Becoming more and more sickened . . .

I like to know a bit about my "followers," so I clicked on Jenny's picture (at the moment, the second one in from the left on the top line in my "Followers" box on my blog). Something motivated me to click the link to the first blog she listed as having joined, Commandments of Men.

Yipes!

Subtitle: "Examining the dark, hyper-fundamentalist side of the Christian faith, including movements such as Patriarchy, Quiverfull, Courtship, Family Integrated Churches, Christian Homeschooling, the Religious Right, and many more." Written by "a guy following Christ, intent on knowing His truth alone, dealing with my own wounds and scars from hyper-fundamentalism - having lost my bride on the threshold of our wedding ceremony to a Patriocentric, fundamentalist family, and never being allowed to see her or speak freely to her again."

"What!?!?!!!"

I'm astonished by the guy's controlled and astonishingly mature response to unspeakable . . . --yes, let's call it what it is--abuse.

I'd like to call your attention to a remarkable summary of his story (via commentary on someone else's story of similar abuse) in Between a Rock and a Heart Place.

But check out, too,

• The Patriarchal/Authoritarian Dictionary
   
• Multi-Level Mayhem

. . . and whatever other posts strike your fancy. The author is correct, I'm afraid, when he points to at least a portion of the Christian homeschool movement as encouraging the problem.

Are you familiar with this kind of behavior? Have some insights into how to help victims (including moms and dads who have been sucked into this kind of ideology and behavior) to escape it?

Approval voting

Were coming up to primary election time here in Colorado and I am trying to learn about the candidates in "my" official party.

From what I'm told, this is the first year that "my" party is actually having a primary! And we get to vote in two races!

If you haven't guessed by now, yes, I am registered as something other than Democrat or Republican.

"Oh, no!"

How could I do that? I'm just "splitting" the vote, aren't I?

Well, no. I'm also attempting to express my personal convictions.

It fascinates me how distressing "third-party" really is both for those of us who are members as well as for people who are members of one of the two major parties. Dan Sallis, one of the Libertarian candidates in Colorado, has written an article about this issue titled Voting Libertarian is a Wasted Vote–Wrong! It's an interesting article. I don't like some of his language. (A warning for those who are easily offended.) But I think it makes a lot of sense: The candidates you vote for do NOT have to win for your vote to have an impact. When the numbers change, the major parties do take notice.

More interesting to me, however, than Sallis' article is one written by his opponent, Jaimes Brown: Libertarian Gubernatorial Candidate Comments on Tancredo's Entry in the Race.

In case you're not familiar with the name, Tom Tancredo was a five-time US Congressman from Colorado any one time Republican presidential candidate (2008). He made a name for himself a few years ago through his strong and outspoken positions with respect to immigration into the United States.

Brown comments:

As a Libertarian candidate for governor in Colorado, I have watched with amusement and wonder at the hand wringing that Republicans have gone through over the past two weeks with the entry of Tom Tancredo in the governor's race.

Republicans have come out of the woodwork to condemn Tancredo for "splitting the vote", being a "spoiler" or "wasting your vote". As a Libertarian, we are typically painted with those descriptions, whether it is the perceived taking of votes from Republicans or Democrats.

And . . . ?

Brown suggests a solution I have never heard of before. I am intrigued.

Approval voting allows you to vote for multiple candidates. The candidate with the most votes wins. Pretty simple. This method allows you to vote for your favorite candidate, but also vote for the other "lesser of the evils" if you think that you could prevent the worst candidates from winning.

The whole issue of Tancredo in this race would be a moot point for the Republicans, with approval voting. Plurality voting splits the vote of similar ideologies. Approval voting would encourage the nearly 50% of eligible voters who don't bother voting because the two parties do not represent them.

Can something like this work?

A while, here is what Americans for Approval Voting has to say on the subject:

Approval Voting is similar to the plurality system that is generally used in America today except for one twist: Instead of voting for just one candidate per office, Approval Voting allows you the option of voting for any number of candidates for a given office. The candidate who collects the most votes wins.

Approval Voting in effect allows you to vote up or down on every candidate in every race. The election results are therefore most easily expressed as an "Approval Rating" for each candidate.

