Loving the poor

Caring for the poor is a concept that carries many questions. Why should we? Who should do it? What does it look like? I put money in the Salvation Army kettles every Christmas; does that count?

Let’s look at the first question I always ask: “why?”

“So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.” Genesis 1:27

It is for this reason we love our neighbors as ourselves. To love ourselves and to love our neighbor is to love and honor God whose image we bear. True, that image is marred by sin. But to love our neighbor, whatever their behavior, status, demeanor, or appearance is to recognize God’s image that pervades the entire person. When a teacher of the law asked Jesus what he should do to inherit eternal life, Jesus turned the question back to the lawyer and asked what he thought the answer was. The lawyer said to love God and to love his neighbor. Jesus said that this was correct. But the man wanted to know who qualified as his “neighbor,” in other words, “Who do I have to love?” Jesus responded with a now well known parable about a Samaritan (despised by the Jews) who stopped to help an injured Jewish man after the priest and Levite (who should have known better) did not. Your neighbor whom you are to love, indicates Jesus’ parable, is the one who needs it. If your neighbor needs friendship, be a friend. If your neighbor needs a meal, provide food. If your neighbor needs rent money, share rent money. If your neighbor needs help shoveling their sidewalk, help shovel the sidewalk. If your neighbor needs Jesus, share Jesus.

But loving the poor is not that simple.

Because we are made in the image of God, we are more than physical bodies. We are spiritual beings. And we cannot meet people’s needs through exclusively focusing on helping people obtain material wealth. If we want to address poverty we must also address spiritual transformation and realities or we will fail.

God cares so much for people and his creation. He became a human and died for the sins of the whole world and invites every person to respond in freedom to the gift of salvation. He has promised to redeem his creation that is groaning under the destructive effects of sin (Romans 8:19-23). God also demands that our economic and political systems acknowledge and protect the dignity of each individual. To deny economic freedom or reduce people to interchangeable pieces of a machine is to violate their individual dignity. On the other hand, choices have consequences. Obedient, diligent use of our gifts normally produces enough material wealth (unless powerful people oppress) and disobedient, lazy neglect of responsibilities increases the danger of poverty. So, completely equal distribution of wealth is not compatible with human freedom. Work and opportunity are.

God works (Gen 2:1-2). Jesus was a carpenter. Paul made tents. Even before the fall, God told Adam to cultivate the earth and name the animals. Work not only serves to provide material needs, but is also a way to express our basic nature as God’s co-workers and is a way to love our neighbors. Meaningful work is essential for human dignity. Any person who fails to work disgraces and corrodes his or her being. Any system that could but does not offer every person meaningful work violates and crushes the human dignity bestowed by the Creator.

After all this”work” talk you might think that I think that poor people should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get to work. It is not that simple. Some are poor because of self-destructive use of over-drinking or drug-use. Some are poor because of short-sighted choices to misuse their wealth for luxuries like cable tv, electronics, smartphones, etc. or gambling/lottery. Some people are poor because of unfair economic structures- astronomical medical bills should one have the misfortune to become ill without insurance, welfare policies that discourage savings, unlivable wages, etc. Some are poor because they were born into poverty and lack the life-skills to escape. Many are poor because of all these things mixed together.

Sin corrupts and mars individual persons and the ideas/institutions we create. Our economic systems often oppress our neighbors. As individuals, sinful selfishness, pride, and apathy keep back generosity and overlooks oppression. As individuals, sinful selfishness, apathy and impatience keep the poor mired in poverty. So it comes back to a need for redemption and redressing sin in the systems, in the rich, and in the poor.

We should talk about using the term “the poor.” It can (but not necessarily) be a dehumanizing term to use. It is easy for affluent people to view the poor as “the poor”- unwashed masses, people who through some lack of character and/or skill fail to earn wealth. They exist in our view as nameless persons asking for money (presumably for drugs) or pushing a wheeled cart down the street. They may have some sort of housing paid for with government funding and receiving welfare. But we don’t see them as individuals, as true people- just characters, stereotypes devoid of the complexity and imago Dei that defines people. This is one of the challenges for Christians with simply giving to a charity and then going about our business. The charity acts as a broker so that one never has to personally interact with poor people and possibly get to know someone as a person. And it has a similar effect on the receiver.

