Just recently Mikayla has begun to be intentional with her movements. From the looks of things, she seems to be favoring her left hand. Here are a few video clips of her playing with toys:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJwqnMHV51g
We think Mikayla is about to begin teething (which would be early if this really is the case.) She has been extra drooly and is constantly chewing on everything: her hands, her clothes, toys, the dog (okay… maybe not the dog… but we aren’t through the stage yet).
Well, the other day I had Mikayla up on my shoulders and she pulled a Mike Tyson on me. Here is a picture I thought you might enjoy:
Mikayla gnawing on my ear.
For two months Beth and I have been on a hunt. We are not trying to track down wild game, or looking on ebay for a rare collector’s edition of barbie… no, we have been trying to capture Mikayla’s “pouty face.” For all intents and purposes Mikayla is a very content baby, but when she does cry she usually gives a warning first… her pouty face. Even though it is obvious she is about to get upset, it is too precious to not laugh at. Unfortunately, every time we have tried to capture it on film, she has either cheered up, or progressed into a full cry. However, tonight was the night… after many attempts we finally captured it in all its glory. Here are the fruits of our labors:
The face is right, but we forgot the flash -- too dark and grainy.
Again, we are close, but unfortunately I cropped her head.
The lips are right, but the eyes show more terror than poutiness. (Perhaps that is because I had just almost dropped the camera on her).
Oh so close, but no eye contact.
Ahh... there it is.... captured for posterity. (of course after this point she had gotten so worked up it took 10 minutes to get her to stop crying.)
This is the third post in a series on the decision Beth and I have made concerning a long-term move to Africa. In the first post I detailed how the process started and in the second post I walked through the specifics of the nation we are strongly considering: Swaziland. This post will cover the whys and whats.
Most people are considerate enough to assume we have a reason for going there, so the most frequent question has been “What will you do there?” In fact, in one conversation I had with an Embassy employee, I was told after explaining our plans that “No one just comes to Swaziland.” Well, we are hoping that is hyperbole.
The most honest answer to the question of what will we do is quite simply “we don’t know yet.” It isn’t that we are planning on moving our family 9000 miles away with no plan, but instead, we don’t want to rush our decisions. We don’t want to align with an organization without first knowing the impact (positive or negative) they are having. We don’t want to commit to helping with AIDS victims if we would be better suited to work in the educational system. We don’t want to live in Manzini if we would be a better fit in the eastern plains. (you get the picture). So right now we are being very intention about our research. We are getting to know the groups currently there, and what opportunities may be there for us. We are speaking with both Americans and Swazi citizens about the needs and resources. We are investigating job opportunities in the public, private, government and non-governmental sectors. We are looking at faith-based and secular openings. Here are a few things we may consider:
I realize that does not answer the “what” question, but I hope you understand our motives. I fear too many people decide what needs to be done without ever stepping foot in the country or assessing the impact of their decisions. That is why we are planning a trip there next summer to serve as the capstone of our state-side research.
Now, let me comment a bit on the why of our decision. The most straight-forward answer is this: we want to experience life outside the United States in a setting that forces us to reexamine our lives. (so yes, you could say our motivation is primarily selfish). Despite the fact Beth and I have spent the last 2-3 years trying to simplify our lives and work towards making the world a better place, it is so easy to get caught in the rat race of life and forget there are things larger than us. As Rob Bell as put it, “one of the greatest dangers of life is assuming our world is the world!” Put another way, it is easy to get caught up in things that don’t matter when most of the world is struggling to survive. (Let us not forget every day 30,000 children die of hunger of preventable diseases, while Americans alone throw away 25% of our edible food.)
I was reminded of this tonight while watching Schindler’s list. At the end of the movie, after the war has ended and the Jews have been freed, everyone there is greatful for the fact that Schindler has saved over 1,000 Jews and he can only weep and wonder about how much more he could have done. He breaks down when he realizes the gold pin he is wearing could have been used to save one additional life, or his car could have saved 10 more. He says “why did I keep the car…”
Here is the clip:
We have realized that the questions we ask, and the issues we care about are directly related to our surroundings. Our goal is not to go somewhere to “fix” things, but rather to be in a place where we are concerned with the things of more significance than what we eat or what we will wear.
The experiencing of living in a country life Swaziland is more than just something Beth and I want to go through. We want Mikayla’s formative years to occur in a society where the day to day struggles are litterally a matter of life and death, yet where community is something much deeper than who you hang out with when you are not holed up in a comfy suburban home with 1000 channels, a maid and a wardrobe of clothes you never where because they are out of style.
