Every Move You Make... I'll Be Watching You

So, Dr. Sears must have a video camera on us these days. In his "top nine" causes of inconsolable crying with babies, the number one is teething. Here's his synopsis:

Your beautiful five-month-old baby boy, who has been the most perfect little angel since birth, has suddenly turned into a cranky, fussy, drooling, chews-on- everything-in-site little monster! He is now keeping you up half the night, and needs to be held, bounced, and nursed all day long. Welcome to the wonderful world of TEETHING!"

Thankfully, Emerson's personally taken care of his need "to be bounced," as he's fallen in love with his new toy, the "jumperoo" which was loaned to us by our friend Sarah when we were back in Indiana last weekend (she also recommended Hyland's Teething Tablets which has been a huge help!). Seriously, this kid LOVES to bounce in this thing. Yesterday, he probably spent two hours in it. He jumped so much that he got a blister on his big toe! But don't think we're being neglectful parents - what he loves more than bouncing is knowing someone is watching him bounce! In fact, yesterday when he was bouncing, I would look over at him every few seconds and he would just burst out laughing (he'd even throw his head back and cackle. It was hilarious!). He thinks its really funny too when I jump with him.

So yeah, our lives have been a bit chaotic these days (without a teething child!). This weekend, we spent a lot of time trying to get our house/lives organized as my first day back to class was today. Saturday, we cleaned up Emerson's room, reorganized the basement, and finally got a light bulb for the garage. Then, our washing machine broke. We buy a new house, and three weeks later--three weeks after we sold our previous washing machine because we didn't think we'd need it!!--our washer breaks. Ugh. So, we get on Craig's List, checked out the local Sear's Scratch and Dent store, and sent out a bunch of emails to possible sellers.

Then, on Sunday, after refreshing the Craig's List page about every half hour, I located a steal of a washing machine -- a DIGITAL washer for only $50! And, I was the first to respond! Woohoo! Now, I only had to pick it up...and find a truck to do so. I asked around at church and started making some phone calls but had little leads. On top of that, on Sunday afternoon, our friend Sean helped me saw our box springs in half (it was the only way to get them upstairs - we've been sleeping on our mattress on the floor for three weeks!) and put them back together, fought an enormous swarm of yellow jackets (I used an entire can of Raid, and there are still TONS of them around), and even watched the Cubs win a game for once...So much for Sabbath.

I scheduled to get the washer Monday night (tonight) and then this morning, suddenly realized that Amber was scheduled to work. Not only did I need to find a truck, I needed to find a babysitter, and a helping hand to get the washer home! So I did what any good social networker would do : I sent out the need via Facebook status! And I emailed nearly everyone in my philosophy department. Even then, I didn't get much response (which is simply evidence that none of our friends own trucks!), but I got what I needed. Even better, I got a "one stop shopping" -- all three of my needs were fulfilled by one family (thanks Kevin and Steph!). So, we got the washer and got back in less than an hour. And there, when we got back to my friend's house, was my screaming, teething, and extremely tired little (cute?) Monster. Poor kid. Really, all he needed was a good, long nap (sounds familiar, eh?). In fact, he fell asleep in the car within seconds. Oh, and we've discovered that when he's really upset, he makes a verbal utterance that sounds exactly like "mama." Don't think he quite knows what it means yet, but I don't think its a coincidence either.

So that's been our crazy last few days. Oh, and somehow amidst all of this, I also went to my first class of the semester today. It was actually quite good, considering so much of today was a big blur. Anyways, gotta go get the cloth diapers out of our new washer and into the dryer - and go to bed!

Feeding Frenzy

So, this past week, we started Emerson on solids for the first time. It was quite a trip. Actually, I started him on Tuesday because Amber was gone and I was out of breastmilk. So, I gave him some homemade baby food (pureed pears), and alas, I think we created a monster. Seriously, he is totally an addict (perhaps it was because the pears were so sweet!).

At first, he couldn't quite figure out the spoon, so I fed him using my finger, but it didn't take long for him to think he could do it on his own. It wasn't long before I had a hard time feeding him, because he kept trying to take the spoon and even the bowl so he could get some! Needless to say, he was pretty upset when my ice cube size amount of pear was all gone.

Then, this weekend we took a quick trip home to Indiana to see some family and friends, many of whom had yet to see Emerson. We had dinner at my parents house on Thursday, and my dad put Emerson on his lap and went right to feeding him smashed up bananas and carrots. He looked like a pro (my dad and Emerson!). It was quite humorous, as the only bib my mom had clearly did not fit over Emerson's head, but somehow she managed to get it on him.

What Kind of God Are You?

