Salt and Light

Election fun abounds!

So here in Lanark-Carleton (or is it Carleton-Lanark? ... I never know!) these are the candidates:

Liberal: Dan Wicklum
Conservative: Gordon O'Connor
NDP: Rick Prashaw

And currently, I don't know the name of my green party candidate ....

Have you learned who your representative is yet? Have you informed youself? The next time you see your country going to hell in a handbasket, what will you say that you've done about it?

I heard on the news, and from members of my own family, the sense of helplessness with this election: they're furious at the Liberal party for the scandals and so on, really really really don't like the NDP, but just can't bring themselves to vote conservative! To some, the solution would be to not vote at all, or spoil their ballot to show their frustration.

But I heard of something else you can do, that may have more impact that either of those two choices ... formally rejecting your ballot. Apparently it goes like this: You go to your polling booth, go through all the motions of signing in, and *after* the pollster hands you your ballot, you give it right back to them and tell them you are rejecting your ballot. Then they have to record your reason why (so have a well-thought out reason prepared, if you choose to do this)

Now, I can't say for sure what they do with the reasons you rejected your ballot (say your reason was: I would have voted Liberal but my liberal candidate supports policy X which I don't agree with ... say the liberal candidate lost, perhaps this information would be handy in helping to create new policies next time around) ... but even on the chance they keep it and parties can see it, I'd say it's worth it. Maybe it will change something. At any rate, it's better than not voting at all (then you're just another lazy Canadian that doesn't care) or spoiling your ballot (which is a form of protest ... or maybe your just don't know how to fill out a ballot ... at any rate your reason for doing so is not formally recorded)

Has any one ever heard of this before? I've talked to many people that have done this, and apparently the pollsters are trained to handle it ... but I couldn't find any evidence on the elections canada page ... hmmmm.

Ah well, let the games begin!

I had an MSN conversation with an old friend earlier today, which made me really think (and is distracting me from the talk I should be writing ... yikes! - hopefully this will be short)

He had read a book that I have read many reviews about, which criticize the book for presently certains facts that are questionable at best to outrageous at worst. It basically accuses the Church of a large cover-up conspiracy to hide the 'sacred feminine' from its early followers. (It's really quite more complex, but that is the main thrust) Now, I will admit that I have not read the book. I am told it's quite thrilling, and perhaps I will read it one day. But I will probably follow-up with one of the many books that have also been written debunking what the author presents as fact.

But all this served for a more intriguing question: upon presenting some of the reviewers who have been critical of the work, my friend dismissed them as being 'biased' So I countered that perhaps the author was also biased, and I suggested that we are all biased, to some extent. My friend disagreed, saying that the best (read: unbiased) person would be one who is educated about a certain religious following but is not a member of that religion.

I'm not sure. I've learned about other religions, but I can't say that I'm unbiased against them because I do not beleive them to be fully true (that's not to say they don't contain elements of truth) So, to that extent, I am biased against that religion. But here's the kicker: if I really investigated and learned everything there was to know about the religion and found its teachings to be (fully) true, then wouldn't I logically join that religion? But then, I'm now a member of that religion, and thus am biased *for* it ....

I guess you could counter this by saying the one who has no religion is completely unbiased ... but is that really the case? Could they not be biased against *any* religion?

Anyways, I have more thoughts on this, but there a bit jumbled right now ... and I really have to write this talk! ack! Too bad it's completely unrelated to this topic, then I could continue under the guise of research ... *sigh*

My, my, I've been purchasing a lot of books lately, and whipping through them. Right after finishing the Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands, I picked up Christopher West's Good News about Sex and Marriage (notice a theme here? must be something in the air ...)

It's a very simple read, Q&A format, but deals with fundamentally profound issues. I really can't do it justice in a short blog (becuase it's late and i have to get up early) BUT I will say that anyone who claims to know (and/or complains about) Church teaching on sexuality should read this book. John Paul II's insights on human sexuality will blow your mind. (yes, an 84 year old celibate man has insights on sexuality ... open your mind!)

It also gave me additional insight on the passage from Ephesians 5 that I wrote about last time; in some translations the word 'submission' instead of 'be suject to'. 'sub' means under, and 'mission' means 'to be sent forth with the authority to perform a specific service.' So, therefore, wives are to be under the mission of their husbands.

What is the mission of their husbands? To love their wives! So, to submit to your husband, in this sense, is to let your husband serve you. To let your husband love you, to receive that love.

I bought myself a new book yesterday. You're going to laugh, so prepare yourself: Dr Laura's The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands.

Laughing yet?

