I’ve been thinking about oxytocin lately. It’s a peptide hormone produced in the posterior pituitary. It causes uterine contractions and the let down reflex in breastfeeding. (Which is why when I was stuck in labor with Aidan the midwife used a breast pump to keep things moving. I think it only worked because I was still breastfeeding Conall. But that’s not what I was thinking about.)

Oxytocin also acts as a neurotransmitter. It increases empathy and facilitates bonding between a mother and child. It’s also released in lovemaking and promotes bonding between partners. I think it’s fascinating that our creator and designer conceived of human relationships and built the mechanisms into our bodies. He thought of families and created in us the physical properties that would bring them about.

What kind of God would conceive of human relationships and design his creation to love each other? Could he be some sort of autistic savant, brilliant in terms of scientific and mathematical details, but without tender feelings, without any interest in knowing and relating with his creation? It seems ridiculous to me to think that’s the case. Only a creator with emotional capacities would bother to create them. Only someone who can love would give that gift to his creation.

Carrie at FirstFarmerInstitute has an interesting comment below about how taking every thought captive affects our body chemistry. I am fascinated it all, and by the designs of God. 

We read Psalm 104 last night. The last few verses of it are the lyrics to a song we often sang in church growing up.

I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live,
I will sing praise to my God while I have my being,
My meditation of Him shall be sweet,
I will be glad. I will be glad in the Lord,
Bless thou the Lord, O my soul,
Praise ye the Lord,
Bless thou the Lord, O my soul,
Praise ye the Lord.

Except the actual psalm goes like this:

“I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live:I will sing praise to my God while I have my being. My meditation of Him shall be sweet: I will be glad in the Lord. Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the Lord, O my soul. Praise ye the Lord.”

God inspired the Psalms and He commands us to sing them. While I don’t believe that singing hymns is wrong, I think that it is sad that the Christian church either ignores the songs that God gave us, or mutilates them into something that He did not intend. Psalm 104 is not an isolated case. The first time I read through the book of Psalms I was astounded at how many of the songs I grew up singing cut out verses having to do with judgment.

Judgment is an important part of the gospel and God wrote a lot of it into His songs. It is wrong for us to excise it. It is arrogant for us to think that we can edit and improve upon the words of God. There are stern warnings in both the Old and New Testament for those who alter God’s Word.

“And if any man shall take
away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away
his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from
the things which are written in this book.” Rev 22:19.

Considering the judgments that have come upon the Church in these days, I think it behooves us to look very closely at ourselves and ask what we’re doing wrong. When we sing songs in worship that inaccurately reflect the character of God, that inaccurately proclaim the gospel, that do not warn us of our sin, but that make us feel good and happy, well, it’s at least got to be a reflection of a larger pattern of self-indulgence and complacency.

The Psalms were written for our benefit and a return to singing them, in their entirety, would be a real blessing for the Church.

This election has provided some interesting opportunities for conversations with Secular types. I find it very frustrating, though, because their understanding of Christianity is often so limited. They throw around words like “Theocracy” and make ridiculous caricatures of Christians that don’t at all fit any person I’ve ever met. But that’s not to say that those types of Christians aren’t out there, and it’s not to say that they don’t get their misinterpretations of Christianity from uninformed Christians. But I feel like there’s so little common understanding that I would have to do so much explaining to these people for them to really understand. But maybe that’s just me.

Anyway, in a recent conversation an atheist friend made a comment about Christians who don’t think atheists can be good people. It wasn’t really on-topic, so I didn’t pursue it, but I’ve been thinking about it ever since.

Most Christians do not deny that unbelievers can be good, in a certain sense. That is, they can be loving, unselfish, thoughtful, kind, etc. They can do actions which are universally considered good and by human standards they are good.

What we deny is that this human goodness is true goodness. Our works are imperfect, always tainted by our sin, and even our best is marred by our pride, selfishness, self-righteousness etc. The Bible tells us that our righteousness is as “filthy rags.” Our standard is not other people, compared to whom we might be good, but the holiness of God, to which we can never hope to attain without His grace and mercy.

It’s not that atheists can’t be good, it’s that none of us can be truly good without God’s help.

Are there Christians out there who demonize all atheists as horrible people who can’t even care for their families? Probably. Or at least there are probably people who call themselves Christians who do.

I guess this is why we have creeds and confessions. I just wish our culture was literate enough in them to know what Christianity is.

When I was in college I knew a woman who was, at the time, in her late sixties. She was a tough old cookie with a brusque manner that completely put me off the first time I met her. But as I got to know her, I found that she was a really wonderful person – kind hearted, thoughtful and delightfully funny in a dry way.

Once, when I was visiting her, we stayed up late, talking, and she told me the story of her life. She’d had some rough times. Her husband died, leaving her with two little children to support, but she fought hard to become the first woman admitted to an accounting program at a nearby university.

Then, one night, a family friend took her out on a date. He pulled the old “car ran out of gas” on a deserted country road and when she wouldn’t give in to his advances, forced himself upon her. Even worse, she became pregnant. She knew that in those days nobody would ever believe that it was rape, and with school on the line, and children to take care of, she was trapped.

