So, I did it.... Roscoe was straining and grunting and I grabbed my phone to record it. I am now officially the mom I said I would never be. I recorded my son pooping. And now I'm taking it a step further. I'm sharing it on the internet. Poor boy.
Enjoy!
(oh, turn your sound up)
Friday, May 13, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
my hope isn't in the death of men
Ever since the news of Bin Laden's death I've been very disturbed by the response of those who claim Christ. Facebook and Twitter were littered Sunday night with celebratory statements over his death. One person said "
Tragedy of Tragedies: Osama Bin Laden and the Christian Response
There is no doubt that Osama Bin Laden’s life was marked by heinous action and unspeakable terror. It is a tragedy that so many innocent lives were lost by the hate in that man’s heart. And it is a tragedy as well that any man had to live his life engulfed in that same hate. But today I awoke to a new tragedy. As I read the celebratory response to Bin Laden’s death by Christians whom I love and respect, I grew sick to my stomach. Then dismayed. Then angry. After all, we Christians are the ones who spend our lives purveying the good news that we are graciously spared from being treated as our sins deserve. I find it ironic at best, that we - as recipients of such undeserved grace - are the very ones parading in the streets that this “bastard finally got what he deserved.” If you’re offended by the language, be more offended by the hypocrisy. If America has suffered any persecution at all in recent memory, we suffered it at the hands of Osama Bin Laden. He hated us for our wealth, our infidelity, and our religious freedom. And today it’s been told without doubt that the proper American response is to hate him in return. “But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven (Matt. 5:43-46).” Do we really find the Bible infallible when it calls us to actions like that? The terrifying-to-face truth of Scripture is that the very root of sin that drove Osama Bin Laden to kill thousands of people is vying for my heart too. If we lose touch with that - if we somehow think of ourselves as less debased in the height of our own sin - than we’ve lost touch with the Christian story and the very need for a Savior in the first place. Perhaps even more shocking is the image of our Abba Father lovingly knitting together Osama Bin Laden in his mother’s womb. It is an affront to consider Bin Laden to be made in the imago dei. But then again, the Bible is an affront. To be clear, I am not at all saying Bin Laden’s actions were godly or anything other than evil. I am not saying God approves his terror or hate, or even that Bin Laden shouldn’t have been forcibly stopped from doing what he was doing. But that does not change the fact that a tragic end to a tragic life ought to give us a more reason to repent and mourn than hoot and holler. Today it was us Christians who led the festive parade through the streets of culture. Yet God calls his people to respond to social wickedness with recognition of our own guilt, and our own need for humility and repentance. Today we acted even more convinced, cocksure and smug, that God is somehow inherently on America’s side. Yet God used Assyria to judge Israel, then turned around and judged Assyria too (*see bottom). Saddest of all, today we took more joy in the presumptuous thought of a man’s eternal separation from God than the hope that our Redeemer God might have somehow redeemed even this situation. How incredibly revealing that we take more joy in imagining our enemy rotting in hell than encountering redemption? How hypocritical that we then claim to have a heart to see the lost come to Christ? How near-sighted to forget that our beloved Apostle Paul was once the mass-murdering terrorist Paul? And how blind to not recognize that our riotous celebration over lost life through execution isn’t all that different than Bin Laden’s actions on 9/11? It’s been said that our love will be the one undeniable thing to help this world know that the Christian story is true. If this is the case, then I wonder what the world knows today? I know 9/11 hurt a lot of people. And I know Jesus weeps too. But if our reaction to world events is more immersed in our identity as Americans than as citizens of another Kingdom then we’ve lost the plot of the Christian story and the radical call of Jesus’ teaching. We can celebrate a man’s death and potential separation from God all we like. It is, after all, a free country. You can even call it patriotism. But please don’t call it Christianity. Today I thought of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a great theologian and pastor. Bonhoeffer found himself in a similar situation as us, face to face with an evil man who had killed thousands (Adolf Hitler). Bonhoeffer’s response is instructive to us – he personally took action against the evil and on multiple occasions Bonhoeffer plotted to assassinate Hitler. Yet Bonhoeffer knew that just because he was called to take necessary action against evil did not mean he had to succumb to hating his enemy’s soul or rejoicing in their separation from God. His strikingly relevant words below teach us that we can actively confront our enemies without rejoicing in their destruction. “Jesus Christ lived in the midst of his enemies. On the Cross he was utterly alone, surrounded by evildoers and mockers. For this cause he had come, to bring peace to the enemies of God. So the Christian, too, belongs not in the seclusion of a cloistered life but in the thick of foes. There is his commission, his work. ‘The kingdom is to be in the midst of your enemies. And he who will not suffer this does not want to be of the Kingdom of Christ; he wants to be among friends, to sit among roses and lilies, not with the bad people but the devout people. O you blasphemers and betrayers of Christ! If Christ had done what you are doing who would ever have been spared.’” *This particular idea admittedly and blatantly stolen from a great blog post by Glenn Packiam at glennpackiam.com.