Jesus told another story about sheep and goats. He told the sheep they were blessed because he was hungry and they fed him, naked and they clothed him, a stranger and they invited him in, in prison and they visited him. He told the goats they were cursed because they refused to feed him, clothe him, welcome him, or visit him. Jesus said that whatever we have done for others, we have done for him. So, in a sacramental way, Jesus is present in each person we interact with. And when we treat our neighbors in need kindly and recognize their humanity, we are in fact interacting with and loving Jesus. Perhaps instead of just giving a homeless person $5.00, you could buy lunch for the both of you and sit down together. A, it will assure that you are not enabling substance abuse (it is sadly true that most who approach you on the street for money really do want it for some sort of drug) and B, it will allow you to be a conduit for the love of Jesus while getting to know another person as a person and be ministered to through them. If you give to charities, that is wonderful, but it is also good to volunteer your time, so that you interact with the people on a personal level.

The challenge of helping people is that sometimes one can do more harm than good. Obviously people in a pinch need help and sometimes a straight up gift of material wealth is warranted. However regular handouts can create dependency and ruin the dignity that comes with work and responsibility. For that reason, it is a good idea to work through churches and other charities when giving of your time and resources. They can help you avoid having your act of love come to a bad end and to maximize its impact. Take the time to choose your avenues of showing love wisely. Be shrewd as snakes while being innocent as doves (Matt 10:16). Make sure that you are truly loving your neighbor for his or her good.

Fair warnings: 1) You will occasionally get burned. It is a tragic fact that some people are users. People are image-bearers, but they are still people and warped by sin. But blessed are you when people despitefully use you (Matt 5:44). And do not let your love grow cold (Matthew 24:12). 2) I stole liberally from “Just Generosity” by Ron Sider when writing this. It is a great book and it would be a blessing to you read in its entirety and without my editorializing.

The Kingdom of Heaven in the United States of America

Recently a paper, “Declaration of Covenant” from www.lamplighterministries.net was distributed at our church. The intent of the distribution was to allow our church-goers to consider the point of view which is popular among some Christians: that the United States of America was founded as a politically Christian nation and should be “restored” to a Christian nation politically. As a student of history who knows we have not been a very Christian nation, as a follower of Jesus, who said that “My kingdom is not of this world” and “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s,” and as an Anabaptist who remembers our history of being persecuted by both Protestants and Catholics who were trying establish politically Christian kingdoms, I dispute the truth and wisdom of that point of view.

A quick note about points of view: I firmly believe that a point of view can be wrong or correct or (in most cases) have elements of truth mixed with falsehoods. But at the same time when we believe something we see current events, history, and scripture through the lens of that point of view. For this reason, once we come to believe something, we are not quick to change our minds about it because we key in on aspects that support our beliefs while downplaying or finding explanations for those things that contradict our beliefs. It is usually when we have built up enough unexplainable contradictions or the Holy Spirit changes our hearts that we are willing to change our minds and give up a belief. For this reason I ask the reader to be patient if they do not agree. I do not expect a reader who disagrees with my point of view to immediately change their minds upon reading this. However, reading this article may help you to better explain your own point of view, understand another person’s point of view, or be an important step in coming to a different point of view yourself one day.

When we look at the history of the Church we see warnings to forgo creating a political kingdom. Up until the Roman Emperor Constantine, the church was separate from the government. There were government officials who were Christians but governments were not “Christian.” As a separate entity, the church was able to be a prophetic voice, telling those in power to be just to the poor and the stranger. As a separate entity the church was able to love all and the nationality of the person did not matter because the church was without borders. As a separate entity the church could love its enemies. However, Constantine saw the growing numbers and wealth of the church and the decline of Rome’s power. Upon his conversion to Christianity (whether real or politically expedient) he joined the Church and the State into the Holy Roman Empire. At this point the church became an arm of the state (it has never been the other way around in any “Christian” government). The church became compromised. To speak prophetically was sedition. To love your enemies was treason. To be born a Roman was to be a Christian and the heart did not matter. To be born a non-Roman was to be outside the Church. And we can see the quick decline of the Church into becoming just another government with only the trappings of religiosity.

Into this came the Protestant Reformation and Martin Luther. They were fed up with the loss of faithfulness to God’s word and broke off, starting anew. However, they did not give up on the idea of the church being part of the state. When other Christian groups, such as the Anabaptists (to which we Brethren belong), tried to practice our faith as we saw scripture teach, the Christian governments were quick to use the sword to maintain their kingdom, slaughtering us with drownings in icy rivers, burning at the stake, and other tortures (along with the normal, more pleasant, executions). When we ran to Catholic governed countries, we received the same treatment because we were not their kind of Christian either. And that is why we ended up in America. That is why we have historically supported the separation of church and state. We understand that with the power of the state behind it, the version of the church in power uses that power to persecute.

I’m not saying that an officially Christian United States would start executing Muslims or atheists or Mennonites. But as any attendee of a Christian school in America can tell you Christian law enforcement almost always declines into Pharisaical obsession with sex, drugs, and rock n’ roll, conformity, and nationalism, while justice, mercy and faithfulness are ignored. And even now, as the church seeks and attains political power, it is compromised and we can see this happening.

