WELCOME TO "I Had to Laugh"

Sometimes you have to laugh or the crying never stops.

Monday, 07 July 2008

  • Blogging Lite

    In the summer, I usually have nothing to do. We don't go on vacations so the days are just a warmer version of our winter routine. Not so much the next two weeks.

    Wednesday I'm going up north to visit a friend in Idaho. I'm taking the bus so there will be plenty of people watching opportunities.

    On Sunday, entries begin to come in for a writing contest I'm judging. I'm not sure how long I have to read the unknown number of stories.

    Then, on Thursday of next week my mother and brother arrive for a long weekend of yakking and noshing.

    By the 21st, I'm going to be pooped.

    Have fun--Susan Kaye

Friday, 04 July 2008

Tuesday, 01 July 2008

  • When I run headlong into idealism, my first response is to roll my eyes and walk away. My second is to formulate a snarky, crushing response and keep it to myself. (Okay, many days the crushing response comes first.)

    I was reading around Revelife today and found a post by a young woman speaking about how she was raised and how it informs her Christianity now. She spoke about how she views submission between husbands and wives. She then wondered aloud why so many Christians go on and on about it, because in her mind, it's pretty simple: when you love someone, submitting to them is a natural part of the equation.

    Oh my, to be so idealistic again.

    When the poster said the concepts of submissive wife and leadership in the husband aren't rocket science, I knew I had to post something.

    Of course these truths aren't rocket science. Everything about the Christianity is pretty simple. That doesn't mean that following the precepts of the faith is simple. In fact, most of the time, staying faithful to what you know to be God's will is bloody hard, and the reason people continue to write books about submission/leadership in marriage is because submitting yourself, particularly in marriage, is one of the hardest things you will ever do in your life.

    Laying down your desires for another does not come naturally. Just because I fell in love didn't diminish my selfishness one iota. And just because I'm married for 30 years doesn't mean it isn't a struggle now. We all know how hard it is NOT to eat the last of something--like chips--when we know someone else likes them too. And not to insist on watching our favorite program when their's is on at the same time. Or, for married people, submit to having sex when our spouse needs it but we really don't. And then there is dealing with the disappointment of what I may perceive as failed leadership on his part. And there are times when I need to be lifted up spiritually, but it's not forthcoming.

    There is an old saying, "familarity breeds contempt." It is one of the truest things I know. When you've been intimate with someone physically, emotionally, spiritually, leagally, monetarily and in every other way imaginable, over time you gain knowledge of them. You know all the right buttons to push, and you know all the faults and follies. And the hardest thing you will ever do is NOT use that knowledge against your spouse when they are weak, or tired, or unkind towards you. There are moments in a marriage when the only prayer is: "God close my mouth." Just staying still is hard enough, but submitting, oh my, that simple concept seems to be impossible.

    If you are pitying my husband for being married to such a blister as me, don't. He's got it very good and he tells the guys at work that all the time. And I am extraordinarily fortunate to be married to a man who loves me truly unconditionally. We shouldn't still be married, but we are by the grace of God. We have just learned that the ideal of "submission/leadership is simple" is an ideal. Rarely are any human endeavors ideal.

    Take care--Susan Kaye

Monday, 30 June 2008

  • I don't want to be handled

    Last week, I was extraordinarily bothered after reading Terry Mattingly's column entitled, Obama Prays Behind Closed Door. The jist of it was that Barak Obama recently met in a closed door, off-the-record meeting with "a variety of evangelical and Pentecostal leaders." The number 43 came to light at the midpoint of the article.

    The attendees asked questions about his personal faith and questions about moral issues that have a spiritual component, such as abortion. I quote the rest of the story:

    "Obama seemed to have the support of at least half of the 43 leaders who attended the Chicago meeting," noted Strang. (Steven Stang of Strang Communications and founder of Charisma Magazine.) "In my opinion, he 'made points' with the rest."

    David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network was even more blunt about the meeting's political implications.

    "Folks, this is an important development," he said. "It shows that the game has changed. Old rules don't apply. We're in uncharted territory. John McCain's religious outreach team has to now step to the plate and work hard for faith voters."

    What bugs me is the notion that Mr. Brody thinks I need, or want to be treated in any special way as a voter. This is what I despise about Identity Politics. I am certainly a part of a large voting block--Conservative Christians--but I don't want anyone's "religious outreach team" working me. 

    I am not so unintelligent that I need any candidate to translate good, standard American English into a sort of Christian lingua franca that will make their political philosophies understandable. When either of the candidates is speaking to urban businessmen, Midwest farmers in Iowa, Pacific Northwest tech types or veterans of foreign wars, I fancy I can glean information that is relevant to me from all those varied speeches.

