October 16, 2007 by pamela.

So… we seem to have a lingering conversation around here. When my husband comes in the room or we end up standing around in our kitchen… it’s as if we just continue this ongoing conversation… a conversation that sort of lingers in our minds day after day — now, week after week.A neon green appointment card is attached to a sheet of paper that hangs on the clip by the back door. That clip has always been there and holds whatever needs to go out to the mail box or it occasionally holds a check for a delivery or, now, it holds appointment cards. For the c-a-r-d-i-o-l-o-g-i-s-t. I know, I know… soon this will be ‘old hat’ and we’ll move on. This, as do most other ‘big deals’ in our family, will soon be as ‘normal’ to us as other things that are part of normal, everyday living. But for now, all this cardiology stuff is not normal, everyday living to us. Actually, I think I subconsciously believe that pretty soon all this will be over and things will go back to the way they were (whatever that was!).

Isn’t it interesting that we think we’re strong in the Lord - that we trust Him implicitly, that we leave everything in God’s capable hands and yet… well, and yet we don’t, do we? We intend to be faithful: honouring God in all we think, say, and do and yet, when life doesn’t turn out the way we thought it would, we falter.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. I’ve been thinking of the way I always thought things would be… the way I thought things would end up. And things aren’t or haven’t quite turned out that way.

Eight years ago today was my father’s funeral service. I would have thought I’d have my father a long, long time. I thought things would have ended differently than they did. But they didn’t. I remember standing there at his service… I was giving a message that I hoped would both honour him and honour the Lord. I spoke of his life, his death and eternal life in heaven. No doubt there were people present who knew the gospel message but had never trusted Jesus as Lord. No doubt there were people there that day who still do not trust Jesus as Lord. God knows. I just knew I had a small window of opportunity to share the gospel, to share of God’s love and eternal purpose for man and to succinctly present the gospel message: the gift of salvation and eternal life in Jesus.

That salvation is all the more precious to me as the years pass… especially years in which things turned out differently than I thought they would.

Our lingering conversations… what would you want me to do with ____________ ?

Three weeks ago, when my husband had a heart attack, it was such a surprising thing — surreal, almost. I thought it was such an odd thing that had occurred — like something in a movie, like something in older relatives’ lives, not something in my life — not something in my husband’s life. Something for older women… not for me. I never would have thought that this is the way things would turn out. I guess I actually thought my husband was invincible and that he would live on much longer than I will. And that may well still be the case… but somehow, now, I think not.

So, when things don’t turn out the way we thought they would, what do we do then?

You know what I’ve been thinking? Praise God. Praise God that He does not tell us in advance the things we have in our future. Praise His marvelous name that we do not know, in advance, the way He has planned for us. Would we love Him? Would we trust Him? Would we praise Him?

What do we do when things don’t turn out the way we thought they would? Well… I’ve been mulling this thought over and over. This is a lonely time. And now I see this sort of thing’s been lonely for several of my friends at other points in their lives. And I missed it. I overlooked their plight. It’s not a Joni Mitchell: “Don’t it always seem to go, that you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone,” sort of time, but rather, it’s a lonely time - a no one knows/cares/understands what I’m going through sort of time. It’s a very personal sort of time; an “Omygoodness, my husband could have died and life as I knew it could have been over” sort of time. And only other women who’ve experienced the same thing can understand. And it’s a: wow, is life so over when it’s over –or– wow, is life so different when it’s different, sort of thing!!

So we have this lingering conversation. Wes walks into the room and another sentence is spoken. “By the way, _____________.

I come home and I say, I’ve been thinking…. if… well, if things go that way, then what should I do about ________________?

Day after day, sentences begin - with no introduction.

“Okay, so if _________, then what I will do is____________ and I will not________ and I will call_______ . Okay. No, I don’t want to get married to anyone else. No. I don’t want to think about___________ . Yes…. I will do that. Yes… I know, I will wait to do that. No, I don’t want to sleep with anyone else. Let’s forget all this happened. No, I will not change my mind.

A day passes… the conversation lingers.

“I have been with you longer than my whole adult life… and everything that’s happened to me has happened with you. I do not want to be alone to face the remainder of whatever’s going to happen to me and the children. And the conversation lingers…

He stands at the sink. “Her father had his first heart attack when she was six… the conversation lingers.

He stands at the cabinet. One bottle lid pops off, then another and another and so on until all the meds are in hand. Wow. What a difference a day makes. Into my once very ordered, very secure, very sure world… has come amber bottles with foreign names and expiration dates and warnings… Strange, what a difference a day makes.

The lingering conversations. Day after day.

“I want the older boys to know I’m proud of them.

The conversation lingers.

“I’ll always love you.

O, for heaven.

Posted in Heart stuff, marriage | Print | 5 Comments »

October 16, 2007 by pamela.