I could write at length about the history of America and how those who founded and lead this country were in large part were not worshippers of Jesus. Among those who founded the United States there were Christians of many denominations, but there were also deists like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. The facts that our founders were a mixed bag religiously are well established. I’m not going to waste your time rehashing what you can find in many history books, National Archives, etc. I know there are people who try to use out of context quotes to “prove” all founding fathers were Bible-believing, born-again Christians, but they are deluding themselves and others. It just is not so. These founders from different religious backgrounds knew the dangers of officially religious governments and they wisely decided to separate the state from the church. For the good of both the church and the state.

I could write at length about American history and how we as a nation have behaved in a most un-Christlike way throughout our history. But that also is well established by history.

The main reason we are not going see a treatise here on Christianity in American History is it really doesn’t matter whether or not the United States was started as a politically Christian nation or not. If a politically Christian nation is a holy and righteous thing to do, it is holy and righteous regardless of American history. If it is wrong, it is also wrong regardless of history. What does scripture say? As followers of Jesus, we must look to the example of Jesus and the revelation of God’s will in the Bible. Another note: Jesus and the New Testament is the lens through which we must view the Old Testament. Just as we do not directly go to the Leviticus for instructions on whether to mix different fibers to make cloth or how long a woman is unclean after her period or what kinds of animals are ok to eat, so we do not look for instructions on government in the Old Testament without looking through the lens of the New.

Jesus did teach about establishing a kingdom. But it was not a political kingdom. He had every resource and worldly reason to restore the political fortunes of Israel. The land of Israel was occupied by pagans who worshipped their emperor and a myriad of other “gods.” They demanded taxes of God’s people to expand their kingdom and further the worship of these false gods. Jesus was the Messiah. He was supposed to save his people and restore the throne of David. The masses loved him and would follow him as an un-numbered army. He was Almighty God and had legions of angels at his call. But when the people tried to make him a political king he rejected the idea. He told parables about the kingdom being like yeast worked through the dough of the world or about the wheat and the weeds growing together in the same field until the very end when God would judge between them. The Jewish leaders asked Jesus about paying taxes to the pagan Roman government, knowing the people wanted to throw off the Romans and establish Israel as an independent Jewish kingdom, Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s.” When the people realized that Jesus was not about to be the messiah they wanted, they turned on him. When brought before Pilate, Jesus was asked if he was a king. His answer was that yes, he was a king, but his kingdom was not of this world. A few hours later he established his kingdom by dying and being raised from the dead. He established a spiritual kingdom, not the political kingdom the Jews wanted.

If we are to “walk as Jesus walked” and he refused to create a political kingdom or allow his followers to do so, how can we do different? If this refusal to change the world by writing laws seems strange, it is because it is strange. To become rulers and compel people to obey with the power of the sword (or financial pressure, threats of ostracization, shame, etc.)is the world’s way. “But we do not wage war as the world does.” Our model for establishing the kingdom is the towel and the cross. Our model is servanthood, love, and suffering. When Jesus washed his disciples feet, he also washed Judas’ feet. Jesus did not wait for our hearts to change before he died on the cross. He went to the cross first and that act of love convinced us. Now it did not convince all, but that did not change Jesus’ final commands. He did not say, “Love, serving, and suffering don’t really work in the real world. No, he told his disciples to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” He told them to build the church, his body, and not a political nation.

After Jesus was taken into Heaven, the church grew by leaps and bounds. But while they established their own organizational structure, they were not creating a nation. On the contrary, their goal was to be the yeast and salt of the earth. They were to be scattered throughout the nations as living testimonies to their pagan neighbors. We will look at 2 examples (there are more).

In 1 Peter 2:9-17 it reads:

⁹ But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. ¹⁰ Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

¹¹ Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul. ¹² Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.

¹³ Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, ¹⁴ or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. ¹⁵ For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. ¹⁶ Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. ¹⁷ Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

It starts off pointing out that the people of God are a peculiar people: they are a nation, but not a political one. The church is a nation without borders that fills the earth. They are to live among the rest of the world as foreigners and exiles, without a country of their own, and to revere and obey God while they honor the government of the country they are in. Not to go off and start their own country where they can outlaw paganism.

In 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 we read:

⁹ I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— ¹⁰ not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. ¹¹ But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister^[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

¹² What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? ¹³ God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”^[d]

One of the primary goals of an American politically Christian government is to enforce moral laws. But we are not supposed to be disciplining the people outside the church; that is God’s job.