    When Mr. Brody says that the old rules don't apply, I know he means that Conservative Christians aren't going to blindly vote Republican. But neither are they going to fall into lockstep merely because a candidate says we need change. Unless a candidate are running for reelection ALL candidates run on change. Nothing new here.

    GIVE ME POLICY! Not nuanced to appeal to me, but put out there cleanly and cogently for me to examine.

    SAY IT AND STAND BEHIND IT! I don't have trouble with a candidate learning more about an issue and changing their stand, but I do resent the notion that they can straddle the fence trying to be all things to all men when they are really blurring the lines of their philosophy in hopes of bagging the unwary.

    Mostly, don't think I'm stupid and need you to massage my shoulders and comfort me. Tell me straight and then leave me alone.

    Take care--Susan Kaye





  • Taking a break ...

    from editing to blog.

    Since starting this blog, I've been trying to come up with a catchy title. My other Xanga blog is: "I Had to Laugh," which my writing woes, online stories, and book news. I think I'm going to keep that name here as well.

    The name itself is not liken to the biblical principle of laughter doing good like medicine, but more a cynical take: if I don't laugh, I'll cry. And never stop. I am fairly wary, cynical, difficult to know and someone who watches closely before engaging with people or situations. But, I am funny and I laugh a lot. Kind of a sour patch gummy candy rolled in caramel covered in chocolate.

    Anyway, "I Had to Laugh" it is. That will make it easy to remember. both Revelife and Xanga have the same passwords, and now the same titles. How long will it take for me to forget?

    Take care--Susan Kaye

Sunday, 29 June 2008

  • I just read a quote that essentially said that art is a collaboration between God and the artist, and that the artist should let God do most of the "work."

    It is a concept I can agree with if we mean that the artist needs to allow God to guide them and inspire them. I can't agree when it means the artist goes about their craft and that whatever emerges is sacrosanct. Earlier this morning I was reading an e-mail from a writer who is reluctant to allow anyone to edit their work. Their reasoning is that God has given them the story they've written and an editor will not necessarily understand the writer's heart and desires with the piece and will want changes that will ruin it.

    I can identify. I am in the midst of editing my second novel. It has been a hard slog for several reasons. Changes have been put forth by someone who isn't my on my "Highly Respected Editors" list and I'm not sure I want to do as they suggest. At this point, I could say that the Lord energized my imagination so that I could write this story and who are you to suggest I change it? But, when I do that, who am I really protecting? God's endeavor, or my ego. I have to suspect the latter in both my case, and the case of the other writer.

    So much artistic work that comes out of Christians is not very good. Much is technically awful. As believers we tend to cut one another a lot of slack. "It's not very good, but it's all for the glory of God." It is one thing for the amateur to present their endeavor and everyone clap politely. It is another for a professional to say that they don't want any sort of critical judgment of their work.

    God needs never fear the judgment of any person. I do. Some people judge work with a jaundiced eye. Some have standards which are impossible to meet while others take pleasure in tearing the work of others to pieces. But, for the most part, people in various fields judge according to the accepted norms of that field. Most Editors have a vested interest in getting out the best possible product for, in my case, the reading public that is possible. Am I disappointed that my ms isn't perfect and needs nothing and could go right to press? Yes. Am I surprised that there are suggestions to change some things? No. Someone who doesn't eat and breath the story and live with the characters 24/7 probably has a better shot at seeing all the raggedy loose ends than I have. Even if it's someone I don't necessarily care for on a personal basis.

    As Believers we have to honour God with our time and talent. Sometimes, that means letting others in so a fresh perspective can be got, and that way a work has every chance to be truly an offering worth making.

    Take care--Susan Kaye

Monday, 09 June 2008

  • Courage of our convictions

    While reading a post in which the writer asked genuine questions about Christianity, they said they thought children should be exposed to many different religions and allowed to choose when they were old enough. The inference was that raising your child exclusively in the tenets of a particular faith was too narrow and, I suppose, assumed to be harmful or stifling to the child.

    I hear this reasoning quite a bit, but it seems to me that in most things people really don't live that way.

    Firstly, trying to expose a child to a wide variety of religious belief would be so time consuming you'd have little time for any other sort of moral studies. Comparative  religion classes barely touch on the major religions of the world and their various permutations, much less more obscure regional religions on the major continents. Not that I think you should not try, but if you are really going to take seriously the responsibility of offering your children even a fraction of their choices, you've got your work cut out for you.

    Secondly, it seems that the area of religion is the only vital aspect of a child's growth that we throw open the door and offer everything as equal.