Will it be tough? I am sure it will be. Will we miss our friends and family? Absolutely? Will we regret it, or encounter problems beyond what we expected? Perhaps. But, do we feel this is something we must do? Without doubt.
As for a finish… we are looking at returning in 2019 or 2020. That would be the year Mikayla would start Middle school. Our rationale is this: we want her to get the best education possible so she can do whatever she wants with her life. At the same time, we want to return to the US, because we feel this nation has the resources — both financial and individual — to change the course of the world.
As you can tell, we still have a lot to figure out, but I am excited about the direction we are heading.
To wrap things up, I want to give you a few blog links of people who are in Swaziland:
See Also:
My tagline mentions faith, doubt, family and future (not sure where that “d” word came from). So far we have covered the first three, so what about the fourth… our future. Well here are the big plans Beth and I have been mulling over recently.
About a year ago Beth and I realized we had divergent life plans. It was not that my plans were different from hers; rather, it was that we were holding on to various life plans that could not all happen together. Were we going to commit to our community in Bowling Green? Where we going to spend time overseas? Was I going to pursue a Ph.D. and then teach in a university? Was Beth going to transition into special education and working with students with Autism?
After much thought, prayer, and discussion it was clear that the path we were most dedicated to was an extended period overseas; specifically, we wanted to experience life in Africa. We wanted to live 5-10 years in a developing country where we could raise Mikayla during her formative years. We began doing research and setting goals. We even went as far as creating a giant pro/con list of every country in the continent. We were looking for a country:
It was not our goal to go somewhere to “fix” things, but rather to allow a different set of circumstances to expand our worldview and then work along side those there to bring about a better world for all.
Our search kept returning us to the small country of Swaziland (technically “The Kingdom of Swaziland” since it is the only remaining monarchy in Africa). This landlocked country is to the north-east of South Africa and is about the size of New Jersey with about the population of Kentucky’s 4 largest cities (Louisville, Lexington, Bowling Green and Owensboro). It has the third lowest life expectancy in the world due largely to the fact that it has the highest AIDS rate in the world. I will write a follow up post explaining more about Swaziland in the coming days and then another one explaining what we may do there, but until then you can read about the country here.
Our current plans are to travel there in 2010 to research jobs and organizations we may be able to work with, then in 2011 or 2012 make the big move. Mikayla will be 2 or 3 then and we expect to stay until she is ready for Middle School and then move back.
Of course all this is flexible. We decided it was better to have flexible goals that we could move towards rather than ambiguous goals that may never materialize.
For now, we are beginning to make contacts over there and have started looking into learning the second language of siswati, we are also researching organizations and institutions that we may be able to align ourselves with.
I look forward to sharing more as it develops.
See also:
Mikayla is a little over two months old and besides the necessary medicine (and a few Shiloh hairs) the only thing that has gone in her mouth is breast milk. In fact, only a small minority of her feedings have ever come from a bottle. BUT… when a bottle is in use, you can bet I am at the other end of it. When Beth is at class M-Th morning, I usually feed her once or twice.
This whole bottle thing was bit overwhelming for me. We have 10 different styles of bottles and that is only half of what Target sells. In fact, when Mikayla first started bottle feeding, I had to set a morning aside just to figure out which was which.
For the most part we have standard Medela bottles and fancy Dr. Brown’s bottles. Both are the same size both get milk to Mikayla. But, the Dr. Brown’s have a special venting contraption.
The vent system fully vents the bottle for vacuum-free feeding, which we call positive-pressure flow, similar to breastfeeding. As the baby feeds, air is channeled from the nipple collar through the vent system, bypassing the breastmilk or formula, to the back of the bottle. ~Dr. Brown’s website.
Special Vent Design
Supposedly the milk is healthier, the baby is happier and it is easier to feed them. But here is the catch: there are more pieces to clean which can be a pain. The two extra pieces (supposedly) require a special little brush too.
Standard Medela Bottles
Dr. Brown's Bottles
So, is it worth it? In a word: Absolutely!
Up until today I had only used the Dr. Brown’s, but this morning the only bottles we had ready in the fridge were the Medela Bottles. (In case you were wondering, both bottles fit on the Medela pump, but the Medela bottle s are a bit too short for the Dr. Brown’s vent to fit into). Rather than use the dirty two bottles, I just used what I had.