Some will undoubtedly point back to the nation of Israel and argue that God started a nation in that instance. And that is true. But as Jesus obviously refused to reestablish Israel or establish some other political nation, we can conclude that God is calling us to something different than creating Christian nations. God chose Abraham to bless the entire world. Israel started off as a few dozen shepherds; they were taken in by Egypt during a famine, grew to several hundred thousand, were made slaves, and then lead out of Egypt. At this point God made them a political nation, with laws and organized government. They were more of a confederation than anything else, with a tribal form of leadership. God was to be their king. But the people did not want God as king. “Everyone did as he saw fit.” And after several hundred years, the people demanded a king, “like the other nations,” in effect corporately rejecting God as king. So they had Saul, David, and Solomon. But then after only 3 generations of kings, the nation was split by civil war, 2 tribes following Rehoboam to form Judah and 10 following Jeroboam to form Israel. Israel was disobedient, having not a single righteous king (Although not all the people were so; God told Elijah that he had a remnant of 7,000 righteous in Israel). After a few generations, Israel had so besmirched God’s name that he let them be defeated by the Assyrians and, with the exception of the dregs of society left behind to become Samaritans, were dispersed throughout the Assyrian empire. Judah had some good kings and some bad kings, but eventually, God let them be conquered and exiled by the Babylonians. In exile they learned that their true identity was as God’s people, not a political nation. After a time of exile they were repentant and God returned them to Judah. They were still a conquered nation and were governed over by other nations until finally they were ruled over by the Romans, at which time the Messiah came to them. Jesus came calling the people to a new kind of kingdom. He called them to repent, to do what is right, and to be a part of God’s heavenly kingdom. The word “heavenly” does not refer to afterlife. It means having to do with God and it takes place in the here and now. And, based on Jesus’ support for paying taxes to the Roman government while obeying God and his assertion that his kingdom “was not of this world”, Jesus was not starting a new political kingdom. He was calling the people to be a kingdom that exists parallel to all other governments. That supersedes those governments. The nation of Israel (largely) rejected their Messiah and the kingdom of heaven, instead trying to recreate their own lost political kingdom by a violent rebellion which Rome crushed and then dispersed the Jews throughout the world. The church became God’s people (with many of Jewish descent among them) and they are now scattered throughout the world, bringing the blessing to the world God promised to Abraham.

We are part of a kingdom which is so much more than a mere political nation. The church is a kingdom without borders that fills the whole earth. Scripture teaches us to live in the world as aliens and strangers among the pagans. It teaches us to discipline our own brothers and sisters (gently, with humility, and for their good) but to leave those outside the church to God’s judgment. The kingdom of heaven is an upside down kingdom (as far as the world is concerned) where God’s” strength is made perfect in our weakness,” our hope is “not on what is seen, but on what is unseen,” and the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. When we pursue the creation of a political nation we are very much like a new Israel. We are like the Israel that rejected Jesus because he did not create the political kingdom they wanted. Instead let us as the church in America be like the true Israel which follows Jesus into advancing the Kingdom of Heaven.

English Only?

Published in Lebanon Daily Newspaper (http://www.ldnews.com/) on 7/2/2010
Recently there was a story in LDN about a suit against a little league organization due to a rule forbidding any language other than English (specifically targeting the Spanish language). This brought out all the usual “Welcome to America. Now speak English!” comments. It is to this sentiment I wish to write.

Looking back on history, very few first generation immigrants who are not already English speakers become completely fluent English. As examples I would cite the Chinese, Italians, and the Germans who all created their own sub-communities, within which they spoke their ancestral languages. The vast majority of immigrants from these waves and the current Latino wave understood that English is the language of the land and that while the first-generation many never be fluent, their children will be. However, their ancestral language is not simply discarded. It is taught in the home and used informally, much like the Germans did. Many of the people who were born in Lebanon can still remember German (the PA Dutch variant anyway) being spoken on a regular basis at home, church, or in places of business. Why should we place a burden on our new neighbors that our own ancestors have not been forced to carry?

It has been argued that the English-only rule for the little league is a safety issue. The Olympics and World Cup have no “safety issues” due to different languages. I believe that much of the “English only” sentiment is related to nosiness. As a historically rural/small town area we are used to being able to understand what everyone around us is saying and knowing their business. Now our community is changing and one of these changes includes the introduction of Latino cultures and language. However, if you were to travel to any large community, say Philadelphia, you would find that many of the Koreans are speaking to each other in Korean, the Brazilians in Portuguese, the Kenyans in Swahili, the Pakistanis in Urdu, etc., etc. Here we don’t much care for change and we don’t like not knowing what the people next to us are saying. However, we need to accept that our community is changing and that we are no longer simply a rural community comprised primarily of long established European (and some African) origins.
It is part of the glory that is America, that we bring together the beauty of the nations into a single country. This mixture is the source of our beauty and strength as a nation and we must embrace it if we are to thrive as a community here in Lebanon.
Sincerely,
Loyal Hall
Lebanon

