What If's are my specialty...

My mind is a special place, to which I am often not even privy to its secrets. People ask me all the time why I chose education in school (especially after I've explained some sort of medical anomaly) and I usually don't know what to say. "Because I always wanted to be a teacher (not 100% true)", "Because I'm good at history (I forget things all the time...)," "Because it was an easier route (Only true for the first 2 years)," and "Because I was good at it (Actually, I was just good at "school")," are all common answers.

I don't know why I chose History Education in college. I was good at it, that's very true. I got excellent grades, passed my practicums with flying colors, and was even nominated for multiple awards. I qualified for every honors society on campus, all the while maintaining a part-time job (20-30 hours a week). I never got below an A on any major paper and I was well respected by peers and professors. I'm not trying to boast here, I'm just trying to show all the signs that this was what I am supposed to be doing. But when I sit and talk with all of my nursing friends, my heart longs to be helping sick people--using the knowledge of hospitals and medicine I gleaned from dinner conversations with my parents for something other than answering odd conversational questions. And when I see friends making plans to build a house, I long to know what to do with graph paper and a pencil.

Sometimes I feel like having "Education" tacked on the end of your degree makes you less credible. I know the course of American history well, but only because I am teaching it this semester. But often in political and historical debates I feel like I may as well have gone to school for Architecture, like I wanted to in middle school, because at this point in time the only factoid I can recall is that studs must be 12 inches apart in a residential building. I'm currently only teaching one history class--my other 8 classes are science, something that literally is tacked on to my certification because I passed the test!

All of this to say, sometimes I am overwhelmed with "What if?" thoughts about what I could have done in school and where that would put me today. But then I realize that no matter where I ended up throughout or after school, I would still be in the same place I am now--only seeing the step in front of me, entirely unable to view the path I am taking. And then I remember the Proverb my sister always quotes at the best times "The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps." If I ever fear that I am not working or spending my time in a way that best uses my abilities, I remember that it is not my life being lived, my abilities being used, or my plans being fulfilled--they are all His. And He does with them what He needs, and He always knows best.

So, I will continue to teach History and Science, all the while reading articles about new medicines and dreaming of the day when I get to help design and build my own house. And I know that God will satisfy me with daily reminders that this is where I am to be, this is where I will learn to love Him more, and this is where I will bring Him the most glory.

Em

Old vs. New: How morality stays constant when freedom changes.

I read (read: saw and skimmed) an article on Facebook last week that made the basic argument "The old testament tells us it is wrong to eat cheeseburgers, pork, inhabit the same bed with our menstruating wives, and be homosexual. How can we now rightly pick and choose what is right and wrong from this list?" The question was posed in an article that was obviously arguing for the acceptance of homosexuality in Christian circles, but it raises a very valid question: How do we, new-testiment believers, know what new freedoms we have and what things, mentioned in the old testament, are still wrong? Is it still wrong to murder, cheat, and steal? If so, how do we know (other than "because Paul says so") that we are free to eat meat once sacrificed to idols, hug our uncomfortable sisters, and drive a car on Sunday?

The logical key to this question has to do with symbolism. We, as Christians, are free from the "oppression" of symbols. We no longer sacrifice lambs as a symbol of our need for blood-cleansing from our sin, so therefore we no longer avoid "unclean" things as a reminder of our uncleanliness in the eyes of God. We are free from constant reminders of our sin and are able to take advantage of the blessings that the cleansing blood of Christ has opened up for us.

Murder, theft, adultery, and homosexuality, however, are not within those new blessings. These list of sins, found in the old testament, are moral issues. This list represents things that are contrary to who God is and the order He established in creation. He created man, so therefore He is the one who decides if a man lives or dies. He created one man and one woman to be married, so He does not allow that union to be defiled by others. He gives physical blessings to His people, so he does not allow others to remove those blessings. He is the one who determined the specific gender He needed each of us to be and how reproduction works, so we disrespect that order when we undergo procedures to alter, or engage in relationships that are contrary to, that design.