So she found a doctor. She scoffed at the idea of “back alley” abortions when she told me about it. There was no need for anything like that. It was all completely up to date, as far as medical procedures went, even if it wasn’t legal.

But she told me that it was the worst decision of her life, and she thought of that child every day.

Every day, thirty, forty years after the fact.

She was a Christian. She’d repented and been forgiven, as far as that goes. But I’ve heard a few people going on about Palin’s stance against abortion in cases of rape and incest being so extreme and I thought I’d just put out the opinion of one person who’d actually been through it.

It was the wost decision of her life.

I’ve been reading Myers Briggs stuff lately, and, as usual, it’s fascinating. I love it because it helps me understand why I do certain things, and because it also helps me understand others better, especially my kids and family.

I first did the MBPTI in 8th grade, but up until now I didn’t really understand what it was! I mean, I knew it grouped everyone into different categories, and mine was INFJ, but although I understood that, and the little description it gave, I didn’t understand exactly why I was an INFJ and what that meant for me.

Jung identified eight cognitive processes. They are:

Extraverted Sensing – experiencing the immediate context, noticing things, being drawn to act.

Introverted Sensing – remembering past experiences, seeking detailed information, accumulating data.

Extraverted Intuition – interpreting situations, picking up meanings and interconnections, being drawn to possibilities.

Introverted Intuition – foreseeing implications and likely effects, realizing “what will be”; envisioning transformations.

Extraverted Thinking -Ordering; organizing for efficiency; systematizing; applying logic; setting boundaries; deciding if something is working or not.

Introverted Thinking -Analyzing; categorizing; checking for inconsistencies; clarifying definitions to get more precision.

Extraverted Feeling - Connecting; considering others and the group; maintaining societal values; adjusting and accommodating others.

Introverted Feeling - Valuing; considering importance; reviewing for incongruity; evaluating something based on the truths on which it is based.

What the Myers Briggs tells you is which ones of these are your strengths and which are your weaknesses. Or maybe, which are dominant and which are not, since sometimes your shifting into your dominant process can be a liability, if you really need to use one of the others.

Four of these processes are considered primary, these are the ones most natural to you. Four are considered “shadow” processes, they’re the ones that are unnatural. It wasn’t a great revelation to me that my primary processes are Introverted Intuition and Extraverted Feeling. I realize that any time I’m alone I’m pretty much in “intuitive mode.” It’s kind of like a constant blog or conversation in my mind where I go over ideas that I’ve been exposed to. I like to let ideas slowly gather in my brain, make connections and theories and refine them. When I’m with others, I’m a feely kind of person. Makes me an awful disciplinarian, I know (sometimes I have to rely on my NT children for help here!) I like harmonious relationships and generally will sacrifice to keep the peace.

On the other hand, my two shadow processes are Introverted Sensing and Introverted Feeling. These are a big trap for me when something negative happens. Introverted Sensing starts remembering and Introverted Feeling starts getting me down on myself. It’s a vicious cycle.

I’m also applying this with my children and seeing where their strengths and weaknesses lie. Extraverted Sensing is right at the bottom for Brendan, and he has always been the most clueless person. It’s good to have an explanation for it – though some ideas for how to get him to the point where he can function in the real world would be good!

I like to read blogs,
especially the ones that have long discussions in the comboxes. But I
don’t let myself comment or get into the discussions, since I just
don’t have the time or emotional energy to deal with that. I just
think a lot, and occasionally get my thoughts on some of these
discussions down.

One phenomenon I’ve
noticed is that a lot of atheists seem to object to Christianity
because of the hypocritical behavior of Christians over the ages.
Now, there’s no doubt that Christians have done some nasty things in
the last 2000 years, but from a Christian perspective, while this
constitutes a problem for the Church, it doesn’t mean that there’s
something wrong with the fundamentals of Christianity.

So here’s a primer for
atheists:

1. The Bible teaches
   that everyone is fundamentally evil. Jeremiah 17:19 – “The
   heart is deceitful above all
   things, and desperately wicked:”, Romans 3:23 – “For
   all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”

2. 
   The Bible teaches that although we can be forgiven of
   our sins, we will struggle against sin all our lives. Romans 7:18-19
   - “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth
   no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform
   that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not:
   but the evil which I would not, that I do.”

3. The
   Bible teaches that hypocritical non-believers will attach
   themselves to the church. Matthew 7:22 – “Many will say to
   me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and
   in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many
   wonderful works?”

     4. Jesus
himself was killed by the leaders of the established church of his
day.

So you see, the issue is not only covered in the Bible, but the whole religion of Christianity is founded upon the
hypocritical actions of religious people. Obviously, that implies a
recognition of the fact that religious hypocrites exist and are very, very
dangerous.When you consider the underlying assumption that everyone is fundamentally evil, it’s pretty much a given that you’re going to get faithless people trying to pass themselves off as good.