Approval Voting in public elections has a long history going back to 12th century Venice. Its use has been growing in recent years. Several private member associations have used Approval Voting to elect officers for over 15 years and are pleased with the system. A form of Approval Voting was also used in the Security Council of the United Nations in 1996 to narrow the list of potential candidates for Secretary General.

Approval Voting has been used for municipal ballot propositions in the United States as well as for internal elections of state political parties in Pennsylvania.

Approval Voting is overwhelmingly supported by mathematicians, political scientists and other specialists in the area of elections. While no system is perfect, Approval Voting is the only easy-to-use and simple-to-explain alternative system that can be used with existing election equipment. Fortunately it has marvelous properties that will dramatically improve elections in the United States.

Check out Americans for Approval Voting and Citizens for Approval Voting for more information.

Taking a survey about world leaders during WWII gets me thinking . . .

An acquaintance of mine wrote on Friday:

I have a theory about Americans' opinions about dictators in other countries, so I'll be using a series of online surveys to see if my hunch is correct. If you think you or your children might find my first survey interesting, please take a look at it. I'm asking few demographic questions so as to not cause any privacy concerns. Thanks.

I took it. I think it may have required about 10 minutes of my time, all told.

The majority of the questions were of the form, "Who was worse, _________ or ________?"

For most of the pairs I had no difficulties answering. But there were a number that caused me to scratch my head.

For example, "Who was worse: Hirohito or Hitler?"

I got thinking:

• How much of my opinion is based on familiarity? (I know of both men; I am at least somewhat familiar with both men; but am I biased toward viewing Hitler as "worse" because his atrocities impacted "my people" while Hirohito's atrocities impacted "others" [particularly the Chinese and Koreans--of which atrocities I am aware but with which I am rather less familiar], and, therefore, am I more likely to judge Hitler more harshly than I will Hirohito?)

And then this thought:

• How much of my (or anyone's) perception is a result of the particular leader's mere opportunity to do evil (he happened to rule a large and/or already powerful country) and how much was the result of some kind of megalomaniacal internal commitment to wicked behavior? . . .
   
• And so forth.

Take the survey yourself and tell me what you think.

By the way, the author of the survey is a woman in her 20s. I asked her if she would provide a little explanation of what she is hoping to do with the survey, what she hopes to achieve . . . as well as explain how participants might hear of her survey's results. Here is her response.

Think the BP oil spill is a major environmental disaster? Perhaps it's time for us to look at our food!

What with three children and several grandchildren who exhibit major reactions to various foods (but particularly wheat); and what with my rheumatoid arthritis diagnosed only just over a year ago--and rather quickly identified as strongly influenced by the ingestion of wheat (not to mention other foods); what with the discovery over this past year of just how difficult it is, in the modern world of processed foods, to acquire almost any food that has not been tainted or tampered with in some manner . . . : I have become more and more aware, especially this past year, of issues related to food and food production.

And with all of these thoughts fairly near the top of my mind, perhaps you can understand my fury at reading this story about Monsanto.

Be prepared to have your blood boil . . . and find your food buying habits slowly alter (as ours have) as you realize there really is something wrong about our modern food production system. . . .

How rich are you?

I was reading a thread on the Sonlight Curriculum forums yesterday about the demise of the middle class. I will confess, I was dismayed to read about how little some of these people are getting by on each year. But then I did a little research this morning using a tool Sarita brought to my attention earlier this week: The Global Rich List.

As the people who that site together explained in a recent blog post,

[T]he Global Rich List, launched in 2003, continues to surprise people with their unexpected financial ranking in the world - which makes them feel instantly better about their income, and in turn puts them in a much happier place to think about giving some of it to a good cause.

 Where do you stand? I think you'll be surprised!

Life . . . and death

I visited Amy and Phil this weekend. Somehow this post by Amy, which I just read a few minutes ago, a post that mentions my visit, seemed peculiarly appropriate to summarize my day.

My sister Miriam asked me this morning to copy about half of my posts about Gracie Lou for her. --There's something about death.

Then, this evening, we went over to Dave and Jonelle's house to celebrate Natalia's second birthday today. --There's something about life.

And then, there's Amy's post--a combination of both.

I guess, maybe, I'm feeling a bit nostalgic tonight.

Happy birthday wishes by classically trained musicians . . . offered to an esteemed mentor

From a birthday tribute concert for pianist Claude Frank at the Curtis Institute of Music: a surprise encore arranged by at least one of Frank's students.

