It is so encouraging to see Jacob's enthusiasm for learning right now. Two of his current favorite activities are math problems and spelling (those are his names for the activities). What this involves is Heath or I writing out some sums for him to solve (like 3 + 4 = __), or him challenging himself to spell words of his choosing. Some of today's words were lump, robot, and school. He used play-doh to make the letters. He does leave out letters sometimes and we have to help him hear each individual sound, and he sometimes asks questions like "what letter makes the "uh" sound?" But he is getting it! It is so exciting to watch his brain soak up information, connect it all, and grow strong through practicing it. (Maybe that seems like a strange way to describe it, but that's how I envision it.)
Part of my excitement is that I feel like I did so little to facilitate this! I would read books to him and answer his questions about letter sounds and number values whether or not I was homeschooling. I think what we are doing that qualifies as "school" we would be doing with him whether or not he was at a school building all day or here at home. And that's why the question of Jacob going to school is not so much a question of what educational option is best, as it is whether or not it's good for him to be at home or out of the home for a significant portion of the day. But that is another discussion...
(For those of you who have been a part of that discussion with me, who have helped me process the pros and cons and options, I can gratefully say that things have been going much more smoothly at home during the day over these last few weeks, so we haven't had to change anything. I'm keeping the other options in my back pocket for now!)
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
Saturday, November 24, 2007
I went to the eye doctor this month, and discovered that each of my eyes had improved by .75. So, this means I no longer need a contact in my right eye, and I only need 1.00 power in my left eye. So now, at night I get to say, "I have to go take out my contact." Heath keeps laughing at me and saying that I sound obnoxious, like someone with a new, nice car, who instead of saying, "I have to go start the car," says, "I have to go start the Lexus."
The other night when Heath told Jacob to go potty before bed, he noticed the back of Jacob's underwear was sagging as he was walking down the hall, and he heard a "clank, clank" sound as he walked. It turns out he had stashed a couple of hot wheels cars in his underwear to take to bed with him.
I had another conversation with Ethan the other day about why he can only be a daddy when he grows up, not a mommy. (I think in his mind, Mommy is the one who gets to take care of the baby more, and he really likes our baby. So I try to point out all the great things about being in Heath's position, and the unique way he gets to relate to them.) Related to this conversation was a discussion of why certain body parts only belong to boys, and girls don't have them. "Some girls do!" he kept insisting. He uses this assertion often to try to win an argument, i.e. "some people/kids do," and it's almost always ridiculous, but it was particularly funny in this context.
Ethan likes to look in our mouths with flashlights to play dentist or doctor. The other night he was looking in Heath's mouth, and we weren't really paying attention, continuing our adult conversation. Then we heard Ethan say, "Oh, that's bad," as he peered at Heath's teeth. We burst out laughing, which surprised Ethan because he didn't think we were listening - he was just continuing his pretend play.
The other night when Heath told Jacob to go potty before bed, he noticed the back of Jacob's underwear was sagging as he was walking down the hall, and he heard a "clank, clank" sound as he walked. It turns out he had stashed a couple of hot wheels cars in his underwear to take to bed with him.
I had another conversation with Ethan the other day about why he can only be a daddy when he grows up, not a mommy. (I think in his mind, Mommy is the one who gets to take care of the baby more, and he really likes our baby. So I try to point out all the great things about being in Heath's position, and the unique way he gets to relate to them.) Related to this conversation was a discussion of why certain body parts only belong to boys, and girls don't have them. "Some girls do!" he kept insisting. He uses this assertion often to try to win an argument, i.e. "some people/kids do," and it's almost always ridiculous, but it was particularly funny in this context.
Ethan likes to look in our mouths with flashlights to play dentist or doctor. The other night he was looking in Heath's mouth, and we weren't really paying attention, continuing our adult conversation. Then we heard Ethan say, "Oh, that's bad," as he peered at Heath's teeth. We burst out laughing, which surprised Ethan because he didn't think we were listening - he was just continuing his pretend play.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Last night at house church we discussed Men and Women in the Church by Sarah Sumner a little bit. I think we are all trying to find common ground, which is a good thing. Because ultimately it's not an issue that any of us would want to affect our fellowship. But along with that, maybe some of us have been a little reticent to really state where we're coming from...
