Present

The job of the father is an interesting one. (You'll have to do your best to follow along here, as I'm not sure everything will be explained well). There are always two kinds of "present"s; those dads who are around, and those dads who actually participate. That is always the battle with any parent. I can fit into either category. Kids cannot be engaged all the time as they need to learn how to engage themselves with the world and have fun without constant stimulation. I understand those things. As I currently am sitting here with my daughter and just seeing her this morning with my wife and I, I realized something very profound:

She is going to turn out well (maybe even very well).

First of all, my wife and I are going to stay married. (blah blah blah, you can say what you need to about the whats, ifs and buts but we are going to stay married). That's just how it works in our minds. This is probably the number one reason our children will turn out alright. And, just to get a little provocative, the reason this will work is because our children will be number two in our lives. Number one is my wife, number two wife, and number zero (that's ahead of one) is the Lord. Yeah that line gets blurred base on situations, but there needs to be a line. My wife and I agree on this line.
And we still go on date nights and they are good. Even when my wife wears a (cool) ghetto hat, while making a face at pink shoes:

I am fortunate that I can be home so much. Working a job from 7-3 is a beautiful thing. It is intentional that I do not work until 430 (I think my wife would lose her mind if I did) like some teachers do because I genuinely want to get home and be there to see my daughter grow. I go in early so I can be home early. Summers off help as well. Definitely a beautiful thing. My wife being home with our child (soon to be plural) is amazing.

So the flip side of this is not being home/present. There are dads who just work too much or are home and just want to be home, not dealing with their kids--we all wrestle with that of course. But in the end it takes a bit of action. I guess I may actually be getting a little older because I can easily do this thing called "reflecting". Stay with me on the next one as my goal is not to be judgmental and there are many exceptions to this.

After hearing stories as well as looking at lives on facebook of cousins, friends, etc, who may not have "turned out" the way I thought they would: “Bring your child up in the ways of the Lord and they shall not depart." Maybe they have not departed or are still finding their way because that often is the case, but it is almost always clear to me as to why (again there are many exceptions to this). It often seems to be due to a lack of a male role in their lives. Now women rarely get picked on because they just naturally have that intuition due to many things, probably carrying around the child for 9 months and then all that milk stuff for the most part that helps them not be absent like father's can be. But an absent father who was not there altogether or just to busy in work and life (maybe even good things) is brutally detrimental to a child's development. Often involved in "good" things. The act of just being there is difficult especially for those busy minded people. That is a scary thought. I am busy minded and this is constantly a battle.

But my goal is to be here. With my wife. Our children are going to be better than just alright.

Speaking of being present, my daughter just typed this: "/lko;,l;lmml". Time to go.

One last thing, I do not know how to deal with this: "oooooo" as she is handed a new pair shoes.

because i just need to tell someone

OH my word (that may be the most gossipy, valley-girl sounding start to anything I've ever written...I swear my nails just grew longer and turned bubblegum pink, and if I laugh, it will sound like my head is empty). In these moments, I really want to close the door to the world of facebook because I lose respect for people constantly, and learn more than I ever wanted to know about fragments of society I normally do not encounter.

Cyclepassion. I don't know how I've managed to be oblivious to this when I am both female and have been riding a bike for a few years now. I'd like to believe it's because I keep the kind of company who doesn't go searching for trash like this and is really disgusted by it, but I'm sure some of them do, it just doesn't come up.

Cyclepassion=girls who have made massive achievements in the world of women's cycling suddenly deciding that they aren't powerful enough/cool enough/accomplished enough/worth enough so they take off most of their clothes (or all I think in some cases) and pose with bikes for a calendar. That was a bit of a value-infused description. Here: it's pro female cyclists who pose with bikes while wearing lingerie (or nude). Awesome...so, women's cycling is finally building momentum, gaining respect, etc, and what do the "stars" do? Take the focus OFF of their athletic accomplishments and onto their sexuality...which in case they've missed it, is one of the most enslaving places you can possibly put yourself as a female, and have lowered the respectability of women's cycling. It's really tragic that girls in general rely on their appearance, specifically whatever they define as "sexiness" to gain some sort of edge or confidence or respect, and only more tragic that while women want their sports endeavors to be as highly respected as men's sports, they lower themselves to the level of sex objects and ruin any chance of reaching the initial goal. Really? Are they that weak minded? That easily deceived?