A couple of notes:

1. You'll need to turn up the volume if you want to hear the "apology" at the beginning . . . then turn it down when the music begins at about 1:02.
   
2. Understand that this is presented at a formal classical music concert. Enjoy the music for what it is. You will soon recognize the joke. --Very creative. (By the way: I am told that all the great classical composers--Mozart, Bach, etc.--would play these kinds of musical jokes or games with one another on a regular basis.)

Enjoy!



Viewing on Facebook? "View Full Note," then click on "View Original Post" to see the video.

Honoring moms and dads . . .

Our son Luke and his wife Brittany stopped by last night. While they were here, Luke said we needed to watch a couple of videos. After watching them, I agree with him: they ought to brighten your day..

First, for moms: A heartfelt, highly melodic, and beautifully harmonized ode by Stanford University student Adam Cole to his mother for the amazing biological heritage she has given him. [As you listen, you may wish you had studied your high school (or was it college?) biology a bit more seriously!]



And then . . . an over-the-top rap video about suburban "Dad Life."

"Get down" [or whatever the modern equivalent phrase may be]!



Feel like adding a little more brightness to your day?

Check out "Jessica's Daily Affirmation Song" . . . as sung by Adam Cole and his bluegrass band Nimbleweed . . .



. . . and, then, maybe, view Jessica's original affirmation from which the song was inspired:



For more Nimbleweed bluegrass music videos, check out Adam's YouTube webpage. Best songs in my opinion?

• Wagon Wheel fiddle solo
   
• Okinawa (one mild expletive buried in the middle)
   
• I Believe in a Thing Called Love

What wonderful feel-good music!

Octopuses, octopi, octopodes . . .

I ran into this video on the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary website as I was looking for the appropriate word for a geographical equivalent of anachronism.

[While we're on the subject: An event or object that is out of its appropriate time context is called an anachronism. For example, if a novelist were to suggest that "George had just begun flying his Piper Cub from St. Louis, Missouri, to Berkeley, California, on the morning of April 23, 1823 . . ."--that would be an anachronism. So what is the appropriate word to describe an event or object placed in the wrong geographical context? For example, say, a flea on the tail of a polar bear that is living above the Arctic Circle.--What would you call that? Answer: an anatopism. --For what it's worth. (My first guess was, perhaps, an anageographism or an anageologism. Too bad: I guessed wrong!]

Anyway. I saw this 1:58 video over on the side of the Merriam-Webster web page and thought it was hilarious. Enjoy!

What is the appropriate plural of "octopus"?

By the way, there are a bunch more videos like this on the "Ask the Editor" video archives page on the Merriam-Webster website.

Images from the opposite ends of life

I've never noticed this before, probably because I don't normally read these two sections of scripture in quite such a juxtaposition. But last year, in reading the whole Bible in one year, I felt the mid-section moved so slowly, I re-sequenced things and wound up reading Ecclesiastes 12 and the first few chapters of Song of Songs one right after the other this morning.

I may also have been helped to see this because we watched 17 Again last night. I am a bit more attentive, this morning, to the passage of time and its impact upon one's life.

Ecclesiastes 12 describes old age in highly imagistic terms:

Remember your Creator
   in the days of your youth,
before the days of trouble come
   and the years approach when you will say,
   “I find no pleasure in them”—
before the sun and the light
   and the moon and the stars grow dark,
   and the clouds return after the rain;
when the keepers of the house tremble,
   and the strong men stoop,
   when the grinders cease because they are few,
   and those looking through the windows grow dim;
when the doors to the street are closed
   and the sound of grinding fades;
when men rise up at the sound of birds,
   but all their songs grow faint;
when men are afraid of heights
   and of dangers in the streets;
when the almond tree blossoms
   and the grasshopper drags himself along
   and desire no longer is stirred.
Then man goes to his eternal home
   and mourners go about the streets.

