bearing blog

bear – ing n 1 the manner in which one comports oneself; 2 the act, power, or time of bringing forth offspring or fruit; 3 a machine part in which another part turns [a journal ~]; 4 pl comprehension of one’s position, environment, or situation; 5 the act of moving while supporting the weight of something [the ~ of the cross].

Seasonally, unschoolers.

To unschool, or to school-at-home? Jamie at Selkie has an interesting compromise: Be "scheduled" homeschoolers from from August to November and from January to April, and be "unschoolers" during Advent and Easter. Go, read.

I like to combine schooling and unschooling too, but I’ve done it on a subject basis, so to speak. So far (only one kid-year accomplished), we’ve "schooled" math, reading, and religion, and we "unschool" everything else. My plan for next year is to introduce some semi-schooled art and history as well. By semi-schooled I mean that I have some artwork and some historical biographies I’m specifically going to introduce at specific times throughout the year; but those are only springboards, and we’ll just see where they lead us.

Jul 9, 2006

—

|

No comments on Seasonally, unschoolers.
That’s nobody’s business but the Turks.

I don’t write a lot about the Crusades. My formal education in history was poor and incomplete, so although I have a sense from my general reading that the conventional wisdom about them is somewhat off, I wouldn’t dare try to do any debunking myself.

However, even I can see the ridiculous error in this Washington Post piece, pointed to by Get Religion, about conflicts between Muslims and Christians in the nation of Turkey:

The tension dates at least to the 13th century, when Christian Crusaders sacked what is today Istanbul.

"What is today Istanbul." Hm. Why do you think they didn’t say what it was in the 13th century? Could it be because the name might clue us in to something… important? As I’ve said before on this blog, thank goodness for They Might Be Giants:

Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it’s Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That’s nobody’s business but the Turks

Ah, that was fun. What is today Istanbul was, at the time the Christian Crusaders sacked it, not Istanbul at all but rather Constantinople. Ring a bell yet? Let’s look at a timeline shall we? Follow this link to the Wikipedia article and look at the right side of the page. Highlights:

330 – Constantine makes Constantinople his capital. (Remember Constantine? The Christian emperor?)

1054 – Schism. Split between Church in Rome and Church in Constantinople.

1071 and following: Several notations about the loss of Byzantine Christian cities to conquest by Turks, i.e., Muslim invaders. However, Constantinople is not among them. It remains an Eastern Christian city. Hence, it is still called Constantinople, recalling that long-ago Christian emperor.

1204 – Constantinople conquered by Crusaders. This is the 13th-century sacking referred to in the article. Who sacked whom? Western Christians sacked Eastern Christians. Now, you tell me, as Get Religion pointed out — how is this the source of the tension between Christians and Muslims in modern Turkey?

1261 – Constantinople reconquered by Michael Palaeologus, Byzantine emperor of Nicaea. OK, now the Eastern Christians have gotten Constantinople back.

1453 – Ottoman Turks (i.e. Muslim invaders again) conquer Constantinople.

After that, it was called Istanbul. But it wasn’t called that when Christians sacked it. Because it was Christian too. Do you think perhaps it might be more accurate to say that tensions between Muslims and Christians date to the 15th-century sacking of what was then Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks?

Maybe, if the 65,000 or so Orthodox Christians in Turkey were attacking the 35,000 or so Catholics in Turkey, that might make sense…

Jul 6, 2006

—

|

No comments on That’s nobody’s business but the Turks.
If it’s Wednesday, it must be pancakes.
A few weeks ago, I decided to try making pancakes once a week. I’d always thought of them as a "special" breakfast, and a not-very-healthy one, but a little research and practice showed me that (a) they’re actually quite easy, and quick enough to make on a weekday, and (b) if you make whole-grain pancakes, they’re not unhealthy at all — assuming you go easy on the syrup.

I fine-tuned my recipe over the course of several weeks. Perfection was reached when I finally bought one of those big two-burner nonstick griddles; now I can make the whole family’s pancakes in two or three batches. I also discovered that itsy-bitsy pancakes, dipped in a dish of syrup and eaten out of hand, are far less messy for the two-year-old than they would be if you involved a fork and knife.

