Fem Speak

Milk and Honey

When I was young and a new parent, someone handed me a copy of Mike & Debi Pearl's book To Train Up a Child.  At the time, this simple volume seemed like a godsend.  It reduced the complex to simplicity, and claimed that every child was easily raised simply by showing him who's boss.  I liked that idea, when I was young and inexperienced and had yet to be baptized in spitup and bubbles and children's laughter. Since that time, their ministry has grown and others have also risen up to proclaim that parenting is a simple game of mastery and will-breaking.  But now that some of my children are about grown, and now that I have grown so much through contact with these children, I wonder how biblical some of these principles really are.

Christian-based programs like this one, and the infamous "Growing Kids God's Way" claim to tell parents how to raise a child biblically.  They recognize that a child's image of God is profoundly influenced by that early relationship with Mom and later Dad.  But what sort of God do they have parents emulating?  Typically one who is suspicious, overly stern and unforgiving.

When I study the Bible -- even the Old Testament with its bloody wars and judgment -- the overall picture I see of God as a parent is not the stern, hateful, show-'em-who's-boss master. God is the parent who creates an earthly home that can only be vaguely "good" without offspring.  God is the parent who looks upon those children newly created and states with satisfaction that because they are formed, now life is "very good." God is the parent who desires to lead his people to "a land that flows with milk and honey."  God is the mother who brings forth her children with great effort, and dandles them on her knees.  Like a nursing mother, God can never forget those children.  What if we were to emulate this God? 

Children most often grow up to be like their parents.  As my own six children mature and I watch them -- each so different from the other -- working out their own path of life, it occurs to me the lectures, the rewards and punishments, the programs, and the hours spent trying to "mold" them have had only a trace effect on their development.  Their own personalities have been most important, and the effect I've had has come not through discipline or teaching so as much as by example. 

Our job as parents may not be what we think it is.  It may be more about "modeling" right attitudes  rather than "molding" right behaviors.

Imagine if we focused more on modeling than molding.  We would feel free to shower our children with good things, happy times, close connections, acceptance, and as much responsibility as they were ready for, without the scheduling, expectations and punishments recommended by the Pearls and their kind. Perhaps they read too many Cinderella-type fairy tales where the mistreated child grows up to snag the prince, while the well-loved children are horrible and spoiled.  Those fairy tales are not reality.  In fact, the child who grows up without love will typically not be happy or healthy.  If a prince comes along he may not be interested in a person who has not learned to give and receive love.

Someone will inevitably say, "You have to teach children they can't have everything they want."  The flaw in this thinking is the idea that you have to "teach" that concept at all.  Life will teach them so, and quickly.  Just tell such a person, "Don't worry.  We don't live at Disney Land, we don't eat ice cream for dinner every night, and ear aches and bee stings happen.  Life is already teaching her that things don't always go her way.  My job is to teach her that sometimes things DO go your way, and that you have a right to hope for and work for that."

I'm calling this type of parenting "milk and honey."  We give our children love, respect, and good things.  We teach them to expect, long for, and demand good things from their world.  We model giving good things to others. 

Interestingly, La Leche League has really embraced this type of positive parenting. (La Leche League is a worldwide breastfeeding advocacy group, so we'll put them in the "Milk" category of Milk and Honey!) They espouse "attachment parenting" which recommends that parents hold their babies most of the time, avoid leaving them to cry, sleep with them, nurse them as long as they want and any time they want, and generally give them all the good, healthy things they desire.  Their ideas are often characterised as overly permissive, but I've found that many of their suggestions are just a matter of basic respect.  For example, they suggest telling a child it is almost time to put his away his toys and that dinner is cooking, instead of "put that up and come to dinner now."  It is, in fact, something like the Golden Rule.  You know, "Do unto [your children] as you want [your children] to do unto you."  (Because when you are elderly and in their care, they probably will...)

What if we practiced the Golden Rule with our children?  I've noticed that it's easy to have a double standard, especially in how we speak to our children.  We may order them around, use sarcasm to get our point across, or express negativity toward them in the way we talk.  Yet we expect them to answer us respectfully and look us in the eye.  What if we simply spoke to them the way we want them to speak to us? 

At our house, we make a point to tell our children "please" and "thank you" and we often call them "ma'am" or "sir."  Because we do this, we've not had to teach these concepts of courtesy, and if they slip a simple reminder will do.  Many people have complimented us on how our children look adults in the eye, talk to them pleasantly, and are so polite.  Reflecting on this, it's something we have "modeled," not "molded."  That's an area where we've succeeded.  One down, four thousand fifty-two to go . . .  We just need a little more milk and honey.