In my last post, I mentioned my dreadful situation of watching my son choke and my response to the situation. That experience also got me thinking about the nature of God. Depending on your theological persuasion, there are a number of emotions that God does or does not experience. Or if you’re an Aristotelian, you’re inclined to say that God is pure thought, so to speak of God and emotion at all is to venture into the realm of metaphor. Generally speaking, there are two schools of thought on this issue (that’s being reductionistic, of course, but the other views seem to be varying degrees of the following two):

The God of Neoplatonic thought, and Calvinism in many respects,(and what is often viewed as orthodox) has a limited scope of feelings. This God may (metaphorically) experience love, joy, peace, anger, righteous indignation, and desire justice. That may even be going too far; perhaps God IS these things (e.g., “God is Love”), but to say he experiences these things would be to place him in the realm of time. But this God certainly does not experience fear, panic, the pressure of taking risks, courage, doubt, the feeling of second-guessing himself, or the sheer delight of surprise. On the other hand, the God of Open Theism and other related views says that God experiences all of these feelings.

There are people—smart and contemplative people, I might add—on both sides. And they don’t take a side due to some shallow shot at proof-texting. Each position can present reasonable and convincing arguments for their case. And each position caters to a certain list of Scripture passages for support (or a certain method of interpretation of Scripture).

The Calvinist resorts to verses that support God’s omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immutability, impassibility (does not feel emotion), foreknowledge, and timelessness (terms which have come from Greek philosophy, I might point out). They cite, “For I am the Lord, I change not” (Mal. 3:6), “All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to me” (Ps. 139:16), “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son…And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:29-30), “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world” (Eph. 1:4), or “From one man he made every nation of men…and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live” (Acts 17:26).

The Open Theist resorts to verses that support God experiencing emotion (and Christ’s humanity), not knowing what will happen due to human freedom, and working in tandem with man to bring about his goals for the world (e.g., such as prayer changing God’s mind). They cite, “But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. ‘O Lord,’ he said, ‘why should your anger burn against your people…’ Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened” (Ex. 32:11-14), “The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, ‘This is what the LORD says: … you are going to die; you will not recover.’ Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD…Then the word of the LORD came to Isaiah: … ‘This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will add fifteen years to your life” (Isa. 38:1-5), “I thought that after she [Israel] had done all this she would return to me but she did not” (Jer. 3:7), “The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth” (Gen 6:6), and “When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened” (Jonah 3:10).

My concern is not which position is “right.” If there was a definitive conclusion, one would think that the Holy Spirit would have told us by now or that God would have been a bit clearer in his directions.

I am more interested in the psychology between why someone chooses one over the other. Both positions are concerned with preserving something they consider central to God’s character. The Calvinist wants to preserve God’s sovereignty; the Open Theist wants to prevent God from being the cause of evil. The Calvinist wants to preserve God’s transcendence and sing, “How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out” (Rom. 11:33); the Open Theist wants to preserve God’s immanence, to have a “high priest” who is able to “sympathize with our weaknesses” (Heb. 4:15). We could say, both positions are often argued for out of the best of intentions.

Since Scriptural support can be found for both (and both sides could easily appeal to the Holy Spirit to claim they’ve got it right!), I’m convinced that the majority of people fall down on one side of the spectrum or the other, in the end, because it is the position that provides them the greatest sense of security, hope, or sense of justice (that is, unless they just blindly accept one since its been taught them…). Actually, most people probably hold to the synthesis of the two positions (e.g., I know many professing Calvinists who sincerely believe in the power of prayer), not realizing that, to many philosophers and theologians, they are mutually exclusive. Ironically then, the nature of God’s emotions (or lack thereof) is decided on by emotion! One person finds security in a God who is cool in the face of evil and suffering and death because he is orchestrating it all and knows how it will pan out. Another finds security in a God who creates space for true human freedom. One finds refuge in God’s constancy; the other finds peace in a God who understands the roller coaster that constitutes human existence.

So I ask myself, thinking about the feeling of panic—an urgency that motivated me to action and was fueled with love and deep concern—I experienced when my child was choking, do I want a God who is sovereign but impassible in my time of need or a God who “panics” for the sake of his people? If God is Father, if I’m to learn how to be a good father by looking to the Father (there's another metaphor), what kind of God is helpful for me in this situation? How do I pray to a God who doesn’t understand the feeling of panic when his child is in danger—or can’t share with me in the delight of surprise, for that matter (just think about it, isn't the delight of surprise one of the greatest things about life?)?

On the other hand, the God I am now describing is starting to sound a little like Santa Claus, there at my beck and call, or at the very least, a tamed God who I can comprehend and fits within certain parameters and expectations (which is bordering on idolatry). Then again, the God of metaphysics is pretty tame (i.e., predictable).

