Last week I did some piano accompanying for a local school. On Tuesday I went to the school for several hours in the morning. At one point, between rehearsals, the choir director went to her office and returned excitedly, cell phone in hand. "I just got a text from the babysitter! My baby just rolled over for the first time!" She was thrilled, and if she felt any sadness at missing this milestone, she didn't show it.
On Saturday I drove almost two hours to meet the same director and her choirs at a choral festival in a different city. I left at 5:45 in the morning and returned five hours later. The choir director had told me at our Tuesday rehearsal that the school buses would be leaving at 5:15 a.m. and not returning until 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. since after the festival the students would be spending the day at a nearby amusement park. That mommy who missed her baby rolling over on Tuesday spent all of Saturday, her supposed "day off," apart from her baby.
When I had my first child I was teaching high school English. I would usually leave for school at 7:00 a.m. so as to allow myself sufficient time to drive to work (a 30-minute drive) and prepare for the day before students came. Leaving as soon as I was allowed to do so at the end of the day, I would get home at about 4:15. I am thankful that after my baby was born he did not have to spend time in day care or with paid babysitters, as my husband's schedule at the time allowed him to care for the baby several days per week and my mom watched him the other days. That first day I drove away at 7:00 a.m. after six weeks' maternity leave, knowing I would not return for over nine hours, I could hardly drive for the tears. But at least I got to come home after school, and I got my weekends off (albeit with plenty of grading brought home). I can't imagine having to go back to school for evening or weekend events (common for public school music teachers). By God's grace this situation lasted only about six months, as the summer after my first child was born my freelance musician husband received a full-time job offer, whereupon we decided that I would no longer work full-time. From then on I have been a full-time stay-at-home mom/part-time wage-earner. Having experienced what it was like to leave my baby for over 40 hours per week, I have never looked back nor regretted that decision.
To you mommies who are staying home with babies: may God strengthen you for these very hard days, and may He grant many moments to remind you why it's all worth it.
To you mommies who are spending days away from your babies, missing too many moments but doing the best you can with the situation you have been given: may God grant excellent caregivers to watch over your babies while you're away, and may He minimize the time you have to spend apart from your children. As much as possible, babies should be with their mommies. The moments are too quickly gone.
Showing posts with label Motherhood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Motherhood. Show all posts
Monday, April 27, 2015
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Bada Bing
Yesterday, while making lunch.
Evan: "Mom, sometimes I feel sorry for you. You work so hard."
Me: "It's okay, Evan. It's what moms do. It's why we appreciate getting pampered on Mother's Day."
Evan: "What's 'pampered'?"
Caitlin: "It's what you are right now."
Evan: "Mom, sometimes I feel sorry for you. You work so hard."
Me: "It's okay, Evan. It's what moms do. It's why we appreciate getting pampered on Mother's Day."
Evan: "What's 'pampered'?"
Caitlin: "It's what you are right now."
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
I Beg to Differ
Evan and I are still reading Charlotte's Web. This morning we had this passage:
"I didn't know you could lay eggs," said Wilbur in amazement.
"Oh, sure," said the spider. "I'm versatile."
"What does 'versatile' mean--full of eggs?" asked Wilbur.
"Certainly not," said Charlotte.
Hmmm, I don't know. In my experience, "versatile" and "full of eggs" seem to go hand in hand.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Smart, Funny Ladies
Last week I encouraged you to drop in on the ladies at A Classic Case of Madness. Today with equal enthusiasm I recommend . . . And We Laughed and Laughed. Read this post and you'll see why. You will be the one who laughs and laughs!
By the way, the aforementioned blogs have one blogger in common. Lucky for us, not only is she smart and funny, but she has smart, funny friends! If you haven't yet done so, check them out. You can thank me later!