Jeannie Babb Taylor

Thoughts on being bread

One of my favorite poems about God is “Bakerwoman God” by Alla Borzath Campbell. I’ve often wondered just why this particular poem speaks to me so loudly.

Maybe it’s because I understand the process of bread making. Not the throw everything in the machine and let it do all the work way. But where you proof the yeast and slowly, by hand, add each ingredient and mix it into the whole. I have kneaded the dough for 6 loaves of bread in one big batch. I’ve had bread refuse to rise. I’ve watched the miracle of a small mound of dough rise to a floury pouf then bake into a golden loaf of sweet, nourishing staff-of-life.

I relate to the entire concept of being both the dough and the bread maker. Somehow it hurts less when I realize that I’m sitting, feeling ignored by God, but actually I’m being carefully watched. Over-risen yeast makes poor quality bread. Bread makers watch that dough as it rises carefully, though the dough itself may not think so.

I don’t like the heat of the oven baking me. I don’t like that kind of attention. But it is a necessary part for the bread to be edible.

I want to be kneaded, risen, and baked by God. I want to be broken open and offered to others for consumption to feed their need for spiritual sustenance. I don’t want to be over-risen or under-risen or over-baked or under-baked. I don’t want to be plasticized and put on a shelf to be admired. I want to be a perfect loaf of bread, having endured the process of getting to that point, and used by God to bring health and hope to the Lord’s people.

That’s why I enjoy that poem so very much. It speaks of something I know and what I want. It explains when I’m hurting or feeling ignored. It explains when I’m feeling broken and consumed. It explains why the process continues over and over again. So God’s people can continue to be fed.


Ruth Holmquist

Prejudice Is An Insidious Evil.

If a person has no desire to play the trumpet, then a restriction that persons of his/her kind are forbidden from playing the trumpet would have no effect upon them. Nevertheless, such a prejudicial favoritistic ruling is still oppressive to persons of his/her kind. Maybe several of their “kind” might not care about trumpet playing. But someone is bound to adore trumpets and for that person, to be restricted because of inherent design is the height of cruelty.

Yet people with a bias will say, “ well most [fill-in-the-blank] people don’t want to play trumpets, so that just proves that playing the trumpet goes against the natural make up of [fill-in-the-blank] people. Prejudicial thinking wants to paint groups of people in specific colors and set the parameters of their lives.

Even a positive bias is harmful. By thinking that all [fill-in-the-blank] people should be gifted in trumpet playing, those who do not have nor want those skills are criticized for not doing what all [fill-in-the-blank] people should be doing. 

No matter how you look at it, prejudicial thinking seeks to control people's lives and will give special favors to a select few and harm those who don’t fit their little square coffins.

T King

Eternal Subordination

I’ve been contemplating on the concept of eternal subordination. The hierarchalists claim that a hierarchy has always existed in the Godhead leaving Christ eternally subordinate to the Father. They don’t mention the Holy Spirit, but a hierarchy would imply that the Holy Spirit would then be eternally subordinate to the Son.

The hierarchalists use this concept to then say that the first female human, who was formed second, while the male human was formed first, sets up a similar hierarchy as the Godhead so that women are to be eternally subordinate to men.

This implies that the concept of the Godhead was founded on an order of God the Father being first, not on birth, but on primacy. God the Father is more what? Is God the Father more important than God the Son or God the Holy Spirit? I cannot figure that one although I’ve read much of the claims.

However, while the claim is that there is an eternal hierarchy in the Godhead, Christ clearly corrected the Sadduces when they tried to figure out which husband a wife would be subordinated to in heaven.

Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.

So if there is no eternal subordination of wives/women in heaven, why is there a need to claim that there is eternal subordination of the Son in order to claim earthly subordination of wives? And if the reasoning is that God the Father is more important in some way than the Son, then the implication by comparison is that a husband is more important in some ways than a wife--which appears to cancel out the “equal but different” mantra.

hmmm?

TL

Thoughts on Church Going

I tend to go to church on Saturday evenings, but not tonight. Tonight my kids need to borrow my vehicle to move a piece of furniture from the apartment that they had rented into the house they inherited. While it was nice of my daughter to remember that I usually am in church on Saturday evenings, it really wasn’t a big deal for me to skip tonight’s service.