In the end it was a much more frustrating experience. The nipple kept collapsing, Mikayla had to fight the milk more, she was gassier and every couple minutes I had to take to readjust the bottle so air could sneak back in. It ended up taking 30-50% longer, and father and child were both fussier.
Now I am sure there are other contraptions out there and other techniques to avoid this suction issue, but based on today’s experience, I will gladly break out the little brush and stick with the anti-suction-special-venting-plastic-tube-thingie that comes with Dr. Brown’s bottles.
You can read more about the bottles here.
Mikayla showing off her tats
If Mikayla only had a father, these “tattoos” would have been done in sharpie; but since she has a rational mother as well, photoshop will suffice.
Now, before you bash me as a bad father who is projecting negative images on innocent Mikayla, let me explain my thoughts behind this image and then perhaps I can redeem myself.
You see, Mikayla will sometimes “box” with her little hands and punch at the air. Occasionally she will pause with her clenched fists extended. This reminded me of the knuckle tattoos that my white, middle-class, suburban friends would draw in middle school as they mimicked what they thought were signs of street life (which the knew nothing about). My simple mind found humor (crude as it may be) in the juxtaposition between innocence and raw street life. (Just so you know, I am not the only one who thinks this way. See here, here and here.)
The phrase “Thug Life” started with Tupac Shakur, a New York rapper who was killed in the mid-nineties. It is often assumed that Thug Life refers gang activity, drugs and crime; however this was never the image that Tupac intended. Urban Dictionary defines it as such:
Thug life is when you have nothing, and succeed, when you have overcome all obstacles to reach your aim.
If you dig deeper into the phrase, you will actually find it is quite appropriate to consider it along side the image of a newborn as it is supposedly based on an acronym for “The Hate U Give Little Infants F#@&s Everyone.” Another Urban Dictionary definition explains this concepts by saying:
T.H.U.G. L.I.F.E. stands for all the socially oppressive things we are taught at a young age that negatively affects us (or society) as adults.
The focus then is on the environments that breed hate, distrust, corruption and pain. Thug Life is about overcoming your environment and breaking the cycle in order to achieve your dreams.
Now back to Mikayla’s tats. The irony is deeper that simply an infant with tattoos commonly seen on the streets. The irony is that Mikayla will probably never experience the pain and struggles that led Tupac to conceive of the idea of the Thug Life. Mikayla has a life ahead of her with two parents that love her dearly and are willing to sacrifice immensely for her success. She will grow up (most of her life) in the richest country in the world and be given the opportunity to attain the best education possible. She will be given cultural opportunities that expand her horizons and challenge her worldview. She will be raised by open minded parents who seek a just world with diversity and tolerance.
Mikayla will never have to come home to an empty house as an elementary student, or see her parents shoot up, or need to know that you need to duck when you hear gun shots. She will not be forced to move every 3 months to avoid paying rent, or be shuffled in foster care. She will never have to worry about where her next meal will come from, or where she will sleep. On the international stage, Mikayla will never have to fear being abducted and forced to be a child solider, or of dying of preventable diseases. She will never have to rely on the UN to take care of her along with millions others in a refuge camp.
Mikayla will never experience the Thug Life.
But even that has been a painful truth for me to grapple with. Why is our daughter so special? What has she done to deserve it? While I would argue I have a very special daughter, the truth is her advantages come simply because she was born to us. There is nothing she did to earn it. At the same time, those that are not so lucky are just as innocent as Mikayla. They don’t deserve the pain and suffering they will go through.
Realizing my love for my daughter has caused me to hurt so much more for those who do not experience this same love. It has awaken me afresh to the injustices of this world and caused me to lament deeply the suffering of the innocent. In fact, is has brought me to tears.
These thoughts have been plaguing me for some time. The second week of Mikayla’s life I wrote this:
My love for my daughter causes me to hurt even deeper for the unloved. Love brings about pain; how do we ensure the opposite is true as well.
I am not hopeful I will ever figure it out, but it is not my desire to no longer feel the pain of this tension. Instead, I want to be constantly reminded of the blessings I have been given and extend to Mikayla and likewise discontent with the unearned and undeserved pain and tragedy others inherent. May the pain injustice bring about healing, peace and love. May the day come when no one experiences the Thug Life.
*Just so you know, I really would not have put sharpie tattoos on my 2 month old daughter… but I did think about it 😉
It has been a long time since something has really gotten my blood boiling, but at 1:00 in the morning while I waiting on videos to render I came across this video.