Insta-Dad, Just Add Ring

Insta-Dad: Just Add Ring, by Phil Hall, Jonestown

I became a father on September 25th, 2004. It's easy to remember that date
not because it is my son's birthday; it is my wedding day. I am "Insta-Dad:
Just Add Ring." I have been a father for about a year now and will not
pretend to know enough to give much fathering advice as some other writers
of this column have been able to do, but I can share with you some of my
experiences with becoming a father to a 6 year-old and beginning a marriage
at the same time. Fatherhood, of the step variety, brings its own set of
challenges both during dating and marriage, but many joys as well.

One of the more difficult things is that often a step-child has a biological
parent(s) out there somewhere. This throws a lot of curveballs such as
confusion about allegiances in the child (Who should s/he chose? and Should
she have to choose?), confusion about your own role, and legal stuff.
Rebeca is not Felipe's natural mother, but has taken care of him since his
father gave him to her when he was an infant. Felipe's father still shows a
little interest and will show up wanting to take him for visits every few
weekends. So there is tension and resentment that another man is being
called "Daddy" by his son. And, until recently, his father and Rebeca never
had any terms of custody laid out by a court, so now we are going through
emotionally and financially exhausting legal proceedings.

There is no warm-up. No having a baby and slowly learning parenting as the
baby develops to a toddler to a child to a teenager. I just started with a
boy. My training consisted of my own childhood (which was pretty good) and
Bill Cosby (who is a genius with parenting advice). And living with
children is not the same as having them over for a weekend or even a week.
Were you aware that they don't leave? They are there all the time and they
want your attention (at least the younger ones seem to). For a guy who
prized his solitude this was an abrupt departure from what was hitherto my
normal life. I was not only adjusting to being married, but being a father,
and having another (rather needy, as I saw it) smaller person around. I
needed to realize the magnitude of this change and find ways to deal with it
and I still to take time off to recharge by myself or with my friends.

When I married Rebeca, I joined an already existent family. It can be a
challenge to form your family and not be an add-on or an outsider. Good
pre-marriage counseling, being aware of this difficulty, time together, and
a rather gracious, wise, and loving wife, has made this easier.

A child is also a challenge to building a marriage relationship. For many
people who get married, their attentions are undivided for months or years.
Marriage with children involved means that you have to pay attention to a
third person (or more). And sharing. I do not like to share Rebeca. But
we do have this son. And he needs his mommy's attention too. And he
doesn't really like to share mommy either. For these reasons boundaries had
to be drawn to keep a balance so that the two of us can spend needed time
together and the family has time together. All parties involved (especially
my wife and I) needed to understand that there is both a family and a
marriage here and act accordingly so that neither is neglected. Time
together (if you get my drift) is a real challenge with kids in the house.
So we got him to make friends in the neighborhood and have a reasonably
early bedtime (both of which also make happier a kid).

It is important to think ahead before entering a relationship with a parent.
So many children of single parents have series of temporary "fathers" (or
mothers) in their parent's romantic interests who then abandon them (in the
child's eyes) when the relationship ends and the child is left with an
inability to trust and a skewed view of fatherhood, manhood, and God (who
calls himself our Father). From the first date, I resolved not to get to
know her son, Felipe, until I knew that this relationship was going
somewhere.

Once the direction of our relationship became apparent we began to include
Felipe in some of our outings- going to the park, picnics, etc. - so that he
and I could get to know each other. As this progressed Felipe and I began
to do a few things together on our own- fishing, go to the playground, had a
sleepover, etc. When I asked Rebeca to marry me, Felipe and I were already
pretty comfortable with each other, had created our own friendship, and he
was very excited to hear we were getting married. The good relations
between Felipe and I and his happiness about Rebeca's and my marriage were a
great blessing and we avoided a major obstacle many blended families face.

This brings me to the transition from friend to father. Felipe and I had
already bonded pretty well. And while we were friends, I had worked with
adolescents and teenagers before and recognized that adult-child friendships
are not between equals. I am not a child and should not act or try to
relate to a child in a childish way. Kids do need friends they can relate
to in childish ways- these friends are called other children. Children need
friendships with adults in their lives who relate to them as an adult, value
them, love them, and enjoy them, all the while showing them what it means to
be a man or a woman, what it means to be responsible, and demonstrating
godliness. We have a lot of fun together, but Felipe has never been allowed
to act disrespectful towards me. This put us in a better position for that
transition. It began slowly, with little things like me handing out
discipline once in a while and just spending time together in outings and
sleepovers. That was not easy at first both because of my initial
insecurity and Felipe's initial resistance to having to obey me or be
without mommy for extended periods. But with consistency, these things
changed. As I spent more time with Rebeca and Felipe together and with
Felipe one on one, I had the opportunity to take a more fatherly role in his
life.