I’m one of those people pastors and church leadership abhor. I come to the services, sit through them, then go home. I don’t get involved. I don’t *do* anything to really help with the church. I’m a pew-person couch-potato.

I didn’t used to be like this. There was a time that I was up to my eyebrows in doing churchy stuff. I spent hours counseling others, teaching Sunday School and women’s Bible studies, editing newsletters, and, my favorite, cooking in the kitchen. So, why did I change?

First, I burned out. I was always willing to help, so I was always asked. Then I realized that no one in my church really cared about how abused I was in my marriage. They didn’t want to see my pain or how exhausted I was from doing everything in church and dealing with my husband’s oddities. It was just so much easier to add more burdens to my burdens than to help me with some of those burdens.

Now, I’m recovered for the most part but I have even less interest in getting involved. I changed churches during the time I was separating from my ex, so it’s not because I’m mad at that particular congregation. After all, it’s a new group of people who were not a part of my marriage or it’s demise.

Part of it is because I keep hearing so much about the evils of divorce in the sermons. I don’t know if it’s because I’m divorced so I’m more sensitive to it or if the tenor of the sermons have changed. Sometimes it can be difficult not to be hurt by something that I know the pastor doesn’t mean the way I am hearing it. I know he doesn’t mean to hurt those of us who are divorced because I have emailed the church about how my divorce was necessary due to the abuse and he preached a wonderful sermon on how love can mean saying “no” and leaving an abusive marriage.

Part of it is because I’m afraid to trust. I have spent 51 years in church. In all of those years church was a place to go to be beat up, even in churches that are well known for being caring and compassionate.

I am, in some ways, a PK. While my father was never a pastor, thank God!, my uncle started the church I grew up in and my parents were always hip deep in church stuff. When there was no pastor, I would hear my father preach. Dad was a deacon/elder, Sunday School superintendent, church treasurer, etc, etc, etc. My mom was just as busy with kids’ ministries and women’s ministries. For all intents and purposes, I’m a PK.

I don’t know one PK who doesn’t have the same feeling of fear of churches that I have. We’ve all been burned, often very badly, by churches and church people. I’ve healed from a lot of it. But, just as an adult child of an alcoholic tends to stay away from bars, I tend to stay away from churches. I know the damage they can do.

Next Saturday I have a social event planned so I won’t be at church then either. My parents would be appalled that I would put a party above going to church. They would insist that I attend a service on Sunday if I were going to skip Saturday. But Sunday morning I’m meeting with a friend to discuss our spiritual lives. To me, this seems like a more Christ-like thing to do than listen to a sermon.

There are wonderful things about attending my church on Saturday evening. For one thing it’s a much smaller crowd so you can find a place to park and to sit much more easily than Sunday morning. The sermons are always good. The music is excellent. I enjoy sitting there listening and singing. I’ve even brought friends to church with me. But I’m not willing to get involved more than that. Not right now. I’m not healed enough to be ready to get beat up again.

Why We Don't Need A Marriage Constitutional Amendment

Text of a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, from About.com:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

1. It's discriminatory.
The amendment has less to do with protecting marriage than it has to do with preventing homosexuals from having equal rights with non-homosexuals. Let's call it what it is. It is a discriminatory amendment.

2. It's a recipe for persecution of not only homosexuals but other minorities as well. Has anyone seriously thought of transgendered people? They have it tough enough without being asked to choose a gender and restrict their marriage partner to someone of an opposite one, whether they actually are opposite or not.

3. It's not just a can of worms, it's several cans of worms.
In addition to the impossible position of transgendered people, there is the proof of gender issue that could, and undoubtedly would be a factor for some people. Do you really want to have to prove your gender? Who is going to be the judge of what it is?

This is not idle speculation, because gender is not as specific as the general public believe. Not only is there a one in two hundred chance that an infant will be born with "indeterminate genitalia" but gender is on a continuum, with many combinations and variations on the gender theme. A person can have male external genitalia, and internal female genitalia, never knowing of their existence. Chromosomally a person can be one gender, and have physical attributes of another gender. Which gender are they? How will it be determined? Who's going to do the checking?

Then there is the "what constitutes marriage" can of worms. You want to try to define marriage? I wrote a book about marriage, and decided I'd need to define it early on. Not as easy as you might think. Historically, marriage has been many different things. Even today, in the USA, marriage is more than one thing. For example, there is Common Law marriage. Live together for a certain number of years, in some States, and, in the eyes of the law you are married. Cohabitation can become marriage automatically, no license needed.