So here is the recipe, just enough for my family of four if you add some sausage and eggs for those who want ’em. You can vary the proportions of flour, buttermilk, and egg to get the thickness you want. (Really, the recipe’s quite robust; you can add all kinds of things to the batter, from spices to nuts to berries to chocolate chips.)
The night before, mix whole wheat flour and buttermilk in a batter bowl. Cover and let soak at room temperature overnight.

In the morning, mix in remaining ingredients. Thin with milk or buttermilk if desired. Ladle onto hot, ungreased nonstick griddle to make any size pancakes. When small bubbles appear on top, turn with spatula. Cook until golden brown. Keep warm in 200-degree oven for up to 30 minutes.

Soaking the flour overnight makes the pancakes much softer, more like a white-flour pancake would be. Also, supposedly, overnight soaking breaks down compounds in whole grains that can inhibit nutrient absorption. Because of the "good cultures" in the buttermilk or yogurt, the mix shouldn’t spoil on the countertop, but if it worries you you could put it in the refrigerator; if you’re going to do that, you might want to soak it for longer, perhaps 24 hours. And it’s convenient that it takes exactly half a container of buttermilk; so we buy a quart every two weeks.

My family has really come to enjoy the tradition of "Wednesday Pancakes." I had no idea that my husband could put that many pancakes away at one sitting (undoubtedly his family won’t be surprised to hear that, but let’s face it, I’ve made more pancakes in the last seven weeks than in seven years of marriage).

I did discover one downside though — last Wednesday I must have needed a little more sleep, and didn’t wake up when Mark’s alarm went off. There’s really no place I have to be on most mornings, so it’s not such a big deal for me to sleep in till the kids wake up. Only Mark actually shook me awake before he got out of bed. At first I thought perhaps he was hoping to get a bit romantic, but then reality struck: "You’re waking me up so I’ll go down and make pancakes for you, aren’t you?"

"Well, yes."

Unintended consequences. My family likes the pancakes so much, now they expect the pancakes.
Jul 4, 2006

—

|

1 comment on If it’s Wednesday, it must be pancakes.
Independence Day.

Major milestone today: Mark and I slept in our bed last night, all night, with the kids in a different room. Both of them. First time since Oscar was born almost six years ago.

We set up the double bed in the tiny second bedroom in preparation for the impending birth of New Baby — it’s good to have extra beds around, because who knows which kids will be asleep where while I labor?

But now that there’s a bed in there, we’ve been putting Milo down to nap in it, and calling it the "boys’ bedroom." And we moved the basket of bedtime stories into that room too. Mark’s been snuggling down with them for story time, and asking, "So, should we sleep here tonight?" Oscar’s ready, but Milo’s always said no. So all three of them trooped back into the family bedroom, which is crammed full with our first queen-sized bed and the twin bed we bought when I was pregnant with Milo.

A few evenings ago Oscar fell asleep in the car and we put him down to sleep in the boys’ bedroom. He woke at three and we brought him back. But last night, both of them fell asleep in the car. We put them down next to each other, left the hall light on, and went to bed in our own room, with no one to keep us company but the kicking baby in my belly. Rather nice for a change!

The light was streaming through the windows before they woke up. I listened, entranced, to a sound I’d never heard before: the muffled sounds of my children’s voices as one woke the other up on the other side of a wall. I couldn’t make out any words. I did hear giggles. I heard Oscar get out of bed, go to the bathroom, flush the toilet, return to the boys’ bedroom. I thought about how much fun it is to wake up with the children and talk and giggle with them for a few minutes while lying in bed. I wished that I could hear what they were saying to each other. Maybe I could install a baby monitor or something? And then I thought: No — I don’t always have to eavesdrop. Let them enjoy being brothers together.