I understand, however, that this logic still does not always leave us with a clear right/wrong scenario. This is why God, in His wisdom, repeated many of His moral commands in the new testament. Through Jesus' words in the Gospels, through the words of Paul in Romans and his letters, and throughout all books of the new testament, God shows us how to discern morality and exercise our newfound freedoms in God-honoring ways. He does not leave us alone to use our fallen minds to try to discern His logic, He repeats Himself loudly and clearly. He uses Paul to remind us that even though God's grace covers all of our sin, we are to avoid sin and not indulge in homosexuality or adultery. He also uses Paul to show us the freedoms we have to be "all things to all people." God uses the words of Jesus to remind us of the value of human life and being content with what we have. He also uses the words of Jesus to show us that we are free to eat with sinners and discuss intellectual subjects with non-believers.

And now we enter the spinoff zone...

I admire the person who wrote the aforementioned article for one reason--they were not afraid to ask critical questions. We need not be ashamed to ask critical questions about the bible, even if they are questions which we believe strongly have a clear answer, because the world sees the seemingly contradictory things written in the bible and asks critical questions. We need to be clear with the world-- the bible is a non-contradictory document but it is also complex and cannot be fully understood in parts. We must remind the world that the bible cannot be understood piece by piece but must be viewed as a cohesive whole, and we must do this reminding by practicing what we preach. We cannot ignore our call to love others when we seek to stomp out evils such as abortion, domestic violence, and homosexuality, or conveniently forget that we ourselves commit "respectable sins" every day while we stare accusingly at a single teen mom. We must be unashamed, willing to answer questions that are uncomfortable with bold truth, and we must coat that truth in love.

God has not chosen in a long time to use His children to wipe out entire sinful nations and I don't believe He will do anything like that until Jesus returns. What He does require us to do is engage the culture's need for a Savior at every possible opportunity. We must be careful not to shut down those opportunities before they even present themselves by being coarse, argumentative, and nit-picky. We must foster those opportunities by opening ourselves up to others, showing them that we do not understand it all either, and graciously leading them through the difficult truths the bible presents. Being slapped in the face with bible verses doesn't make anyone understand anything, but careful and gracious repetition of the truths of the bible does not return void.

Em

Hunger Games: A Critical Review

Disclaimer-- I have only read the first book and saw the movie at midnight, with about a trillion screaming teenage girls (including my little sister), where I sat 3 rows back from the largest movie screen I've seen outside of an IMAX theatre, so I might have missed some stuff. Disclaimer over.

I loved the Hunger Games. The discussion on the way home from the movie, at approximately 3am, between myself (the eternal optimist and lover of midnight premiers), my husband (the critic), my sister (overly excited 17 year old who's been waiting for this movie for "like 4 years"), and my sister's best friend (the sleepy one) was something like this.

"*High squeaky voice* OH MY GOSH that was SOOO good--PEETA!"

"Wow, that was a lot like the book"

"But they took out x, y, and z. Well, that's okay cuz that really wasn't essential."

"I liked what they added--it explained a lot."

And that's about what I've heard from everyone else. The movie, cinematography wise, was great. There were a few actors who could have been a little better but it was true to the books--if not in word and deed, in spirit. There were only a few parts straight quoted from the book and those were well chosen and employed; overusing straight quotes from the book makes the movie seem irrelevant. There were many small details removed from the book, but they were non-essential and didn't add or subtract from the feel of it. There were a few adjustments made to the situation surrounding the main story but they worked to help convey things that main characters thought or imagined during the secluded games and I thought these were very well employed. And lastly, there were things added that were essential in understanding the back story--the reason for the games, the reason for Kat's rebellion, and the reason for books 2 and 3. This has become my favorite part.

I have read many articles, Facebook and blog posts, and general musings from others criticizing the films for being violent. And violent they are. There are children killing children, animals killing children, children killing animals, soldiers "subduing" crowds, and a general air of hostility. And these things are serious. I was a little surprised to see some 9-11 year old children at the midnight premier (but based on how easy the book was to read, not shocked). To that point, there were probably some very shocked 14 year olds who realized "Seeing this is a lot different than reading this!" The movie is rated PG-13--parents, pay attention. There are serious topics discussed that a 10 year old needs to understand to process the violence portrayed. It is those topics I want to discuss in this review.