Under the proposed amendment, are gays who live together going to be arrested for illegal marriage after they have been together for the requisite number of years? Are same sex housemates who are not sexually active with each other going to have to prove they aren't in order to not be declared in a common law marriage and thus in violation of the law? How could they possibly prove such a thing?

Next can of worms: How would such an amendment affect divorce? If one cannot marry without proving one's gender, will one have to prove it to get a divorce if the marriage was entered into before the amendment? What else haven't the proponents thought of that could rise up to bite both hetero and homo couples in the behind?

4. It's a political move to toss a bone to religious conservative lobbyists.
You know, the ones who helped elect the President last time around. He's undoubtedly getting pressure from Republicans who want to get some help winning their congressional and senate seats in upcoming elections. Toss a bone to the religious right and they will get on board. Never mind that such an amendment will not be ratified, promoting it will bring in some religious conservative votes.

5. It's a diversionary tactic, to distract Americans from more important issues.
We are in an ill advised war in Iraq, one our President got us into on the basis of false information. He is becoming increasingly unpopular because of it and other lapses in judgment and effectiveness. Launching a nice little war is a tactic Presidents and dictators often stoop to when their administration is failing. But, that works only if it's a small war, of short duration, and if they win it. And, even then, it only works for a little while.

Since the war thing has already been done this time around, and it didn't work very well, something else must be used. Let's see, the prayer amendment is passe, and the flag amendment. But, there is still the marriage amendment possibility, let's try that.

6. It trivializes the Constitution.
We do not need to amend the Constitution over every issue that falls off an activist tree. It is a great document, created with a purpose, and making it an object of political maneuvering isn't in line with that purpose.

7. It's tacky.
I don't want some amendment to protect my marriage from gays taking it over. What are they going to do, export it to China? It's embarrassing that my political leaders and some of my fellow countrypersons think this is something to pursue.

8. It's foolish.
Why don't we find something else to waste energy and money on? Or better yet, maybe not waste it at all, but, instead invest in solving some real problems, improving health care, improving education, preparing for natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.

9. It's arrogant.
Why should heterosexuals think they have an exclusive right to marriage? The whole idea that they should is based on the presuppositions that a desire to marry by homosexuals is sinful, and that whether they marry or not is the business of heterosexual people. It is perfectly all right for the heterosexuals who believe homosexuality is sinful to go right on believing it, and still allow homosexuals to decide for themselves whether they want to marry or not.

Isn't it ironic that those against gay marriage are perfectly willing to allow pedophiles, murderers, thieves, abusers, and previous bigamists to marry at will, but the most upright and law abiding, kind and gentle gay must be prevented from marrying.

10. It's worse than useless.
Not only can such an amendment not be ratified. Not only will it be a great waste of money to try to get it ratified, but it cannot be enforced. And, it would create victims if it were ratified.

We need a marriage amendment to the Constitution about as much we need another term in office with George Bush.

Pat Gundry
http://www.noodlefactory.net

Backwards Evangelism

In my fundie days, I usually insisted that "evangelism" wasn't one of my "spiritual gifts". In all honesty, I couldn't see myself as standing on street corners, giving out pamphlets, or initiating conversations with complete strangers by asking them, "Have you been washed by the blood of the lamb?" Moreover, I will not initiate conversations about my faith if I suspect that someone may not be interested, already is secure in happy in their own religion, or simply has other things on their mind. According to the fundamentalist/evangelical world, I'm indeed a poor evangelist, because I don't care about all those lost souls supposedly headed straight to eternal damnation. Some would accuse me of "being ashamed of the gospel" - another quoted-out-of-context phrase that lost meaning over the years.

Truth: I'm not ashamed. I openly say to anyone asking me about my long-term vocational goals that I would like to be a pastor. I invite anyone to come and check out paper cup and volunteer. So far, I've extended invitation to agnostics, buddists, muslims and atheists to check out paper cup and help out. It doesn't "bother" me that a muslim may be helping us with grant writing, and that a buddist may be helping out with coffee, and an agnostic may provide addiction counselling. On the contrary, it makes me THRILLED that people are interested, and that Christainity isn't a deterrent to their involvement with us. It makes me humbly hopeful that we are, in fact, relevant, and attractive to a wide variety of people, just like Jesus was relevant and attractive to diverse groups of individuals.

"But what about evangelism? Don't you want to evangelize? And how can you invite non-Christians to work for a Christian cause, before they are converted?"