Of course, it wasn’t long before they sneaked into our room and jumped on the bed. "Wake up mama, wake up daddy," chanted Milo. And then — really! — the two of them absolutely plastered us with kisses and hugs. Milo hugged and kissed me while Oscar hugged and kissed Mark, and then Oscar hugged and kissed me while Milo hugged and kissed Mark, and then they put their hands on our faces and gazed adoringly at us, and then they switched places and did it all again.

Who knows whether this will happen again soon or not? I don’t know. I don’t care — I like having them with us, and I like them sleeping together in the next room too. I’m glad they’re together with each other and don’t need to sleep alone. I have no idea how long it’ll be before they willingly "go down" in the other room, instead of being carried there unconscious. But I believe I’ll remember this Fourth of July for a long time.

Jul 4, 2006

—

|

1 comment on Independence Day.
People who work in the food industry are interesting.

"How was work today?"

"Today I learned that the most expensive peanut butter sold in the United States costs six hundred dollars a pound."

Choosy moms, apparently, choose NIST SRM-2387.

Jun 30, 2006

—

|

3 comments on People who work in the food industry are interesting.
An interesting turn of events to say the least.

Midwest Conservative Journal reports on several Episcopal dioceses requesting alternate primatial oversight, plus this little gem from the Province of Nigeria:

The Primate of All Nigeria (Anglican Communion), the Most Rev Peter Akinola has announced the election of new Bishops in the Church of Nigeria.

The election was conducted at the Episcopal Synod of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), which met on Wednesday, June 28 2006, at All Saints Church Wuse Abuja.

The Bishops-elect are:

The Rev Canon Christian Ideh, of Igbudu Christian Centre, Emevor, for the Diocese of Warri.

The Venerable Musa Tula, of St Stephen’s Anglican Church Wange-Tula, Gombe State, for the Diocese of Bauchi.

The Very Rev Adebayo Akinde, of the Cathedral of St Peter Ake, Abeokuta, Ogun State, for the newly created Diocese of Lagos Mainland. The inauguration of the diocese will come up in August.

The Rev Canon Martyn Minns of Truro Parish in Virginia, USA was also elected Bishop in the Church of Nigeria for the missionary initiative of the Church of Nigeria called Convocation of Anglican Churches in North America (CANA).

Yup, you heard that right.

Jun 28, 2006

—

|

No comments on An interesting turn of events to say the least.
The World Championship of Wife-Carrying.

No, really.

Via Get Religion, whose post on the subject is also worth reading. I think the comments will only get better.

(Incidentally, I’ve always liked Get Religion, which is about the media portrayal of religion and religious people, and I’ve always admired the blog’s title for its double meaning. "I was a bad person until I got religion." "The press just doesn’t get religion." I was telling Mark about this today and he pointed out a third possible interpretation: "The press is out to get religion." Hmm — maybe so!)

Jun 28, 2006

—

|

No comments on The World Championship of Wife-Carrying.
Splitting.

It’s been really, really interesting bouncing around the Anglican blogosphere and reading the reactions to what’s going on from traditionals as well as progressives.

I couldn’t help but dive into the comments on this post, after reading the paragraph:

Jesus seems to have been completely indifferent to the "manner of life" of those he called to serve, and those who served him — as long as they served! (Remember the woman who washed his feet with her tears, and Simon’s pious reaction?) You know, Jesus never mentions personal holiness at all; it’s part of the purity code he rejected. He talked about prophetic righteousness and not judging others. Hmmm… could sure use more of that in the Anglican Communion!

And that’s from a parish vicar in the Bronx. Wow.

Having read the arguments of many different people, I honestly don’t see how this denomination in the United States can remain one.

What’s the proper Christian attitude towards what’s going on with the Anglicans? I think it’s really, really tempting for Catholics to be smug about it. "See? It just goes to show the inevitable consequences of rejecting centralized authority." Well, intellectually that’s not inaccurate, but smugness isn’t charitable, and it isn’t helpful. Should we be pleased or not pleased? Is this a good thing or a bad thing, that the body of Christians is splitting further?

