What's in a Name?

To quote Shakespeare “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. So what is in a name or title? How does one go about earning, or being deserving of a specific title? And why do we seek to have titles attached to our names?   

These are a few of the questions that I struggled to answer after reading this link in a friend’s Facebook page a few days ago. To be honest when I first read this it really irritated me! I mean what were these women doing as a stay-at-home mom that I as a working mom was not doing?  Why do they deserve a fancy title because they are feeling lonely and unimportant?  Do working moms have it any easier in that regard? And when I voiced these opinions I was blasted by a bunch of stay-at-home moms who seemed to misunderstand what I was getting at.

First of all, I was a stay-at-home-mom for five years, and then I chose to go back to school and get a degree and am now in the middle of my third year as a college student and I work part-time. So I have been on both sides and feel that I have a good grasp of what it takes to do both of them. I totally get that being a Stay-At-Home-Mom is a hard job and I’m not trying to deny that or negate the value of their work. But at the same time I feel as a working mom that my position as a mom is just as valuable and just as challenging, and deserves just as much credit.  Now some women feel that being a Stay-At-Home-Mom is commanded by the Bible, which I disagree with and will elaborate on in another post soon, but that is not the debate.

The debate here is, are these women deserving of all of those titles, and if so why? 

My view point is, No they are not deserving of these titles. Number one, they have a title, a very honorable title I might add and that is the title of Stay-At-Home-Mom (also known as a SAHM). And by attaching all of these other titles they are saying that that title is not enough. They already complain that society doesn’t respect their position and title as a SAHM, but I would argue that they are not helping matters when they attach a bunch of different, often bogus, titles to their names. When they do this they are agreeing with society and saying, “I don’t think that my title of SAHM is enough. I need to add a bunch of titles to it to make myself feel important and valued.”   Number two, just because you do something that is included in someone else’s job description doesn’t mean you are deserving of that person’s title. For example, in the working world, a secretary will often have to write up a budget, or track the office expenses, does that make her an Accountant? No! Why not, she is doing some of the same jobs that an accountant would do? Some would say she doesn’t have the training to be an accountant, and that might be true, but let’s assume for a minute that she does have the training that would qualify her to be an accountant, but is simply working as a secretary  would the response still be the same? To that I would waver slightly, I would say she could say she is an accountant working as a secretary, but she cannot claim that her job title is an accountant, because she is not working as an accountant. 

So how can a SAHM define her position and not succumb to society’s pressure that being a Mom isn’t enough? Because I get where they are coming from, Society says “you’re just a Mom.” And they’re frustrated and attach these titles to prove how much work they actually do. The problem is these moms are attaching a title to every part of their job description, and that is what I was protesting! I do not deny that being a mom entails a large job description, but I also want to point out that that job description doesn’t change whether you are a working -mom or a stay-at-home-mom, the things that you chose to do, making homemade bread vs. buying your bread from the store, might change but the general Job description doesn’t change. This is considered your work load and that will vary by the choices each family makes, if the mom chooses to make their own clothes and grow their own food their work load is going to be greater than someone who simply goes to the store and buys everything. How many children are in the home, their physical and mental health, as well as their ages, will also play a role in how large of a workload a mom has.          

I listed the 4 titles I hold in one of my comments and I would like to use them as an example of how I think our roles should be defined.

Title: Wife

Job Description: To love and support her husband in every possible way, to pick up his dirty socks and put down the toilet seat, to provide passionate expression of their love.

Work Load: Varies – depending on the needs of the husband

Title: Mom

Job Description: do Laundry, plan menus, clean the house, balance the budget, shop for groceries, take children to their appointments, bargain hunt, care for sick children, make meals, Train/teach children, pay bills, manage home improvement projects, etc.

Work Load: Varies by household

Title: Student

Job Description:  attend class, do homework and projects as assigned, read and comprehend material, take a multitude of tests and pass the class

Work Load:  Varies by instructor

Title: Accountant

Job Description:  Create Balanced Budgets, create monthly financial statements, create spreadsheets to track spending and Payroll, Track and Report payroll taxes, file income taxes, Create Payroll, Track Accounts payable and Accounts Receivable, Pay bills etc.

Work Load: Varies by company

            So who is deserving of a title? How do we determine what title a mom can attach to her name? Some mom’s have never gone to school yet they run family business, they design and sew clothes and sell them. They raise chickens or goats or cows and slaughter them and sell them to the public. Or they make jelly and bread to sell. Some moms home school their children. Others teach music lessons on the side.  Still others run non-profit ventures like libraries. So what title do they go by do they have to stick only to the use of SAHM, do they even qualify for that title?  Well, the way I see it is, the title Mom is given to you when you give birth, or the state gives you that title when you adopt a child, and those are the only two ways we can become a mom.  And as a mom you have a specific Job description whether you work outside the home, from home or just in the home. So I say we’re all Moms. Some people have gone to school and studied a specific field and received a designation from that institution that they are qualified to work in that field. So I say those moms can and should add that distinction to their name, with one little caveat, if you are not working in your field you can’t claim it as a job title but rather like our secretary friend it is something you are but it is not a job title you are currently using. Now those who didn’t go to school and yet run a business, etc. I think that you also deserve to use that Job title, it is what you do.  What I don’t think you should do is call yourself a baker because you bake a loaf of bread for your family, even if your job outside the home is that of a baker, when you bake that loaf of bread for your family you are working in your capacity or job title of mom.

            The point of this post is that being a mom entails a huge job description, there are so many things that we take on whether we work outside the home or you stay at home. We all do what we think will benefit our families the most and use the talents that God has given us.  Don’t let society minimize your role/title of mom. Don’t give in to the lie that you need a special title to have worth, what you do gives you worth, and adding bogus titles only make you seem desperate! So don’t do it!     