Well, I'm laughing because: #1 the title's kinda funny (does it mean that men can't take care of and feed themselves? No, that's not what the book is saying) and #2: I don't have a husband!

But perhaps I will, one day.

I acutally purchased the book both for myself and other women in my life who I hope to lend the book to. In particular, a friend who recently got engaged (Congratulations!!!) And in the whirlwind of plans for the wedding, with the flowers and music and dresses and dinner and presents and cake and ... well you get the idea, the important, the central, the absolutely critical thing to remember is: this is not a wedding, this is a marriage.

And from what I have heard and seen, marriages take work. The don't just happen when you find the perfect person and there are birds chirping and little hearts floating around your heads and you'll ride off into the sunset and live happily ever after. They take work, they take sacrifice.

And that is what this book is about. The basic message of the book is this: Men need "clear communication, appreciation, honest love, and respect. This will be repaid by laying the moon and stars at [his wife's] feet for [her] pleasure." So simple, the sad question is: did she really need to write a book about this?

Apparently yes. I know because within about the first 50 pages (ok, page 51 exactly) I saw myself and how I had been acting to a certain someone. I don't have the exact quote here (I'll find it later), but it's about fear. With all the failed relationships and emotional baggage that many people carry around, so many women fear getting hurt yet again. So, they turn around and take out that fear on their current partner. Which is completely unfair. Their current partner is not the one that hurt them, so why treat him as if this were so? Her advice to these women: "Love your husband as if you've never been hurt."

1 John 4:18 says There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear

So, in this line of thinking, I had a discussion with my mum about certain readings from the Bible regarding marriage. Having worked in a church office, my mum has talked with many brides about picking the readings for their special day, and they pretty much all refused to consider the reading from Ephesians 5:21-33. Here's the first part: (girls, you may be offended!)

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

But right before that, Ephesians 5:21 says this:
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

and Ephesians 5:25-33 goes on to say this:
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Seems one-sided, eh? Wives getting the short end of the stick, we have to submit and respect, and all the husbands have to do is love? Where's the equality? Where's the partnership? Isn't that a recipe for one-sided domination?

Well, let's take a look at the passage once again. What is the core issue that so many people have with it? I submit this to you: it is fear. Fear that men will take this passage and interpret it to mean that they may lord over their wives and dominate them and women just have to sit there and take it. Is this fear well-founded? Perhaps ... it has been used in the past for just that purpose. But I do not believe that is what this passage is truly saying.

Husbands are to love their wives. Previously, I have refected on what is love? Well, here's something to add onto that: (from the Pope's exegesis of the text of Ephesians 5 in 1982)

The husband and the wife are in fact "subject to one another", and are mutually subordinated to one another. The source of this mutual subjection is to be found in Christian pietas, and its expression is love.

The author of the letter underlines this love in a special way, in addressing himself to husbands. He writes: "You husbands love your wives...", and by expressing himself in this way, he removes any fear that might have arisen (given the modern sensitivity) from the previous phrase: "Wives, be subject to your husbands".

Love excludes every kind of subjection whereby the wife might become a servant or a slave of the husband, an object of unilateral domination.

Love makes the husband simultaneously subject to the wife, and thereby subject to the Lord himself, just as the wife to the husband.

So, not only does love also make the husband subject to his wife, it actually goes much further! By loving their wives, men are to give up their lives for them, just as Christ did for the Church. I don't know about you, but I think that's asking a lot of husbands. Wives are not asked to do that. And when my mum realized this truth, I think she was surprised ... now it appears that men are receiving the short end of the stick.

But this isn't about who has it worse, or any sense of one-upmanship. I see in this passage the beauty of the complementarity of the roles of husband and wife. And how the love of the husband for the wife is a reflection of the love of Christ for the Church. And I think it's poetic and beautiful.

Interesting article - bring me back to those days in Marion in that class ... the one with the guest speakers ... that we never listened to ... Remember those?

Though y'all that actually plan to pursue a career as a software engineer would be interested.

I was listening to a tape recently about dating and relationships. At the end, the speaker reads a story from the book, I Kissed Dating Goodbye which really touched me. I found it on the Internet, and want to share it here:

In the place between wakefulness and dreams, I found myself one morning in a room. There were no distinguishing features except for one wall which was covered with index card files. They were like the ones used in libraries that list titles by author or subject. But these files, which stretched from floor to ceiling, had very different headings.

As I drew near, the first to catch my eye was one that read "Girls I’ve dated." I opened it and began flipping through the cards. I quickly shut it, shocked to realize I recognized every name.

And then, without being told, I knew exactly where I was. This room, with row after row of files was a catalog system for my life. Here were written the actions of my every moment, big and small, in a detail my memory couldn't match.