The key to figuring this out is to realize that the split (between "progressive" Episcopalians and the greater Anglican communion) has already happened. It happened in the minds and hearts of individuals, of whole Episcopalian parishes, of seminaries, long ago. What’s going on now is the admission and acknowledgment of the split, probably leading to its actual manifestation in organizational structure. We can never, ever rejoice that people have fallen into heresies. But we can be glad when a heresy is exposed and when, by cutting it adrift, an orthodoxy is preserved.

Not every instance of heresy is necessarily an indication that a "split" has occurred. Sometimes it can be corrected without schism. As long as there’s reasonable hope of that, splitting is ill-advised. But there comes a point when excommunication is the most hopeful act. It forces a decision. Heresy that can say truthfully that the guardians of orthodoxy accepts it is a much more dangerous kind.

Jun 28, 2006

—

|

No comments on Splitting.
What was that debate about, again?

Jimmy Akin points to a Washington Post story:

The Supreme Court refused Monday to consider appeals from abortion rights groups wanting to block states from issuing car license plates bearing the message "Choose Life."

…Justices said they would not look at tag laws in Louisiana and Tennessee.

Abortion opponents contend they have a free-speech right to broadcast their own views on their car tags. Proposals to offer car owners an alternative "Choose Choice" plate failed in both state Legislatures.

A federal judge had found that Tennessee’s tag wrongly promoted only one side of the abortion debate, but the decision was overturned by an appeals court.

… Last year, the high court let stand a lower court ruling that said South Carolina’s license plates, which bear the slogan "Choose Life," violate the First Amendment because abortion rights supporters weren’t given a similar forum to express their beliefs.

Jimmy’s take on it is worth reading. I’m not really fired up over "special" license plates — a license plate is supposed to identify a vehicle and confirm that it’s registered with the state, something that is probably hindered by the lack of uniformity. Also the proliferation of these special plates has all but ruined License Plate Bingo on car trips.

What I find interesting about this is the notion (shared by some courts) that, if "abortion opponents" can have a special plate with their own message, "Choose Life," then "abortion rights supporters" should have the right to a plate that sends their own message, according to a sort of equal-access principle.

The reason I think it’s interesting is that this argument assumes several points that the abortion-rights movement might be wiser to deny, at least for the sake of appearances.

First, it assumes what pro-life people have been insisting all along. Abortion is a black-and-white issue. There are only two sides: "abortion opponents" and "abortion rights supporters." There is no gray area. There is no room for I’m personally opposed to abortion but I think it is good that it is legal. Nor is there room for I support legal abortion but I think we should encourage people not to have abortions. In other words, there are exactly two positions: "anti-abortion," exemplified by people who would exhort other to "choose life," and the opposite, i.e., "pro-abortion."

This leads us to the second point, because one would naturally ask, "So what would the ‘other side’ exhort?" The message on the plates is "Choose Life." Arguing that abortion-rights supporters, as the "other side," have a right to display their own message, implies an assumption: that they don’t want to display "Choose Life." So what do they want to display? "Don’t Choose Life?" "Choose something other than life?" The article mentions "Choose Choice." What does that mean? This argument isn’t exactly good PR for abortion-rights supporters. It makes them look like they’re opposed to the choice of life, i.e., not pro-choice, just pro-abortion. Hardly the image they want to project.

Third point. Tennessee’s court (later overturned) agreed with the abortion-rights supporters that the Tennessee tag "promoted only one side of the abortion debate." OK, so… which side does "Choose Life" promote? If "Choose Life" is one side of the abortion debate, then what exactly is the abortion debate about? You thought that it was "keep abortion legal/make abortion illegal." But wait! This plate doesn’t say "Make abortion illegal." It says "Choose Life." If that’s one side, we’re talking about a different debate. So now, all of a sudden, the abortion-rights supporters are saying, "The abortion debate isn’t about legality, it’s really about encouraging women to freely choose abortions vs. discouraging women from freely choosing abortions."