Topic one--Government. I've heard some argue that this book is some sort of argument for pacifism, but if that was the writers intention she did a very poor job of conveying it. This book is like so many books young children read-- A bad person is in leadership making everyone do terrible things to remember that he/she is in charge (i.e. Narnia and the White Witch, LOTR and Saruman, Little Princess and the terrible headmistress, James and [all the creepiness of] the Giant Peach, and to a lesser extent, Lord of the Flies). This topic is really the key that unlocks all the violence of the books. This is the "background" that the movie added that was so helpful for those 12 year olds, who mostly understood the violence, to really see: "This violence is not something to be emulated. This violence is something that is bad, something mournful. These evil people in the government don't see it but the heroine does." The heroine in the story is appalled by the violence, but is determined to win the games to go home and protect her family. When she gets to the games she sees the careers--those who have been trained by their districts for this day and volunteer to represent their district in the bloodbath--and is overcome. She befriends a little girl who needs her help to stay alive and (spoiler alert) openly mourns her death when it comes, to the point of defying the game makers by having a sort-of funeral for her. At that point (made more obvious in the books) she is determined to win so that she can change things. And in the end, when she and her friend are forced to decide between killing each other or some unknown consequence, they decide to do something to "show them that they don't own me." If the 10 year old that's read the books can explain this to you, maybe he/she is ready to see the movies. But if your 14 year old cannot, and just wants to see what they do with the cave scene, a discussion about the main premise of the books is in order.

Topic two--Authority. No, this is not the same as the last topic. This is a discussion that I think parents should have with their students any time they let them read a book. It is this topic that makes book seres such as Harry Potter redemptive tools and Twilight even worse than their writer's bad writing skills. In Twilight, children defy a good authority and nothing bad happens--well, sort of. In Harry Potter, children defy a good authority and bad things happen every time, and they being to learn from it. Hunger Games is different. Hunger games is like reading a history text book with a 7th grader and trying to get them to understand that maybe the Americans weren't 100% right in revolting against the English, only in Hunger Games it's more obvious that a revolt is warranted. In the Hunger Games, a girl has struggled to stay alive, beneath the radar of the authorities. Now, she is thrust in front of the eyes of the entire nation, and has to decide wether to keep on fighting for survival like she always has or confront the authorities with a situation they cannot ignore. She half-knowingly chooses the latter option and pays for it with the anonymity that allowed her freedom in the past. And this is what parents should discuss with their children-- What would you have done in Kat's situation? Would you just go along with things, mindlessly killing to stay alive, or would you risk your freedom and your life to change things? When is it okay to defy authority, and when is necessary to trust it? Both the first book and movie do a good job of showing the serious consequences in store for Kat, but they also do a good job of showing that the cause is worth the consequences.

Topic three--Violence. Again, this sort of repeats the themes of the last two. The main characters, Katniss and Peeta, are not mindless killing machines. Katniss is a hunter who is known in her district for skillfully providing quality game. Peeta is a baker's son who is strong but unacquainted with death. Both, however, are determined not to kill unless absolutely necessary. Peeta never kills anyone on purpose, and Kat kills on only three occasions, two of which are to save herself from the careers (the brutishly violent, well trained tributes who enjoy killing). Her first kills are not direct--she drops a (spoiler alert) hive of deadly bees on the career's camp (thanks to the help of her future friend Rue) and one of them dies. Her next kill is to save her friend Rue, and her last kill is to put a dying career out of the misery of being devoured alive. Yes, these books are very violent. But they are depicting a war that drives the heroes to change the world.