Let me give a disclaimer first. I have always approached Mark Driscoll with some hesitancy. Most of the time I don’t disagree with what he is saying, but I do question his delivery. To put it simply, I tend to put the emphasis different things.
That being said, this commentary on gender roles is completely out of line and personally offensive. In case you don’t know, I am currently a stay-at-home dad and this was a decision Beth and I did not take lightly, but are completely happy and at peace with the decision.
Okay, enough with the disclaimers — on to the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WPVxndUcHQ
Lets start with delivery before we dive into the deeper points. I am convinced Mark thinks he is a better pastor if he drives people out of his church. He seems to take an arrogant pleasure in the fact that some of the stuff he is saying will piss people off and cause them to leave (by the way… this seems to be par for the course.) I am sure he would say he is sticking to his guns in the face of a fickle society. Don’t get me wrong, Christians need to be unwavering on some issues and refuse to compromise. However, even on issues that stand at the core of Christian belief, there is no need to enter the conversation by speaking down to those who hold opposing views. There is no room for discussion or clarification. For Driscoll, this is how it is and everyone else can go to hell. It is one thing if he takes this attitude on things like the divinity of Christ, but he is talking about stay-at-home dads here. If I remember correctly (and I too have read the whole Bible) there is no definitive passage addressing the evils of stay-at-home dadding, so we are all forced to interpret secondarily what the witness of scripture is.
Continuing with my critique of Driscoll’s tone, I must call him out for on some of the offensive things he said (and implies). First, I think it is clear that Driscoll thinks all stay-at-home dads are deadbeats. Forget his theological rational, his argument revolves around an assumption that it is not manly to stay at home. Furthermore, he basically says that men suck at nurturing. That may be the case for him, as he clearly admits, but lets not paint with too broad of a brush. His statements about men not being cut out for the job of staying at home relies on stereotypes, is short-sighted and is offensive to those who do a great job (may I point to my man Lee Fowlkes.) Furthermore, he builds his case on the assumption that women cannot adequately provide. These comments are not based on biblical exegesis, but on ignorance. If he wanted to make statements about the topic from a (conservative) biblical viewpoint he could have said something like “The bible outlines certain roles each gender should follow. To deviate from those is a sin.” Saying that would have been more biblically based without conveying arrogance, ignorance or hate. The bible does not give him the right to judge the effectiveness of males parenting/nurturing skills.
Now, on to his arguments. Driscoll bases most of his discussion his interpretation of 1 Timothy 5:8
If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
He has taken the phrase “does not provide for his relatives” to mean the “a man should be the breadwinner.” But be careful here and go back and read the verse. Is it addressed to men? No! The verse says “anyone” who does not provide for his relatives… So a wife not providing is as bad as a husband. This is bolstered when you realize this whole segment of 1 Timothy is addressing how to care for widows. Paul addresses gender roles, but he doesn’t do it here. Even if you take traditional approach to Christian gender roles and insist on the male being the head of the household, you must admit scripture does not say the man must bring home the bacon.
Since Driscoll is a man who values “The Word” lets take a look at the word. In 1 Timothy the word for provide is pronoeo and has nothing to do with providing physically. Instead, it implies thinking ahead (pro=before) and planning. It is used 3 times in the NT and tends to carry an administrative nuance. So even if this did apply to directly and only to men (which it doesn’t), a first year seminary student could tell you the exegesis doesn’t allow for a reading that points primarily to providing physically. Driscoll says “if you are an able bodied man it is your job to provide for the needs of your family” and then he goes on to talk about work and material provision. Where is he getting this, because he sure didn’t get it out 1 Timothy. He is clearly reading what he wants to into the text. Even if we throw the greek (and context) out, we must admit that “providing for a family” is a multi-faceted thing. A father could provide all the money in the world, but if he is not taking his turn changing diapers, he is worse than an unbeliever (sarcasm intended). If anything, American fathers need to know that God calls them to provide holistically for their families. The last thing we need is more distant fathers.
“If our father is our basis for God, and our fathers abandoned us, then what does that tell you about God?” – Tyler Durden in Fight Club
Okay… lets look a bit deeper at how he chooses to answer the question. The question was “What are your thoughts on stay-at-home dads if the mother really wants / needs to work.” His answer reveals his convictions on gender roles. Not only does he speak out against men staying home while women work, he makes it clear he believes a woman’s place is at home.
