Monday, December 1, 2008


Well, it's taken some time to finally getting around to reading the articles that I had put aside from the October Briefing, mainly on Motherhood.

I found the article from Lesley Ramsay helpful at a number of points. She stated that 'in God's eyes, what you do as a parent matters more than any other job you will ever have'. This is a good reminder that what I do as a mother counts and is important. I found her explanation of how 'not to love your children' extremely helpful. She said that we are not to idolise our children, make them the centre of our lives or make our goals for them the same as that of the worlds: 'They may say, "'You don't love us!" but we should reply, "I do love you. I just love Jesus more. And so should you." ' (I have the eBriefing so if you want a copy, ask me, copyright lets me send it on with some restrictions.)

Nicole had highlighted in her post that there were additional articles available online. I downloaded the ones from JC Ryle on the Duties of Parents (2 parts). It was obviously written some time ago, as the language was more formal than we usually read. However, it was great. Insightful, forceful and biblical. It's long, so you need to be ready to sit down with it for a while. He starts looking at Prov 22:6 (Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old, he will not depart from it), and then goes on to outline 17 (!) things we should be training our children in. I especially liked the ones on training them to a knowledge of the bible and training them to a habit of prayer. You may not agree with everything he says, especially perhaps in the later points, but I found it a timely reminder nonetheless to continue to think about how we train our children in the Lord.

Both of these articles emphasised the importance of the home as the place of training, and the role of mothers (mainly) in this role. As a stay-at-home mum, I was reminded that just because I do not work outside the home, I cannot assume my kids get more time from me - if I choose to fill it with washing, cooking, cleaning, blogging (!), rather than with them.

There was an interesting article in The Australian paper today "The momification of the US first lady", which reports that Michelle Obama has decided "to the chagrin of Democratic feminists" to be a mom-in-chief and give up her job. The mood from feminists seems to be that because she can be in a high-paying job and she has degrees from Princeton and Harvard she should be using them. Columnist Ruth Marcus is reported as complaining "when the needs of our families collide with the demands of our jobs, it is usually the woman's career that yields".

To which I want to reply 'of course' and 'so what?'. How is the 'feminist agenda' come to this where they think (for example) that a family with two young children who are about to be the most public in the world do not need their mother looking after them, and it is entirely appropriate that she should be the one doing so (seeing her husband was elected, following a path they decided on, to a rather busy job).

I do find the constant belittling of women who choose to stay home tiring. And it is a choice - I feel privileged to have the choice - not all women do. My husband has to work, but I have the choice. And (most days!) I am very happy with my choice.


By the way, the article on Children of Divorce (Generation Ex) by Karen Beilharz was excellent. I thought her suggestions on how to reach out as friends and churches to children of divorce very helpful and her general comments were very insightful to someone who has had no personal experience in this.

No comments: