100_2209

. . . in a wonderful place . . .
Oh, just the usual, petitioning, running around the state, getting pounded in Monopoly by a gloat-prone little brother . . .
Oh, that ring?
Oh, it was a present. Isn’t it pretty? Just what I always wanted.
From who?
Just a special person. Who likes me a lot. Why do you ask?

YES!!! This will come as no surprise to anyone who knows me in person, or is friends with me on Facebook, or reads Mama’s, Jacob’s, or Ellen’s blogs (so that’s pretty much everybody), but I’m engaged! Or betrothed. I can’t decide which terminology I prefer. The point is I’m promised to a real live (not hypothetical) bridegroom. Tyler Upchurch. The Lord provides so wonderfully (above all we could ask or think, in this as in greater things). One year ago, I didn’t even know there was such a person in the world. Only six months ago, I wasn’t expecting that the Lord would bring such happiness into my life.  I’m still astonished every time he says ‘I love you’.  He is everything I ever wanted in a husband and more than I could have imagined. We have set a still-tentative date for the second weekend in May.

100_1353

I lived with visions for my company

Instead of men and women, years ago,

And found them gentle mates, nor thought to know

A sweeter music than they played to me.

But soon their trailing purple was not free

Of this world’s dust, their lutes did silent grow,

And I myself grew faint and blind below

Their vanishing eyes. Then THOU didst come, to be,

Beloved, what they seemed. Their shining fronts,

Their songs, their splendours, (better, yet the same,

As river-water hallowed into fonts)

Met in thee, and from out thee overcame

My soul with satisfaction of all wants:

Because God’s gifts put man’s best dreams to shame.

Fully illustrated courtship story coming soon! Actually, I’ll set myself a deadline. I will have it published by the first of December.

Steve and Candice Watters , founders of Boundless.org, will be on FamilyLife Today Monday (August 31) and Tuesday (September 1), discussing her book Get Married. At a later date the program will also air interviews about their book Start Your Family: Inspiration For Having Babies (that’s the one I’m really looking forward to!).

Give it a listen. In my area the program comes on WCRV (AM 640) at 10:00 a.m. and on AFR Talk (FM91.7) at 9:00 p.m.

In some Christian circles, a lot is written about singleness, particularly of young women. Most of it tends to be focused on how to get through ‘the wait’ (and written by single young women). ‘The Wait’, to many of these girls, is a passive period–waiting for Prince Charming Darcy to arrive, while in the meantime life passes you by.

Charo Washer (yes, that’s Mrs Paul) has a different perspective:

Singleness is not a waste of time or a sitting on the sidelines, but a time that God has set aside especially for the woman, to make her into what He wants her to be, and to use her in ways that just might be impossible after marriage. Singleness is a time in which a woman is to cultivate the virtues that pertain to being a woman of God , so that she can offer to her future husband and the world something more than just a pretty face. . . .

It is a wonderful thing when God blesses a woman with a husband. . . It is such a joy for the woman to look back and remember how God enabled her to wait on Him and that He was faithful to bless. It is still an even greater joy for her to know that her time as a single woman was also a time of seeking God and being faithful to Him and His purpose. That she did not for one moment wish to flee that state, but desired only to trust in God and wait upon His gracious sovereignty.

Read the article here: Becoming Esther by Charo Washer (it’s in PDF format, so you’ll have to download it).

This guitar is like terminally out of tune, but I don’t know how to tune it. And I’m a big believer that things are boring if they’re . . . . really fine.

~Rich Mullins

Couldn’t that be one of our Riley mottos . . . somehow? Maybe you’d have to be there. I mean here.

100_6246

Yesterday’s Boundless article: ‘Working Full-Time as a Stay-At-Home Wife’

The corresponding blog post: ‘You Want to Go Where, to Be a What?’ (don’t get caught up in the comment wars or you’ll be there all day)

Teaser:

On Boundless, you have often raised the subject of how important/beneficial it is for women to be at home once they’ve had children, but I would like some advice on the possibility of being a “stay at home wife” prior to the arrival of babies. It seems to be an odd concept for most people I have talked with. . . . .

I’m confused about whether my motives behind being a housewife are pure and godly or selfish and lazy. I don’t consider myself to be lazy. I guess I can envision myself tending to my home and garden, helping out with volunteer work at church, doing some sewing and other crafts, and maybe getting a part-time job. I’m worried that with a full-time career I would arrive home at the same time as my husband at the end of each day, tired and worn out, and that I would be lacking in energy to then tend to my home and cook meals . . . .