I'm surely capable of lowering myself to those standards and feeling somewhat convinced that it's crucial to my success on all fronts to be "hot", but thankfully, overall I do know how ridiculous that is. I can see and somewhat feel where these girls are coming from, because our society has shaped us to think sexiness is a source of power and likely, the most important source of power we have as women. We're all told this, we all struggle with it. I guess I just figure most women will hit a point when they grow up and realize how false this is? Even if they do continue to struggle with it.

Women tend to blame this on men, and I see that factor. But blaming someone else also means that you do not have the ability to change the situation-it's their fault, their doing, you're just the victim and there's nothing you can do about it. This equates to being powerless. SO...lets get this straight, we, as women, pursue the flaunting of our sexuality in attempt to gain power, while we simultaneously claim that men are really the powerful ones that have created this situation in the first place and we're subject to their misuse of us. I'm rereading that statement 5 times to see if it makes sense...it's hard to follow, but in essence, it's driving home the point in my mind that we're whining men have complete control over how our sexuality is used, and yet we choose that route in order to gain control/equality with them...that seems like a really inefficient route to take.
Interestingly, I'm not a women's lib fan, I'm not into encouraging women to find their worth in gaining "equality", whatever that looks like, with men, I'm not out to lead a revolt against male dominance. I'm more into calling women to figure out how to sift through the mounds of false information we've been given on who we are to be as women, and finding the truth, the beauty, the freedom in that. There are falsities coming from generally every force in society, from Playboy to churches to corporate powerhouses. I don't think this is new information to any female out there....but I would argue that 99% of us don't feel like taking the risk of figuring out what our true design is and we'd rather just pick the most sensible looking pre-packaged option we come across, even if there are countless examples to suggest this doesn't lead to happiness or success or fulfillment. Options provide us with the flexibility to engage in our femininity in different ways depending on where we are in life, who are friends are-basically, however it works to our advantage. Sadly, options don't encourage commitment to yourself in a consistent, truthful, reliable way, and they don't really challenge us to be vulnerable enough to identify truth from fiction.
Well...sorry to vent publicly about this..just saw it on facebook and wanted to scream...it's barely public because I'm obviously not a world famous blogger...oh well, there's always cyclepassion 2012 if I can make a massive recovery from having a baby in May and end up being "drafted" by a pro-team by August, right? yikes.