Friday, January 7, 2011
I Think I'm Seeing a Connection Here
Recent entries from my 2011 "Forgotten English" calendar, compiled by Jeffrey Kacirk
Thursday, January 6
"married all o'er" - Said of women who after their marriage . . . become . . . miserable-looking. - Georgina Jackson's Shropshire Word-Book, 1879
Friday, January 7
"toozle" - To pull about, especially applied to any rough dalliance with a female. - John Brockett's Glossary of North Country Words, 1825
Please note that I do not personally identify with either of these locutions. My husband is a complete gentleman, and being married to him has only made me better. :-)
Thursday, January 6
"married all o'er" - Said of women who after their marriage . . . become . . . miserable-looking. - Georgina Jackson's Shropshire Word-Book, 1879
Friday, January 7
"toozle" - To pull about, especially applied to any rough dalliance with a female. - John Brockett's Glossary of North Country Words, 1825
Please note that I do not personally identify with either of these locutions. My husband is a complete gentleman, and being married to him has only made me better. :-)
Monday, September 6, 2010
How I spent part of my Labor Day weekend, or What did we do before smart phones?
A few days ago I found myself alone in a van with a certain 6-year-old. We had a little time to wait; I had a camera phone in my purse; need I say more?
In our family it seems to be the men who get blessed with gorgeous eyelashes. These came from Evan's paternal grandfather (may he rest in peace), to whom Evan bears some resemblance and with whom he shares the same initials.
And now for a little silliness.
In our family it seems to be the men who get blessed with gorgeous eyelashes. These came from Evan's paternal grandfather (may he rest in peace), to whom Evan bears some resemblance and with whom he shares the same initials.
Is that a great face, or is that a great face?
And now for a little silliness.
And a little more.
And a little more.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
How to Win Friends and Influence People
Rebekah at the Concordian Sisters blog recently posted a letter she wrote to the editor of the LCMS (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod) publication The Reporter. Her letter (which may or may not find its way into print) was written in response to a recent article in The Reporter about the Women's Leadership Institute, an LCMS organization dedicated to providing women "opportunities to grow in the unique gifts of leadership and character that God gives to women for service to Christ, the Church, and the world." I think Rebekah rightly questions the goals of the WLI, and I encourage you to read her letter as well as the article that prompted it. While initially one might ask what could possibly be wrong with encouraging women to serve others, that misses the point, because the WLI seems not so much focused on serving as on leading.
Well, then, you might ask, what's so bad about that? What's wrong with women leading?
Again, on the face of it, nothing. In fact, I spend much of my day directing and leading people. I tell them when to wake up and when to go to bed, when to eat and when to wash dishes, what pages to read in their history book and when their essay is due. I decide what snacks they will find in the pantry and what they will have for supper. I determine what picture goes on which wall and who gets new shoes this month. But I don't think the WLI cares too much about that sort of leadership. I think instead that what they are most interested in is women leading large groups of people visibly and publicly. And the great risk is that in doing so they dismiss and devalue the lion's share of women's work, because most of it is hidden and humble, known by but incredibly important to only a cherished few.
One quotation from the article effectively summarizes most of what concerns me about the concept of a women's leadership organization in the church:
"[A participant in the WLI conference] said it was 'refreshing,' as a young person, 'to see that there's actually a need and a want for us in the church.' She said it was 'awesome to see other sisters in Christ who are so 'on fire' for the Lord,' and that her experience at the conference 'makes me want to go out and serve more, and lead more, and make more of a difference.'"
There is something seriously perplexing about a young churchgoing woman who has to attend a "leadership" conference to see that her church needs her. In my experience, most churches are hungry for volunteers. The need is great and the workers are few. Too often, it is the same few people doing most of a congregation's work. How, then, could someone find it surprising or "refreshing" to discover that she is needed? My guess is that the ways she wants to be needed may be different from the ways that she actually is. But true service is not a matter of cherry-picking the jobs that appeal to you or the ones that will build your self-esteem or bring you praise. True service is being willing to do that which is inconvenient and unappealing and tedious and dirty (kind of like being a mother, no?).
I'm not even going to touch the phrase about being "on fire for the Lord"--that is a whole other post--but I can't ignore the final reference to making "more of a difference." More of a difference than what? Implicit in that statement is the belief that the kind of service that requires "leadership" as it is defined by organizations like WLI is inherently more valuable than the sort of leadership I provide on a daily basis for the poor miserable sinners who share my roof.