In contrast to the violence that Katniss and Peeta are forced to exert, we see careers who boast in their violent abilities, and the game makers who ultimately decide how much pain a tribute is going to experience in their death. This is where the movie does a slightly better job than the book at showing this contrast. In the book, Katniss only imagines that certain plights are created by the game makers. In the movie, we see a hoard of uniformed men and women starting fires, knocking down trees, and quite literally driving the tributes to their deaths. And they do not seem remorseful--they look like 15 year old boys do when they play video games. This is the contrast that makes these books redeemable. This is the contrast that makes the violence necessary--to show what happens when we allow ourselves to watch depictions of war or gang violence or rape and think "That's not real--they are only actors." These game makers are interested in a good show, but they are playing with the real lives of 24 children, and they show no remorse. One of them is (spoiler alert) even forced to commit suicide because he did not control them well enough and allowed Katniss her opportunity for defiance. And it is this part that made me wary watching 10 year olds exit the theatre--"Do they really understand what was going on? Do they see that the violence was crafted by evil men wanting control? Do they see that the books and movies are not about the thrill of the games but about an experience that drives the heroes to confront their government and oust evil?" Most 10 year olds do not. So, if you are going to let yours watch the movie, watch it with them and discuss it at length.

Overall, book 1 is good, and so was movie 1. They are culturally relevant, without being full of specific political agendas. They are morally relevant, worth a read for parents whose children are interested. They are well written for the target age group of "Young Adult." I like them, and I am eager to read "Catching Fire" and "Mockingjay."

If you are unsure about them, I would encourage you to read the books. In my opinion, the violence is only a small fraction of the true point of the books and is more than redeemed by the other parts. But, like I said, please see for yourself (book first, of course).

Em

PS: After I read book 2, I may change some of my opinions but I don't think that will happen. From what I know about "Catching Fire", it will only further show the consequences that one must endure when one chooses to do right when the whole world is rooting for you to do what is wrong.

"All happy families resemble one another"

I am so glad that I am a part of 2 large, happy families. When I was younger I was afraid that when I got married having 2 families of equal importance would be difficult. Now that I'm married, I've found that while it's busy, it is wonderful!

I am so grateful to have 2 sets of parents who get along, a true phenomenon in my personal experience. I am so glad that Chris and I got to spend Thanksgiving at my parents's house with my grandparents, grandma, great grandma, great aunt, uncle, aunt, and cousins, as well as Chris' parents and siblings (read: siblings that currently reside on the same part of the planet that the rest of us do). It was so much fun, and my dad and Leo Tolstoy said it well-- Happy families resemble one another.

Chris's family and my family have this in common: We all love Jesus. Our families are very different (aside from our employment of sarcasm--it's really overworked), there is no getting around that. We have lengthy discussions on how different our families are and could make long lists of pros and cons, but we love them both the same. Neither is better or worse, they are both different and they are both good and they are both trying their best to show the Love of Jesus to the world through the redeemed relationships they hold. I love it.

Naturally, this has led into conversations that resemble topics such as "What will our family be like?" And as of right now, we still have no idea. We know for certain that it will not be quiet. There is no quiet option, really; there never was nor will there ever be. And we're pretty certain that many things we be destroyed, fixed, replaced, and destroyed again. But we have decided that one thing will most certainly be true: above all else, our family will know what is important and focus on that above all else. What is important? Jesus--they chief end of man--glorifying Him and enjoying Him forever. We will do that in our family as well as we can. And I pray that our family will help show others how to achieve that chief end as well.

Some day I will expand this topic of family into adoption. It's a topic that defines my relationship with Jesus, helped me understand the Love of God, and hopefully some day will begin a relationship with some wonderful children my parents are praying for. I start to tear up thinking about the possibility of these children and pray that some day I may be able to help a child understand how much God loves them, something that was (is) hard for me to grasp, by recounting their own history. I may also expand this topic into the very broad topic of children in general some day.

For now, though, I need to stop. If I don't, I'll write for hours and neglect the bible study sections I must complete before Thursday morning. Writing is good, reading and studying is better. I must learn to choose the better option. Oh how philosophical of me..

M

a hazard to myself

I injure myself. Often. Most days, I don't realize it until I put lotion on my legs and realize I have a large bruise on the side of my calf or look down at my pinky toe and realize that when I stubbed it 20 minutes ago, it drew blood. I can deal with these things. It's my recent proclivity toward removing portions of my digits in kitchen settings that bothers me.

