is she not literally one body with the mother?  Doesn't the mother experience the baby's presence and isn't the baby directly affected by what the mother does?  Everywhere the mother goes, so goes the baby.  There is no separating them.  And yet, we know that they are two persons in one body.  After birth, the baby initially maintains this understanding of reality as evidenced by the breastfeeding relationship God instituted as a transition for both into separate people. 

Therefore, from the baby's point of view, "baby and momma are one".  I think this is parallel to the way Jesus saw Himself and God-the-Father as one.

(go to Part 2)

Homeschooling Myself

A faith/philosophy post is a bit overdue.  I was taking a walk outside today.  There is an artificially made lake on my campus.  As I paced back and forth, peering into the water, looking up at the sky, allowing the various sights and sounds to attract my attention, I made a few observations. 

As I stopped to turn around at the edge of the lake, where the water mingles with the sand that yields to a wooded area, I thought about how nature is made up of transitions.  After all, where exactly does the lake end and the land begin?  If I say that the lake starts at the first sign of water, even if that water doesn’t so much as come up to my ankles, then how is this different from a puddle elsewhere on otherwise dry land?  But if I say that the same spot is strictly dry land, then how do I account for the tiny fish swimming around to the very edge and back?  Puddles don’t host fish.  

I’ve had a similar thought process lately when it comes to the beginning of human life debate that is ongoing in our society.  Some people say we become a human person at the moment of conception, yet how is this possible if we know that a human embryo can split into two identical twins?  Likewise, two separately fertilized eggs can merge into a single embryo around the time of implantation, resulting in a chimera – one person with two sets of DNA.  

Others say that birth is the magic moment when we begin to be alive.  But how do we account for premature babies?  And what about the fact that a fetus has been shown to experience pain and react to sensory stimulation?  Furthermore, epigenetics tells us that we are affected by what we experience while in the womb.  If we didn’t have our life “turn on” until the moment of birth, there would be no evidence of living in utero.  

Perhaps when it comes to deciding where the actual boundaries of a lake are, it matters little.  But when it comes to deciding when life – especially human life – begins and ends, it matters a lot.  However, I don’t think we need to know the answer to this question to proceed ethically and morally.  When in doubt, erring on the side of caution seems to be the most reasonable way to go.

But returning to my observations from this afternoon…

I was entertained by observing creatures in their natural (or somewhat natural) environment.  I watched a school of fish stop when I stopped, and face me as if expecting me to drop some crumbs for them to feed on.  I noticed a dragonfly hovering in one spot, and was reminded of how our human invention of a helicopter is simply a man-made reproduction of something already existent in nature.  I saw a spider walking on water, and recalled how amazed people were to see Jesus do likewise, yet here we have a different creature made by God to imitate Christ in this one physical way.  

I thought of how our modern society robs us of such natural entertainment and education.  How much can we learn by merely observing nature!  So much more than a mere textbook can teach us.  Yet we deprive ourselves of access to God’s natural school and play ground, and then try to compensate with virtual renditions of the real thing.

Honestly, this post is really about homeschooling.  Homeschooling myself.  Twenty years of formal education (right up until all doctoral requirements were met minus the dissertation) has done little in the way of better preparing me for life.  And if education doesn’t prepare a student for life, then what’s the point?  

Expecting a baby is giving me a renewed hope of learning about God’s beautiful world by parenting and educating my child.  I am so blessed to have this opportunity!

That Part of Parenting That's For Mom (or Dad)

In my last post, I mentioned not wanting to set up a nursery per se, as it would be very short lived before baby outgrows it, and I commented that it's mostly for the parents anyway.  Today, I wanted to mention that doing something under the premise of it being for the child when in reality it's for the benefit of the parent is not in itself a bad thing - at least I don't think so.  I simply used this point as an explanation for why I'm opting out of the planning-the-nursery aspect of prepping for baby in lieu of other excitement.  To each their own.

For instance, though I started a bit backwards, I've been making my way back from researching homeschooling approaches to parenting styles to finally the day-to-day scheduling and expectations I can have for myself and our baby in the early years.  In my research, as I've mentioned previously, I've come across Waldorf education and attachment parenting, both of which really resonate with me.  Upon further scrutiny, I see that one of the reasons they both resonate so well with me and what I want for my child is that they remind  me so much of my own childhood, which by all accounts I would describe as "wholesome", something I think both Waldorf education and attachment parenting aim for as well.