Please understand: I have no problem with women leading in ways that are in accord with God's word. My husband's assistant cantor is a woman, and she contributes much to enabling the Lord's song in our congregation. But she is also a wife and mother, and I think she would agree that the service and leadership she provides at home by caring for her husband and baby girl are far, far more important than any of her singing or organ playing or choir directing. I have known many other women in the church who have served as teachers, school principals, board members, deaconesses, musicians, composers, editors, event coordinators, counselors, secretaries, and more. But you know what? None of them needed a leadership conference to tell her that there was a need for her gifts nor to convince her to share those gifts in service to God's people.
When you get right down to it, the establishment of a women's leadership organization within the church is a buying into the mindset that women have heretofore been kept down and that they need to be liberated from the patriarchy in order to truly fulfill their potential. It is at its core unbiblical. It is also--and I think this is what bothers me most of all--rooted in the Law. Because far from feeling liberated, when I contemplate participating in such an organization or attending one of its events I instead feel burdened. You mean to say that what I am doing right now is not enough? You want me to do MORE? And if I don't it means I'm not on "fire" for the Lord?
Note to WLI: I'm sure you mean well, but I think I'll pass. And now, if you'll excuse me, there's a certain 6-year-old little boy who needs and wants me to make a difference in his life by directing him to his bed and leading him in a story and a prayer.
Well, then, you might ask, what's so bad about that? What's wrong with women leading?
Again, on the face of it, nothing. In fact, I spend much of my day directing and leading people. I tell them when to wake up and when to go to bed, when to eat and when to wash dishes, what pages to read in their history book and when their essay is due. I decide what snacks they will find in the pantry and what they will have for supper. I determine what picture goes on which wall and who gets new shoes this month. But I don't think the WLI cares too much about that sort of leadership. I think instead that what they are most interested in is women leading large groups of people visibly and publicly. And the great risk is that in doing so they dismiss and devalue the lion's share of women's work, because most of it is hidden and humble, known by but incredibly important to only a cherished few.
One quotation from the article effectively summarizes most of what concerns me about the concept of a women's leadership organization in the church:
"[A participant in the WLI conference] said it was 'refreshing,' as a young person, 'to see that there's actually a need and a want for us in the church.' She said it was 'awesome to see other sisters in Christ who are so 'on fire' for the Lord,' and that her experience at the conference 'makes me want to go out and serve more, and lead more, and make more of a difference.'"
There is something seriously perplexing about a young churchgoing woman who has to attend a "leadership" conference to see that her church needs her. In my experience, most churches are hungry for volunteers. The need is great and the workers are few. Too often, it is the same few people doing most of a congregation's work. How, then, could someone find it surprising or "refreshing" to discover that she is needed? My guess is that the ways she wants to be needed may be different from the ways that she actually is. But true service is not a matter of cherry-picking the jobs that appeal to you or the ones that will build your self-esteem or bring you praise. True service is being willing to do that which is inconvenient and unappealing and tedious and dirty (kind of like being a mother, no?).
I'm not even going to touch the phrase about being "on fire for the Lord"--that is a whole other post--but I can't ignore the final reference to making "more of a difference." More of a difference than what? Implicit in that statement is the belief that the kind of service that requires "leadership" as it is defined by organizations like WLI is inherently more valuable than the sort of leadership I provide on a daily basis for the poor miserable sinners who share my roof.
Please understand: I have no problem with women leading in ways that are in accord with God's word. My husband's assistant cantor is a woman, and she contributes much to enabling the Lord's song in our congregation. But she is also a wife and mother, and I think she would agree that the service and leadership she provides at home by caring for her husband and baby girl are far, far more important than any of her singing or organ playing or choir directing. I have known many other women in the church who have served as teachers, school principals, board members, deaconesses, musicians, composers, editors, event coordinators, counselors, secretaries, and more. But you know what? None of them needed a leadership conference to tell her that there was a need for her gifts nor to convince her to share those gifts in service to God's people.
When you get right down to it, the establishment of a women's leadership organization within the church is a buying into the mindset that women have heretofore been kept down and that they need to be liberated from the patriarchy in order to truly fulfill their potential. It is at its core unbiblical. It is also--and I think this is what bothers me most of all--rooted in the Law. Because far from feeling liberated, when I contemplate participating in such an organization or attending one of its events I instead feel burdened. You mean to say that what I am doing right now is not enough? You want me to do MORE? And if I don't it means I'm not on "fire" for the Lord?