By: Jordan Warner
Tragedy of Tragedies: Osama Bin Laden and the Christian Response
There is no doubt that Osama Bin Laden’s life was marked by heinous action and unspeakable terror. It is a tragedy that so many innocent lives were lost by the hate in that man’s heart. And it is a tragedy as well that any man had to live his life engulfed in that same hate. But today I awoke to a new tragedy. As I read the celebratory response to Bin Laden’s death by Christians whom I love and respect, I grew sick to my stomach. Then dismayed. Then angry. After all, we Christians are the ones who spend our lives purveying the good news that we are graciously spared from being treated as our sins deserve. I find it ironic at best, that we - as recipients of such undeserved grace - are the very ones parading in the streets that this “bastard finally got what he deserved.” If you’re offended by the language, be more offended by the hypocrisy. If America has suffered any persecution at all in recent memory, we suffered it at the hands of Osama Bin Laden. He hated us for our wealth, our infidelity, and our religious freedom. And today it’s been told without doubt that the proper American response is to hate him in return. “But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven (Matt. 5:43-46).” Do we really find the Bible infallible when it calls us to actions like that? The terrifying-to-face truth of Scripture is that the very root of sin that drove Osama Bin Laden to kill thousands of people is vying for my heart too. If we lose touch with that - if we somehow think of ourselves as less debased in the height of our own sin - than we’ve lost touch with the Christian story and the very need for a Savior in the first place. Perhaps even more shocking is the image of our Abba Father lovingly knitting together Osama Bin Laden in his mother’s womb. It is an affront to consider Bin Laden to be made in the imago dei. But then again, the Bible is an affront. To be clear, I am not at all saying Bin Laden’s actions were godly or anything other than evil. I am not saying God approves his terror or hate, or even that Bin Laden shouldn’t have been forcibly stopped from doing what he was doing. But that does not change the fact that a tragic end to a tragic life ought to give us a more reason to repent and mourn than hoot and holler. Today it was us Christians who led the festive parade through the streets of culture. Yet God calls his people to respond to social wickedness with recognition of our own guilt, and our own need for humility and repentance. Today we acted even more convinced, cocksure and smug, that God is somehow inherently on America’s side. Yet God used Assyria to judge Israel, then turned around and judged Assyria too (*see bottom). Saddest of all, today we took more joy in the presumptuous thought of a man’s eternal separation from God than the hope that our Redeemer God might have somehow redeemed even this situation. How incredibly revealing that we take more joy in imagining our enemy rotting in hell than encountering redemption? How hypocritical that we then claim to have a heart to see the lost come to Christ? How near-sighted to forget that our beloved Apostle Paul was once the mass-murdering terrorist Paul? And how blind to not recognize that our riotous celebration over lost life through execution isn’t all that different than Bin Laden’s actions on 9/11? It’s been said that our love will be the one undeniable thing to help this world know that the Christian story is true. If this is the case, then I wonder what the world knows today? I know 9/11 hurt a lot of people. And I know Jesus weeps too. But if our reaction to world events is more immersed in our identity as Americans than as citizens of another Kingdom then we’ve lost the plot of the Christian story and the radical call of Jesus’ teaching. We can celebrate a man’s death and potential separation from God all we like. It is, after all, a free country. You can even call it patriotism. But please don’t call it Christianity. Today I thought of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a great theologian and pastor. Bonhoeffer found himself in a similar situation as us, face to face with an evil man who had killed thousands (Adolf Hitler). Bonhoeffer’s response is instructive to us – he personally took action against the evil and on multiple occasions Bonhoeffer plotted to assassinate Hitler. Yet Bonhoeffer knew that just because he was called to take necessary action against evil did not mean he had to succumb to hating his enemy’s soul or rejoicing in their separation from God. His strikingly relevant words below teach us that we can actively confront our enemies without rejoicing in their destruction. “Jesus Christ lived in the midst of his enemies. On the Cross he was utterly alone, surrounded by evildoers and mockers. For this cause he had come, to bring peace to the enemies of God. So the Christian, too, belongs not in the seclusion of a cloistered life but in the thick of foes. There is his commission, his work. ‘The kingdom is to be in the midst of your enemies. And he who will not suffer this does not want to be of the Kingdom of Christ; he wants to be among friends, to sit among roses and lilies, not with the bad people but the devout people. O you blasphemers and betrayers of Christ! If Christ had done what you are doing who would ever have been spared.’” *This particular idea admittedly and blatantly stolen from a great blog post by Glenn Packiam at glennpackiam.com.