For the last 10 years or so, I have taken the Biblical passages regarding women fairly conservatively. I have believed (and taught other women) that we are to be submissive to our husbands and not to be leaders in the Church.
There, I said it. I outed myself.
To be fair, I am reconsidering these issues, and it is shaking up my understanding quite a bit. Like I shared with those of you at house church last night, my understanding of husband-wife roles (which has blossomed over the last 5 years or so especially) seems to have really enriched our marriage. So I feel like I have a lot at stake.
An interesting thing about Sumner's view of the texts is that she actually does not set aside the unique roles in the marriage relationship. She does a beautiful job of laying out the analogy in Ephesians 5 that describes how the husband is the head of the wife, who is the body. I love how she describes the submissive "posture" of the wife as the body and the loving sacrifice of the man as the head, and the interaction between the two. After reading that chapter, I was relieved to see that perhaps my understanding of husband-wife roles would be compatible with a new understanding of women's roles in the Church.
However, the point when our consensus fell apart is when Sumner says that the fact that the husband is the head doesn't make him the leader. Somehow that doesn't compute for me. I understand that headship means more than that, and I appreciate her expansion of the head-body analogy. But it seems to me that leadership is implicit in the husband being the head. If the husband and wife disagree, then someone has to submit and someone has to lead. Right? If the husband is described as the head in the Biblical analogy of the marriage relationship, then it would seem to follow that he is the leader in these situations. To be fair to Sumner, I think she would say that this analogy is not even addressing these situations, perhaps?
This may seem like a minor point of contention between her and I, that wouldn't really affect the practice of the concept. But ultimately it affects whether or not a woman can be a church leader. Because if a wife is to be led by her husband, then I don't see how she can lead the church of which he is a part. There is a conflict of interest. What if he disagrees with the direction she is leading in the church? Wouldn't she have to yield to his opinion since he is her leader?
I guess some of this goes back to our definition of what a church leader is and what a church leader really does, i.e what level of authority they have. Many of us have been part of churches where the leadership position was used in an abusive way, in one way or another. Some of our church leaders have thought their position entitled them to micromanage our lives, to demand a certain level of commitment which translated into certain actions or activities that were expected in order to be in good fellowship with the church. (For those of you who haven't experienced this and don't know what I'm talking about, this can play out as a legalistic list of obligations and behaviors, such as: attend church Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night, plus serve in at least one ministry; abstain from drinking alcohol or using tobacco or cussing; vote Republican; observe the Sabbath and give a tithe on all your earnings; and the list can go on and on.) We may also have been taught that their leadership provided some sort of umbrella of protection as long as we went along with it, that they were responsible for us and would be answerable for us somehow. Most of us that are part of Wheatland are moving away from this type of leadership.
Sumner makes a good point that no person is the head of the Church. Christ is the head of the Church. But yet, aren't there decisions that have to be made, and people who have to interpret what Christ's desires are for those decisions? And when people don't agree on which direction Christ is leading, someone has to decide, and that person is the leader. Right? Actually (and I am just thinking this through as I type), maybe not. Maybe the church, inhabited by Christ's Spirit, can reach a consensus on what Christ desires for its direction and even for decisions on specific issues as a whole. There may be a few who disagree with a certain decision, but if most feel that this is the way the Spirit is leading or speaking to them, then that is a way that Christ is leading His Church, isn't it? I guess most of us have been taught that Christ uses certain persons that he raises up to be leaders in order to lead His Church. That the responsibility for making decisions is delegated to trusted, approved decision-makers, who make all of the decisions every time. But it doesn't have to be that way, does it? It could actually be the whole church that has a voice. Or is that just the chaos that is described in 1 Corinthians, which we are to try to avoid?
If I ask my earlier question again ("What if [the husband] disagrees with the direction [his wife] is leading in the church? Wouldn't she have to yield to his opinion since he is her leader?") in light of the church structure which I just described, then I have already answered myself. The answer is, we are relying on the consensus of the church as a whole, inhabited by Christ's Spirit, and what they believe is the direction He is leading them - rather than on an individual leader who is somehow taking responsibility for the entire congregation of interpreting Christ's desires for them. So there would never be an opportunity for this scenario to occur.
