2.5 Kids and a Dog

After graduating high school I still lived with my parents for a few years.  I moved out as soon as I could afford it.  For those few years before independence I felt embarrassed I wasn't out of my parent's house. I attended college and worked but it seemed to me that by the age of 19 or 20 you shouldn't still live in your parent's household.

When I moved to Texas from Oregon for graduate school one thing I quickly realized was that everyone else knew someone and I did not.  I believed the myth that once people are 18 they should be independent of family and that needing solid connections to a community wasn't that important. Soon I realized that even people who moved for graduate school from other far away places seemed to know someone -- a relative, a friend or their parent had gone to school in the area years ago and had connections.

I also experienced working in an environment where I met several people from other countries.  It struck me that they didn't move to America by themselves.  They all had cousins, siblings or someone.  Was I the only person in all of Texas living there 'alone'?

This, among further research in a variety of topics, really started me on a track thinking about how and why we define a household the way we do in American.  The status quo states that one should move out of their parent's house about 18 or 19, perhaps get a bit of education, get married, get working and have a few babies and poof -- nuclear (perfect?) family.

When I state it that way most people understand it doesn't make sense and doesn't usually work that way.  Most people also feel that society in general purports this as truth, especially in Christian circles.

I believe breaking down the myth of nuclear families actually gives us a great place to start talking about a wide variety of topics that Christians deem as major issues -- divorce, singleness, cohabitation, abortion, gay marriage, working moms and the list can go on.

I just read an article from 1994 titled, "The Transformation of American Family Structure" by Steven Ruggles from the American Historical Review.  The article shows that after World War II a major shift to not living in multigenerational households has occurred.  His conclusion, which I didn't expect, says that the rise of the independent spirit seems the cause for this transition.

The article also brings up, usually as side comments, a variety of other ideas I never thought about.  For instance, when looking at if communities used to be multigenerational households you need to factor in if the parents had several children, since then generally only one of the households could be multigenerational.  (Parents only live with one child.)  He also shows that historically if the parent had financial means the child would stay under the household of the parent, not the parent moving back in because of old age like we often think of today.  Another comment mentions how in many other cultures people live with their siblings but that has never been the case in America.

This briefly starts to touch on why the idea that a nuclear family -- husband, wife, 2.5 kids and a dog -- may not be the historical or even ideal household structure.  I'd love to hear comments from you about living arrangements you've seen that work or if you're from another culture how it works in your culture.  Please stay on topic.

In my last post I mentioned my new favorite blog--Sociological Images.  They have a couple articles on this topic I thought I'd share with you:

-- How Do We Define a Family?
This article looks at a survey asking Americans if they define themselves as a family.
-- What is a Family?
This article uses as it's starting point an image from an Ikea parking lot.

"To remind you of things that are true"

This year for Lent, instead of giving something up, I added something. (Didn't know you could do that, did you?) Yesterday was Pentecost, so why am I talking about Lent again? Because the habit I picked up during Lent... I've kept! (How long do they say it takes to break old habits and make new ones? It's helpful to focus on it for 47 days with a bunch of other folks united by One Spirit.) During Lent I wanted to start devotional reading, something I admittedly hadn't done in a long time. I tried out a few different readings, but I landed on one that I originally bought for my cousins' children---Sally Lloyd-Jones's Thoughts to Make Your Heart Sing. This 101-readings devotional is written and illustrated by the same folks who crafted the widely celebrated Jesus Storybook Bible. And just like the JSB, it's beautifully illustrated, exceedingly well-written, plugged into the overarching narrative of Scripture, and spiritually and theologically enriching... for grownups just as much as for kids.

One of the great things about Thoughts to Make Your Heart Sing is that the readings are really, really short! Good children's literature is very much like good poetry in the sense that every word counts. With economy and simplicity we do not lose depth or power, and short, single-focused readings leave me with more energy to contemplate, meditate, remember, pray.

Another great thing about this book is that it encourages us not to take ourselves too seriously, or put pressure on ourselves to be "super-spiritual." It's a devotional, a testimony of faith, that hasn't lost its sense of humor. Adult devotionals are often heavy and serious. There are times for seriousness, but the joy of pure laughter is an essential part of what it means to "let Thy kingdom come." A part of our calling to be "like these little children" includes not taking ourselves too seriously. Reading through this children's devotional has helped me do this in my own life.

I don't know about you, but it's really easy for me to get into ruts. Reading through this children's devotional has been one way that's helped me think outside the box and engage from a different angle, and so I wanted to pass it along.

I'll leave you with one of my favorites:

Copyright Sally Lloyd-Jones
[click to enlarge]

"Satisfy us each morning with your unfailing love, so we may sing for joy to the end of our lives." PSALM 90:14 (NLT)

Three Questions I Have Now That the Gosnell Trial is Over

The Gosnell Trial has ended, with Dr. Gosnell receiving a life sentence for killing three new-born babies (and for some frightening medical malpractice). It's a horrible ordeal; never before have I actually avoided those links that say "WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT," but, for once, I decided there were pictures I didn't want to see.