Well, first of all, we need to decide who the expert on evangelism is. Does example of Jesus matter, or do we follow someone slightly more reputable and systhematic, say, St. Paul, or Billy Graham, or whoever else is out there these days?

Second, we should probably decide what the point of evangelism is. Is it to build a lasting committment to Jesus Christ, to his teachings, to the values he promoted, to his mission, and to the philosophy he brought, or is it to get people to admit that they are imperfect (duh), scare the shit out of them with eternal damnation, and get them to parrot out 4 spiritual laws?

Back to #1. How did Jesus evangelize? He met people where they were at, and simply invited them to join him. He didn't insist that they get their theology straight, confess Trinity, or recite a creed. He invited them to join him, and get to know him by walking with him, journeying with him. That's how he built committment and lasting relationships, and that's what enabled people to grow in their theology/understanding of who God is: the journey they undertook. Out of their journeys and walks, grew theologies, creeds, and confessions. So, why do we do it backwards? We preach at people for years and decades, while insist that they sit on their butts and don't do anything "christian". We repeat over and over that they are excluded from God and His community, until they believe/do/confess A, B, C, D....X, Y and Z. Once they reach a certain point in their "theology" that we arrogantly benchmark as "salvation", we graciously allow them to "journey" with us, and "serve" - i.e. wash dishes, serve dinners, clean toilets, and so on. And we don't even stop to think that that's the exact opposite of how Jesus "evangelized". He threatened by inclusion. He was universal in his invitation and inclusion. People journeyed with Him first, served him and alongside with him first, shared lives with him first.... and then their belief systhem/theology/committment/philosophy/r

eligion developed. We, on the other hand, want people to journey with us only once they demonstrate that their religion is acceptable by our standards, and their philosophy matches our own.

Now, for #2: What is the point of evangelism? If it is to get people to recite our own dogmas and creeds? Or is it to help them appreciate who Jesus was/is, and what his teachings mean? If we, for one minute think that salvation lies in our dogmas, creeds, and constructs that we ourselves create about God, then we are more lost than we can ever hope to realize. If, on the other hand, we keep remembering that our creeds, dogmas and theologies grew out of our collective and communal journeying with Jesus, then we can stop coming across as know-it-alls who have never been wrong about anything. If Jesus, who he was and who he is, his teachings, his character, his example, his story, his mission, his hold on our lives is central to us - then the best way to "evangelize" is to invite people to join us and journey with us, however much they are willing, and in whatever capacity it is honest for them to do so. They may discover something new in their own religions and begin more and more lean towards the parts of their own faiths that are in line with teachings and mission of Jesus. They may want to follow Jesus, and appreciate his specialness, even while not quite knowing how to believe in him, or what to believe about him. We typically label such people as "unsaved", "pre-Christian" or "seekers". Jesus called them "disciples" and "friends". Maybe we shouldn't presume to know better than He did.

Oh, and by the way, it's time we gave up this word, "evangelize". It's snooty and arrogant, because we REALLY don't know everything, and it's meaningless, because it came to mean "bad news" instead of "good news". If we really want to deliver some good news, we can start by being quiet about how right we are about everything, and how wrong everyone else around us is. We can threaten by inclusion rather than rejection, and hope that we can be worthy of the honor of people joining us and journeying with us.

Systematic Teaology

When you have an interview with a prospective boss, you want to make a good impression, a REALLY good impression. So you stress over the details: do my shoes match my skirt? Is my hair neat and tidy? Is the necklace too dramatic? 

When you are looking for a job in a religious sector, you have a whole new level of things to worry about. Is your v-neck top too low-cut? Does that rainbow scarf send an unintended message? If asked about what kind of books you are reading, should you bring up Harry Potter series, or should you stick to something neutral and inoffensive – let’s say, Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology?

You meet with your prospective boss, and you go to Starbucks. You are in line,  he’s next to you, and you just KNOW he’s watching you. Should you get a coffee or a tea? Privately, you decide on a tea, lest you are thought of as a caffeine junkie. But what kind? If you get “calm” (that’s chamomile in starbucksese), will he assume you are anxious? If you take “awake”, will he think you are sleepy and struggling to stay awake throughout the interview? If you get “refresh”, will he hazard a guess that you are overtired and under-rested? If you take “zen”, will he assume that you are unduly interested in other religions and philosophies? You are just about ready to get a “Tazo Chai” tea, but you wonder if that’ll serve as a cue to start a conversation about Indian culture, of which you know next to nothing. Besides, it tastes like tap water infused with paprika and stale cinnamon, and throwing up on your prospective boss during an interview may not be the most savvy thing to do.