Maybe a leader isn't so much a judge and decision-maker as he or she is an example that people are inspired to follow...
I may have just talked myself out of my earlier reservations regarding women in leadership. We'll see. I will be interested to discuss this with some of you later - especially you, husband. :-)
For the last 10 years or so, I have taken the Biblical passages regarding women fairly conservatively. I have believed (and taught other women) that we are to be submissive to our husbands and not to be leaders in the Church.
There, I said it. I outed myself.
To be fair, I am reconsidering these issues, and it is shaking up my understanding quite a bit. Like I shared with those of you at house church last night, my understanding of husband-wife roles (which has blossomed over the last 5 years or so especially) seems to have really enriched our marriage. So I feel like I have a lot at stake.
An interesting thing about Sumner's view of the texts is that she actually does not set aside the unique roles in the marriage relationship. She does a beautiful job of laying out the analogy in Ephesians 5 that describes how the husband is the head of the wife, who is the body. I love how she describes the submissive "posture" of the wife as the body and the loving sacrifice of the man as the head, and the interaction between the two. After reading that chapter, I was relieved to see that perhaps my understanding of husband-wife roles would be compatible with a new understanding of women's roles in the Church.
However, the point when our consensus fell apart is when Sumner says that the fact that the husband is the head doesn't make him the leader. Somehow that doesn't compute for me. I understand that headship means more than that, and I appreciate her expansion of the head-body analogy. But it seems to me that leadership is implicit in the husband being the head. If the husband and wife disagree, then someone has to submit and someone has to lead. Right? If the husband is described as the head in the Biblical analogy of the marriage relationship, then it would seem to follow that he is the leader in these situations. To be fair to Sumner, I think she would say that this analogy is not even addressing these situations, perhaps?
This may seem like a minor point of contention between her and I, that wouldn't really affect the practice of the concept. But ultimately it affects whether or not a woman can be a church leader. Because if a wife is to be led by her husband, then I don't see how she can lead the church of which he is a part. There is a conflict of interest. What if he disagrees with the direction she is leading in the church? Wouldn't she have to yield to his opinion since he is her leader?
I guess some of this goes back to our definition of what a church leader is and what a church leader really does, i.e what level of authority they have. Many of us have been part of churches where the leadership position was used in an abusive way, in one way or another. Some of our church leaders have thought their position entitled them to micromanage our lives, to demand a certain level of commitment which translated into certain actions or activities that were expected in order to be in good fellowship with the church. (For those of you who haven't experienced this and don't know what I'm talking about, this can play out as a legalistic list of obligations and behaviors, such as: attend church Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night, plus serve in at least one ministry; abstain from drinking alcohol or using tobacco or cussing; vote Republican; observe the Sabbath and give a tithe on all your earnings; and the list can go on and on.) We may also have been taught that their leadership provided some sort of umbrella of protection as long as we went along with it, that they were responsible for us and would be answerable for us somehow. Most of us that are part of Wheatland are moving away from this type of leadership.
Sumner makes a good point that no person is the head of the Church. Christ is the head of the Church. But yet, aren't there decisions that have to be made, and people who have to interpret what Christ's desires are for those decisions? And when people don't agree on which direction Christ is leading, someone has to decide, and that person is the leader. Right? Actually (and I am just thinking this through as I type), maybe not. Maybe the church, inhabited by Christ's Spirit, can reach a consensus on what Christ desires for its direction and even for decisions on specific issues as a whole. There may be a few who disagree with a certain decision, but if most feel that this is the way the Spirit is leading or speaking to them, then that is a way that Christ is leading His Church, isn't it? I guess most of us have been taught that Christ uses certain persons that he raises up to be leaders in order to lead His Church. That the responsibility for making decisions is delegated to trusted, approved decision-makers, who make all of the decisions every time. But it doesn't have to be that way, does it? It could actually be the whole church that has a voice. Or is that just the chaos that is described in 1 Corinthians, which we are to try to avoid?