Note to WLI: I'm sure you mean well, but I think I'll pass. And now, if you'll excuse me, there's a certain 6-year-old little boy who needs and wants me to make a difference in his life by directing him to his bed and leading him in a story and a prayer.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Stupid Housewife Thoughts
One of the questions being asked about Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan is whether or not she's a lesbian.
I don't care. If she's not making an issue of it, coming out militantly in favor of a gay rights' agenda, then in my opinion it's not worth talking about. A lot of public servants engage in behaviors that are against my personal moral code. For example, I daresay that many politicians whose views I agree with have committed the sin of fornication. I think that is wrong. But in today's culture it is common for people to not see anything wrong with it. So as much as I would like for all of my leaders to live a sexually pure and decent life, I don't think realistically that I have much hope of that. Therefore, if a person doesn't engage in a behavior publicly, flaunting and defending it as an "alternative" choice that is as legitimate as any other, and if the behavior doesn't compromise his ability to do his job, I am not going to lose sleep over it. We all sin daily and fall short of the glory of God in ways big and small. The question for me when it comes to a public figure is whether or not the sin is being committed in such a way that its consequences are foisted on those the public figure is called to serve.
Back to Elena Kagan. Interestingly enough, it is not the conservatives who are politically opposed to her that seem to be most obsessed with the question of her sexuality. It is, rather, her political allies and friends. Case in point: this column in The Washington Post, penned by Ruth Marcus, who identifies herself as a friend of Kagan's. The opening sentence of her column:
"She's not gay, okay?"
Marcus goes on to say that she wishes Kagan were gay because it would be of great benefit to the country to have an openly gay woman on the Supreme Court, but that she knows for a fact that such is not the case, and that the only reason people are talking about Kagan's sexual identity is because she is an older woman who has never married nor had children.
I appreciate Marcus' point. An "older" woman's lack of husband and children (I'm putting "older" in quotation marks because I don't think Kagan is much older than I!) should not be taken as reason to suspect that she is a lesbian! God does not call every woman to the vocation of wife and mother. But after arguing that we should not come to one conclusion about Kagan based upon her lack of a husband, Marcus goes on to promote another that I think is just as silly: in her opinion, Kagan is just too smart for marriage and motherhood.
I'm suddenly having a flashback to the 1970's, when the militant women's liberation movement was still raging and the argument was that there were two kinds of women: thinking types who went out and got a "real" job, and heads full of mush who opted to stay home and rear their children.
I thought we had gotten beyond that mindset. I guess not.
So Cate, Melody, Lora, Jane, Elephant's Child, Susan, and Rebekah, Reb. Mary and Gauntlets, I have some news for you: the only reason you have a husband and kids is that you're not very bright. If you had been smarter, those guys wouldn't have married you. And the fact that you are home caring for them and their children instead of out in the workforce means that you are even dumber than we suspected. (By the way, that list of links could have been longer. But my poor, feeble, little brain is tiring so I had better wrap up this post while I have some mental juice remaining).
Of course, I'm being ironic. The ladies to whose blogs I have linked are not only stay-at-home moms but are some of the smartest people I know. But here's a thought that is not meant to be ironic. Maybe Elena Kagan has never been married because she just hasn't found the right guy yet. Or maybe God has other plans for her (plans which I personally hope don't include being on the Supreme Court, but on that one I'm not holding my breath).
I don't care. If she's not making an issue of it, coming out militantly in favor of a gay rights' agenda, then in my opinion it's not worth talking about. A lot of public servants engage in behaviors that are against my personal moral code. For example, I daresay that many politicians whose views I agree with have committed the sin of fornication. I think that is wrong. But in today's culture it is common for people to not see anything wrong with it. So as much as I would like for all of my leaders to live a sexually pure and decent life, I don't think realistically that I have much hope of that. Therefore, if a person doesn't engage in a behavior publicly, flaunting and defending it as an "alternative" choice that is as legitimate as any other, and if the behavior doesn't compromise his ability to do his job, I am not going to lose sleep over it. We all sin daily and fall short of the glory of God in ways big and small. The question for me when it comes to a public figure is whether or not the sin is being committed in such a way that its consequences are foisted on those the public figure is called to serve.