What really helped was a little baptism by fire. Our wedding was 3 weeks
after school started and we wanted Felipe to go to his first few weeks of
kindergarten at the school he would be attending once we began living
together. So, Felipe moved in with me during the week so he could go to
school. Rebeca would come to visit, but the bulk of the time that he spent
out of school was with me. We ate together. We worked around the house
together. We watched Sesame Street. I got him ready in the morning. I put
him to bed at night. I almost killed him by knocking him down the stairs
when he helped me carry a mattress. And then he would go home with mommy
for the weekend. For 3 weeks. I have a whole new appreciation for single
parents, living on their own with their kid(s) after that. But that time
together really gave Felipe and me the chance to form habits together,
discipline, rituals, having fun, deal with some trauma, and spend time in
each other's company developing our relationship apart from mommy. I think
that these few weeks together were instrumental in our current relationship.

Every decision has repercussions and I want any future stepfathers (and
spouses to future stepparents) to be aware of them. And to current
stepfathers, you aren't the only one. Yes it is a challenge. Yes it cramps
my previous style. Yes it is hard on a beginning marriage. And yes my car
is a mess of school papers, McDonald's toys, and lost socks. But. I have a
wonderful, smart, fun, funny, talented, creative, and
way-too-energetic-for-me son. I would never have known this boy or be
blessed by this boy or be taught so much patience by this boy, if I had not
become his stepfather. My genes could never mix with anybody's genes,
recreate the same life experiences, and produce this extraordinary person
who is now a part of my life. God gives us many things we did not expect or
think we needed or even wanted. But all things work for our good and I
consider myself blessed to have Felipe as my son. My life is better for
having him in it. And I didn't have to change a single diaper.

Blending Kids

I became a father, again, on September 4, 2006 to James Alberto Hall. You may recall that I became "Insta-Dad" on September 25, 2004 when I got married to a wonderful woman who already had a son. This time I took the conventional route to fatherhood. He was born, ironically, on Labor Day. Our family now has one non-biological child and one biological child. So Insta-Dad does homemade too.

At three months, I certainly have not fully realized all the complexities of adding a new child to the family, let alone adding a biological child to the family with a non-biological child. But I will try to relate some of our experiences.

Of course there is the normal change of lifestyle shock that comes with a baby. Sleep is a luxury. Free time to go fishing or even change the oil on the car is much harder to come by. Alone time is unheard of. Good teamwork to give each other time to ourselves and nearby relatives who want to baby-sit to give us time together have been a blessing. I must admit, I'm still learning about being a good teammate and together we are still learning to be a good team. This marriage and parenting stuff is hard.

I hear that anytime a new member of the family arrives, it is difficult for the next youngest child. He or she is no longer the "baby" of the family. It was definitely so in our family. The situation was intensified by the fact that Felipe has been the only child and only grandchild for 7 1/2 years for not only Rebeca and I, but also for our entire family. I have 2 cousins who had children first, but that's it and we don't see them very often. So it was a real shock to Felipe when he realized he was not everyone's baby anymore and never would be again. We tried to ready him for it. I told him what it was like for me when my first sibling came along and how I was happy and unhappy at the same time, how I was excited and jealous, and how confusing all that was. We got him involved in preparing the room. We got him excited about being a big brother and told him how his little brother would look up to him and needed him to show him how to be good and teach him stuff. And he was excited. You should have seen him when he came to visit at the hospital and held his brother the first time. His eyes shone. It wasn't until about a week later that it began to sink in that this baby wasn't leaving, that Felipe really wasn't the baby anymore, that he wasn't always the center of attention, and most importantly, that he had to share Mommy and Daddy. Felipeʼs behavior became very abnormal for him. He didn't really understand what he was feeling or why he was doing the things he did. He began lying, stealing, "forgetting" his homework, and (my personal favorite) ripping through the screen of his bedroom window while grounded for stealing a tenner off mommy's dresser and getting himself trapped on the roof of the garage, because the roof was lower than the chair he used to climb out the window. And it wasn't like we stopped paying attention to Felipe. We both went out of our way to have time with him, without James. Felipe and I would go fishing, play video games, and he would help me catch mosquitoes when he didn't have school (I run the county West Nile Virus program). Mommy and he would go mini golfing and play Chutes and Ladders. We tried to have just the 2 of us or just the 3 of us times, as well as all 4 of us times. But going from 100% to 50% of someoneʼs attention is a big deal no matter how understanding you try to be, especially for a child. Hey, even I am a little jealous of sharing my wifeʼs attentions. And having a few relatives begin ignoring Felipe and cooing over James at every opportunity didn't help. So, there was still a period of adjustment. I'd like to think that that period was smoother and shorter than it could have been.