A sense of wonder, curiosity, and horror, stirred within me as I began randomly opening the files and exploring their contents. Some brought joy and sweet memories; others a sense of shame and regret so intense I’d look over my shoulder to see if anyone was watching.

A file named "Friends" was next to one marked "Friends I’ve betrayed." The titles ranged from "Books I’ve Read," to "Lies I’ve Told," Some of the files were almost hilarious in their exactness: "Things I've yelled at my brother." Others I couldn't laugh at like "Things I’ve Done in Anger."

Often there were many more cards than I expected. Sometimes fewer than I hoped. I was overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the life I’d lived. Could it be possible that I had the time in my years to write each of these millions of cards? But each card confirmed the truth. Each was written in my handwriting. Each signed with my signature.

When I pulled out the file marked "Songs I’ve listened to," I realized the files grew to contain their contents. The cards were packed tightly, and yet after two or three yards, I hadn't found the end of the file.

Then I came to a file marked "Lustful Thoughts." I felt a chill. I pulled the file out only an inch, not willing to test its size. I drew out a card. I shuddered at the detail. I felt sick. To think such a thought had been recorded. An instinct rushed over me. One thought dominated my mind: "No one must ever see these cards!

In an insane frenzy, I yanked the file out of the drawer. Its size didn't matter. I had to empty it and destroy its contents. But as I took it at one end and began pounding it on the floor, I couldn’t dislodge a single card. I became desperate and pulled out a card, only to find it as strong as steel when I tried to tear it.

Defeated and utterly helpless, I returned the file. Leaning against the wall, I let out a long, self-pitying sigh. And then the tears came. But as I pushed away the tears, I saw Him. Jesus. I watched helplessly as He began to open the files and read the cards. I couldn't bear to watch. And finally, when I did look up, I saw a sorrow deeper than my own.

Finally He turned and looked at me. I covered my face. He walked over. He put His arm around me. He could have said so many things. But He didn't say a word. He just cried with me. Then He got up and walked back to the wall of files. He took out a file and, one by one, began to sign His name over mine on each card. "No!" I shouted. “Your name shouldn’t be there.” But there it was, written in red so rich.

The name of Jesus covered mine, written in blood. He gently took the card back, placed it back in the box and took out another. I don't think I'll ever understand how He did it so quickly, but within minutes I heard Him close the last file. He walked back over to me. He placed His hand on my shoulder and he said, "It is finished."

A comment on my last post prompted me to share another story, which I wrote in the comments section. However, I feel so strongly about this that I'll re-post it here. But first, an explanation. When arguing for reproductive choice, many people bring up the tragic situation of babies born with deformities. Wouldn't it be so much more compassionate to allow mothers to choose to end the life of their child, knowing the child would be born with physical or mental deformities? Knowing their life would be difficult for the child, isn't it more merciful to end their life before they know real suffering?

This question is a difficult one; I'm not going to paint the world in black and white to make my point. I pray that if God blesses me with children that I would not have to endure the cross of watching my child suffer any deformity. I don't think I'm strong enough for it. But I have faith that if God brings me such a cross, that by His Grace I will choose life and love over convenience. "If God brings you to it, He will bring you through it"

So here is my story:

About 60 years ago, a baby was born and within a few days of her birth she contracted an ear infection. The doctors back then treated such infections with dry ice. The doctors messed up, big time. They burned the baby's face, and it was scarred beyond recognition. One-half the face was covered in burns, a large section of hair removed from the head, eyelashes and eyebrows completely burned off. The baby was just a few days old.

The doctors said that the baby would be deformed for life, and that the most humane thing to do was to just let it die from the infection that would result from the burns. And that what the doctor's were about to do; let her die. Not treat the infection from the burn. The baby's parents were shocked, took the baby home and cared and nursed it back to health.

The girl grew up with large visible scars over her face, despite numerous painful surgeries to correct it. Many people would tsk tsk her upon seeing her, because they felt so sorry that she had to go through life with a visible deformity.

In her late teens, twenties and early thirties people pitied her, thinking no man would ever be able to love her and she’d have to live her life alone. Can you imagine the teasing she endured in high school and out in public? The stares, the curious looks?

Now, if you heard this story, do you think the compassionate thing to do was to let her die when she was still only a few days old? Would that have been humane, knowing the difficulties that she would have to face in life because of her deformity. Think carefully about your answer.

The merciful thing would be to end her life before she knew real suffering, right?

Wrong.

That person was my mother.

So don't ever talk to me about ending a life being the 'compassionate' thing to do.

Yes, this story is emotional. I'd like to be capable of being level-headed and logical about this, but I cannot. And neither could you, if such compassion and mercy that doesn't see the value of the life of a deformed child would result in your never being born.