Remember him—before the silver cord is severed,
   or the golden bowl is broken;
before the pitcher is shattered at the spring,
   or the wheel broken at the well,
and the dust returns to the ground it came from,
   and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

--Ecclesiastes 12:1-8 (NIV)

And then, almost like a bookend, I read The Song of Solomon or Song of Songs Chapter 2:

Listen! My lover!
   Look! Here he comes,
leaping across the mountains,
   bounding over the hills.
My lover is like a gazelle or a young stag.
   Look! There he stands behind our wall,
gazing through the windows,
   peering through the lattice.
My lover spoke and said to me,
   “Arise, my darling,
   my beautiful one, and come with me.
See! The winter is past;
   the rains are over and gone.
Flowers appear on the earth;
   the season of singing has come,
the cooing of doves
   is heard in our land.
The fig tree forms its early fruit;
   the blossoming vines spread their fragrance.
Arise, come, my darling;
   my beautiful one, come with me.”

Not sure where I'm going with this. It just struck me how the language of these two passages is so similar, even though they obviously have to do with different ends of life.

I guess, while I'm at it, I should comment on another thought that popped through my mind as I "listened" to these two sections of scripture. I was reminded of a song I have heard on my favorite Pandora station: "Garden in My Room" by Merril Bainbridge.

There's a garden in my room
Would you like to take a look?
There are fascinating things you'll find there

And if you care to come inside
There is nothing I will hide
Come where there is sweet perfume
In the garden in my room

There's a garden in my room
Would you like to take a look?
Rest your body on my velvet roses

Once you've tasted my delights
Many days will turn to nights
There is nothing you won't do
For the garden in my room

Kind of scary lyrics, actually, aren't they? "There is nothing you won't do for the garden in my room"? Yow!

And that reminds me of a few other passages I read only a couple of weeks ago in the Book of Proverbs. Say, like Proverbs 5:

My son, pay attention to my wisdom,
   listen well to my words of insight,
that you may maintain discretion
   and your lips may preserve knowledge.
For the lips of an adulteress drip honey,
   and her speech is smoother than oil;
but in the end she is bitter as gall,
   sharp as a double-edged sword.
Her feet go down to death;
   her steps lead straight to the grave. . . .

Keep to a path far from her,
   do not go near the door of her house,
lest you give your best strength to others
   and your years to one who is cruel,
lest strangers feast on your wealth
   and your toil enrich another man's house.
At the end of your life you will groan,
   when your flesh and body are spent.
You will say, “How I hated discipline!
   How my heart spurned correction!
I would not obey my teachers
   or listen to my instructors.
I have come to the brink of utter ruin
   in the midst of the whole assembly.” . . .

Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress?
   Why embrace the bosom of another man's wife?
For a man's ways are in full view of the Lord,
   and he examines all his paths.
The evil deeds of a wicked man ensnare him;
   the cords of his sin hold him fast.
He will die for lack of discipline,
   led astray by his own great folly.

--Proverbs 5:1-5, 8-14, 20-23 (NIV)

Or Proverbs 7:

My son, keep my words
   and store up my commands within you. . . .
Say to wisdom, “You are my sister,”
   and call understanding your kinsman;
they will keep you from the adulteress,
   from the wayward wife with her seductive words.

At the window of my house
   I looked out through the lattice.
I saw among the simple, . . .
   a youth who lacked judgment.
He was going down the street near her corner,
   walking along in the direction of her house. . . .

Then out came a woman to meet him, . . .
She took hold of him and kissed him
   and with a brazen face she said:

“. . . I have covered my bed
   with colored linens from Egypt.
I have perfumed my bed
   with myrrh, aloes and cinnamon.
Come, let's drink deep of love till morning;
   let's enjoy ourselves with love!
My husband is not at home;
   he has gone on a long journey.
He took his purse filled with money
   and will not be home till full moon.”

With persuasive words she led him astray;
   she seduced him with her smooth talk.
All at once he followed her
   like an ox going to the slaughter,
like a deer stepping into a noose
   till an arrow pierces his liver,
like a bird darting into a snare,
   little knowing it will cost him his life.

Now then, my sons, listen to me; . . .
Do not let your heart turn to her ways
   or stray into her paths.
Many are the victims she has brought down;
   her slain are a mighty throng.
Her house is a highway to the grave,
   leading down to the chambers of death.

--Proverbs 7:1, 4-8, 10, 13, 16-27 (NIV)

Wisdom of the ages -- about money

I've been frustrated.