I feel very torn and unsure of the distinctions between what society expects, what I desire and what God desires. I truly want to make the right decision and to live a life that is pleasing to God. . . .

Candice Watters’ reply begins:

I love this question because I suspect most readers will do the same double take I did. It sounds positively archaic to graduate from college, get married, and gasp, stay at home before even having kids. But the more I’ve thought about your situation, the more I applaud it. Yes! You can be a stay at home wife at great benefit to you, your husband, your marriage and your future children.

Now, I did not do a double take. But I was very excited by this article. It might not surprise my acquaintance to learn that I aspire to the noble position of stay-at-home wife; or that I believe that this is the most Biblical route. However, though it can claim historicity, it is hardly common these days–it’s even frowned upon by many, as the storm of controversy the article ignited on the Boundless blog shows. Thus the excitement. This article was encouraging.

I’d love to know what y’all think. Read the article and then head back over here and give me your thoughts.

 
 
 
 
 

 

I just started a book called Miniatures and Morals: The Christian Novels of Jane Austen by literary critic and New St Andrews professor Peter Leithart. Hopefully I will write a full review when I’m finished, but in the first chapter (‘Real Men Read Austen’ :) ) I found something I thought worth sharing:

All [Jane Austen's] great heroes–Darcy, Wentworth, Edmund Bertram, Knightley–are men who hold positions of authority and use those positions for good. Each of them is a Christlike lover who sacrifices, often at some cost to his reputation, to win his bride. They are servant-heroes, not macho-heroes.  . .

But this is the part that really struck me:

Even without considering her strong male characters, Austen’s novels are highly instructive for men. The mere fact that her novels give men an opportunity to see romance through the eyes of an uncommonly perceptive woman should be enough to recommend them. Even if we men do not want to see courtship through a woman’s eyes, who can say we do not need to? She has a strong sense of a man’s role in courtship and his responsibility for the course that a courtship takes. More than one male character in her novels proves himself a scoundrel by playing with the affections of a woman. Austen’s first rule of courtship is one I have frequently repeated to my sons: Men are responsible not only for behaving honourably toward women but also for the woman’s response; if a man does not intend to enter a serious relationship, he has no business giving a woman special attention or encouraging her to attach herself to him. Austen sees clearly that men who play with a woman’s affections are fundamentally egotistical. They want the admiration and attention of women without promising anything or making any commitment. Few lessons of courtship are more needed in our own day.

It’s true! Think about Frank Churchill playing with Emma’s affections for his own purposes (‘a child’s play, chosen to conceal a deeper game on Frank Churchill’s part’), or Willoughby’s betrayal of Marianne, or Wickham’s repeated flirtations. Whole worlds open up when one looks at Jane’s novels as more than mere lighthearted romances.

My earnest apologies for the unintended length of this post. This seems to happen on all of my political posts.

Did you hear about the Tea Party? No, not the fun kind. I’m referring to the nationwide peaceful tax protest that occurred a couple of weeks ago. TEA stands for ‘Taxed Enough Already’, but the event is actually named after the famous ‘tea parties’ that occurred at the beginning of America’s stand against England (the one in Boston was not the only one or even the first one, just the best publicised). These modern-day ‘Tea Parties’ (they are planning another for Independence Day), like the originals, occurred all over the nation, but were organised on a local level. As such, they are just the type of event Daddy most enjoys speaking at.

Daddy keynoted the Tea Party in Ripley, Mississippi. He worked in the kingship of Christ, the historical understanding of the founding of the American Republic, the massive differences between a republic and a democracy and the problems with the latter, the duties of Christian families, the importance of a right foundation, and lots of Thomas Jefferson quotes, and ended up with one of the best speeches I’ve ever heard him give. (Direct quotes are italicised in the following summary)

He began with a quote from Benjamin Franklin, who, when asked after the 1787 Constitutional Convention, ‘What kind of government did you give us?’, replied, ‘A republic, if you can keep it’. The United States of America was not founded as a democracy (a system which eighteenth-century writer Alexander Tytler said ’cannot exist as a permanent form of government’), but as a constitutional representative republic.

Simply stated, we were given a constitutional democratic republic built on Biblical principles and what used to be called ‘ordered liberty’.

A pure democracy is the rule of men, a representative republic is the rule of law. A pure democracy is no more than mob rule, in which the rights of the minority are disregarded, but in a representative republic, majority rules, but the rights of the minority are protected. In a pure democracy the passions of the masses can be used by the most shrewd, ruthless, corrupt, and manipulative in society, so that a handful of would-be elitists, feigning compassion, can increase their own power using the promise of public money, so that the people will vote for their own enslavement. Democracies reward politicians, republics promote statesmen.