With all these meandering ramblings, I end this post and return to my fussing child. I wonder how God feels about fussy children (he has lots of them!).

Learning about the Fragility of Life

Lately, I’ve been vividly reminded of the fragility of life—it’s one of those things that come with the territory of raising an infant, no doubt. Every little thing has the potential to be a near-death experience: we forget to strap him in properly in his car seat before taking a trip (“I thought you strapped him in!”); he starts choking on his own spit; he grabs something that he shouldn’t have and tries to put it in his mouth; he falls asleep in his car seat and drops his head toward his neck, making it difficult to breath.

More particularly, he has now become a “rolly polly,” taking every opportunity to roll and move, which means we have to be very mindful where we set him down so he doesn’t fall off couch or whack his head on something. He’s even figured out how to roll and wiggle out of his car seat, which makes us fear he’s going to flip it over sometime. In fact, he’s so in to rolling over, that now frequently rolls from his back to his stomach in his sleep (he obviously prefers to sleep on his side or stomach!). It seems that most people say one need not worry about an infant suffocating when he gets to this stage, since if he’s able to roll over in his sleep he is cognizant enough to do something if he gets in danger. But frankly, it still freaks me out.

Then there was this morning. Amber and I have gotten in the habit of giving a piece of melon rind after we cut up a melon or cantaloupe, so he can simultaneously use it kind of like a teething ring and get a taste of something new, of course being careful to keep an eye on him in case he happens to completely gnaw a piece off. So, I was out to breakfast with some friends and handed him a leftover piece of watermelon rind. Obviously, there was too much watermelon still left on the rind, as he managed to bite off a number of pieces and couldn’t handle it. I turned to see my son with his head cocked back, eyes red and watering, trying to squeal, but with his mouth wide open and throat clogged with watermelon and slobber.

Dad goes into hyper drive. I jumped up, stuck my finger down his throat and pulled out three little chunks of watermelon, wrangled him out of his car seat and turned him upside down. Five seconds later everything was back to normal and he was acting like nothing happened. But in those few moments of panic, a number of thoughts raced through my mind: He’s choking! Why is it taking so long to get him out of his carseat? Why haven’t I learned the baby Heimlich? Did I get all the watermelon out? How will I know when he’s breathing regularly? How many of these people in the café staring at me now think I’m a bad parent?

After getting over the emotional roller coaster, the events of the morning got me thinking about motivation (sorry, nearly everything turns into a philosophical conversation for me). First, what was my motivation for my quick action?

Was it out of deep love for my child? I certainly deeply love my child, but I’m inclined to believe I would have responded to any choking child (although, due to the intimate bond between father and child, my response time may have been slower in a different situation).

Was it out of a deep sense of my primordial, infinite responsibility to relieve the suffering of the other (that’s Levinas talking)? Perhaps, but that wasn’t my immediate perception.

Was it out of shame for what people would think of my parenting capabilities? That did come to mind, but it wasn’t part of my first inclination.

Was it out of fear—fear of the consequences of my previous action, fear of Emerson choking? For sure—I was struck with sheer panic, to be exact, but the kind of panic that moves one to action rather than cause him to freeze right in his tracks.

Or was it a combination of a number of motivators (probably)? Motivation is a deceptive and enigmatic thing.

But this brings me to a second question: is fear a good and valid motivator? I have heard numerous sermons on this topic taking one side or the other. Take for instance, Kierkegaard’s take which I happened to read earlier this week: “Fear [particularly, fear of punishment] is a deceitful aid. It can embitter one’s pleasure, make life laborious and miserable, make one old and decrepit; but it cannot help one to the Good since fear itself has a false conception of the Good” (Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing).

As I’ve pondered fear as a motivator, I’ve concluded that it simply depends on the situation, on what it is one fears. In this case, my panic was a very good thing, because as a father I ought to have a healthy awareness (which could be understood as a cousin of fear) of what can hurt my child, of when my child is hurting. But then, if I am constantly afraid of my child’s well-being, it could be detrimental to his growth. So there are healthy fears, healthy fears taken to an extreme, unhealthy fears, and even absurd fears. Perhaps, only the first category is a good motivator. But to create categories is one thing; to arrange all the various fears one has into them is another! How does one not constantly be afraid of a child's safety?

There are further thoughts…but they will have to wait for another post.

Emerson Slap Happy

So Emerson gets slap happy when he's really tired. This is the first time we've actually been able to get it on video since he's still in this phase in which he stops whatever he's doing as soon as he sees the camera come out. The first time he did this, we were in the Gap Kids and he was squealing every time I looked at him. Hilarious.