Personally, if a woman wants that, I think its a great option. BUT… it is not the only option. Again, even if you go into a discussion of gender roles, we have to understand what scripture says and doesn’t say. It clearly does not say a woman should stay at home with the kids. Driscoll bashes the “culturally relevant” argument, but in doing so he neglects the social situation of the day. Thank God we have come a long way as a society and women now have choices and are not considered property. Lets not adopt an archaic social structure (i.e. slavery) just because scripture addresses that cultural circumstance. But again, that is not even relevant because scripture is silent on whether women should stay at home. But I digress… I want to return to affirm women who choose to stay at home. I think this is a much better option than paying someone else to raise your children. Likewise, if women do work, I think that is a perfectly fine model as well — as long as your family is being cared for.
Lets return to Driscoll’s argument and something his wife says: “”It is hard to respect a man who does not provide…we need to take the word seriously.” While I agree it would be hard to respect a man who does not care for his family, lets not forget “the word” does not use this phrase to address material, but actually care and foresight. She then quotes Titus and Paul’s words to this young missionary. Again, if we look at the context, Paul is giving some suggestions on what to teach to a new church. There is one phrase in chapter 2 that says “women should be busy at home.” Now… is there enough in those 6 words to base your entire post-marriage career path on? I think not. Can a woman (or man) be busy at home and have a job. Absolutely. Just ask my wife!
Lets end on a Driscolls closing. He says there is nothing in scripture that allows for this sort of family structure. First, I would also point out there is nothing in scripture that clearly lays out the structure he insists on (mother at home, dad bringing home the bacon). But more importantly, I would disagree with him. We do have a model of this. Check out Lydia in Acts 16:
Lydia’s Conversion in Philippi
11From Troas we put out to sea and sailed straight for Samothrace, and the next day on to Neapolis. 12From there we traveled to Philippi, a Roman colony and the leading city of that district of Macedonia. And we stayed there several days.
13On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. 14One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.
…
40After Paul and Silas came out of the prison, they went to Lydia’s house, where they met with the brothers and encouraged them. Then they left.
The text clearly shows a woman working outside the house. The household is identified by her name rather than her husband’s and she is in a prestigious business. I will grant a couple points: She was not a christian when described as working, it is possible her husband is dead / she is not married. However, what I find important here is that the text is neutral and does not paint Lydia’s work outside the home as a bad thing.
Lets get personal for a second. Beth and made the decision together for me to be a stay-at-home dad. We realized that we could provide for our family best if she worked and I stayed home. We are not giving into cultural trends, we are biblically asking how we can best provide and following through. Let me say this too. Beth is not working just so she can make the money to sustain the family. She is working because the job she has allowed for more ministry than anything I could get. Plus, it freed me up to engage in ministry of my own that I would not be able to do if I was working full time. Forget killing two birds with one stone, we just took out a flock of geese with a boulder: Beth can minister as a teacher, I can minister during the day, Mikayla is raised primarily by her parents, financially we can give more to charity and the church…. and the list goes on.
Driscoll’s conclusion to the question asked is very direct: unless there are extreme circumstances, it is outside God’s will for a man to be a stay-at-home dad. He even goes as far as saying such an action would require church discipline. Once again, I must ask… on what grounds? It is so frustrating to hear his pastor rail so heavily on the importance of the scripture, yet when you take even cursory glance at his arguments you realize his preconceived views are more heavily at play than the authority of scripture. We aren’t even discussing interpretation of difficult passages. Driscoll is ignoring the context and running with a flawed ideal.
This is not just about me getting my feelings hurt. This man is calling into question the career and family life of a significant number of godly people. Heaven forbid godly men and women abandon their life just because some pastor misreads (or ignores) the implications of Scripture. If Beth and I were to act on his advice and take up his model for a godly family, we would be living on less, giving less, Mikayla would have less time with her parents, Beth would leave a job she loves and I would have to take a job I hate, our opportunities for ministry would decrease and our stress would increase. Is that really the biblical ideal of providing for one’s family. I think not.
I would leave his church over statements like this (and perhaps that would only stoke his ego) because I think they are dangerous and ignorant.
Beth and I are not ignoring the call of God, we are embodying it. We are not clinging to culture and rejecting biblical truth, we are clinging to godliness and rejecting naivety and closemindedness.
Thankfully, after writing over 2000 words on the matter my blood pressure has returned to normal and maybe I can get some sleep. 😉
*I found this video while searching for stay-at-home dad blogs. HT to athomedaddy.