By: Jordan Warner
Monday, May 2, 2011
going out on a limb here...
....on vaccinations. Just writing that word is making me cringe at the potential comments I will get from readers. What? I'm questioning the use of vaccinations in babies? Yes. This has nothing to do with any one thing in particular that I've heard, so before being attacked or accused of not looking into it or swallowing false information, let me assure you that I've poured approximately 10 hours of research into this topic before even thinking about blogging on it. Also, let me say that plenty more research has to be done on our part before coming to a final decision on the matter.
I probably wouldn't be posting about this if it weren't for a couple paragraphs I came across in an article just now. But it sums up so beautifully how I feel in general about the debate. The cool part? This guy doesn't take sides.... He presents this as an alternative to parents who feel they don't want to immunize their children (he's speaking about homeopathic immunizations, not conventional).
"Start vaccinations later in life. The immune system is maturing very quickly over the first months of life. Possible damage from vaccines will therefore decrease if the application is postponed. Even postponing vaccines so that they are taken only after the age of 6 months can be of benefit"
At the end of the day it is a parents right to choose what they feel is the best choice for their child. It is also a parents right to know what choices are available to them. The governments and the pharmaceutical industries do not own our children, we do. They have no right to turn our children into profit making machines for them to prosper from. Each child is very precious, they have the right to grow up healthy and reach their full potential. It is a parents duty to protect them and to study all the choices available to them. A parent can only do this if they are aware that they do have choices in the first place. What is right for one child is not right for another. I urge all parents to educate themselves in vaccination safety, learn the pros and cons of all the options available before making a decision."
I could give a list of websites that I've gone to during this researching, or you could do it on your own. I'd be happy to share a list (if I can find all of them) to anyone curious enough ask. Just do yourself a favor if you're going to look it up on your own, make sure you see both sides of the argument. It isn't researching if you're only looking for articles that support your already-set-in-stone viewpoint.
Since I quoted from it, here is the website referred to previously:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/194319
I probably wouldn't be posting about this if it weren't for a couple paragraphs I came across in an article just now. But it sums up so beautifully how I feel in general about the debate. The cool part? This guy doesn't take sides.... He presents this as an alternative to parents who feel they don't want to immunize their children (he's speaking about homeopathic immunizations, not conventional).
"Start vaccinations later in life. The immune system is maturing very quickly over the first months of life. Possible damage from vaccines will therefore decrease if the application is postponed. Even postponing vaccines so that they are taken only after the age of 6 months can be of benefit"
At the end of the day it is a parents right to choose what they feel is the best choice for their child. It is also a parents right to know what choices are available to them. The governments and the pharmaceutical industries do not own our children, we do. They have no right to turn our children into profit making machines for them to prosper from. Each child is very precious, they have the right to grow up healthy and reach their full potential. It is a parents duty to protect them and to study all the choices available to them. A parent can only do this if they are aware that they do have choices in the first place. What is right for one child is not right for another. I urge all parents to educate themselves in vaccination safety, learn the pros and cons of all the options available before making a decision."
I could give a list of websites that I've gone to during this researching, or you could do it on your own. I'd be happy to share a list (if I can find all of them) to anyone curious enough ask. Just do yourself a favor if you're going to look it up on your own, make sure you see both sides of the argument. It isn't researching if you're only looking for articles that support your already-set-in-stone viewpoint.
Since I quoted from it, here is the website referred to previously:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/194319
Saturday, April 30, 2011
catch up on pictures
Just catching everyone up with some recent pictures before Mark takes the laptop away for 3 weeks.
i wish life weren't so boring
noooot quite bumbo time yet
Saturday, April 23, 2011
playmates
The last time these 2 interacted, Eliot ended up smacking Roscoe in the face to get him to stop crying. Hey, for his age, I can't blame him. Seems logical enough. Listen for Eliot pushing some squeaks out of Roscoe around 1:04.