Franklin’s remark, Daddy told the audience, was a challenge: can we keep the last vestiges of constitutional liberty, or maybe even restore and reclaim the republic we have lost. After quoting Jefferson’s remark, ‘All governments rule by the consent of the governed’, he answered the obvious question, why then have most peoples throughout history chosen tyranny?:

Because liberty is hard. Liberty gives us the freedom to fail; liberty gives us the freedom to go broke; liberty gives us the right to be poor; and since liberty gives us the freedom to think and speak, liberty gives us the right to be wrong and make fools of ourselves. Liberty gives the right, while we are equal in our creation and equal before the law, to end up with unequal results.

After getting the attention of his audience, the speech took a somewhat surprising turn. Daddy spoke of the work of Christ and the grace of God in his life. He believes that if it were not for this gracious work, he would have fulfilled his early ambitions to ‘be one of those people taking [our] liberty’.

But what does all that ‘pie-in-the-sky’ philosophy and theology have to do with an anti-tax rally? Everything, Daddy believes. He quoted from the Scriptures, ‘If the foundations be destroyed what can the righteous do?’ By not answering foundational questions, Daddy said, we are doomed to keep wasting time and energy on the same faulty solutions that got us into this mess.

With very few exceptions, the current socialistic tree with its bitter fruit that the humanistic, liberal Democrats in power are growing had its roots deeply in the previous administration of humanistic, neoconservative Republicans . . .Are we here for nothing but to reclaim the White House for the GOP?

Quoting Richard Weaver’s statement, ‘Ideas have consequences’, and R J Rushdooney’s claim, ‘All ideas are inherently religious’, Daddy pointed out that we cannot ’segment our minds’ and believe that moral issues like abortion are religious, but economic issues such as skyrocketing taxes are not. 

Ultimately, all income redistribution and burdensome tax schemes are idolatrous and anti-liberty at their roots. 

The Bible says, ‘The earth is the Lord’s’,while the government claims, ‘The earth is the government’s’. By taxing property, for instance, the government lays claim to the land; with income taxes, it says that the labour of men belongs to it. Current taxation levels, Daddy said, are based on the idea that everything belongs to a messianic government.

‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights . . .’ This was of course written by Thomas Jefferson, certainly among the most atheistic of the Founding Fathers. Yet he, along with the other Founders, acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence that, ‘There is a Creator, rights come from Him, and government exists to protect those rights’. This, Daddy believes, is the origianal American view of law and government.

The Founders built a government based on certain understandings that are religious at their core: Man is sinful. Power corrupts. Given control of the government and free rein to tax and make laws, man, even with the best intentions, will consume power and wealth, oppress his neighbours, and take life, liberty, and property from them.

Based on these understandings, the Founding Fathers created a limited government. The people, acting through the representatives of the free and independent states, created a constitution assigning a limited number of competing powers (what we would call checks and balances) to the three branches of the federal government. The Constitution does not empower the Federal government to intrude on our lives or lord over the states; rather, it was designed specifically to chain down the federal government.

But in the twentieth century, a new set of foundational principles had developed. The American system of government was now based on the assumptions that, ‘God either does not exist or is irrelavent; evolution is our creator; man is basically good–only his environment, or lack of education, or lack of money, or race, makes him do bad things; therefore the moneyed, educated elitists have the right and the duty to use the power of government to help speed up evolution and advance civilisation, and to either improve the lot of those on the lower rungs of society, or eliminate them.’ In other words, ‘We are going to improve the lot of mankind if it kills them’, and according to Daddy, it often does.

We have, as individuals, as a state, and as a nation, accepted the premise that rights come from government and government exists to help people. This is the most bloody and tyrannical idea in human history . . . The question of who God is, who man is , what rights are and where they come from, and the proper role of government, are more than just theory; they are life and death.

The economic crisis is fruit the roots of which are in the hearts of ‘we the people’ who have elected leaders that think government is the solution for everything.

Finally, Daddy offered six things we can do (or stop doing):

      1. Stop worshipping Washington and the government

     2. Stop believing lies and letting other people do your thinking for you

      3. Start with yourself and your family

      4. Stop being part of the problem

      5. Get involved at the state and local level first

      6. Vote principle over party politics

He closed with the words of Stonewall Jackson: ‘Duty is ours, results are God’s’.