not raining, still contemplating

We are in this weird place with church right now. Well, we always have been, but we're actually involved and in a weird place, as opposed to failing to be involved and being in a weird place as a result of that. What a confusing and poorly constructed sentence.
We both tend to find ourselves in leadership positions wherever we go, and I'm glad for that. What a better place to help lead than church? The conflict will always stand that we will never find a church that completely, 150% "fits", or I guess more aptly stated, that we agree with every detail of. Just a natural product of church being run by people, who are all prone to error in some fashion. It's sort of beautiful that way, though, because while we all wish and strive for perfection, the joy seems to be in the journey to attain it as opposed to finally getting there. A million cliche statements could follow-about how you truly learn to love people when they're a mess as opposed to when they're doing everything "Right", etc, etc. Just putting it out there that while I'm about to write a few criticisms and concerns, I really don't believe there is a perfect church or a perfect way or whatever. I do wonder where to draw the line with some things we lean towards or even firmly believe as far as churches go, though.
Since Hipster Christianity satisfied my desire to see some major criticisms of the "emergent church" or "hipster churches" or whatever you want to call that general movement of 20-30 somethings that insist Christianity must be entirely redone (very, very vague description on my part), my mind has drifted more towards wondering how to manage church growth and maintain community. I go to a large church-not a southern-Bible-belt mega-church, but certainly large enough for the northeast, and for a relatively smallish town compared to Austin, Texas or San Francisco, California. I love this church. Not "adore it" or "totally think they're perfect" love it, but I chose to go there as a teenager because they're clearly doing some things well, and really, I just believed in what they were doing. It's changed drastically from when I first began attending, and while I still believe in much of what they're doing, it's been a strange feeling to stop and think hm, that just doesn't make sense to me anymore.
Large churches never made much sense to me, even though I've attended one on and off for 10 years. I have a hard time measuring "success" of a church by the number of people that attend there. I can understand that perspective to a degree. However, I don't know of many examples in life where quality isn't sacrificed for the sake of quantity. Notably, when people are involved. I won't go as far to say that it is impossible, but it just seems like it's extremely difficult..and maybe that energy would be better spent elsewhere?
One argument for large churches is the amount of resources they pull in. Obviously, I think having the money to fund missions and do outreach is a great thing. The irony that seems to come with this is that along with whatever goes into missions-and unfortunately I can't speak to specific numbers because it seems that large churches, at least ours, are a bit reluctant to communicate their budget with the congregation-is that clearly, large amounts of money go into making the "marketing" the church itself. So we put out money to get people to come in the door and give it back....Ok that's really cynical, but that basic exchange does occur in some fashion. We give them a worship concert on Sundays and they provide funds so we can go build humble huts and schools and clinics for people who sleep on dirt floors. It seems like an inefficient way to do business, let alone how it reinforces the materialistic preferences of the usual American church goer.... I'll leave that go in this post. It's a sticky subject that I don't yet know how to sort through. What I'm really wondering is if our reliance on our size for resources becomes a bit of a hindrance to trusting God with things-in general, things. I'm hoping this happens in a different order...trust God for things, people come, so we give more of what we have. I guess I just get confused because it seems that for every 100 people that walk in the door there are suddenly new needs for lighting, graphics, attractive whatever. Are we really that market-driven or am I missing something?
I'm reading "The Tipping Point" by Gladwell right now. He's goofy sometimes but he references sociologists constantly...so of course I enjoy reading what he comes up with. He discusses the Rule of 150 in one chapter. Basically, around 150 people is the ideal group size for pretty much anything-military respects this, Amish-like communities in Europe respect this (Hutterites), even some wildly successful businesses known for their super low turnover rates respect this. Once your group size exceeds the 150ish range, there's suddenly a need for structure and hierarchy that you can do without when you're under the 150 mark. Additionally, if you don't impose that structure, research suggests that clicks and clans are inevitable. They indicate some sort of division-always have...lunch table at school or work, classic example. Additionally, you're no longer conveying ideas to one group, you're conveying ideas to several, small, somewhat independent groups, and hoping that they end up agreeing-though the idea may not come from their specific subdivision of the larger group. Groups under 150 can be a unified community, operate more on peer influence and peer pressure (in a good way), and rely on and appreciate eachother more. Ideas aren't filtered through subdivision leaders, there aren't factions of the group coming up with their own opinions and opposing those of the other factions. Sure, there are small issues and closer friends, etc...but in general, 150 people can operate as a unified group.
The Hutterites really fascinated me. As I mentioned, they're similar to the Amish we are familiar with in the US. Tight-knit, counter-cultural, faith-based groups of people living together in community. The Hutterites will forcibly split their group once they reach about 150 people into 2 smaller groups of about 75. They've found that the consequences of large groups, as briefly mentioned above, ruin their communities.
Our church in Philadelphia was small-it was constantly producing new churches though-interesting. I found it weird at one point, feeling like people must've had ego trips and wanted their "own" style of church. I realized at some point that truthfully, they just "got" the community thing. They realized that growth, while good, also presents problems, and it's healthier to split into smaller churches where you can truly know people and grow together. As a result, though there were clearly leaders and elders, which seemed more out of church tradition than anything, it wasn't an imposing, highly structured environment. Sidenote-churches are slightly odd because there are preachers/pastors, who automatically serve as some sort of authority in the sense that it is believed they're gifted specifically to lead in some way. However-not every preacher is a great administrator, or coordinator, or even visionary, even if we automatically give them these responsibilities. Sidenote over. Moving back to a large-church setting has been wildly confusing. It's been challenging to be re-exposed to "church politics" of who's leading what, who reports to who, who to go to for what, etc, etc. In the end, it's often still one overall visionary conducting the orchestra, but you have to go through several other appointed leaders to find this. Once a congregation is several layers removed from the key leader, or leaders, it seems their needs or opinions are easily lost in translation...or they just don't make the effort to even communicate their needs because it seems pointless. You MUSt be able to understand this-Federal Government, president, congressman...the people. Yes? Stick with me on this-I know it's generalized, and I'm glazing over some important things, etc. All those details in my mind just point towards the fact that it's clearly complicated-as opposed to the smallish church, 150 or less, where it's just not as difficult to pinpoint anyone-pastor, congregation member, choir member, children's church teacher. No organizational chart necessary...unless you want one because sometimes, we think creating defined positions will avoid conflict and enable us to do what we're gifted to do. Arguable, but it's a common model.
ANYHOW...I don't think I have this all figured out, just asking questions, voicing concerns...maybe it's just a matter of preference, maybe I'm a jerk and just think churches are romanced with the idea of attracting people to Jesus and neglect discipleship...hoping this happens in small groups...etc. This is long enough for now...