On the one hand, Sarita and I have been urged to make plans for what wealth we have accumulated so that it (the wealth) will go where we [think God might] want it to go. On the other hand, it seems as if ever since we received that counsel and began acting upon it, the funds we have put aside have been devastated by the stock market crash and the ongoing inability of even "the best" advisors to avoid handing us losses in today's investment climate.

I just received another reminder last night as our investment advisor sent us a bunch of performance statements and, once again, every account suffered losses this past month. . . .

So today I was reading in Proverbs and noticed something that had never caught my eye before:

Do not toil to acquire wealth;
     be discerning enough to desist. (Prov. 23:4)

I took that to be saying (in the context of so much else that the writers of the Proverbs say), "Work hard and long enough to meet your and your family's needs (cf, for example, Prov. 16:26), but don't try to pile up wealth. It's not worth the trouble.

What "the trouble" may entail includes strife and discord (see, for example, Prov. 15:16; 16:8, 19; 17:1; 19:1; 21:9 & 19; 25:24; etc.--all of which generally add up to, "Better to have little--and peace and quiet, than to have much accompanied with yelling and strife"), but "the trouble" may also entail "simple" loss and/or emptiness, or what Solomon called a "chasing after the wind" (ubiquitous in the Book of Ecclesiastes). In Proverbs 23, where I began this meditation, the author follows his admonition about desisting from the pursuit of wealth with this explanation:

Do not toil to acquire wealth;
     be discerning enough to desist.
[Because w]hen your eyes light on it, it is gone,
     for suddenly it sprouts wings,
     flying like an eagle toward heaven. (Prov. 23:4-5)

And all of this together, for some reason, is reminding me of Jesus' words of wisdom in Matthew 6:19-34 (NIV):

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. . . .

No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Safe driving

I received this from our insurance agent last night. I had never heard of this particular law before!

If a patrol car is pulled over to the side of the road with its lights flashing, you have to change to the next lane (away from the stopped vehicle) or slow down by 20 mph below the stated speed limit. Every state except New York, Hawaii, and Maryland, and the District of Columbia has a version of this law.

For more detail, see MoveoverAmerica.com and Snopes.

Unexpected beauty

One of my sisters sent me a copy of and link to a story about . . . well . . . beauty in unexpected places.

Check out the story my sister sent--the quick version.

An even quicker "tease":

It's about Joshua Bell, one of the greatest violinists in the world, who played some of the most beautiful violin music ever written, on a violin worth $3.5 million . . . during morning rush hour in a Washington, DC, Metro station.

Three days before, he had played to a packed house in Boston where only middling seats cost $100 apiece.

The question he and a Washington Post reporter wanted to answer: How would people respond?

For the complete story, complete with video, see the original Washington Post article: Pearls Before Breakfast. And, then, a follow-up, "story behind the story" article . . . complete with readers' discussion, including answers to a question the author of the original article asked:

This story got the largest and most global response of anything I have ever written, for any publication. I am still wading through more than a thousand emails. . . .

[B]ut there's one [question] I'd like to pose: . . . [M]ore than 100 readers so far have told me that this story made them cry. It was not a reaction I anticipated, at least not so universally, and it has somewhat taken me aback. Can those of you who had this reaction try to explain it?

What do you think?

Oh.

And an alternating super-sped-up and regular-speed video of the entire, 45-minute experiment (2:36):

Pesky pronouns!

I wondered when I would finally get around to writing blog posts again!

I "couldn't take it" anymore. Today is the day.

I woke up and my Scripture reading included Psalm 65 and Psalm 66. I'm reading in the ESV (English Standard Version). I thought Psalm 65:2 was a bit odd:

O you who hears prayer,
    to you shall all flesh come.

I thought: "'. . . [Y]ou who hears prayer'? . . . That's not right! You'd say, 'You . . . hear prayer,' not, 'You . . . hears prayer.' --It's the same way you distinguish when to say 'Bill and I' from when to say 'Bill and me': Knock out the additional noun so you can tell whether you should use the first-person subjective or first person objective pronoun:

• Bill and I went to camp. (?) -OR- Bill and me went to camp. (?)
  Bill and I went to camp. (?) -OR- Bill and me Me went to camp. (?)
  --Ah! It's very clear: I should say Bill and I went to camp; I should never say, Bill and me went to camp.
   