If I ask my earlier question again ("What if [the husband] disagrees with the direction [his wife] is leading in the church? Wouldn't she have to yield to his opinion since he is her leader?") in light of the church structure which I just described, then I have already answered myself. The answer is, we are relying on the consensus of the church as a whole, inhabited by Christ's Spirit, and what they believe is the direction He is leading them - rather than on an individual leader who is somehow taking responsibility for the entire congregation of interpreting Christ's desires for them. So there would never be an opportunity for this scenario to occur.
Maybe a leader isn't so much a judge and decision-maker as he or she is an example that people are inspired to follow...
I may have just talked myself out of my earlier reservations regarding women in leadership. We'll see. I will be interested to discuss this with some of you later - especially you, husband. :-)
Last week at house church we had a brief discussion on baptism, which I'm sure could have gone much longer if we'd all had the time (and if the kids had had the patience). I was reminded of a blog entry I wrote almost a year ago about my own experience and thoughts on baptism at the time. It is interesting how ideas about baptism have evolved in the Protestant Church at large since the Reformation. If you compare Catholic or Eastern Orthodox concepts to Protestant churches' ideas, sometimes they are drastically different, and other times surprisingly similar (surprising when you consider how different other practices of that particular church might be from Catholicism).
All of this got me to thinking about how much I have reevaluated my own understandings of matters of our faith since my friends started converting to Eastern Orthodoxy one by one. It's really been a shocking occurance, since most of us came from a non-denominational "are Catholics really saved?" sort of background. It is a big leap to go from a movement where many completely disregard Catholic theology and doctrine as corrupted (please don't be offended, my Catholic readers, I am simply representing how some people in Protestant churches feel), to joining a church that shares roots and much doctrine and theology with Catholicism. The Eastern Orthodox paradigm for understanding theology and doctrine is so different from ours. They trace their roots back to the Apostles, so they view their doctrine as being handed down by the Apostles - albeit the understanding of certain doctrinal issues grew and was defined over the first few centuries of the Church's existence. The Protestant paradigm for formulating doctrine, on the other hand, does not place much value on what previous generations of the Church have thought was the correct interpretation of the teachings of the faith. Rather, the Protestant paradigm draws its understanding of doctrine entirely from what is present in the text of scripture. If the doctrine of previous generations does not seem to be supported by scripture, then the assumption is their understanding was corrupted.
I grew up thinking my paradigm for approaching theological and doctrinal issues was best because the Scriptures should obviously be our primary authority, as the Word of God. Only what is contained therein can be relied upon. Traditions of men can be corrupted. We saw in the Reformation a time when the traditions of men certainly did become corrupted, with indulgences and the like. Because of this, it was assumed that any Catholic doctrine that was based primarily on tradition rather than scripture was probably similarly corrupt.
However, as an adult, it occurred to me: The very Scriptures that we hold to be more reliable than tradition were verified to be the true Word of God, the true representation of Gospel teachings, by men who taught other doctrines that I summarily reject. I trusted them to define the canon of scripture, but I do not trust their doctrinal teaching on issues not directly referenced in scripture.
I could go into this a lot more, into why it is or is not a contradiction on my part, and whether or not I am justified to question their extra-Biblical teachings, but let me just say it was enough to make me consider if there were practices or teachings I have dismissed out of hand that might have value. It has also put into perspective the unspoken Protestant (especially Evangelical) assumption that the typical Catholic or Eastern Orthodox way of "getting saved" is not valid (i.e. no altar call decision, no specific moment in time when you pray to acknowledge you are a sinner and to ask Jesus to come into your heart, no adult baptism and specific moment in time when you realize the Holy Spirit's presence).