The faithlessness of those
who supposedly follow the Lord is actually a major theme in the
Bible. Throughout the Old Testament the nations of Judah and Israel
are constantly disobeying God and coming under judgment. The
traditional Christian understanding is that these nations are the Old
Testament church, and that faithlessness and judgment are to be
expected as well in the New Testament era. The beginning of
Revelation starts off with letters to the churches, condemning their
sins and warning that they are facing judgment. And this is while
the Apostle John is still living.

Hypocrites are, of course,
consistently condemned by the Scriptures. Take a look at John the
Baptist who denounces the Pharisees in Luke 3:7 – John said to
the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood
of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Jesus
also called the Pharisees “vipers,” “wolves,” and “blind
guides.” In fact, the Bible warns that harsher
judgment will fall upon them. And while the Church is warned to be
discerning and to administer discipline (though it regularly fails in
both,) all the same the Church is to anticipate the coming of those
who adhere to an external form of religion while inwardly not
conforming.

For atheists to object to
Christianity on the grounds of the hypocrisy of those who call
themselves Christians betrays a pathetic lack of understanding. But
more than that, it is fundamentally illogical since Christianity
itself teaches that faithlessness will be an ever present evil for the
Church. They might as well object on the grounds that they see
evidence of the Resurrection, or the Virgin Birth, because affirming what
the Bible teaches and then calling it an objection to the Bible is
completely irrational. But then, atheists are rarely as rational as they claim to be.

Last night Orthodox Churches around the world observed the beginning of Lent. They end their service with something called “Forgiveness Vespers.”  Rod Dreher describes what happened in his church like this:

Thus began one of the most remarkable rituals I’ve ever seen, much less been a part of. We all went around the church, in circular receiving lines, asking forgiveness of each other. The way it worked was like this: two congregants stand facing each other. Then both make the sign of the cross, fall to their knees, bow humbly to each other, touching their heads to the floor, then stand. Each one says, “Forgive me, brother (or sister).” Then they embrace, kiss each other three times on the cheek, and say to each other, “God forgives you, I forgive you,” or some slight variation on that.

Imagine doing that over 100 times. With every single person in church. The ones you love. The ones you know you should love. The ones who have hurt or offended you. The ones you’ve not befriended. The ones you’ve done wrong in some way. Every single man, woman and child

Now, I’m not always in favor of ritual, as it does have a way of becoming empty ritual. But that balance between doing right, and Pharasaism is something we always have to guard against. And ritual does have a way of making you do the things that you know you ought. So, even though this is ritualized forgiveness, it still seems pretty amazing. It certainly can’t happen spontaneously very often. At least, I’ve never seen or heard of anything similar in any other church.

So, I’d like to ask you all to forgive me, for whatever I might have said or done to offend you.

And I forgive you.

Last week I finally got a chance to go through Barbara Curtis’ new books, Mommy, Teach Me! and Mommy, Teach Me to Read! These are the books that I wish had been around when I first started homeschooling over a decade ago.

Because of my own wonderful early experience in Montessori school, I originally started out trying to homeschool with Montessori materials. I had an old copy of “Teaching Montessori in the Home” and I made sandpaper letters, bead material and all sorts of stuff. I had lots of fun making things, but when it came to getting Brendan to use it, I was less than successful. Now, maybe if I’d had a different child, or maybe if I’d been a different kind of person, I’d have had more success, but I didn’t. I concluded that Montessori worked if you had lots of fancy materials and a Montessori trained teacher.

But I always held on to that dream of a Montessori style classroom, with everyone working quietly on self-directed tasks. In fact, by the time baby number 6 came around, it seemed absolutely imperative. I got a copy of Barbara’s earlier book, “Small Beginnings” and things started coming together.

I think the biggest difference between Barbara’s books and other Montessori books is the fact that Barbara is a writer who happens to be a Montessori teacher, not a Montessori teacher who wants to write a book. She explains things in a way that helps you understand not only what you need to do, but why. Most preschool education books might present an activity and list that its stated purpose is concentration, but Barbara spends a couple of pages on concentration, self control, order and other goals of early education, then provides a very detailed descriptions of how to introduce the activities. Having homeschooled five children through the preschool years I’ve picked up a lot of things along the way, but there’s lots of information in here that I can’t wait to implement with Mairead and our next child.

I’m especially excited about “Mommy Teach Me to Read!” I’ve always known that children could learn to read at a very early age, since I myself started reading when I went to Montessori school, and it’s been very frustrating to see signs of readiness in many of my children (not all, they’re all on their own timetables) and not know what to do about them. Yes, I had all the stuff from all the other Montessori books, but I didn’t know how to put it into practice, so I just waited until they were older and started them on “Phonics Pathways” or “100 EZ Lessons” or another course designed for older children. I’m so excited to be starting with Mairead right now while I can tell that she’s at a sensitive period for language.

I highly recommend these books for anyone with preschool children, whether or not they intend to homeschool. They’re wonderful resources for enriching your child’s life, helping them achieve their potential and all those other things that schools are supposed to do, but you can do perfectly well in your own home.