Two years ago I sliced my right pointer finger open on a removable bin at Sonic. I got 2 stitches and had my first and only experience with prescription strength pain killers. Seven months ago I shaved the skin of the second knuckle of the aforementioned digit almost cleanly off with a cheese grater. I passed out, went to school an hour later with a throbbing hand, and taught with a bandage and splint on my finger for 2.5 weeks. This morning (while caring for 2 children which are not mine), I sliced through half of my left thumb nail with a large knife while chopping onions. I -nearly- passed out and would have gone to get stitches if they could put stitches through a fingernail.

I must also mention, though, my literal hero in all three of these events--my husband. Two years ago with the first nearly deadly injury, he happened to be stopping by Sonic to get a midnight refill of Dr. Pepper, only to leave with large amounts of my blood literally on his hands. Seven months ago, I woke him up from a sound sleep with blood dripping down my arm and 30 second later passed out on top of him. Today, I calmly called him away from playing Lego Starwars with an impassioned six-year-old to figure out what to do with a spliced nail-bed. Today is probably the first day of my life I can honestly say "I'm so glad that my husband works nights."

So, by the time I'm 40, the likelihood of me having 10 fingers is at about 75%. It's almost just as likely that my pinky toes will no longer be attached to my foot, and if they are they will almost certainly be much shorter than they currently are. I just hope that I never have to experience any of the amputations without my personal EMT.

M

P.S. While there are many tasks that were more difficult to do without a working right index finger, there are many more that are nearly impossible to perform without the use of a thumb: zipping a ziplock bag, putting hair up in a pony tail, buttoning and unbuttoning things, washing hair, opening jars, opening doors, and last but not least, texting. I now know why animals not having opposable thumbs is such a big deal.

and something's breaking up, i feel like giving up...

Watching Gossip Girl—a show I in no way endorse but am nevertheless hooked on for at least the near future—and White Collar—a show I do endorse and am also hooked on but I'm slightly less obsessed with it because I can only watch when my husband is home—has taught me one thing-- I am tenacious. [Tenacious: not readily letting go of, giving up, or separating from an object, a position, or a principle that one holds; synonyms: firm, tight, fast clinging, strong, forceful, powerful, unshakeable, immovable] This characteristic in myself is not quite as obvious to me as it is in some of my siblings (namely the one who used to wrestle everyone until she was incapacitated with injury) but it is there in my heart and often makes my head spin.

This characteristic is why I love the main character of White Collar, Neil an ex-con who risks his freedom and often his life to find the only woman he's ever loved. This characteristic is also, however, why I hate every on Gossip Girl, because they are entirely opposite in their attempts at love. Why do I watch Gossip Girl then? Because I am also an eternal optimist. Now, in my own life I have found a few areas in which (for the ease of existence) I have begun to be more realistic and set more attainable expectations of others in my own mind. Nevertheless, it still bothers me to no end when I hear "I love you, but neither of us can change so we're doomed to an existence of being with others yet always keeping this emotional affair alive." Bleck. Gross. *Cue screams at the computer screen* I keep watching the show because my inner optimist says "No! They'll figure it out! I must rejoice with them when they do!"

How has my optimist treated me? Well, so far I'm halfway through Season 2 and I'm flying through episodes faster and faster keeping myself busy with cooking and cleaning and grading in the process so I don't throw my computer out the window at the end of one of these episodes. There are only 2 people—one couple for the time being—that seem to get the "We can make the fact that we're both from different worlds work if we actually work at it." And that's where my tenacity is at an impasse. I am so blessed to be married to a man who understand that love takes work, yet we both had to decide "Are we holding on in vain, or is this worth it?" It worked out well for us, so I would hold that love is always worth holding onto. Yes, I am talking about emotions and romance. I'm also talking about mess—about differences and fights and unkind words. Is this true?

In my opinion, love is only true if you fight for it. Yes, that sounds like something that middle schoolers post as their "About me" on Facebook, but I mean it. Do you really love someone if you are not willing to do everything in your power to hold onto them? Sure, there are times when there needs to be a break or when it might be obvious that they don't share your feelings in the least, but often times I see people with marriages and families who are broken because they lost their will to fight. Yes, even fight with each other.