So, I'm left with a few things on my mind.


When Does a Baby Receive Human Rights?

I realize that my Liberal friends hate this argument, but I can't shake it: why is it legal to put an infant do death in utero, but not a few minutes after it's born? Isn't it the same child? I would prefer that we adopt a policy of believing that all life is precious.


Why Don't Parents Exercise Other Options?

I've never understood this. Gosnell was known for performing abortions for women who were desperate - sometimes doing the operation for free. Some saw this as an act of charity and called him a hero.

It's true that some people are unable to raise a child, and unplanned pregnancies are extremely difficult, but that doesn't mean that abortion is the "only choice." Many children, like me, were adopted as babies due to similar circumstances. When the mother's life is not in danger, why should we consider ending the baby's life?


Why Was Gosnell able to do This?

Gosnell had been at this for a long time - since the 90s. He ran a practice that disregarded the health of mothers while claiming he was doing them a favor. Anyone looking at his record would have been horrified to be on his operating table, and he should have been shut down long before his arrest, but he was able to continue his practice because the authorities in Philadelphia did not do their jobs. In 2011, it was discovered that 14 abortion clinics in Philadelphia had not been visited by the health department in fifteen years. Here's what they found when they resumed those inspections:

"...not performing or documenting monitoring of blood pressure, pulse and oxygen levels...not examining tissue from all first-trimester abortions, as required, to see if the women were pregnant...equipment was found that was well past expiration date...also found was an unlabeled bag of blue pills and practices that raised patient confidentiality concerns."

And Gosnell's place was the worst of the bunch.

I'll be asking myself these questions for a long time. I think all human life is precious, and I don't understand why we can be so cavalier about doing this.

Some American Constitutions are Christian Documents

In my last post, I made the case that the United States Constitution is clearly not a Christian document.  The framers of the government and the document in 1787-1789 purposefully crafted this sort of document, complete with the disestablishment of all churches and the promise of religious freedom.

But that was for the nation, and for the national Congress.  The story of the state constitutions is a very different story.  From the 1770s through the 1790s, leaders in every state (not every leader) came together to craft state constitutions which in some way, aimed at creating specifically Christian societies.  Here are some of the ways they did this:

Established Churches
The state constitutions of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire all established a particular religious denomination as the official religion of the state.  Essentially (although the laws could get very convoluted), this meant that if you were a resident of the state, part of your taxes went toward supporting this denomination.  The State of Massachusetts was the last state to finally disestablish the state-supported church.  It did this in 1833, more than forty years after the ratification of the Constitution and the First Amendment.

Limited Religious Freedom and Toleration
Every state which did not officially establish a Christian denomination still limited freedom and toleration in some way.  Pennsylvania required that all citizens believe in God.  North Carolina's "Declaration of Rights" promised freedom of religion, so long as it was "to worship Almighty God" (This article pointed out an attempt a few weeks ago in North Carolina to return to something like this, and the Washington Post's poor coverage of it).  The 1777 Constitution of South Carolina stated that all people would be "freely tolerated," as long as they "acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshiped."

Religious Tests for Public Office
While the U.S. Constitution specifically barred religious tests, many states specifically required them.  Almost every state required that elected officials profess a belief in the God of Christianity.  Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Vermont required officials to believe in the divine inspiration of the Old and New Testaments.  North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, New Jersey, and New Hampshire required members of the state legislature, judges, and governors to be Protestants.  Ironically, most of these constitutions contained the promise that "no further religious test" would ever be required of anyone - except, of course, for the religious test they just had to take.

Religious Tests for Voting
Some states even required religious tests for citizens who wanted to vote.  Pennsylvania only granted civil rights like voting to those who acknowledged "the being of a God."  South Carolina required a belief in God and in "the future states of rewards and punishments."  And don't forget, in most every place, voting was already restricted to property-owning white males.

So What?
All of this information puts the national, constitutional calls for the free exercise of religion and disestablishment of churches in the 1780s in a fascinating context.  Some American leaders in the 1780s were stalwart on the issues of disestablishment and the separation of church and state in the national Constitution because they were such strong proponents of religious freedom.

But many leaders were bent on clarifying the language of the Constitution on religion not because they wanted a nation or government without church influence, but because they wanted the national government to be limited in its religious power.  With that settled, they could return to their states, and state constitutions, in order to exert precisely that power.

So Christians, as you have conversations about the issues surrounding the role of religion in our constitutions, laws, or history, keep in mind that these are historically complex issues.  You should seek answers, and you should take stands.  But you should base it on the varied history of the role religion in American life and laws, not based on a God-and-country caricature of it.


Helpful Links
Constitutions
You can find the early constitutions of all the states, territories, and nation in the multivolume book "The Federal and State Constitutions," freely available on Google Books.  Click here for a link to one of these volumes.

Books and Articles
David Sehat, The Myth of American Religious Freedom
John Fea, Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?
Thomas Kidd, God Of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution
Benjamin Park, "North Carolina's 'Official Religion': The Convoluted History of American States and Established Religions