Therefore, I'll come right out and say it - one of the perks of parenting for me will be to relive some of the best parts of my own childhood.  Take wooden toys for example.  I came across a negative comment claiming that children don't want wooden toys.  Perhaps if you've already spent years getting them all the latest plastic and electronic gadgets they demand after seeing them in commercials, and all of a sudden you switch to a simple wooden toy.  But children do not need to be entertained.  They need to be inspired and encouraged to be creative, entertain themselves, be innovative, discover the world around them, not be spoon-fed it to them in the guise of academics.  I think wooden toys are much more conducive to building a child's imagination than are modern toys made with a specific, pre-programmed scope of activity that only calls for the child to click a button and sit back and watch.

I know it's going to be tough to balance gratitude for any such modern gifts that may come our way from well-meaning and generous loved ones with my overall desire to create a wholesome atmosphere for my child.  Not sure yet how to go about it, though of course any gift for my child must go through me and Alex for final approval.  I'd hope that people - especially those who are parents themselves - would think to ask us as parents if a particular gift may be appropriate.  But I guess if one's criteria for one's own child aren't very narrow, one wouldn't have on one's radar the idea that there is such a thing as an inappropriate or unwanted toy, item of clothing, or gadget.

I think I will simply divert to the polite smile and thank you for any gifts I feel aren't wholesome or appropriate for my child, followed by a regularly scheduled trip to a donation center.  And I'll take it upon myself to select the items with which I do want to surround my child.  After all, I can't be the only parent wanting to get some benefit out of parenting for themselves?!  My child will play and learn like every other, but why do it the way all the Joneses and Smiths do it, when we can do it our own way?

Green, Frugal, Simple for Baby

Reading the parenting magazines and listening to all the hype, you'd really believe that it costs thousands and thousands of dollars to raise a child.  But I'm looking forward to attachment parenting and frugal green living, followed later by Waldorf-inspired homeschooling. 

Baby's got to eat.  Well, God thought of that when He gave me boobies!  Barring any complications, we plan to arrange our lifestyle such that I can exclusively breastfeed baby until s/he no longer requires breast milk.  For the few times I may be away from baby when s/he's hungry, I'm partial to using a baby syringe as a nipple replacement, instead of bottles.  We'll need that for medication anyway, and it's free at most pharmacies.

Baby's gonna pee and poo.  We do want to keep that content off the furniture and clothing, so we are diapering.... with cloth diapers.  One time expense, and a much greener and more comfortable option for baby, plus helps encourage potty training since baby learns not to enjoy that moist butt feel as a toddler.  We opted for simple prefolds with white velcro covers.

Baby's gotta get around.  Since we do live in an area where we utilize a car often, a car seat is a must.  What is not a must is three or four different car seats and boosters as the child grows.  We're opting for a convertible car seat that can be set up rear-facing with the appropriate inserts to keep baby from flopping all over the place, and eventually to serve as a booster chair.  When not driving, a baby carrier will be our first choice of transportation.  It keeps baby and parent close together, plus baby gets to see what's going on at a higher level than in a stroller.  Having said that, we do have a stroller we bought years ago second-hand that converts from a bassinet style to a sitting position, which also lets you move the handlebar so you can either be facing baby or you can both be looking in the same direction. 

Baby's got to wear clothes.  At least in public!  We're fans of unisex clothes for the first few months for several reasons.  First of all, we are not finding out the sex of the baby.  Second, I don't like color-coding kids, and if we knew we were having a girl, for instance, many of our loved ones would shower us with frilly pink princess themed stuff, which makes me want to gag!  But most importantly, babies grow.  Very fast.  Any item of clothing in the first 12 months of life or so will only be worn a handful of times anyway.  With unisex items for this stage, should we be blessed with baby #2, there won't be a reason not to reuse the same stuff.  Speaking of hand-me-downs, if you've got baby clothes you want me to take off your hands, let me know!  I am anything BUT a hand-me-down snob.  I love hand-me-downs.  We practically dressed our foster daughter in the hand-me-downs of a nice lady I met online who didn't need her kids' clothes anymore.