These guys are 10 months apart. Oh, the trouble they are destined to get into together.
These guys are 10 months apart. Oh, the trouble they are destined to get into together.
Friday, April 22, 2011
taking a pay cut
One of the most popular questions people ask me since I've had Roscoe is "Are you going back to work?" I'm just going to jump right in and answer, rather than try to keep you in suspense.
No.
That wasn't the plan originally. In fact, I was excited to go back. We had decided that even if we didn't need the income, I'd still go back to work and we'd save the money for emergencies, home repairs, a college fund for Roscoe, etc... But that changed.
A few weeks ago we were chatting with friends around a firepit. I won't go into all the details, but the conversation turned towards women working vs. not working. Let me say now that neither Mark nor I hold the belief that a woman's "place is in the home" exclusively. But as the conversation progressed, I was inferring from Mark's comments that he was sad to see my maternity leave coming to an end. So far in our marriage, I've been working 40 hours a week ranging anywhere from 5 am to 11 pm. That's 7 days a week. But for the past 11 weeks, I've been home. And it's been wonderful. I can actually focus on making home an exciting place for Mark to come home to. I can cook dinner every night. If Mark isn't working, we're together as a family. Even something as simple as doing laundry is so much easier now that I'm not having to do it around a full-time job.
I guess it all boils down to priorities. As much as I loved my job (I was at Starbucks for 4.5 years) and the people it put me in contact with, slinging coffee isn't as important as family.
I look at this as a new chapter in my life, relinquishing my grip (just a little bit more) on independence and embracing my role as a wife and mother. After all, just look at them...... Why wouldn't I be excited about the opportunity to spend so much time with my favorite men?!
(by the way, Mark's not mad, the sun was just in his eyes) (but even if it weren't, he wouldn't be smiling for the camera anyway...........so I don't care)
No.
That wasn't the plan originally. In fact, I was excited to go back. We had decided that even if we didn't need the income, I'd still go back to work and we'd save the money for emergencies, home repairs, a college fund for Roscoe, etc... But that changed.
A few weeks ago we were chatting with friends around a firepit. I won't go into all the details, but the conversation turned towards women working vs. not working. Let me say now that neither Mark nor I hold the belief that a woman's "place is in the home" exclusively. But as the conversation progressed, I was inferring from Mark's comments that he was sad to see my maternity leave coming to an end. So far in our marriage, I've been working 40 hours a week ranging anywhere from 5 am to 11 pm. That's 7 days a week. But for the past 11 weeks, I've been home. And it's been wonderful. I can actually focus on making home an exciting place for Mark to come home to. I can cook dinner every night. If Mark isn't working, we're together as a family. Even something as simple as doing laundry is so much easier now that I'm not having to do it around a full-time job.
I guess it all boils down to priorities. As much as I loved my job (I was at Starbucks for 4.5 years) and the people it put me in contact with, slinging coffee isn't as important as family.
I look at this as a new chapter in my life, relinquishing my grip (just a little bit more) on independence and embracing my role as a wife and mother. After all, just look at them...... Why wouldn't I be excited about the opportunity to spend so much time with my favorite men?!
Saturday, April 9, 2011
he's just hungry
To start with: a BIG, HUGE, GIGANTIC THANK YOU to my mother-in-law for making my life a whole lot easier with the 1 suggestion that finally worked for calming little RPG.
I am publicly posting this fully aware of the possibility of raised eyebrows and disapproving glares from some people. (Now I've got you hooked, huh?)
Last Friday I received a text from Mom Grant (who I will refer to as "Ma" for the remainder of the post so as not to confuse her with my mom, who I call.........."Mom") telling me she had a suggestion for me, and that I should call her if interested in hearing it. I liked this approach because she left an out for me to not call her if I was tired of suggestions (rabbit trail--because on facebook all you have to post is "Roscoe just cried for an hour" and the responses are bountiful, ranging from "that means he's allergic to milk" to "have you tried swaddling?" While on this topic, let me say that I'm terrible about facebook status updating. I view the majority of status updates as just that. An update. Not a plea for help. So when I update with the intention of portraying humor and I receive buckets of advice, it gets on my nerves. And Mark tells me I need to get over it. He's right.) So I let a whole day go by and then called Ma around 9ish. She told me about how when Mark was a baby, he was always hungry. He came out starving and she just couldn't keep up. He started rice cereal at 3 weeks. Yes, a 3 week old baby being supplemented with rice cereal. They always blamed his hunger on the fact that she was on steroids for part of the pregnancy. But then Roscoe had to go throw a wrench in that theory. Read on.