Felipe has the added burden of not being a biological son of Rebeca or I. Last year we were in the middle of a bitter custody battle. Felipe mostly won. He lives with us. And he has biological family he visits every other weekend who hate Rebeca and I. So it didn't help to have people whispering in his ear "now that they have their real son, they'll forget about you." (By the way, do parents and children from adoptive, step, and otherwise blended families a favor and drop "real" from your vocabulary when referring to relatives. "Biological' or "birth" parents/children works much better. Because if the biological mother is the "real" one, what does that imply about the step or adoptive mother?) We knew that the issue of blood relation would come up. We spent a lot of time thinking about it and trying to prevent it from being too big an issue in Felipe's mind. My first name is "Loyal," as is my father's and grandfather's. The middle name changes with each generation. So to make sure that Felipe knows that I consider him my oldest son, I did not give James the first name "Loyal." Instead, I told Felipe that I was giving it to him and when he was old enough he could legally change his name to "Loyal Felipe." Rebeca and I also wrote him into our will. The spending lots of time and making special time together is important in combating this particular problem as well.

Of course there have been numerous blessings. James is just so darn cute- he's just learning to smile and laugh. Felipe is growing up so fast. He' s becoming responsible for himself and is a great big brother. I wish I could show you how Felipe looks after James, how he does his best to make James laugh, and how he is extra good around him so that the baby won't learn any bad habits from his big brother. It has been such a blessing that Felipe has taken to being a big brother and how he has adjusted to sharing Mommy and Daddy (just as he had to adjust to sharing Mommy when Rebeca and I got married).
Being a father in a blended family has its challenges. But it also has its rewards. I love both my children. I am excited to see them grow up and find out what kind of men they will grow up to be and to walk along side of them as Rebeca and I lead them on that journey. Iʼll keep you up to date on how thatʼs going.

Teaching by osmosis

I can remember “cleaning” the bathroom when I was 3 or so, by scrubbing every surface with my mother’s toothbrush and a mixture of shampoo, toothpaste, and soap. I wasn’t really trying to clean anything. I was just entertaining myself. My father brought me to my distraught mother and said, “You need to say you’re sorry.” The closest he could get out of me was, “I didn’t mean it.” When I was little, there were two words I just could not bring myself to say: “I’m sorry.” It was sorta cute then, a toddler with too much pride to say “I’m sorry.” My parents were also very strict about respect; so it was a sore point too.

Now, twenty some odd years later, I have a son and I’m trying to teach him. My wife and I teach our son in many ways. We teach by telling him what to do. We teach by letting him find out for himself. We use rewards. We use punishments. We use psychology. But as far as I can tell, he learns the most by what I refer to as osmosis. He learns by what he absorbs from the people around him. I want him to learn to take responsibility for himself and what he does. I want him to value other people and the relationships in his life. I want him to be humble. I can talk to him about these things all I want, but unless I model the behavior for him he won’t really internalize it. Now, I’m aware that there is a school of thought that says parents (and other authority figures) should never apologize- it is a sign of weakness and lessens authority. I’m going to disagree with that. Authority does not require infallibility. As far as I can tell, unless one is Jesus, claiming to be infallible simply makes one out to be a liar, which tends to weaken any claim to authority. Instead, I try to show him that taking responsibility for one’s actions and apologizing is a sign strength and character.

Let me give an example: One day I came home and Felipe’s shoes were on the steps for me to trip over and his coat and book bag in the middle of the floor. I had a rough day and we had been telling him every day to put his things away as soon as he came home. I just blew up- I yelled for him to get himself over here to pick up his mess, and why didn’t you do it right when you came home, and why are you being so irresponsible and lazy, and when you’re done picking it up go to your room- yelling angrily the whole time. (I’m sure that no other parents out there have ever done this sort of thing.) After I calmed down, I recognized that I had blown an incident out of proportion and taken my frustrations out on him. So I went upstairs to talk to him. I told him that I was wrong to have spoken to him the way I did. That I was perfectly right to make him clean up his things and to reprimand him, but the way in which I did so was wrong. I did not back down from my responsibility as a parent to discipline him, but I also took responsibility for my mistake. In doing so I showed him how to own his misdeeds, that I valued and respected him, and that doing right is more important that being right.

