Unless, of course, you like your kids learning their Bible stories as simplistic, poorly-illustrated morality plays with absolutely no connection to the person and work of Jesus, that is.  Then, by all means, keep the one you have.

Zoë’s loving hers, and so are Mommy and Daddy.

(* Feeding to the dog or shredding for use as rodent bedding are acceptable substitutes for burning.)

Rev. Boggs went on to lament the depths of depravity that we’ve sunk to where such a service is necessary (or marketable). I found it interesting, though, that he seemed to focus largely on the mothers in such situations — particularly “women who are so promiscuous that upon discovering they are pregnant, need to play ‘eenie-meenie-minie-moe’ to have some clue as to who the father might be.”

Boggs’ article hinges on the assumption that these services are necessitated by “a large and lucrative market: pregnant women who have been physically intimate with more than one person”, but I’m not so sure. In these days of prolonged adolescence, where “men” (term used loosely) want to live like they’re seventeen well into their thirties, it seems much more likely to me that the market is created by guys who refuse to take responsibility for the children that they’ve helped to bring into existence. The women are then left with little other recourse than going to one of these services to establish paternity and force him to pay the support he rightly owes.

Now, I’m not going to deny that there are likely some very promiscuous women among these services’ clients. There probably are. Still, should a Christian’s first reaction to such a billboard be to look at the moms and assume that they’re whores? I don’t think so.  If we really believe that men are to lead the home and the family as Christ leads the Church, then our first look should be to the dads, and our assumption should be that they’re cowards who need to “man up” — ideally, by being involved in his children’s lives, but at least financially.

Makes me wonder. What do you think?

We might not have cool enough to have been featured in Columbus Monthly‘s recent article on “Columbus’ Hipster Parents” (unlike some people I know), but I think we’re doing alright as we try to raise a little cultural missionary.

[Now if I can only get her to quit enjoying that commercial radio crap her mommy occasionally enjoys. ]

*: The rare exceptions to this are when she asks for The Human League’s Don’t You Want Me.

It’s pretty easy to balk at the title and some of the premises. Our natural reaction as parents (and hopefully, as humans in general) is to protect our children from danger. We buy fences, gates, doorknob protectors, closet locks — all good things — to keep our kids out of harm’s way.

Still, something about this book is exciting. Beyond just teaching our boys about tying knots, skinning rodents, and great historical battles and wars, it helps to train them to be unafraid of risk. As much as we sometimes don’t want them to grow up, our boys will someday — and soon — be the men of the world, and over the past couple of decades, too many have been and are being coddled in home and school environments where competition is seen as intrinsically evil, where they are insulated against any sort of unpleasantness. The result has been an entire breed of “soft men” — men who take no risks in life, who take no responsibility for their own actions, who run from marriage and fatherhood, and who spend time defending nothing but their own foolish self-interests.

Don’t get me wrong. Not every man should get married. Not every man will be a father. Not every man will or should find things like guns, trucks, and Ultimate Fighting very appealing. That’s not my point. My point is that we are to be workers and we are to be defenders. Just as Nehemiah told his Jerusalem reconstruction crew to wield a shovel in one hand and a sword in the other, so all men are to labor and to protect what they’ve been given. I’m not the father of a boy yet, but if I’m so blessed in the future, I want him to love working with his hands. I want him to feel a duty to protect his mother and his big sister. I want him to “slay the dragons” and vanquish the bad guys when he plays.  Then (if God allows) he won’t be a lazy man. He’ll be bold enough to ask the girl out. He’ll know how to protect his wife and his children. He won’t be afraid to take risks in business or in ministry. This is the kind of man I want my daughter(s) to marry and the kind I want to raise if given the opportunity.

Don’t stifle your boy’s innate sense of adventure, parents. Let him play with toy swords to slay the bad guys. Encourage him to come to the aid of the fair maiden. If he wants to take a flying leap from the couch, don’t stop him (not every time, anyway). You may be helping to stem the growing tide of soft men.

I’m buying this book.

(No, I have not been reading John Eldredge. Hell no, in fact.)

Normally, this wouldn’t be a big deal. It’s a cute dress, summer is approaching, and it’s usually not a noteworthy thing for parents to buy new clothes for their kids On this trip, though, I went in there specifically looking for a pretty white dress.

For her baptism.
(And no, she has not yet made what I’d call a “credible profession” of faith in Christ.)

Buying it freaked me out a little bit. Even though Amy and I have studied and prayed through this and have come to agree that the children of believers should be baptized, it’s still a bit weird that we’re actually going through with it. Kinda like the feeling I got when I first put on my suit on my wedding day.

More on this later.

[By the way: no way was I about to get her one of those crazy ornate wedding-dress-like baptismal gowns that we often see -- check out this page for examples of what I'm talking about. No way. One -- EXPENSIVE, especially for a one-time event. Two -- we wanted something that she'd be able to wear again throughout the summer. Three -- it'd just look strange in our church, I think.]