rainy morning leads to overcontemplation

I've never been a huge fan of contemporary Christian worship music...probably snotty reasons, but oh well. Now, I'm sitting here with my 1 year old listening to exactly that music because it's in the background of her "Praise Baby" video. She loves these videos, so I do, too. Whatever keeps her attention...

I never imagined moving back to suburbia-much less the same suburbia I grew up in. Again, probably snotty, elitest, presumptuous reasons (do we have any other reasons for anything in college?), but, oh well. Now, I'm sitting here in my suburban home, with a yard, with more conveniences and comforts than necessary to live well. Thank goodness the house is small and I at least don't feel like we gave into the typical "must have huge house with more room than we could ever use" ideal...

I never imagined having my own children. You guessed it...snotty, prideful reasons. Even though some make sense:). I was sure I would be looking after orphans in a third world country, or at least adopting one. Now, as I already mentioned, I have a 1 year old daughter of "my own flesh and blood" climbing all over me, and a second child growing inside. At least we're only having two. Hmm...wonder if Jonathan scheduled his appointment to discuss permanently capping it at two....

Do most people "grow up" and have the life they imagined? I'm guessing not, in many ways. It's hard to make sense of, some days. I don't generally love living here, there are still the same ideals and ideas that push me towards third world countries. On the other hand, I see more needs around me than I ever have, and maybe, just maybe have more compassion-compassion that's unrestricted to only the poorest of the poor as the UN would see them. I see the point of doing ministry here-and see Jesus as the center of that ministry instead of a prideful rebellion against wealthy Americans. I've learned to love family instead of running from it, deal with inconsistencies in the church instead of running from them, try to help people understand poverty instead of hating them for being oblivious to it.

Clearly, we were called to our current lives...Amaris was planned by God, a total surprise to us. We opened our minds to the possibility of a second, with a very limited time-frame for getting pregnant, and here we are. 1 month of "trying"...or just NOT trying to NOT have a baby, and we're already 14 weeks into this pregnancy.

No real point in writing this..maybe just my way of making sense of waking up to a cold, rainy suburban morning and watching Praise Baby while reading Facebook updates of friends in other countries. I can't, and won't, begin to imagine where we will be in 5 years..the past 5 have been truly unexpected, and amazing, so I don't expect anything other than that for the next 5. I know that if I had continued on the path I had set for myself 5 years ago, I would have a very limited perspective of grace, a twisted understanding of Jesus' command to love people, and would be trapped in rebellious pride and self-righteousness. It's easy to fall into the trap of living for good things, purposes, reasons but having a completely wrong attitude about it. Some people have to leave their homes to figure that out...I guess I had to stay. Whatever it takes. Is it fair then, to say, if you've never left because you were afraid to, leave; if you've never stayed and tried to be part of your home community because running is easier, stay?

ps...Amaris has food allergies

Life has changed greatly since our last blog entry. Why write tonight? We just watched Food Inc., which obviously I would be a fan of (if you know me you will certainly not be surprised). We have been refining our diets/food choices over the past several months as it is....and will now refine them even more. One of the kick-offs to our decision to closely examine and dramatically change how we eat was Amaris's food allergies...which I realized I had now posted about. So you shall hear it now.

After spending the morning of June 1 in the ER with Amaris treating her anaphylaxis-unknown cause at the time, we've gone through all sorts of research and allergy testing to determine that she is highly allergic to milk, eggs and peanuts (likely tree nuts as well).