• Lucy targeted Bill and I. (?) -OR- Lucy targeted Bill and me. (?)
  Lucy targeted Bill and I. (?) -OR- Lucy targeted Bill and me. (?)
      --Again it's very clear: I should say Lucy targeted Bill and me; I should never say, Lucy targeted Bill and I.

And so it is here in Psalm 65:2:

• O you who hears prayer . . . (?) -OR- O you who hear prayer. (?)
  You who hears prayer . . . (?) -OR- You who hear prayer. (?)
  --No question: I should say, O you who hear prayer; I should never say, O you who hears prayer.

So where did that grammatical error come from?

I checked some other versions on BlueLetterBible.org. --All the older versions in which God is always addressed with the old-style "thou" and "thee"--and, concomitantly, the versions that maintain the "-eth" and "-est" suffixes on verbs--render Psalm 65:2 as "thou that hearest" or "thou who hearest." All the modern translations--except the ESV--render it as "you who hear."

. . . I think I'm going to write to the publisher!

-------
--And then, Psalm 66:1 and 4:

Shout for joy to God, all the earth . . .
All the earth worships you
    and sings praises to you;
    they sing praises to your name.

Ever since working my way through Genesis 1-11 back in January, I have been more attentive than normal to the use in the Bible of any English words that are closely associated with "the earth"--words like the earth, earth, soil, land, etc. --What Hebrew word is it that the translators are rendering into these English terms?

Is it eretz (Genesis 12:1, for example, where it appears twice but is translated in the ESV as country the first time and land the second; or Genesis 13:15-16, where it appears three times: once as land and the second and third times as earth)? Adamah (Genesis 1:25 includes both eretz ["And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds"] and adamah [". . . and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind"])?

Turns out, in Psalm 66, the earth, in both cases, is ha eretz.

--Not sure what that means, ultimately. But I find it interesting that ha eretz, a singular noun, is replaced by a plural pronoun in the third line of v. 4: "they sing praises to your name."

-------
And one final verbal oddity.

This one comes from our sermon yesterday morning.

Our pastor preached from Genesis 27, where Jacob puts on goatskin so he can deceive his blind father and acquire the blessing his father intended for Jacob's older brother, Esau.

In Genesis 27:5-8 we read,

Now Rebekah [the mother of both Jacob and Esau--JAH] was listening when Isaac spoke to his son Esau. So when Esau went to the field to hunt for game and bring it, Rebekah said to her son Jacob, "I heard your father speak to your brother Esau, 'Bring me game and prepare for me delicious food, that I may eat it and bless you before [YHWH] before I die.' Now therefore, my son . . ."

Did you catch the interesting possessive pronouns?

Now Rebekah was listening when Isaac spoke to his son Esau. So when Esau went to the field . . ., Rebekah said to her son Jacob . . ."

Kind of reminds me of the many places throughout the Old Testament where the authors carefully distinguish the possessive pronouns attached to God: One person will refer to "YHWH our God" or "YHWH my God," the next to "YHWH your God." Or the same person will refer, at one point in his life, to "YHWH your God," but at another point he will speak of "YHWH my God."

--VERY interesting!

(By the way. It's pretty clear why the Scriptures speak of Jacob as Rebekah's son while Esau is Isaac's son. Look at Genesis 25:28: "Isaac loved Esau because he ate of his game, but Rebekah loved Jacob." --Anyone want to deal with a dysfunctional family?)

Thank you so much!

[Written last night, in anticipation of our leaving this morning.]

Words cannot describe how significant the support of all my/our friends has been over the last two weeks.

Sarita and I are headed out of town this morning for almost two weeks. We're traveling down the Yangtze River, looking forward to visiting the Three Gorges Dam and "simply" enjoying whatever we can learn of central Chinese culture.

I am expecting it will be a good "time away" and "time off."

Monday night, Dave and Jonelle called: "Will you come and pray with us? We just don't think we can go to sleep."

And so we had a time of prayer . . . after a bit of pointed, heart-to-heart sharing of feelings and thoughts one doesn't normally say out loud.

As we prayed, it struck me: We are all wounded.

Jonelle is still recovering from the wounds of her C-section--a major pair of wounds . . . one on the outside--a major horizontal cut--and one on the inside, a giant vertical cut into her womb . . . far bigger than "normal" because the doctors wanted to be able to take Gracie out with as little trauma to her as possible.