Baby's got to be clean.  Wet washcloth baths in the very beginning and baths on a towel in the tub later on sound like a plan to me.  I watched my siblings bathed this way, and I don't see any reason to purchase items to complicate a simple process.  Baby can also use the same towels we use (obviously clean), so no need to designate one with a hoodie that can't be used once baby is too big.

Baby's got to be healthy.  So there are a few items that I think need to be in our first-aid kit.  A thermometer, baby syringe, nose aspirator.  This category is hardly a bank-breaker.

Baby's got to have fun and get some exercise!  First of all, toys for babies are like bicycles for fish.  Completely pointless, though the fish owner may get a kick looking at the fish and toys in the tank together.  Since I'm focusing on the very early time period right now, I won't go into toys that I do think are advisable for toddlers and beyond.  But babies?  They play with their toes, your finger, a sock.  Just be creative.  They don't care if it's made by Disney.

Most importantly, baby needs mom and dad.  And no store in the universe can compensate for one-on-one time with the parentals!

Thinking of Homeschooling Already!

The idea of homeschooling fascinates me.  For one thing, I’ve had my share of negative experiences with the public school system to know that I want something better, much better, for my children.  For another, homeschooling strikes me as an extension of attachment parenting, a way to keep my children in the home when they are young, and not delegating my job to teachers who may not share my values.  Finally, I have spent 10 years of marriage waiting for the time when I could be a mother.  The last thing on my mind is getting my child out of the house for the majority of most days of the year.  Instead, I look forward to the one-on-one time we will spend together, benefitting both our relationship and the child’s education.

What I did not expect was the sense of being overwhelmed by the options of methods (never mind curricula!) available to homeschoolers.  Luckily, I do have several years to iron out the details, as my baby is not even due for 5.5 more months.  So I’ve taken to writing as a way to figure out where to begin.

                 

The first step, after writing a mission statement to gather our attitudes and beliefs about the purpose of education and homeschooling, is to tackle one grade at a time.  What I’m learning from the blogosphere of homeschoolers is that the general trend is not to simply choose a method and a curriculum and stick with it for 12 years.  Furthermore, I will have to consider the child’s individual learning style when deciding on the best way to approach learning with her or him.  Then, it’ll be a matter of trial and error, committing to a method and perhaps curriculum for one grade at a time and reassessing our needs each year.

                 

With this in mind, I am more relaxed in knowing that this is simply not something I can plan in advance and put away to wait for my child to be “school-aged”.  In fact, what is considered school-aged is the first thing I need to take into account.  Here, I am attracted to Waldorf and Montessori methods of education, in that both stress the importance of letting little children be little children, and not trying to teach academics before they are ready to learn them.   In the same vein, both of these methods discourage exposure to electronic media for young children. One difference between these two approaches at this early stage is that Montessori focuses more on children learning through work, by doing age-appropriate chores around the house, for instance.  The Waldorf approach, on the other hand, focuses pretty much entirely on allowing the children to play, thus building the foundation for later academic learning.  Another, perhaps inconsequential, difference is that Waldorf would have the child wait until age 7 to begin any sort of concrete homeschooling, whereas Montessori starts a year earlier, at 6 years old.

                 

For the time being, I see that my approach to “Kindergarten” will definitely come from some overlap of these two approaches.  Since my child is due to be born in December, I think it’s best to plan to start first grade in September of the year when s/he will turn 7.  One benefit of Waldorf is that I have already found ready curricula available for all 12 years (should we end up sticking with this method), and I do feel the need to have some guidance, at least in the beginning of my homeschooling career.  Since Montessori is more child-led, the expectation is to focus on what the child shows an interest in learning at the time, so homeschooling parents have to gather their own resources independent of a set curriculum.  I certainly appreciate this approach to a degree.  However, I also crave structure, and I envision establishing some boundaries within which we can spend more or less time depending on the child’s interests.

                 

The only thing I have found somewhat concerning about the Waldorf approach is its focus on art, since I am not very artistic.  I look forward to various arts and crafts we can learn together, but an artist I am not.  Still, at the early stage, this is not something to lose sleep over.  Therefore, I think I’ll settle into the expectation that we will utilize a Waldorf homeschooling curriculum in the 1^st grade, with the understanding that I will most likely pick and choose eclectically to change or supplement as needed.  After all, I am looking for a curriculum as a guide, not as a rule-book. 

                 

With this matter settled, I can go back to more pressing plans, like a gentle birth and attachment parenting.