    I know being staunchly anti abortion I never took my children to a pro abortion rally. And I am sure that very few, if any, pro abortionists have ever taken their children to a pro life rally. This is a subject which is not either, or, sorta, or maybe in the minds of most people. There is a definite right and wrong to most and that is what we tend to teach our kids. I also very much doubt that people who are vegans on moral principle serve their children any kind of meat, fish, dairy or poultry. To believe that "meat is murder" is a pretty nonnegotiable I would imagine. Do pacifists take their kids to war movies and boxing matches to give the other side an equal hearing?  I know as a Conservative who tends to vote Republican, (reluctantly most times), I did not, and do not, shy away from talking to my children about why my beliefs are "better." And this is the case when it comes to my Christianity.

    I think many people have visions of "Carrie" and her mother's psychotic version of belief. Or they think that most of us rubes that the likes of the latest Elmer Gantry so easily sways. If those examples were true for most of Christianity, I would say the throw-all-the-mud-on-the-wall method of religious training would probably be a good idea. But what I have noticed over time is that most people who say that kids should get this theoretical, well-rounded education don't get anything at all.

    There seems to be a notion that religion is absorbed like cultural oxygen. In the course of a day you may encounter many different practitioners of various religions, but considering the complexity and importance of the subject, leaving it to chance, or fate, is probably not the best idea.

    My children were raised in a very conservative religious fashion. We have been pretty nondenominational for the most part, and there have been times when my husband and I have disagreed on secondary doctrines espoused by the church we were attending at the time. But, we have always been open with our kids that you have to be discerning when it comes to your belief and you must equip yourself to judge what comes from the pulpit. We have also taught them that believers must love one another when they disagree. Bottom line is that we did teach them what we believe to be the truth. It only seems reasonable to say we believe Christianity to be the truth when that is what we live. To say Christianity it is only one of many options, and therefore a preference means I ought to give it up and sleep in on Sundays.

    My children are now 20 and 22. They are making their way in the world and making their own decision. they are deciding for themselves what churches to attend, and how they will live out their Christianity. Or how they will reject it. And how they will deal with Mom when they tell her.

    If they do reject our faith, they will still be loved, but I will not stop praying for them. And while I may listen to them explain their new beliefs--or lack of beliefs which is more likely to be the case--it will always be so I can counter with what I believe to be the truth.

    Yes, it's pretty narrow-minded on my part. But we all are pretty narrow-minded. Jane Austen said in one of her novels that we all think our way is best. I think she's right.

    Take care--Sue

Wednesday, 04 June 2008

  • Currently Reading
    Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual
    By Dennis Prager
    see related

    Happiness

    Lately, I've been reading and thinking about happiness. I'm turning 50 this year and I think I'm a pretty happy person. I don't necessarily look happy. I'm not much of a smiler, nor do I hug at the drop of a hat. When people ask me how I'm doing, the answer is "good," "fine" or something along those lines. I loath hyperbole and so "great," "terrific" or "fantastic" aren't going to be any of my standard answers. A lot of people are put off by that.

    Particularly people in the church. I think people want everyone to be "great," fantastic" and "terrific" because it puts no burden on them to do more than enquire. And it's not just the church. None of us is comfortable with that person who tells us everything about their circumstance, which always seems to be grim and only getting darker.

    Anyway, I've been reading the book mentioned above. One of Prager's reasons to be happy is that when we're happy, we make better decisions and treat people better. I have to agree. I rarely stiff the waitress when I feel good. When I'm happy, I'm not picking apart other people's personal lives, or taste in clothing. When I'm in a good mood I rarely throw a fit because the computer is running so slow. (I am one of the few dinasaurs left on dialup. No hope for anything better in sight.)

    So, I'll keep reading and maybe let him win me over to the lighter side.

    Take care--SK

  • Post NO 1

    The first post of a blog is always strange. So, basic bio facts:
     

    1. 50 years old this year. (No, I'm not particularly bothered by aging.)
    2. I've been married for 30 years. (Yes, I was comparatively young when I got married.)
    3. I've been a believer for over 25 years. (No, I can't tell you the day or date. That's why I say "over 25 years.")
    4. My oldest child is 22, turning 23 this year, and my youngest just turned 20. (Yes, they are THE greatest kids in the world.)
    5. I'm a published author with two books out and lots of fiction writing on the web. (No, I'm not what you would call a "Christian writer.")
    6. Our dog doesn't like me. (There is no good reason for this, but it does make it easier to justify my not liking HER.)
    7. I teach women's bible studies in our church. (I'm not teaching right now and won't until I feel "lead." I don't care for that term, but all I can say is that I know when I should be teaching and when I shouldn't be.)
    8. I'm a night owl and an early bird. (My husband has to get up at 4AM and I get up to cook breakfast. Sometimes I meet him in the kitchen never having been to bed.

    Well, tonight is not one of those nights to stay up. I'm off to bed.

    Looking forward to getting to know you all.

    Take care--Susan Kaye