Ma advised that it'd at least be worth a shot to try supplementing Roscoe's diet with something. We want to avoid formula at all costs just because we don't have the money to buy the organic stuff and at the same time don't feel like pumping Roscoe full of the chemicals found in regular formula. So I got a little bottle feeder from the Grant's last Saturday. With some experimentation, I got some organic rice cereal to the perfect consistency (very thin) for the bottle. We started supplementing and a week later, Roscoe is a much much happier baby.
That's all it was! Poor little guy was just hungry all along :( Here he was crying all that time and trying to communicate that he wasn't getting enough to eat and I didn't know. (don't get me wrong, he still has his fussy periods, but don't all babies?) I guess Mark's hunger as a baby was due to metabolism, and that transferred to our son. My milk supply just can't keep up with Roscoe. I'm still nursing him, and he gets a lot more milk than he does cereal. The cereal is just supplemental. In fact, I really haven't cut back on how many times a day I'm feeding him, they're just spread out a little more now because he actually gets naps between feedings (for the most part). The only feeding it's eliminated is in the early morning (2-3 am). He sleeps better at night now, and this mama isn't complaining!
I know there are a lot of opinions out there on when to start a baby on what food, etc. But when it comes to the decision of starting my son on cereal 5 weeks earlier than suggested and letting him go hungry, what do you honestly think I'm going to do?
After all, this baby does look a lot happier to me.
I am publicly posting this fully aware of the possibility of raised eyebrows and disapproving glares from some people. (Now I've got you hooked, huh?)
Last Friday I received a text from Mom Grant (who I will refer to as "Ma" for the remainder of the post so as not to confuse her with my mom, who I call.........."Mom") telling me she had a suggestion for me, and that I should call her if interested in hearing it. I liked this approach because she left an out for me to not call her if I was tired of suggestions (rabbit trail--because on facebook all you have to post is "Roscoe just cried for an hour" and the responses are bountiful, ranging from "that means he's allergic to milk" to "have you tried swaddling?" While on this topic, let me say that I'm terrible about facebook status updating. I view the majority of status updates as just that. An update. Not a plea for help. So when I update with the intention of portraying humor and I receive buckets of advice, it gets on my nerves. And Mark tells me I need to get over it. He's right.) So I let a whole day go by and then called Ma around 9ish. She told me about how when Mark was a baby, he was always hungry. He came out starving and she just couldn't keep up. He started rice cereal at 3 weeks. Yes, a 3 week old baby being supplemented with rice cereal. They always blamed his hunger on the fact that she was on steroids for part of the pregnancy. But then Roscoe had to go throw a wrench in that theory. Read on.
Ma advised that it'd at least be worth a shot to try supplementing Roscoe's diet with something. We want to avoid formula at all costs just because we don't have the money to buy the organic stuff and at the same time don't feel like pumping Roscoe full of the chemicals found in regular formula. So I got a little bottle feeder from the Grant's last Saturday. With some experimentation, I got some organic rice cereal to the perfect consistency (very thin) for the bottle. We started supplementing and a week later, Roscoe is a much much happier baby.
That's all it was! Poor little guy was just hungry all along :( Here he was crying all that time and trying to communicate that he wasn't getting enough to eat and I didn't know. (don't get me wrong, he still has his fussy periods, but don't all babies?) I guess Mark's hunger as a baby was due to metabolism, and that transferred to our son. My milk supply just can't keep up with Roscoe. I'm still nursing him, and he gets a lot more milk than he does cereal. The cereal is just supplemental. In fact, I really haven't cut back on how many times a day I'm feeding him, they're just spread out a little more now because he actually gets naps between feedings (for the most part). The only feeding it's eliminated is in the early morning (2-3 am). He sleeps better at night now, and this mama isn't complaining!
I know there are a lot of opinions out there on when to start a baby on what food, etc. But when it comes to the decision of starting my son on cereal 5 weeks earlier than suggested and letting him go hungry, what do you honestly think I'm going to do?
After all, this baby does look a lot happier to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)