Back to Elena Kagan. Interestingly enough, it is not the conservatives who are politically opposed to her that seem to be most obsessed with the question of her sexuality. It is, rather, her political allies and friends. Case in point: this column in The Washington Post, penned by Ruth Marcus, who identifies herself as a friend of Kagan's. The opening sentence of her column:
"She's not gay, okay?"
Marcus goes on to say that she wishes Kagan were gay because it would be of great benefit to the country to have an openly gay woman on the Supreme Court, but that she knows for a fact that such is not the case, and that the only reason people are talking about Kagan's sexual identity is because she is an older woman who has never married nor had children.
I appreciate Marcus' point. An "older" woman's lack of husband and children (I'm putting "older" in quotation marks because I don't think Kagan is much older than I!) should not be taken as reason to suspect that she is a lesbian! God does not call every woman to the vocation of wife and mother. But after arguing that we should not come to one conclusion about Kagan based upon her lack of a husband, Marcus goes on to promote another that I think is just as silly: in her opinion, Kagan is just too smart for marriage and motherhood.
I'm suddenly having a flashback to the 1970's, when the militant women's liberation movement was still raging and the argument was that there were two kinds of women: thinking types who went out and got a "real" job, and heads full of mush who opted to stay home and rear their children.
I thought we had gotten beyond that mindset. I guess not.
So Cate, Melody, Lora, Jane, Elephant's Child, Susan, and Rebekah, Reb. Mary and Gauntlets, I have some news for you: the only reason you have a husband and kids is that you're not very bright. If you had been smarter, those guys wouldn't have married you. And the fact that you are home caring for them and their children instead of out in the workforce means that you are even dumber than we suspected. (By the way, that list of links could have been longer. But my poor, feeble, little brain is tiring so I had better wrap up this post while I have some mental juice remaining).
Of course, I'm being ironic. The ladies to whose blogs I have linked are not only stay-at-home moms but are some of the smartest people I know. But here's a thought that is not meant to be ironic. Maybe Elena Kagan has never been married because she just hasn't found the right guy yet. Or maybe God has other plans for her (plans which I personally hope don't include being on the Supreme Court, but on that one I'm not holding my breath).
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Mother's Day Thoughts
Seeing all the Mother's Day greetings on Facebook this morning got me thinking about the meaning of motherhood. What is a mother, anyway? The ideal mother, that icon of patience, virtue, gentleness and sacrificial love who is celebrated in the greeting cards and television commercials today is, of course, nonexistent. Every mother on the planet is nothing more than another wretched sinner in need of salvation. I know that as much as I personally try to be a good wife and mother, every night when I go to bed I have to acknowledge that the day is littered with my failures: my selfishness, my neglect of my loved ones, my bad-temperedness, my impatience, my ungratefulness, my resentment of the ways I am called to serve, my . . . well, you get the picture. Thanks be to God that I don't have to approach sleep burdened by my sinfulness but that, looking to the Cross, I can close my eyes with a clear conscience, knowing that Jesus died for my sins, too--yes, even those.
And yet, even as I acknowledge my own shortcomings and those of my fellow mothers, I must also admit that there are countless women who by the grace of God model many of those characteristic maternal qualities that we honor this day. The thing is, not all of them are mothers. For reasons that are known only to our Heavenly Father, they were not called to the vocation of motherhood through either biology or the choice to be an adoptive or foster parent. Nevertheless, in their generosity of service and affection, they exemplify the ethic of motherhood. Likewise, there are women who are technically mothers but who fail their children in such far-reaching and irreversibly destructive ways--through abortion and abuse and manipulation and willful neglect--that one wonders how they can even be called "Mother."
Today I would like to call to mind a few women I have known who have modeled motherhood for me. Some of them have had their own children; some of them have not. But whether they had children or not, each allowed herself to be used by God for the purpose of mothering the people in her life, and I have been blessed to see the consequences.
I think today of . . .
Aunt Lou, my godmother. She did not have children of her own. Older sister to my father, she was like a grandmother to me, whose grandparents were distant and largely unknown. Her visits always meant lemon meringue pies (which I never had the heart to tell her I didn't much like), eating together around the table (which we rarely did when I was growing up), and praying before eating (which we also never did). Aunt Lou was joyful and irrepressible, and she loved her "dear ones" deeply and unrestrainedly. May she rest in peace.