My wife is sometimes annoyed by apologies. As someone who grew up in another country, she has the benefit of being able to observe the culture she is now a part of with some detachment. Her reasoning is apologies are often nothing more than words. So often we say “sorry” without thinking, automatically. And so often we see the apology as the end. “You think ‘sorry’ fixes everything!” she says after I mumble “sorry” after stepping on her foot for the ump-teenth time as we are trying to make breakfast and pack lunches in our small kitchen. And she’s right (don’t tell her I said that); Apologies can be meaningless, rote things that we do out of habit or to try and get the other person to let an offense slip by. Our apologies can be unsupported by any actions. But an apology is supposed to be part of something bigger than just words and perhaps flowers (or jewelry if you really screwed up). It is a reminder that we are fallible. It serves to keep us humble. Most importantly it is supposed to be the beginning of reconciliation. If we truly wish to have healing in a relationship, we must be willing to take responsibility for our misdeeds. Once responsibility is taken and forgiveness is given, reconciliation (healing of the relationship) can occur.

I value my relationship with my children and I want them to value their relationships with other people and to take responsibility for their actions and the consequences of their actions. The only way I will influence them to do that is if I do it for them.

Being “The Other Man”

Being “The Other Man”

Usually when we hear the term “the other man” we think of a person with whom someone is cheating on her husband or boyfriend. It stirs up feelings of jealousy, anger, confused loyalties, and disappointment at reality falling short of the ideal. I am also the “other man.” I have a stepson and so he has a biological father… and me. The situation of a child having a biological father and a stepfather unfortunately provides the child with the emotional parallels of a love triangle.

With 50 percent of marriages ending in divorce and the growing ranks of children in foster care, I think that my experience with my son is one that, regrettably, many can identify with. My wife and I are not his biological parents, but she has been his caretaker and the only mother he has known since an infant. I married his mother when he was 5. His biological father has regular contact through visitations every other weekend and some holidays. So that is the situation out of which I am sharing.

One of the things that is difficult to let go of as a man is the desire to be The father. As men, we do not like to share our roles with other men. And when it comes to our families we are especially jealous of our roles as both husband and father. The idea our role being usurped by another is bitter. But as a step-father I must accept that I am not the only father my son has. To be plain, it is painful at times. My son is nine years old. At that age a boy worships his biological father, whoever that person may be and however good of a father that person is or however badly that person falls short. While he regards me as his father, he will regularly in casual conversation refer his biological father his “real” dad. I know that he does not understand semantics and does not understand the pain that causes me but that doesn’t make it easier. I also know that my son loves me, enjoys the time we spend together, looks up to me, and relishes every positive word I say to him, and is pained by every negative word. In order to be a better father, I have had to let go of my desire to be his only father and be willing to be a father without the affirmation of being regarded by my son at every moment as “Dad.” I don’t like it, and I still have not totally let go of that desire. Humility is hard won and, for me, I doubt will ever be fully won.

The great evil of divided families is the havoc it plays on the hearts and minds of the children caught in the middle. My son feels a constant confusion. His biological father is jealous of his son’s affections and reminds him that I am not his “real” father, that he is, and asserts that there can be only one. To be honest, if I let myself, I would tell him the same thing (said conversely). Because of this confusion of loyalties, my son feels like he is betraying his biological father when he thinks of me as dad and also feels that he is betraying me when he thinks of his biological father as dad (especially if he is home with us). I go through great pains to let him know that he is free to love his biological father. My wife and I take care to only speak positively of the biological father and to encourage our son in his visits and sporadic phone calls. He does not have to choose as far as I am concerned. But for my son, the challenge of loving two fathers and the feeling of committing treason against both for loving both is source of stress and nightmares.

When I am honest with myself, I must admit that I sometimes doubt my own standing to rightfully be a father to this boy. I find myself believing the lies. Sometimes I’m scared that I will just screw things up one too many times or too badly and he will heed those lies. If you are a stepparent you know the lies: “You aren’t his real dad.” “He’s not your real son.” “Why should you keep letting yourself get hurt or worrying about this child who is not really yours to worry about?” But like I said, they are lies. And this is not really a love triangle. There is no betrayal here. The sad state of affairs is that my son has two fathers because we live in a world where families are broken. Both he and I are learning to live in the world we find ourselves. I am trying to advance the kingdom of God into this difficult situation. I love him. I care for him. I’m there for him when he needs me. I set limits on his behavior and activities because I love him and want him to grow up to be a better man. I help him with his homework even though he frustrates me to the point I just surrender and get my wife to do it. I have him help me do things even though I could do them faster and better without him. I give him chores to teach him responsibility and work ethic. I know that one day he will say to me in anger when I ground him for missing curfew, “You’re not even my real father!” I also know that I’ll keep loving him and he will keep loving me because I’m his father even though I’m the other man.