All of this got me to thinking about how much I have reevaluated my own understandings of matters of our faith since my friends started converting to Eastern Orthodoxy one by one. It's really been a shocking occurance, since most of us came from a non-denominational "are Catholics really saved?" sort of background. It is a big leap to go from a movement where many completely disregard Catholic theology and doctrine as corrupted (please don't be offended, my Catholic readers, I am simply representing how some people in Protestant churches feel), to joining a church that shares roots and much doctrine and theology with Catholicism. The Eastern Orthodox paradigm for understanding theology and doctrine is so different from ours. They trace their roots back to the Apostles, so they view their doctrine as being handed down by the Apostles - albeit the understanding of certain doctrinal issues grew and was defined over the first few centuries of the Church's existence. The Protestant paradigm for formulating doctrine, on the other hand, does not place much value on what previous generations of the Church have thought was the correct interpretation of the teachings of the faith. Rather, the Protestant paradigm draws its understanding of doctrine entirely from what is present in the text of scripture. If the doctrine of previous generations does not seem to be supported by scripture, then the assumption is their understanding was corrupted.
I grew up thinking my paradigm for approaching theological and doctrinal issues was best because the Scriptures should obviously be our primary authority, as the Word of God. Only what is contained therein can be relied upon. Traditions of men can be corrupted. We saw in the Reformation a time when the traditions of men certainly did become corrupted, with indulgences and the like. Because of this, it was assumed that any Catholic doctrine that was based primarily on tradition rather than scripture was probably similarly corrupt.
However, as an adult, it occurred to me: The very Scriptures that we hold to be more reliable than tradition were verified to be the true Word of God, the true representation of Gospel teachings, by men who taught other doctrines that I summarily reject. I trusted them to define the canon of scripture, but I do not trust their doctrinal teaching on issues not directly referenced in scripture.
I could go into this a lot more, into why it is or is not a contradiction on my part, and whether or not I am justified to question their extra-Biblical teachings, but let me just say it was enough to make me consider if there were practices or teachings I have dismissed out of hand that might have value. It has also put into perspective the unspoken Protestant (especially Evangelical) assumption that the typical Catholic or Eastern Orthodox way of "getting saved" is not valid (i.e. no altar call decision, no specific moment in time when you pray to acknowledge you are a sinner and to ask Jesus to come into your heart, no adult baptism and specific moment in time when you realize the Holy Spirit's presence).
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Do you ever feel like your children are intentionally trying to make you crazy?
I said in my post below that my only hope for salvaging the day was to get a nap this afternoon. I'm not talking about a long nap or a completely undisturbed nap, but something where I can at least sort of slip away from reality and relax for 30 minutes to an hour would have worked.
So, I finally get Samuel down for his afternoon nap about an hour ago. Immediately I turn on a show for the big boys and lay down on the playroom couch. I thought I learned my lesson from this morning - I wasn't even going to try the bed and TV in our room, since it was across the hall from Samuel's room. Too hard to keep the big boys quiet. I told them how important it was that I get a little bit of rest, so to please let me lay there in peace so that I could recover, not be grumpy, and we could have a good evening.
They started climbing all over me almost immediately. I did my best to ignore this and drift off to sleep. Someone dropped butt down onto my head a couple of times. I was determined to pretend I didn't notice. Finally, when Ethan was laying on my back hitting me in the head and screaming "Mommy! Mommy!" in my ear, I gave up on the couch. I paused the show, sat up and explained again how important it was that I get some rest and get it NOW. I told them I was going into the guest room (adjacent to the playroom), that I would leave the door open, but to leave me alone and let me rest. I turned their show back on and went in there. Within minutes Ethan was back in climbing on my bed. I scolded him and he stopped. Then I felt someone else bump my bed. "Stop!" Bump. "Don't bump the bed!" Bump. "I'm trying to rest!" Hop up on the bed. It's Jacob. He's scared because Ethan is telling him there are monsters in the bedroom.
OMG. Seriously. I know people handle stuff like this, and way way worse, but I feel like they are trying to torture me or make me crazy. I know, I know, it's all about how I react to it, blah blah blah. I need a nap!
Samuel's screaming. "Naptime" is over. Gotta go get him. 3.5 more hours to survive.
I said in my post below that my only hope for salvaging the day was to get a nap this afternoon. I'm not talking about a long nap or a completely undisturbed nap, but something where I can at least sort of slip away from reality and relax for 30 minutes to an hour would have worked.