My friend Phyllis, wife of my pastor, and quiet and humble servant of our congregation. She and Pastor do not have children, but they are godparents to many, including my youngest, Evan. Evan delights in his "Auntie Phyllis" because he senses how much she loves and delights in him. We may not have any extended family in our congregation or even in the area, but Pastor and Phyllis make us feel as though we do.
My cousin Kimberly, whose troubled young mother took her own life when Kimberly was but 8 or 9 years old. Yet Kimberly by the grace of God has managed to turn that horrible tragedy in her life into a reason not to doubt and repudiate the power of love but rather to pursue and welcome it. She is one of the most affectionate, cheerful, loving and life-embracing people I have ever known. And she is one of the few relatives I have who takes an active interest in my own children, championing them and their accomplishments with a mother's passion. Kimberly may have lost her mother far too soon and may not be a mother herself, but she understands motherhood, and she understands the value of family.
I think today of several of my sisters who did not have the strongest foundation for starting out in life and who too young found themselves mothers. From them I learned that no matter the circumstances, a baby is a blessing and a gift, to be received with joy, loved unconditionally and cared for and nurtured no matter what sacrifices one must make to do so.
I think today of the ladies who have stood in as caregivers for my own children, particularly of Kay and Ina, who have children of their own but who when they have cared for mine have treated them as their own, loving, teaching and disciplining them with a mother's heart.
I think today of the many women I have known both up close and at a distance who have taught me that the most important calling a mother has is to raise her children in the fear and love of God.
And I think of my own mother, who herself was not mothered well and who also became a mother before she was ready. She has nine children, seven of whom are still living and two who went to heaven before they were born. She did not have strong parenting help from either of her husbands, and she would be the first to admit that she, like all of us, has sometimes failed in her vocation. But her love for her children, her willingness to work and sacrifice to provide for them, her honesty, her humility, and her deeply held desire for her children to be happy and have the best in life, have never been in question. You know those mothers who lord over their children and try to control them, who expect them to behave in a certain way and who punish them when they don't, and who insist on being the center of attention in the family, getting angry when they are not? You know the kind of woman I'm talking about--the one who will never let you hear the end of it if you forget that today is Mother's Day. Well, my mother is the polar opposite of that woman. She expects little and appreciates what comes her way. Today I would like to thank her for all she has given me and try to impress upon her that it is okay now to be done with giving and to simply receive. To need someone to help and care for you is nothing to be ashamed of, and in fact, what God wants most for each of us is that we might simply acknowledge our dependence on Him and receive the gift of forgiveness and love He offers.
So to my own mom, and to all other mothers who are reading this, I would like to say: you have nothing to prove, nothing to accomplish, nothing to worry about, nothing to fear. Your sins have been paid for. Your failures have been erased. You don't need the forgiveness of the sinners you bore. The only forgiveness you need is that of your Lord, and you already have that, have had it for all time. Jesus loves you as your parents couldn't, as your husbands couldn't, as your friends couldn't, and as your children can't. He loves you, finally, as you cannot love yourself. His love is more than enough, and it comes to you new every day, never to run out. Receive it, and be glad. You are His beloved child, and that is all that matters.
And yet, even as I acknowledge my own shortcomings and those of my fellow mothers, I must also admit that there are countless women who by the grace of God model many of those characteristic maternal qualities that we honor this day. The thing is, not all of them are mothers. For reasons that are known only to our Heavenly Father, they were not called to the vocation of motherhood through either biology or the choice to be an adoptive or foster parent. Nevertheless, in their generosity of service and affection, they exemplify the ethic of motherhood. Likewise, there are women who are technically mothers but who fail their children in such far-reaching and irreversibly destructive ways--through abortion and abuse and manipulation and willful neglect--that one wonders how they can even be called "Mother."
Today I would like to call to mind a few women I have known who have modeled motherhood for me. Some of them have had their own children; some of them have not. But whether they had children or not, each allowed herself to be used by God for the purpose of mothering the people in her life, and I have been blessed to see the consequences.
I think today of . . .