It’s pretty obvious that the slogan "Choose Life" is not an "anti-choice" slogan. It’s neutral, if not positive, on the subject of "choice." It’s positive on the subject of "life." Theoretically, an abortion-rights supporter should be able to carry that particular banner without any contradiction. (Except that, practically speaking, "I hope you choose life" apparently functions as code for "I don’t support legal abortion." Which should tell us something.)

Of course, these plates do not exist solely "to show the car owner’s opposition to abortion," as the WaPo article states. They are also fundraising plates. In Florida, for example, the money goes to organizations that support women in continuing their crisis pregnancies, including nonprofit adoption agencies and maternity homes. Perhaps the abortion-rights supporters want the right to a plate that says "Choose Life" but that raises funds for some other kind of organization. Hmm.

Jun 28, 2006

—

|

No comments on What was that debate about, again?
The Archbishop responds. And why be Anglican anyway?

Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, has issued a thoughtful response in the wake of The Episcopal Church’s actions. Looks like a split is a real possibility.

Other bloggers have commented on the text, notably the repeated statements that the Bible is the source of the Anglican Communion’s churches’ doctrine — which can’t be read in any other way than a criticism of The Episcopal Church’s endorsement of same-sex unions, really.

I was interested in this bit (line spacing edited by me to highlight the structure of the argument):

We do have a distinctive historic tradition–

   a reformed commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine,

   a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons,

and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly.

….The different components in our heritage can, up to a point, flourish in isolation from each other. But any one of them pursued on its own would lead in a direction ultimately outside historic Anglicanism.

      The reformed concern may lead towards a looser form of ministerial order and a stronger emphasis on the sole, unmediated authority of the Bible.

   The catholic concern may lead to a high doctrine of visible and structural unification of the ordained ministry around a focal point.

   The cultural and intellectual concern may lead to a style of Christian life aimed at giving spiritual depth to the general shape of the culture around and de-emphasising revelation and history.

Pursued far enough in isolation, each of these would lead to a different place – to strict evangelical Protestantism, to Roman Catholicism, to religious liberalism. To accept that each of these has a place in the church’s life and that they need each other means that the enthusiasts for each aspect have to be prepared to live with certain tensions or even sacrifices…

The only reason for being an Anglican is that this balance seems to you to be healthy for the Church Catholic overall, and that it helps people grow in discernment and holiness.

(Emphasis mine.) Well! That clears something up. Now I know why anyone would want to be Anglican.

It appears that it has to do with having your cake, eating it, and also giving it to your neighborhood food shelf, or something along those lines.

I don’t mean to be too facetious, but… It’s impossible to be Catholic, Protestant, and Modernist all at the same time. Is this really what Anglicanism is all about? Trying to sail somehow equally among the three strongest opposing currents in Christendom? I’m surprised that they don’t feel a bit guilty for leaving the Eastern Orthodox out of it.

Well, if Archbishop Williams is correct, I guess it explains the appeal of Anglicanism to so many. I wonder if he is correct. Perhaps we’ll learn more after the Anglican bishops meet next year.

Jun 27, 2006

—

|

1 comment on The Archbishop responds. And why be Anglican anyway?
Something I never noticed.

Father Stephanos has a post pointing something out about the Mass that I never noticed, relevant to the new translation.

OK, so we’ve all heard that the new translation changes what English-speakers reply to the priest when he says, "The Lord be with you."

We’re used to saying, "And also with you." The corrected translation will be, "And with your spirit."

This isn’t new to me. I spent a few months in France when I was in college, and I went to Mass, and I noticed right away (it’s the first response in the Mass after all) that the congregation was saying, "Et avec votre esprit." When I had a chance, I looked up the Latin Order of Mass and saw that it said "Et cum spiritu tuo." Strange! I thought. And it seemed a strange sort of greeting, too, this "And with your spirit." Why doesn’t the priest say "The Lord be with your spirit(s)" to the congregation? Why the asymmetry? It doesn’t sound like a natural sort of greeting.

It hadn’t occurred to me that the odd sound is deliberate because it is more than a greeting.