The barista/cashier looks at you with a cheerful smile, unaware that this is the moment that will surely decide the rest of your life. “And for you, dear?” Suddenly, there’s a flash of inspiration. You remember the one option that’s totally safe and inoffensive. “Earl Grey tea. Grande. Please.”

You receive your tea, pay a whopping $1.66 for hot tap water and grass rolled in paper, and you make your way to a little table. As you walk, you realize that your boss is regarding you with a strange curiosity. Mostly, he’s focused on your tea.

You return his gaze confidently (“you’ve got NOTHING on me!”) and sit down. He smiles at you and says, “So…you like Star Trek? Captain Picard?”

Goddamit.

_________________________________________

Copyright © 2005 Galina Freed. All rights reserved. This story is entirely fictional. Galina’s boss in religious sector is completely fair and reasonable, and Starbucks teas are her favorite.

 

What to Buy a Complementarian for Christmas

Wondering what to buy a complementarian* for Christmas? 

May I suggest the all new  X-NIV Gender-Exclusive Bible**!  This new comp-friendly Bible features all those verses that Paul accidentally left out, including:

• "The man is the head of the house."
• "A man is king of his castle."
• "Husbands must take priority over children in a wife's life."
• "Men need sex every 48-hours."

and other truisms that you've always known MUST be in the Bible, but couldn't quite put your finger on! 

Cover choices include John Deere green with yellow lettering, Pigskin with your manly-man's name stitched football style, Nothin' But Net (texturized rubber in any NBA team color!), Fast-Pitch (white with red stitching), and new WWF Wrestlemania.  (Sorry, but soccer styling is not available.  Every manly-man knows that soccer is not a real sport.) 

The X-NIV Gender-Exclusive Bible includes index, concordance, and year-round sports schedules for all your favorite teams.  Features a specialized complementarian Bible dictionary giving definitions for words such as "likewise" that so many in this feminized culture just do not understand.  Handy "Submission Reference Guide" in back keeps all those important verses on wifely submission right at his finger tips!  Comes with complementary SI Swimsuit Edition.

______

*Don't know what a complementarian is?  See www.cbmw.org to read their claims.  See http://www.equalitycentral.com/ for a different (more reciprocal) take on gender issues.

**No, this is not a real product.  This blog article is a spoof.  I write this because I know that some folks are satire-impaired and will email me wanting to buy this "Bible."

The things that give me hope

Having been homeless once, I’ll never look at the poor neighborhoods and slums the same way again. I can’t, in all fairness, dismiss their inhabitants as lazy, or stupid, or morally deficient. I look at those houses with cracks in the walls, mold and dirt, rats and mice surrounding them, and think: take away my job, my health, my family, and my friends… and there, for the grace of God go I. It’s scary to realize that I am not better than those people, I’m just luckier.

But I must admit, when I look at those decaying slums, those rundown buildings, and dilapidated old motels, sometimes, the strangest little things give me hope. Like when I see a flower in a pot on the window sill. 

It means there’s life. It means people care for something other than themselves, something that’s just THERE, for no good reason. It means, not everything is judged solely on the basis of its practical usefulness. And that, to me, means hope.

Sometimes, I play a “what if” game with myself. “What if I lost everything and had to live in a place like that. Could I survive? What would I do?”

I mentally list all the things I would do to survive.

I would wash and disinfect the walls and the floors. I would bring in a mean and hungry stray cat to scare away mice and roaches. I would buy a bus pass so that I could travel to pick up food and meals from food banks. I would wash my clothes by hand, and hang them to dry inside the apartment. I would gather up some money for a simple electric heater for winter. In case of leaks, I would seal cracks in the walls, ceiling and/or appliances and pipes with cheap Home Hardware goop.

I would keep a charged cell phone under my pillow. I would not have any “plan” on it, so that I wouldn’t be paying for it, but it would still be good to dial 911. I would always keep my documents in a church, and only have photocopies at home.

I would cook simply, and cheaply.

I would buy a box of cookie mix for $1.99 and bake a batch of cookies. Then I would bring them around the neighboring apartments and make friends. I’ll make sure that I have at least two or three friends near me – people I can trust, and people who will trust me.

I would not be embarrassed to invite people from a church, or elsewhere, to come over to my place. I would look them in the eye, and not be ashamed.

Oh, and I would get a flower in a pot, and put it in the window. That’s a given. 

Galina Freed