Jesus - God of Love?

There have been several things that have happened in the last few months that have contributed to my writing this blog post. It started with the comment that I have quoted below and while I was working out how to gracefully respond, Mr. Dan Cathy’s statement rocked the world, and then as that was dying away, my own City Council brought a bill to the table that would offer special protection to the LGBT Community. Over and over through all of this I have seen Christians being told that Jesus taught us to love and accept others and therefore we shouldn’t take a stand against homosexuals or call their lifestyle a sin. This blog post is my rebuttal to that idea.

This letter to the editor appeared in my hometown newspaper a few months ago and resulted in a friend of mine posting the following as her Facebook status. 

“Once again, I am mortified by the narrow minded views and hatred held by prominent members of this town. Again, all in the name of Christianity. How can people claim to follow Jesus' teachings and leave out the parts about loving and social justice? How do they miss that he loved unconditionally and while he showed the way - often in a strong manner - he did so in a non-judgmental way? He was about the way showing and the learning, not the condemnation for condemnation's sake.”

Now first of all I would like to point out that the letter is not one of condemnation of anyone and is actually a letter of support for Mitt Romney. If you read the whole thing you realize that it was written in response to another article/letter questioning whether a Christian should support Mr. Romney because he is Mormon.  It is written politely, there is no name calling, or anything hateful at all in the tone of the whole letter. In fact had I not been aware, through other Facebook posts, of my friend’s beliefs, I would have been hard pressed to see what all the fuss was about. And even now I have to make the assumption that this is was in reference to her pointing out that Mr. Romney is against gay marriage, among other things, and therefore should have the support of the Christian Community regardless of whether we agree with the religion he happens to practice. I think this is a perfect example of how the other side of this issue takes a simple statement of a person’s personal belief to be HATEFUL and UNLOVING.  Which is absolutely not the case, Mrs. Pitt does not incite hatred of homosexuals, rather she says if you, as a Christian, believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman as the Bible teaches, then Mr. Romney, unlike Mr.  Obama, shares your belief and the fact that he is a Mormon should not deter you from voting for him. 

In fact it is my belief that the person writing this Facebook status was far more hateful and unloving in both her tone and accusations than Mrs. Pitt was. I find it absolutely ironic that it is perfectly ok for people in support of gay marriage to be narrow-minded and hateful towards those of us who oppose them, simply because we voice a different view than theirs.  Apparently you have to be tolerant of everyone’s beliefs unless they happen to be a Christian and hold the belief that marriage should be defined according to the Bible as between a man and a woman.  While this is an ongoing irritation and one that according to Jesus should not come as a surprise. It is actually not the reason for my blog post today. The main part of my friend’s post that disturbed me the most was her misunderstanding of Jesus and His teachings.

This idea that Jesus taught a message of love, acceptance, and social justice, and therefore Christians have no right to call anyone out on their sin, is one that I have encountered over and over again since I started college a few years ago. And to be honest it is a concept that I have struggled with, because on the one hand I agree with them. There are many Christians in today’s world that are no different than they Pharisees of Jesus’ day; looking down their noses and having nothing to do with ‘sinners’; focusing more on the outward appearance of good than actual goodness of the heart. That being said, Jesus did however command us to preach the gospel and call sinners to repentance. And He did not promote social justice, nor did He embrace acceptance. That is not to say He didn’t love and offer forgiveness, but love and forgiveness is not the same as acceptance.

John 3:16 the most popular Bible verse in the world says “For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.”  The thing that many people forget is that while Jesus taught a message of love and forgiveness, he did not teach acceptance for the sake of acceptance. The next few verses of John chapter 3 bring this out explicitly, Jesus states in verse 17 “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved.” Here once again I can hear many of my friends say “See, see Jesus didn’t come to condemn anyone.” However they fail to continue reading for in verse 18 Jesus continues speaking and says “He that believeth on Him (that is the Son) is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” It’s not what you do or don’t do, it’s a matter of faith, not believing in Jesus is the thing that condemns you. Jesus is willing to offer forgiveness and redemption to anyone who asks for it, however, we have to be willing to admit that we were wrong and believe that Jesus is the Son of God sent to be our Savior. 

 And while Jesus loved and lived with sinners this does not mean that he was content to let them continue in their sin, His message was one of repentance and change.  Every person that came in contact with Jesus left differently than he (or she) arrived. Sometimes the change was evident in an outward healing of a physical ailment, but often it was just an inward change. Zacchaeus was a rich man who had no outward change, but his encounter with Jesus resulted in the change of his heart. The woman at the well, is another example, Jesus didn’t hesitate to tell her that she was living in sin, and when her heart was changed she told others that he told her everything she ever did. When the woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus to be stoned, while he saved her life he didn’t condone her lifestyle, in fact his final words to her were ”Go and sin no more!” 

             God is a God of Justice and as such He can not allow sin to go unpunished, that is the whole reason Jesus came to this world in the first place, to live a sinless life and take the punishment of sin onto Himself so that we can be free and forgiven.  

So if I am to love the homosexual as God loves him/her I must confront them with the fact that they are sinners in need of a Savior, just like everyone else in this sinful world, and point them to the sacrifice that Jesus made for them and that he loves them and will forgive them if they are willing to repent and ask him for forgiveness. Their sin is no worse than mine it just takes a different form.  I would like to point out that I do not believe they are sinners because they are homosexual, but rather they are homosexual because they are sinners.

As I close I would like to leave you with two thoughts: one, to say you are wrong does not mean I hate you, and two, to love you does not mean I will condone your sin.