If we do not have repentance, revival, and reformation, we will surely have escalating revolution and tyranny.

Stay tuned! We hope to have a video of this speech uploaded in a few days. I’m so proud of my Daddy. 8)

Jessie Brown: My sister loved to hear the Major read aloud; she had a great fondness for the poetry of Robert Burns, which always sounds better when spoken in Scotch. ~ Cranford (just the movie)

~

Ye banks and braes and streams around

The castle of Montgomery,

Green be your woods and fair your flowers,

Your waters never drumlie!

There simmer first unfold her robes,

And there the langest tarry;

For there I took my last fareweel

O’ my sweet Highland Mary.

(from ‘Highland Mary’)

~

As I was sitting at my instrument last evening, trying to get used to my new contacts, my ever-roving thoughts went to the discussion of Robert Burns at ‘Senorita M’s’. Someone had been researching his life and work, and made discoveries that tended toward spoiling his poetry. The whole conversation reminded me of a passage from (who else?) Jane Austen that expresses my sentiments about this poet. In her unfinished novel Sanditon, her heroine, Charlotte Heywood, after listening to an enthused Romantic’s praise of Burns (he calls him, ‘A man who felt . . . all ardour and truth’), gives her succinct opinion of the bard of Scotland:

I have read several of Burns’ Poems with great delight, but I am not poetic enough to separate a Man’s Poetry entirely from his Character;–and poor Burns’s known Irregularities, greatly interrupt my enjoyment of his Lines.–I have difficulty in depending on the Truth of his feelings as a Lover. I have not faith in the sincerityof the affections of a Man of his Description. He felt and he wrote and he forgot. (Jane Austen, Sanditon, chapter seven. Spelling and punctuation are original.)

I first discovered Burns at eleven, in a big anthology I found in our well-stocked family library–a volume I remember with kindness, for in browsing it I developed a lifelong affection for poetry (and indeed the poets that delighted me as a little girl flipping through the anthology are still among my favourites–Burns, Scott, Tennyson, Longfellow, Stevenson . . .) At that time I was becoming obsessed with Scottish culture: reading of Wallace and Bruce and the Jacobite heroes and pestering family members about our Scotch heritage. In that most Scottish of poets my two manias converged (yes, I was an odd child). I memorised most of the dozen or so poems the anthology yielded; I named toy horses after them; and I used Scots words whether I knew what they meant or not. I was excited to recognise allusions to Burns in Little House and Anne of Green Gables.

Burns is the most anomalous of poets. He moves in a few pages from sweet, sentimental songs beloved by the Victorians to the most shocking vulgarities. As Charlotte Heywood observed, his love songs to his fiancee ‘Highland Mary’ and his wife Jean (favourite songs of the Ingalls girls), though lovely,  lose something when you learn that they were only two among many romances.

~

Of a’ the airts the wind can blaw,

I dearly like the west,

For there the bonie lassie lives,

The lassie I lo’e best;

There’s wild woods grow, and rivers row,

And mony a hill between;

But day and night my fancy’s flight

Is ever wi’ my Jean.

 

I see her in the dewy flowers,

I see her sweet and fair;

I hear her in the tunefu’ birds,

I hear her charm the air;

There’s not a bonie flower that springs

By fountain, shaw, or green,

There’s not a bonie bird that sings,

But minds me o’ my Jean.

(‘I Love My Jean’, quoted in full)

~

Yet despite all his faults, one still reads Burns ‘with great delight’. Perhaps it is his essential ‘Scottish-ness’. Many songs generally thought of as Scottish folk songs are actually Burns, such as ‘The Banks o’ Doon’ or ‘My Luve is Like a Red, Red Rose’. The poet is at his best in ‘The Cottar’s Saturday Night’, a description of the domestic enjoyments of a Scottish peasant family (too long to quote), or in ‘John Anderson, My Jo’, in which an old couple looks back on their life together. Both describe homely affections Burns may not have had much personal experience with, but he writes of them movingly.

~

John Anderson, my jo, John,

When we were first acquent,

Your locks were like the raven,

Your bonnie brow was brent;

But now your brow is bald, John,

Your locks are like the snow;

But blessings on your frosty pow,

John Anderson, my jo.

 

John Anderson, my jo, John,

We clamb the hill thegither;

And many a cantie day, John,

We’ve had wi’ ane anither:

Now we maun totter down, John,

And hand in hand we’ll go,

And sleep thegither at the foot,

John Anderson, my jo.