From the book No Greater Love, a collection of writings by Mother Theresa.

I remember a mother of twelve children, the last of them terribly mutilated. It is impossible for me to describe that creature. I volunteered to welcome the child into our house, where there are many others in similar conditions. The woman began to cry. "For God's sake, Mother," she said, "don't tell me that. This creature is the greatest gift of God to me and my family. All our love is focused on her. Our lives would be empty if you took her from us." Hers was a love full of understanding and terderness. Do we have a love like that today? Do we realize that our child, our wife, our father, our mother, our sister or brother, has a need for that understanding, for the warmth of our hand?

A number of articles have come to my attention lately regarding the issue of 'reproductive choice'.

First is a review of a Broadway play, Lorraine Hansbury's "Raisin in the Sun." The play originally came out in 1960, and it appears that views have changed so dramatically since then, that a poignant moment in the play appeared to be completely lost on the audience.

An important moment in the plot is when a character announces she is pregnant, and considering having an abortion. In fact, she tells her mother-in-law, she's already put $5 down with the local abortionist. It is a dramatic moment. And you know as you watch it that when this play came out in 1960 it was received by the audience as a painful moment--a cry of pain from a woman who's tired of hoping that life will turn out well.

But this is the thing: Our audience didn't know that. They didn't understand it was tragic. They heard the young woman say she was about to end the life of her child, and they applauded. Some of them cheered. It was stunning. The reaction seemed to startle the actors on stage, and shake their concentration. I was startled. I turned to my friend. "We have just witnessed a terrible cultural moment," I said. "Don't I know it," he responded.

And I can't tell you how much that moment hurt. To know that the members of our audience didn't know that the taking of a baby's life is tragic--that the taking of your own baby's life is beyond tragic, is almost operatic in its wailing woe.

A second is a chilling picture from the recent March for Women's Lives that took place over a week ago in Washington. When (if?) that child is born, how will that mother explain that picture? How would you feel if that was your mother, 20-something years ago, with you in her womb? How loving. How tragic.

(aside: I have not read the remainder of the contents of that blog, so if there is anything that offends/whatever, I take no responsibility.)

Third is a letter to Dr Laura with an anecdotal story about how concerned with 'choice' one office of Planned Parenthood was about 22 years ago.

As the counselor began to speak her tone was mournful as she announced I was in fact pregnant. Although we hadn't planned on having a child this soon, I joyfully exclaimed to my husband, "Wow, we're going to have a baby." The counselor didn't even smile as she started asking us questions such as:

Are you sure you want this baby?
How old are you?
Did you plan for this pregnancy?

We were taken back by her questions and answered with:

Yes, we want the baby!
I am 20.
No, this baby is a bit of a surprise.

She then proceeded to tell us we shouldn't have children we haven't intentionally conceived. I was young and should wait until I was older and fulfilled all my dreams first. I kind of chuckled, thinking surely she wasn't serious, and stood to leave, thanking her for the results. She explained we weren't leaving until we had received sufficient counseling.

She then recommended we have an abortion. I was stunned. She continued to tell us how much better off we would be not to have this baby. At first we figured we would just let her have her say so we could leave, but it became apparent she wasn't about to let us go until we agreed. We refused to ever agree so we were told we needed to speak with someone else. I started feeling very frightened. I felt as though they were going to come in, tie me down, and take my baby out of me.

Perhaps this is an extreme example; perhaps it is normal. Can you imagine if this woman didn't have her husband at her side?

And, finally, a personal story (if you've even read this far) about why this is such an emotional topic for me. I was conceived while my parents were on many forms of birth control. One form they used acts as an abortifacient by changing the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. But I guess I was a stubborn zygote and I hung on there for dear life (pun intended). When my mother went to the doctor's office, suspecting that she was pregnant again, she went without my father.

She wasn't given her regular doctor, who was off on maternity leave (oh, the irony!) The temp doctor reported the results of the pregnancy test, in a very similar manner as the counselor in the Dr. Laura letter. She then proceeded to ask my mother "What do you want to do about this condition?" (Notice the use of euphemism? How would the patient react if the question was, "What do you want to do about the baby?)

And my mum looker her straight in the eye and said, "Well, I guess I'm having a baby" in the kind of tone that also added, "And don't you even think about trying to convince me otherwise"

Some may just dismiss this as, "Well, that's her choice! Don't you get it? It's about choice!!!"

It's about choice. That's the mantra of so many women's rights groups. But maybe I would find it more believable if they actually found the choice of abortion to be a tragic one. And I'm not sure that they do.