Aunt Lou, my godmother. She did not have children of her own. Older sister to my father, she was like a grandmother to me, whose grandparents were distant and largely unknown. Her visits always meant lemon meringue pies (which I never had the heart to tell her I didn't much like), eating together around the table (which we rarely did when I was growing up), and praying before eating (which we also never did). Aunt Lou was joyful and irrepressible, and she loved her "dear ones" deeply and unrestrainedly. May she rest in peace.
My friend Phyllis, wife of my pastor, and quiet and humble servant of our congregation. She and Pastor do not have children, but they are godparents to many, including my youngest, Evan. Evan delights in his "Auntie Phyllis" because he senses how much she loves and delights in him. We may not have any extended family in our congregation or even in the area, but Pastor and Phyllis make us feel as though we do.
My cousin Kimberly, whose troubled young mother took her own life when Kimberly was but 8 or 9 years old. Yet Kimberly by the grace of God has managed to turn that horrible tragedy in her life into a reason not to doubt and repudiate the power of love but rather to pursue and welcome it. She is one of the most affectionate, cheerful, loving and life-embracing people I have ever known. And she is one of the few relatives I have who takes an active interest in my own children, championing them and their accomplishments with a mother's passion. Kimberly may have lost her mother far too soon and may not be a mother herself, but she understands motherhood, and she understands the value of family.
I think today of several of my sisters who did not have the strongest foundation for starting out in life and who too young found themselves mothers. From them I learned that no matter the circumstances, a baby is a blessing and a gift, to be received with joy, loved unconditionally and cared for and nurtured no matter what sacrifices one must make to do so.
I think today of the ladies who have stood in as caregivers for my own children, particularly of Kay and Ina, who have children of their own but who when they have cared for mine have treated them as their own, loving, teaching and disciplining them with a mother's heart.
I think today of the many women I have known both up close and at a distance who have taught me that the most important calling a mother has is to raise her children in the fear and love of God.
And I think of my own mother, who herself was not mothered well and who also became a mother before she was ready. She has nine children, seven of whom are still living and two who went to heaven before they were born. She did not have strong parenting help from either of her husbands, and she would be the first to admit that she, like all of us, has sometimes failed in her vocation. But her love for her children, her willingness to work and sacrifice to provide for them, her honesty, her humility, and her deeply held desire for her children to be happy and have the best in life, have never been in question. You know those mothers who lord over their children and try to control them, who expect them to behave in a certain way and who punish them when they don't, and who insist on being the center of attention in the family, getting angry when they are not? You know the kind of woman I'm talking about--the one who will never let you hear the end of it if you forget that today is Mother's Day. Well, my mother is the polar opposite of that woman. She expects little and appreciates what comes her way. Today I would like to thank her for all she has given me and try to impress upon her that it is okay now to be done with giving and to simply receive. To need someone to help and care for you is nothing to be ashamed of, and in fact, what God wants most for each of us is that we might simply acknowledge our dependence on Him and receive the gift of forgiveness and love He offers.
So to my own mom, and to all other mothers who are reading this, I would like to say: you have nothing to prove, nothing to accomplish, nothing to worry about, nothing to fear. Your sins have been paid for. Your failures have been erased. You don't need the forgiveness of the sinners you bore. The only forgiveness you need is that of your Lord, and you already have that, have had it for all time. Jesus loves you as your parents couldn't, as your husbands couldn't, as your friends couldn't, and as your children can't. He loves you, finally, as you cannot love yourself. His love is more than enough, and it comes to you new every day, never to run out. Receive it, and be glad. You are His beloved child, and that is all that matters.
Mother's Day Haul
Yesterday I took Trevor to a tournament and enjoyed some uninterrupted reading and computer time while he played chess. When we arrived home last night I was instructed to close my eyes and was led by the entire family to the kitchen table, where this lovely display awaited:
Wow! There were beautiful flowers, Les Petits Ecoliers cookies (with extra dark--70%-- chocolate), a variety box of Ferrero Rocher chocolates, a shipping confirmation for a copy of Luther's Day By Day We Magnify Thee (it will arrive in a few days), and a necklace from Coldwater Creek (one of my favorite stores). Talk about being gifted! And then there was the card, which couldn't have been more perfect. On the front is a happy pink mommy mouse in bathrobe and slippers holding a coffee cup--yep, that would be me--and the following words:
"Mom, there is only one thing standing between you and a completely rejuvenating, relaxing Mother's Day . . . ."