But Jonelle is still left with that wound and still needing to heal.

But Jonelle is not just left with that wound.

Her heart is wounded, too. And, as she has said a few times, she is also reminded regularly about that wound by the fullness of her breasts as they produce milk for a baby who won't be needing it.

Pain upon pain.

But with all of Jonelle's pain and all of her wounds, sadly, she is not the only one who has been wounded. Dave's heart, too, has received an ugly blow.

And so has Sarita's. And so has mine.

I do not want to equate any of our wounds. They are not equal. They are not the same. But they all need to heal.

Wounds take time to heal.

And so we have agreed together that we will give each other the time we need.

Sarita and I are so grateful that Jonelle's older sister, Amy, will be coming to town while we are away, so the two sisters--and their two children (only two weeks apart in age)--can enjoy each other's company.

A tribute to hospital staff who astonished us . . .

[Finished just before I received the emergency call about which I just posted.]

Dave, Jonelle, Sarita and I talked about this several times over the last week and a half/two weeks: The staff in the Labor & Delivery and Neonatal Intensive Care Units at St. Joseph Hospital/Denver absolutely stunned us. At one point, Dave and Jonelle said, "They have reestablished our faith in the medical profession."

I said, "What? . . . Why?" --And part of my question arose from knowing (or sensing I knew) how well Jonelle had been cared for during her last delivery in which she had had to undergo an emergency C-section to save her life.

What we discovered, partially by pure observation, partially by conversation, were--among many other points, I'm sure--these things. And I want to list them by way of tribute.

Overall: the staff of St. Joseph's Labor & Delivery and Neonatal Intensive Care Units communicate effectively. But this is how that looked to this observer:

• To quote the doctor who pulled us aside on Saturday evening and sat and talked with us for half an hour (or, at least, to convey the gist of what he said): "We have a saying here: 'We are here to treat the entire family' . . . because the whole family is involved in what is going on." Therefore, our questions and concerns were important to him . . . and to the other staff members. --He . . . and they, all . . . communicated that message through their actions. Consistently.
  
  We, all of us, were important to them. And they proved that.
  
  How?
   
• As they walked into the room (while Jonelle was in the hospital), and when we walked into the NICU (when we would visit there), they made sure to greet us, to identify who they were, why they were there, and what their roles were . . . and, though it was not so noticeable to us, they made sure to identify each one of us and to acknowledge who we were and why we were present. --This was something we noticed immediately, within minutes of first entering the recovery room following Jonelle's surgery. Just the act of identifying themselves by name . . . and honoring us--and themselves--by making sure we all understood each other's roles.
   
• They listened intently to whatever we had to say, whatever questions we had.
   
• They looked us in the eye--each one who asked a question--as they answered our questions. There was no looking around, no "being distracted" with "other duties" that might call.
   
• They communicated thoroughly.
   
• They communicated knowledgeably.
   
• They communicated as much as we wanted to know and in a patient and astonishingly unhurried manner.
  
  --It was clear: Our questions mattered.
   
• They communicated in a manner that honored the hearer--whether it was any one of us who was a member of the family, or it was another member of the staff. --I never saw anyone "talk down" to someone else.
  
  All of the above meant,
   
• There was amazing unity among the staff. We saw no dissension or distance between doctors and nursing staff. They fully honored one another as fellow professionals and human beings.
  
  Continuing with the theme of excellent communication:
   
• They told us [and now I am speaking primarily in behalf of Jonelle and Dave] . . . --They told us what they intended to do and why they intended to do it . . . before they did it. Always. Consistently.
   
• They fully explained what they were going to do if we ever had any questions.
   
• There was no sense on our part that we needed to "shut up" and simply acquiesce to their treatments.
   
• We, all of us, were an integral part of the treatment process.
   
• They were all well-informed of what was happening. (Noticeable: Every shift, the staff who were coming on made sure to engage in a thorough debriefing from and by the staff who were departing.
   
• They were well-educated about the issues they were dealing with. They could speak knowledgeably with us on whatever topic was of concern. And yet even as (for example) one of the nurses fully explained a matter, she would offer--indeed, make the effort--to pull in a doctor: "_______ asked ________. Would you mind explaining it to him [or her]?" --What an amazing experience to hear virtually the same explanation, in slightly different words, from two different sources! What wonderful confirmation of competency!