So, I finally get Samuel down for his afternoon nap about an hour ago. Immediately I turn on a show for the big boys and lay down on the playroom couch. I thought I learned my lesson from this morning - I wasn't even going to try the bed and TV in our room, since it was across the hall from Samuel's room. Too hard to keep the big boys quiet. I told them how important it was that I get a little bit of rest, so to please let me lay there in peace so that I could recover, not be grumpy, and we could have a good evening.
They started climbing all over me almost immediately. I did my best to ignore this and drift off to sleep. Someone dropped butt down onto my head a couple of times. I was determined to pretend I didn't notice. Finally, when Ethan was laying on my back hitting me in the head and screaming "Mommy! Mommy!" in my ear, I gave up on the couch. I paused the show, sat up and explained again how important it was that I get some rest and get it NOW. I told them I was going into the guest room (adjacent to the playroom), that I would leave the door open, but to leave me alone and let me rest. I turned their show back on and went in there. Within minutes Ethan was back in climbing on my bed. I scolded him and he stopped. Then I felt someone else bump my bed. "Stop!" Bump. "Don't bump the bed!" Bump. "I'm trying to rest!" Hop up on the bed. It's Jacob. He's scared because Ethan is telling him there are monsters in the bedroom.
OMG. Seriously. I know people handle stuff like this, and way way worse, but I feel like they are trying to torture me or make me crazy. I know, I know, it's all about how I react to it, blah blah blah. I need a nap!
Samuel's screaming. "Naptime" is over. Gotta go get him. 3.5 more hours to survive.
Friday, I found out that Heath had been given a great opportunity at work. The only catch was that he had to fly to LA for training almost immediately, and would be gone Sunday afternoon through Wednesday night. We both were a little nervous about him being gone, considering how things have been going here at home, but I wanted him to take the opportunity. "I'll just hire day care if I have to!" I said.
Well, the kids have been sick, so my plan of putting them in daycare did not work out. Also, our neighborhood daycare lady that sometimes watches them did not have any open times until today. (In retrospect I wish I had gone ahead and scheduled for today - I am absolutely exhausted.) But surprisingly, Sunday and Monday went really, really well. We went to Target, the playground, and house church on Sunday after dropping Heath off at the airport. Then, we had another pleasant day together on Monday, generally in good moods and enjoying each other's company. We even made it to WalMart in the afternoon, then to Exploration Place and swung by McDonald's drive-through before coming home to watch the prime time premiere of Dora Saves the Mermaids before bed.
Tuesday was a little rockier, because I didn't get as much sleep, forgot to take my meds on time, and basically just didn't get as good of a start to the day. We had to take the dog in to the vet first thing in the morning to get a mass removed, and with the kids having been up in the night with their colds (eventually ending up in bed with me), we had a hard time getting out of the house on time and got scolded by the vet's receptionist. The vet wasn't even there yet, but apparently it was important for me to have the dog there at the crack of dawn. Still, yesterday wasn't a total loss - overall we still had a good day, and I have been very thankful for how smoothly things have gone. We went to McDonald's again for supper, but we went in and played in the playplace this time and the kids loved that. We couldn't go anywhere else yesterday because it was too cold for playgrounds or the zoo, and the kids were too obviously sick during the day (coughs and runny noses) to take them anywhere indoors. I may be a bad Mom for taking them to the playplace in the evening when they were sick that morning, but I'm just trying to survive. At least I didn't invite any of your kids to come, right?
This morning, the cumulative sleep deprivation really hit me. I tried to be proactive about fixing it, and as soon as I got Samuel down for his morning nap I laid down and turned a show on for the big boys. It didn't work - they pretty much tortured me the whole time. So now I'm just trying to pump as much caffeine into my bloodstream as possible and survive until bedtime. Heath will be home tonight, horray! I was hoping to go visit some of you friends this week to make the time pass more enjoyably and quickly, but with the kids sick I didn't want to do that to you (or your kids). They do seem in better health today though (thus me wishing I had scheduled them with the daycare lady). I'll get a break tomorrow morning for Mom's Day Out, if they will take Ethan back after he repeatedly ignored and disobeyed the teacher last week. Is it bad that while the teacher was reporting this to me, I was thinking, "Why are you telling me? I left them with you to get away from it. What do you want me to do?" Instead I said to the MDO teacher, "I'll talk to him about it." Yes, I'll talk to my 3-year-old about it. I'm sure it will have a big impact. What would they do if someone was like, "Oh, I see. I'll have to take him out to the woodshed when we get home." Is that the response they are looking for? (Don't worry, we don't actually have a woodshed, so he's in the clear.)