People have mixed reactions to this news, but its safe to group them all into the general categories of "pity" and "shock." We have had our own reactions, of course, which I would place into the categories of "fear" and "amazement." Fear is obvious-I never want to have to rush Amaris to the ER again, for any reason. I am still rather petrified when I introduce a new food and she coughs or I see a potential red spot on her face, etc. It's much more difficult to decide to leave her with a babysitter or put her in any "mass" of kids because of how easily she could come in contact with one of the allergens. Fear is fear. I hate it, because it controls me more often than I would like. That reaction has diminished since we first learned of her condition, but at a very, very slow rate.

Amazement. Short story=Jonathan had a nutrition course in March that prompted us to aim for a primarily vegan diet. In case you don't know..."vegan" = NO animal products. No meat, no eggs, no dairy. We considered ourselves 80% vegans.....8 out of every 10 meals were animal-product free. We still enjoyed occasional pizza, ice cream, seafood. I bought cookbooks, learned new recipes, found reliable restaurants, etc. We were ok with omitting these things from our diet for health reasons. June 1 and subsequent events occur and we're suddenly much more than 80%. We still eat meat occasionally, and I am ok with that, but dairy and eggs are gone. Breastfeeding means my food becomes hers, so I had to completely eliminate all of the allergens from my diet. People wondered why we didn't just switch to soy formula (yuck) or said "Well at least you can eat what you want in a few months!". Our approach is to eat how Amaris must eat....because who on earth wants to make one meal for their kid and one meal for themselves...as well as have potentially deadly ingredients laying around the kitchen for a kid to accidentally get into. So, yay providence....we were prepared in advance for this switch, and it could not have been easier (unless we were lifetime vegans....).

That's the main update...I'll spare you my praise for Food Inc, though I think you should all watch it. No, it doesn't promote veganism, or even vegetarianism...just exposes the mess of the food industry and gives you insight on what you're eating. It's not going to make you puke (well, I guess it could...I didn't feel sick once, and I have a weak stomach, especially for animal blood and meat...which there's little of). If you like money, at all, or need it, at all, you must believe that this film's message is truth.

Good luck.Good night.

All-Nighters

This phrase used to have such a fun meaning back in middle school and high school. It brought to mind thoughts of fun parties with friends consisting of innocent games of truth-or-dare, movies, pizza, and ice cream that lasted into the early mornings hours. In college, an "all-nighter" looked a little bit more grim, generally describing a sleepless night of studying before final exams, or typing and hitting backspace a thousand times before completing a 40 page paper due in the morning and not yet started.

As an adult, the phrase "all-nighter" had all but dropped out of my vocabulary. Sure, there are late nights, long nights, middle-of-the-nights, and endless nights, none of which share the same previously discussed connotations of "all-nighters," at least in my personal dictionary.

The past 2 nights have revived the term. Saturday night, especially, kicked off the resurrection of the more negative "all-nighter" phrase. We've heard about these happening with babies and tried to ignore the stories and avoid working up a traumatic mental image of what this actually might look like. It's been 4 months, and we finally had our first "all-nighter" experience with Amaris.

Somehow, through this cold that she has had, she seems to have forgotten how to suck her thumb to sooth herself to sleep. This was a sensible decision on her part, because every time she sucks her thumb she struggles to breath due to her stuffy nose. Smart kid, learns quickly. However, now she has trouble putting herself to sleep at night, and back to sleep when she wakes up for some weirdo baby reason (they have millions I'm sure).

Saturday night began with her usual bedtime of 8pm . After a trip to her bedroom every 40 minutes, by 12:30 am we ended up in the living room with me sleeping on our usually cozy armchair and Jonathan on the couch, Amaris in my arms and me on duty to lull her back to sleep each time she awoke. Between 8-12:30 these trips involved responding to her crying by trying to sooth her with a pacifier, remind her of her thumb's magic, and finally picking her up, lulling her back to sleep, carefully laying her down and tip-toeing out of the room hoping she would stay put. The feeling of success came to an abrupt end within 35-40 minutes when she started screaming.

I'm sure being sick, her ears don't feel the greatest and she just feels awful overall, so if I was that small and could convince someone to put me to sleep in their arms instead of laying in a lonely bed, I would totally do the same thing. Props to you Amaris for knowing how to get what you want and sleep in ultimate comfort. On the other hand, please remember that you are one of the few mammals that is blessed with opposable thumbs, which in your case, are extremely useful for achieving peaceful sleep.