Much of what I have said here, at this point, seems so reasonable.

But, as Jonelle and Dave noted, these are not typical of what they experienced 20 months ago at another local hospital.

*******
One more observation.

I believe it was Saturday night, as four of us were gathered around Gracie Lou, as tears were flowing, as prayers were being said . . . it struck me what a difficult job these staff members--especially the NICU nurses--have during times of deep distress and stress on the parts of the families.

How do you know when to speak up? How do you know when to be silent? How do you know when to maintain a distance when the family needs to be left alone and, yet, to "be there" for them when they need someone to buoy them up?

How do you know when to speak words of encouragement and hope (when, otherwise, the family would be given to potentially needless despair) . . . and when to speak words that communicate about the potential gravity of a situation (lest family members hold out wildly inordinate optimism)?

I am astonished at how the staff of St. Joseph Hospital did all of these things . . . and did them well.

Thank you to all the staff at St. Joseph who touched our family. You have blessed us deeply!

Jonelle on the way to the emergency room . . .

Dave just called: "Jonelle is bleeding out of the vagina."

They dropped Natalia off and then raced to the closest hospital. "She is almost fainting!" Dave called as he ran to the car.

. . . Meanwhile, Sarita and I are supposed to leave for the airport in an hour.

We are supposed to be going to China for two weeks.

"I want you to go," Jonelle said. . . . She just called from the car as they were still on the way to the emergency room.

Luke is picking up Natalia.

Gracie Lou finished her earthly battle . . .

Mommy and Daddy spoke gentle words of blessing to her as her time came closer and closer.

The LORD bless you and keep you.
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you.
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you His peace. ["Peace," echoes Gracie's older sister, Natalia, whenever this prayer is said.]

--Numbers 6:24-26 (a special prayer in our family)

Shortly before 11, Mommy and Daddy decided it was time for her to make that final journey.

"Can we just keep her comfortable?"

"She is comfortable," the nurse assured us. "But we will keep watch, just in case."

She was taken off the oxygen oscillator at 10:58. Her oxygen levels actually went up for 10 or 15 minutes afterwards. But then they began to subside, as did her heart rate. She had been fighting so hard. Heart rate right around 180. . . . But then it slowly came down. . . . 133. . . . 121. . . . Oxygen bouncing from 18 up to 65 then down again. . . . Heart rate 99. . . . 93. . . . Sometime when it was down in the 60s, the nurse asked if we would want to remove the monitor so we wouldn't be distracted by watching the numbers.

"Yes, thank you."

Gracie Lou  rested comfortably against her Mommy's chest throughout--except for a few minutes while Daddy held her against his. Then back to Mommy for the end.

Sometime between 11:30 and 11:45, she left us. Jonelle, Dave and I prayed together during that time. Many tears. But joy, too, that her struggles are over.

Two exhausted, bereft parents are heading home to be with their older daughter right now. I do not know of plans for memorializing Gracie Lou nor for disposing of her body.

Thank you, all, for "being there" with us through this difficult time.

Gracie Lou: They are going to put her on Jonelle's chest . . .

I am not trying to be euphemistic. We have been told of at least one "miracle" when a baby boy, just a few years ago, in a very similar circumstance, was put on his Momma's chest to die . . . and that was when he revived.

I am going up to take a few last pictures, God willing.

Gracie Lou: Just got off the phone with Jonelle . . .

"She's stable, but her oxygen is in the 60s, which is not a sustainable situation. They have her on everything they can possibly give her. 100% oxygen. At the highest pressure. They stopped giving her the [bicarb] at 5:15. They said it would take another hour or two for that to wear off. But she is still hanging in there.

"We have said, 'Lord, what You will do, do quickly. Either heal her or let her go. Peacefully. Quickly. Let it not be in the midst of some kind of crisis. If we are to rejoice, then let us rejoice. If we are to grieve, then let us grieve. But don't prolong this!"

The NICU lifted its ban on siblings coming to visit as of 15 minutes ago--8 o'clock this morning.

If Gracie Lou is still hanging in there in another hour or two, Jonelle said, and as long as they haven't simply put Gracie Lou on Jonelle's chest to die--"Why don't you bring Natalia up so she can meet her sister?"

. . . So that's the latest.