I'm just praying for a chance for a nap this afternoon, because by the time I finished this post it become clear that I am past the point of caffeine having any affect. Heath just sent me a message that he just has a few more things to take care of before going to check out of his hotel and get to the airport. Horray! Maybe we can still salvage the day, I'll let you know...
Well, the kids have been sick, so my plan of putting them in daycare did not work out. Also, our neighborhood daycare lady that sometimes watches them did not have any open times until today. (In retrospect I wish I had gone ahead and scheduled for today - I am absolutely exhausted.) But surprisingly, Sunday and Monday went really, really well. We went to Target, the playground, and house church on Sunday after dropping Heath off at the airport. Then, we had another pleasant day together on Monday, generally in good moods and enjoying each other's company. We even made it to WalMart in the afternoon, then to Exploration Place and swung by McDonald's drive-through before coming home to watch the prime time premiere of Dora Saves the Mermaids before bed.
Tuesday was a little rockier, because I didn't get as much sleep, forgot to take my meds on time, and basically just didn't get as good of a start to the day. We had to take the dog in to the vet first thing in the morning to get a mass removed, and with the kids having been up in the night with their colds (eventually ending up in bed with me), we had a hard time getting out of the house on time and got scolded by the vet's receptionist. The vet wasn't even there yet, but apparently it was important for me to have the dog there at the crack of dawn. Still, yesterday wasn't a total loss - overall we still had a good day, and I have been very thankful for how smoothly things have gone. We went to McDonald's again for supper, but we went in and played in the playplace this time and the kids loved that. We couldn't go anywhere else yesterday because it was too cold for playgrounds or the zoo, and the kids were too obviously sick during the day (coughs and runny noses) to take them anywhere indoors. I may be a bad Mom for taking them to the playplace in the evening when they were sick that morning, but I'm just trying to survive. At least I didn't invite any of your kids to come, right?
This morning, the cumulative sleep deprivation really hit me. I tried to be proactive about fixing it, and as soon as I got Samuel down for his morning nap I laid down and turned a show on for the big boys. It didn't work - they pretty much tortured me the whole time. So now I'm just trying to pump as much caffeine into my bloodstream as possible and survive until bedtime. Heath will be home tonight, horray! I was hoping to go visit some of you friends this week to make the time pass more enjoyably and quickly, but with the kids sick I didn't want to do that to you (or your kids). They do seem in better health today though (thus me wishing I had scheduled them with the daycare lady). I'll get a break tomorrow morning for Mom's Day Out, if they will take Ethan back after he repeatedly ignored and disobeyed the teacher last week. Is it bad that while the teacher was reporting this to me, I was thinking, "Why are you telling me? I left them with you to get away from it. What do you want me to do?" Instead I said to the MDO teacher, "I'll talk to him about it." Yes, I'll talk to my 3-year-old about it. I'm sure it will have a big impact. What would they do if someone was like, "Oh, I see. I'll have to take him out to the woodshed when we get home." Is that the response they are looking for? (Don't worry, we don't actually have a woodshed, so he's in the clear.)
I'm just praying for a chance for a nap this afternoon, because by the time I finished this post it become clear that I am past the point of caffeine having any affect. Heath just sent me a message that he just has a few more things to take care of before going to check out of his hotel and get to the airport. Horray! Maybe we can still salvage the day, I'll let you know...
Thursday, November 01, 2007
almost 5 months old
His verbal development is much the same as last month - lots of growling, squealing, and vowel sounds. He seems to still be nursing well, and we are working toward a sleep schedule. His smile is huge and almost always easy to get. He has started really manipulating things with his hands, including purposefully spinning the toys on his swing and attempting to put his binky (and everything else) in his mouth. No teeth yet, but lots of drooling and mouthing things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)