Father Stephanos points out that this curious greeting occurs at four specific points in the Mass. (So there’s one clue: if it were just a greeting, it would be only at the beginning.)

Each time the ordained cleric (bishop, priest or deacon) says at Mass, "The Lord be with you," and the people respond, "And with your spirit," something is about to take place that is reserved to an ordained cleric.

1. The start of Mass, with the penitential rite, absolution prayer, opening prayer

2. The Gospel and Homily

3. The preface and the Eucharistic Prayer

4. The final blessing

In a sense, the people’s response of "And with your spirit" is an acknowledgement of the apostolic credentials of the ordained minister. It is an expression of faith in the sacramental powers the ordained receive from Christ through the apostles and their successors.

I never noticed that!

He quotes two early Christian fathers on the subject. One is St. John Chrysostom (347-407), who explicitly states that this is the meaning of et cum spirito tuo. (Yes, that’s 407… we’ve been saying it for that long.)

When he stands at the holy altar, when he is about to offer the awesome sacrifice— you have answered “And with your spirit” reminding yourselves by this reply that he … does nothing by his own power … but by the grace of the Spirit

By removing the asymmetry that sounds a bit grating to our ears, by smoothing it to "The Lord be with you/And also with you," the ICEL translators reduced this exchange to merely a greeting.

Possibility 1: the ICEL translators were ignorant of the meaning of this exchange. (So what were they doing being trusted with translating the Mass? Huh?)

Possibility 2: they actually intended to suppress the asymmetry, making the people’s reply to the priest a mirror of the priest’s greeting to the people — toning down the distinction between lay and ordained. Doesn’t that sound like a bizarre conspiracy theory? But — this was 1970. Which do *you* think was more likely?

Jun 27, 2006

—

|

1 comment on Something I never noticed.
Coldblogging.

I’ve been sniffly and achy and tired. So, rather than write much today, I’ll just post the links that I’d like to spend time writing about.

Peregrinator at Canterbury Tales, an Anglican convert to Catholicism, is doing a series on the "Top Ten" doctrines to which non-Catholics object. So far he’s covered Papal Universal Jurisdiction; (everyone’s favorite) Indulgences and the Treasury of Merit; Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead; and Relics and Images. He promises more — should be good.

An anecdote about the year they took the crucifixes off the wall at Boston College (and the comments are interesting too).

"God’s Milk: An Orthodox Confession of the Eucharist." Early Christians, apparently, frequently used the image of breastfeeding as an image of the Eucharist. What I like about this piece is that, although the imagery is distinctly about mothering, the ancient writers aren’t tempted to stray from the revealed terminology of Father, Son, Holy Spirit. (A far cry from the new Episcopal Primate’s now-infamous inaugural "Mother Jesus" sermon.)

Click here and scroll down to Sunday, June 25, "Dining With Dead Jesuits," for a meditation on what’s been lost (on purpose and not), sparked by a meal at the Culinary Institute of America in New York — located in the former Jesuit seminary of St-Andrews-on-Hudson.

The so-called "ex-gay" movement continues to be controversial. Eve Tushnet writes about (among other things) living chastely as a Catholic with same-sex attraction, and tends to turn a skeptical eye (both practically and theologically) toward the programs set up to "cure" people of same-sex attraction. This post contains some lengthy comments from readers; the one I found most interesting was one about the differences between Catholic and evangelical-Protestant views of the human person and how that affects their respective, for want of a better word, "prescriptions" for Christians who experience significant same-sex attraction.

A blog post of Eve’s led me to Disputed Mutability, a blog by a self-described Calvinist Protestant woman who identifies herself as "ex-gay." She, too, is critical of many of the "cure" programs; her success, she says, was found in a Christian residential program that was "not ex-gay specific, but was for all sorts of spiritual/behavioral issues." Here’s her story: as Eve says, "honest" and "challenging."

Neal at Literal-Minded waxes musical. (But not musically.)

Jun 26, 2006

—

|

No comments on Coldblogging.