Anyhow, thankfully, it took us 4 months to experience these, and last night was a little bit better-at least we all slept in our respective beds and only woke up twice, so I think this problem will resolve itself soon. I'd like to put the word "all-nighter" back in my dictionary of retired words.

Keeping up

Our daughter is now 4 months old (well, tomorrow "officially") and we clearly suck at keeping up with the blog. I guess I got bored of posting "baby stats". Some days I have massive amounts of time to think through life and record excerpts of the flow of thoughts that passes through my brain, some days I barely have time to even identify what it is I'm thinking of. So it goes. I'm sure the whole world can relate.

In sticking to the title of this entry, "keeping up", I've been overwhelmed again and again with how much we live to keep up with some strange standard of "good" here in America. I'm sure it's everywhere, it's just that a more simple country's standard seems like vacation for us because it's so easy for us to attain their "standard" here. At any rate, the baby world is insanely excessive and competitive. These little humans could care less how they're dressed, how big they are, how many toys they have-well, as long as they're entertained-and the parents are psycho's about making sure their kid wins the silent competition of who's the biggest, cutest dressed baby on the block. I am entertained by Amaris's clothing of course, but it's just upsetting to me how quickly we get sucked into wanting or buying things that are really completely unnecessary just because it seems like the "norm." Sort of drives me nuts....mentally constantly filtering the needs from the wants-due-to-lack-of-analyzing-the-purpose. That was way too many hyphens.

This clearly isn't anything new, and I'd like to believe that most people have thought about this weird scenario before. Sadly I guess many people haven't, which is why it persists with such shameless force in our society. I'm just curious as to why we constantly choose to continue living the way we do even when we have repeated "revelations" about how silly it all is. It's funny how the pioneering spirit of America, the spirit of Individualism, all these things we patriotically brag about and claim to be the foundations of our country have essentially become sort of old school. The "rugged individuals" are now marginalized, to pursue something radically different than your suburban neighbors is essentially taboo because it might make them uncomfortable, and we don't have the energy to pioneer..it's much easier, and "practical" to take someone else's advice and follow their example.

I guess those people who moved out west before California was a state were considered renegades and idiots at first by their comfy colonial communities, too. It's just interesting that we now hail them as heroic pioneers. Most ironic of all, these "rugged individuals" set up camp in one of the places in our country that has a rather hypocritical claim to "individualism" LA, Hollywood, etc. Come "be yourself" but make sure you fit in. Wear your hair this way, clothes that way, make-up this way, body shape that way. Yikes. I still don't get how that all works out...how a culture founded on the freedom of art has become such a confining, pretentious and relatively shallow community. Analyzing films and books but not their own lives, being super proactive about animal rights and human rights but not trying to figure out if they're actually doing what is right. I guess that sounds harsh...and is. And obviously it's a very generalized statement that in no way applies to every person in California or the west, or New York or whatever. I just don't understand how a community that supposedly appreciates diversity inadvertently puts pressure on the rest of society to maintain a very specific-albeit unrealistic and unnatural-appearance and presence. People live to "keep up" with the fashion, the real estate, and the youthful mask of celebrities without giving a second thought to the sense behind it. Weird. In the suburbs, it also translates into keeping your kids up to speed with those things, even if they don't care.

Again, nothing new...it's just been bothering me lately as I consider how we raise Amaris-especially as a female in a country where you're encouraged to be "yourself" but make sure you're beautiful, thin, and "successful" while doing so. I can't stand the fact that I feel sort of weird and worried about how we will explain to people that we don't plan on celebrating Christmas by buying her gifts, and aren't going to throw her a princess birthday party at Sweet 'n' Sassy-geez I don't even think I'd want her to attend a party there. Somehow we are stuck trying to explain why we don't think it's necessary to follow everyone else's lead, and parents will look at us strangely, even get angry with us, for challenging their way of life, no matter how quietly we try to explain it.

Ok that is all. This is long and likely boring. Hopefully it doesn't come across all prideful and judging. It really is just a mess of what's on my mind as I consider the impressionable mold of Amaris's mind, and how I am overwhelmingly responsible for shaping it.