Despite what most may think, relationships need resistance in order to grow stronger. My relationship with my husband has never grown without some sort of disagreement, and our biggest steps in loving each other better have come after the most uncomfortable conversations and conflicts. I prefer the word conflict because it's more descriptive—conflict: an incompatibility between two or more opinions, principles, or interests (note, people is not mentioned). A "conflict of interests" is the perfect way to define most arguments and fights—usually you both want the same thing, but for yourself, and aren't willing to give up anything to get it. And that is what I hate.

I am a selfish, independent, and sometimes hot-headed individual, and only one thing can make me stop crying out "I'm right, you're wrong, give me what I want!" That one thing is the realization that in demanding things of others, I am doing the same thing to them that I perceive they have done to me. In times when I attempt to manipulate others to get what I want, I am doing so because I fear that they will be just like me and never give into my desires. When I threaten—with my words or actions—to withhold my favor, love, affection, or support from them in order to get what I want, I do so out of fear that they will do the same and not care. I would say that the only time I am not an eternal optimist is when I am not getting what I perceive I need.

What is it, though, that I really need? It's not that I need to be happy. Even less than that, I do not even need to be comfortable, feel safe, or affirmed by anyone else. What I need most is to be securely possessed by someone who fought for me. Sure, I have a husband who did that for a long time, and still does that. But that is not enough to fulfill my needs. As much as I love him and as much as he loves me, my husband will not always choose to fight for my affections or my needs, and he will not always get or meet them. But I can still have all I need. I will let a writer more gifted than I take this one:

Romans 8:31-39

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised— who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, "For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerers through him who loved is. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

How is it that I can still have all I need? Because the One who didn't even spare His own Son has promised to give me all things. No, not comfort, but security—not happiness, but love. He will never give up, even if the rulers of air, land, sea, and the underworld are against me, He is fighting for me. And He has made me more than a conquerer—I am His child. Do you know what happens to the children of conquering nations? They inherit everything. He has conquered all, and because I am His child, so have I.

So, what does that have to do with fighting for love? How should that inform my tenacity? It should give me hope that the love God has given me on earth is one of His "all things" and is worth being fought for. Love is one of those common graces that God allows even those who despise Him to feel and possess on some level. Fighting for love is a sweet picture of the fight God put up for the hearts of man. Its beautiful, even when eternally flawed men attempt to replicate it. And it is not something to be taken lightly. The words "I love you" should be synonymous with the words "I will always fight for you." For love is a battlefield, contrary to pop culture. It is a war waged against ourselves and for the good of others. What Would Jesus Do? He'd fight us to save us. He did—so should we.

M

All for love the Father gave
For only love could make a way
All for love the heavens cried
For love was crucified

Oh how many times have I broken Your heart
But still You forgive
If only I ask
And how many times have You heard me pray
Draw near to me

Everything I need is You
My beginning, my forever
Everything I need is You

Let me sing all for love
I will join the angels song
Ever holy is the Lord
King of Glory
King of all

All for a love a Saviour prayed
Abba Father have Your way
Though they know not what they do
Let the Cross draw man to You

all things new

My entire life completely different from what it was the last time I posted almost a year and a half ago, and I want to blog again and do things differently. I want my blog to be a creative outlet, a place to polish my writing skills (or at least use them), and a place to share with others topics and events that are important to me. Some posts might be purely intellectual and spark debate—I welcome it! Some might be more creative and create confusion or attract criticism—I need it! And some might be simply "here's what happened today and if I had a twitter I probably would have just tweeted about this, but I hope it's funny"—I'll probably abuse this category. All posts, however, will be overflowing with ellipses, m-dashes, and parenthetical notations of various sorts—deal with it. In any case, I'm re-adding my blog to my bookmarks bar in hopes that I will talk to myself less about why Gossip Girl irritates me but I'm still going to watch it or why I'll never be in shape because I hate having to shower again after I exercise. If I become obnoxious on a topic, please tell me—you're probably the only one who reads this and I want to make sure you are mildly mentally stimulated, at the least.

Until the next time I'm waiting for my husband to get home from work...

M