 I’ve read a bit more about SB777 since I commented on it a couple of days ago. And surely, since I received a strong negative comment here (which I sincerely appreciated, btw). And I’ve had more time to mull over the potential consequences or outworkings of the bill/law. I’m not “carried away with the witch hunt,” but I do wonder what led to the necessity to craft a new bill/law? The further protection / endorsement of a class of people is the only reason I can see for the crafting of the bill/law.

Now, I do see some of the problematical views expressed by the writer of the WND article and some of the author’s personal interpretations of what was just signed into law. I see the strong slant - pointing out the potentials of the law. And though the intent of the law *seems* to be non-discrimination, I cannot see it that way. I do not see non-discrimination at all. At all. Non-discrimination bills/laws are already in place. Clearly in place. The wording of this newest piece of legislation is additional protection for classes of people/thoughts/activities that are clearly ambiguous and undefined (for that, I suppose, would be discrimination!).

I am reading attacks against Christians or Conservatives being accused of twisting the words of bill to fit their argument(s). I wonder why the bill was necessary when non-discrimination is already a legal protection. I’d say that crafting a bill to protect people/activities is actually a protection that discriminates against long held truths, ideals and order – thus is a promotion, protection, endorsement of special interest groups with ambiguous attributes. Yes, even though those actual words are not in the bill.

May I say that this ambiguous bill/law is the catch-all protection for special interest groups or of people and/or activities and as such, effectively reverses other laws that are already in place that protect people from discrimination. It is not difficult to imagine the scenarios that will likely take place now with new legal license to cite discrimination when “non-discrimination” clauses or “hate-crimes” clauses have been clearly twisted to fit an agenda or argument in the past – this new law just amplifies or enlarges the special protection for special interest groups. So, then, the writer of the WND article was not making unfounded assumptions or leaps of imagination when stating what appear to be obvious repercussions of the bill/law.

I know it seems offensive when I write against laws such as SB777 signed by Governor S. in California. If I were ramping up the evil, I might say something like Gov. S ought to be burned at the stake or something ridiculous like that – and I didn’t, nor would I, say that. To say or think that would be evil. To point out problematical laws is not evil. And when I comment about people who (are intolerant of) redefine their own (assigned from birth) gender and when I question legal protection for their personal interpretation of their ‘gender’— truly, that’s not bigotry. Homosexuality is an abomination. So-called “transgender” is an assault on God’s design. As far as bigotry and hate pointed at my “fellow man” I must say, I am pointing out what I’m seeing are trends against God, against His holiness, against the family, against people who follow Christ - or more specifically, against Christians and the Bible. I don’t treat people like they are “lepers out to get us” - but I do take a strong stand against things that destroy, alter, shame or reject God’s design and blaspheme His Word.

I believe what we must see and stand against are not only the words of the bill, but the intent — the actions those words will be translated to include and mean. When a bill is signed into law, and when the literal words of the law are ambiguous, then, naturally what will occur or be used as leverage in an argument/lawsuit/etc. will be one’s own personal interpretation of the law. And… as far as discrimination goes, what will likely occur in the “public school” will be discrimination against Truth and promotion of what the Bible clearly defines as sin. When sexuality or gender is expanded to mean or include ‘perceived’ then the vagueness of what the discrimination could possibly be is truly subjective interpretation rather than objective truth. A person’s gender is assigned (or known) at birth and though a person may feel another way, the latter does not define the former.

Interesting to me is the oft used argument, hating sin / loving sinner. I understand the intent but it’s flawed at best and at worst, it’s not Biblical. I know we wish that Jesus had said it. Just like we wish that the Word had said, “God helps those who help themselves” when we’re plowing ahead with an exciting agenda. Only God is capable of hating sin and loving sinners. We’re truly incapable of such love. But Jesus in us helps us love when we don’t “feel like it,” or when we cannot find something lovely or when we have nothing… it is Christ in us - the hope of glory - that loves others… the unlovely, the unlovable, the lost and the saved.

So as far as hating the sin… and loving the sinner… I understand the sentiment and have even said the words or didn’t stand against them in some up-against-a-wall situations in the past. But I must ask, is it truly loving to ignore sin? to wink at sin? to excuse or tolerate sin or worse: to not call sin: sin? When sin is taught, tolerated, required, coddled or protected, then really… the argument to “love the sinner and hate the sin” is a moot point. And it’s not love.

Hate the sin - and love the sinner is one of those guilt trippy things that is tossed at Christians to silence the argument and squash arguments (and Christians). Further, I believe that it is erroneous to attempt to apply that argument to discrimination - especially to such an ambiguous or wide-open-for-interpretation law such as SB777. Here’s a prime example of the silencing of Christians whose straight talk message doesn’t line up (no pun intended) with the protected class.

Defending this bill/law demonstrates the deep inroads made by those who have a complex agenda to destroy God’s intentional design and God’s presence and force accommodation to that agenda.

With your 777th reason to homeschool, remember God’s purpose may seem to be thwarted. But it won’t be. In the end, it won’t be.

Posted in Homeschooling, News DuJour | Print | 4 Comments »