(open card)
"US!"
The inside of the card depicts three happy mouse children, one pink and two blue (I have one daughter and two sons). Perfect! Of course, while Mother's Day might be quieter without my mice scampering all around, it would be dreadfully lonely. Not just Mother's Day, but every day, is made complete by the presence of these souls that God has seen fit to share with me for a little while. It is hard to believe that there will come a day that I will wake up to drink my morning coffee and will go to bed that night having passed the entire day without seeing their faces or hearing their voices.
But I don't want to think about that right now. Right now I just want to soak in today. Thank you to my three mice and to their helper, Mr. Mouse, for making me feel so loved. I am blessed among women!
Sunday, May 10, 2009
My Mom
Me and Mom leaving the hospital, July 1964 (the photo spent a number of years in a circular frame--thus, the unfortunate fading)
Christmas 1981, departing for Midnight Mass
At my college senior piano recital, 1986
Wedding, 1987
Grandma, Trevor, Caitlin, and Giselle, 1998
Grandma & Evan, 2003
Happy Mother's Day, Mom. I love you!
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
My Favorite Time of Day
I am a morning person, otherwise known as a "lark." Morning is when I am at peak energy, both physically and mentally. Even when I try to sleep in, I find it hard to do so--the sun wakes up, and so do I. And I enjoy the morning hours immensely--they are my thinking and reflecting time and provide the quietness I need to get the day started out right.
My five-year-old is an "owl"--if left to his own body rhythm he would gladly stay up past 11:00 p.m. and sleep until 10:00 a.m. in the morning. Since he does not have a reason that he must wake up early, I don't see a need to impose a different schedule. So when I have reached the end of my day, usually around 9:30 p.m., I have him get ready for bed. Then after stories and prayer I kiss him good night and retire, giving him permission to continue playing in his room until he is ready to sleep. Still, if he gets too far off the rest of the family's timetable we run into conflicts. So if he is not up by 9:00 a.m. in the morning (which is most of the time), I wake him up. Then I get to enjoy this:
There is nothing like watching a sleeping child wake up. The tiniest motion of a pinky finger . . . the flicker of an eyelash or twitch of a nostril . . . the little yawns and breaths and baby sounds . . . and finally, the stretching, opening of eyes and smile . . . all followed by 5-10 minutes of cuddles. It's times like this that I most deeply count the blessings of motherhood. And the fact that I get to enjoy this after I have had several hours of peace and quiet makes it even better! I'll miss these days when they're gone.
My five-year-old is an "owl"--if left to his own body rhythm he would gladly stay up past 11:00 p.m. and sleep until 10:00 a.m. in the morning. Since he does not have a reason that he must wake up early, I don't see a need to impose a different schedule. So when I have reached the end of my day, usually around 9:30 p.m., I have him get ready for bed. Then after stories and prayer I kiss him good night and retire, giving him permission to continue playing in his room until he is ready to sleep. Still, if he gets too far off the rest of the family's timetable we run into conflicts. So if he is not up by 9:00 a.m. in the morning (which is most of the time), I wake him up. Then I get to enjoy this:
There is nothing like watching a sleeping child wake up. The tiniest motion of a pinky finger . . . the flicker of an eyelash or twitch of a nostril . . . the little yawns and breaths and baby sounds . . . and finally, the stretching, opening of eyes and smile . . . all followed by 5-10 minutes of cuddles. It's times like this that I most deeply count the blessings of motherhood. And the fact that I get to enjoy this after I have had several hours of peace and quiet makes it even better! I'll miss these days when they're gone.
Monday, November 24, 2008
The Roches
A commenter on my last post reminded me of a musical group that I had not thought of for a while. I have not followed the Roches (pronounced like the insect) throughout their career, but we do have a CD of theirs from a while back. If you are a mom, or you have a mom, or you have someone in your life who is like a mom, I think you will love this song as I do. I can't embed the video, so you will have to follow the link to listen. It was a tad slow loading on my computer. If the video gets stuck during play, you may want to hit the pause button (looks like quotation marks) and wait a minute or so to give the entire video time to load. To restart play, hit the pause button again.
I Love My Mom
I Love My Mom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)