(quoted in full)

~

As a Scottish patriotic song, ‘Bruce’s March to Bannockburn’ stands alongside ‘Scotland the Brave’:

~

Scots, wha hae wi’ Wallace bled,

Scots, wham Bruce has aften led,

Welcome to your gory bed,

Or to victorie!

 

Now’s the day and now’s the hour,

See the front o’ battle lour;

See approach proud Edward’s power–

Chains and slaverie!

 

Wha will be a traitor knave?

Wha can fill a coward’s grave?

Wha sae base as be a slave?

Let him turn and flee!

 

Wha, for Scotland’s king and law,

Freedom’s sword will strongly draw,

Free-man stand or free-man fa’,

Let him follow me!

 

By oppression’s woes and pains,

By your sons in servile chains,

We will drain our dearest veins,

But they shall be free!

 

Lay the proud usurpers low!

Tyrants fall in every foe!

Liberty’s in every blow!–

Let us do or die!

(quoted in full)

~

Sadly, some of us are ‘not poetic enough to separate a man from his poetry’; but the poems and songs of Robert Burns remain among the best expressions of Scottish character.

~

But, Mousie, thou art no thy lane,

In proving foresight may be vain;

The best-laid plans o’ mice and men

Gang aft agley,

An’ leave us nought but grief and pain

For promised joy!

(from ‘To a Mouse’)

~

November chill blaws loud wi’ angry sough;

The short’ning winter-day is near a close;

The miry beasts retreating frae his labour goes,

This night his weekly moil is at an end,

Collects his spades, his mattocks, and his hoes,

Hoping the morn in ease and rest to spend,

And weary, o’er the moor, his course does hameward bend.

(from ‘The Cottar’s Saturday Night’)

~

 

 

Trey spends a lot of time poring over our beloved ‘Little Hymnal’ and frequently comes up with new jewels for us to sing in family worship. Yesterday he showed us this one; I think it’s going to become a new favourite. The tune listed is ‘Aurelia’ (‘The Church’s One Foundation’).

 

Facing a task unfinished,

That drives us to our knees,

A need that, undiminished,

Rebukes our slothful ease,

We, who rejoice to know Thee,

Renew before Thy throne

The solemn pledge we owe Thee

To go and make Thee known.

 

Where other lords beside Thee

Hold their unhindered sway,

Where forces that defied Thee

Defy Thee still today,

With none to heed their crying

For life, and love, and light,

Unnumbered souls are dying,

And pass into the night.

 

We bear the torch that flaming

Fell from the hands of those

Who gave their lives proclaiming

That Jesus died and rose.

Ours is the same commission,

The same glad message ours,

Fired by the same ambition,

To Thee we yield our powers.

 

O Father who sustained them,

O Spirit who inspired,

Saviour, whose love constrained them

To toil with zeal untired,

From cowardice defend us

From lethargy awake!

Forth on Thine errands send us

To labour for Thy sake.

 

This hymn was written by Frank Houghton, a twentieth-century missionary with the China Inland Mission, best known for writing the first biography of his friend Amy Carmichael (See? Who says we don’t sing anything but old hymns at our church ;) ). It reminds me of the passage from Amy Carmichael’s Things As They Are that Daddy posted here, and of Jim Elliot and his friends, and of David Livingstone, and so many others (including our friend Mr Cal Zastrow). Definitely destined to become a family favourite.

Let me tell you first what Boundless is, besides my new favourite site. Boundless.org is a webzine for young (in years) Christians–specifically, ‘twenty-somethings, a group I’ve recently joined :) (the subtitle of their blog is ‘Extreme Conversation Starters for Twenty-Somethings’, and I wish I’d thought of a cool name like that first. It’s sponsored by Focus on the Family. To be honest, I’m having trouble believing that last part; this site far from what I would ordinarily think of as FOTF fare. They’re highly in favour of getting married, having children once you’re married, homeschooling, and Reformed theology (!). After I discovered this site, I told my mother, ‘It’s like The Rebelution for grown-ups!’ One note: This site is like the little girl with a curl (‘When she was good she was very very good, and when she was bad she was horrid’). I don’t like or agree with everything on it (like everything else except the Bible). Also some of the material is not appropriate for younger readers (under the 16-18 range–actually some of it I wouldn’t read either–just use discretion!)

Okay. All that to say, today’s article is great (and for all ages!).

Schooled at Home

Written by a homeschool graduate about how much she loved and still loves homeschooling.

Check this one out too:

Study to Show Yourself A Stay-at-Home Mom (it’s about preparing for motherhood and homekeeping while you’re single)

Next Page »