Archive for November 16th, 2005

16
Nov

What to Play

   Posted by: richard   in Doctrine

Someone on a forum brought up buying a kitchen playset for his son, and asked for thoughts. Most people said it would be fine, but I said I wouldn’t buy one for my son. Someone asked why, and this is what I said…

Because I would rather have my (hypothetical) boys playing outside, doing something adventurous than playing in the kitchen.

Not that I think it unacceptable for a man to cook or be a chef… no, I think that would be very cool, actually.

But I think that what and how our children play shapes how they think about the world. I want my boys (should I be blessed with any) to be conquerors and warriors.. I want them to have a thirst and ambition for dominion. And I think giving them swords and dragons and castle playsets will shape them more in that direction that a kitchen playset.

What do you think?
–
edit: a few more of my posts in that thread. I think you can basically guess what type of comments I was replying to.

I want [my girls] to be home despots.

I want them to be good wives and mothers, primarily. I want them to be able to manage a home well. Of course, this is taking dominion. I want them to have a thirst and ambition for dominion just as much as any boys I may have… but their focus will be different.

A man’s focus, I believe, should be outward, to the world. And a woman’s should be towards the home, and towards her husband.

I wrote this a while back… might give some insight.

Hey, where did I say cooking is inherently feminine? Or that a kitchen set is intrinsicly feminine?

Oh, that’s right. I didn’t….

I just said that playing ‘cooking’ and playing ’slay the giants’ will affect a child’s orientation to the world differently. And I’d rather my son have the ’slay the giants’ orientation than the ‘cooking’ one.

Even if he grows up to be a chef.

I do believe that to be world-facing is masculine and home-facing is feminine.

However… that isn’t the same thing as saying kitchen sets are intrinsically feminine. I believe they are generally made for girls, and I believe that playing with them will lead to a more feminine outlook on the world when contrasted with, say, a castle playset. But that doesn’t say they’re intrinsically feminine, or that castle playsets are intrinsically masculine.

2 Comments
16
Nov

Fiona at the Table

   Posted by: richard   in Doctrine

I recently requested that Fiona be admitted to the Lord’s Table. Virgil, our pastor, asked me a few questions, not so much to check for requirments, but to get an idea of where I’m coming from. I answered them, and Fiona was welcomed to the Table. Unless I’m forgetting someone, Fiona (at 14 months) is the youngest child to be brought to the Lord’s Supper at Providence.

Here’s my response…

Virgil,

Fiona does eat regular food at the table with us. She still sits in her high chair, of course, but she eats what we eat. She isn’t entirely weaned yet, but she eats all three meals with everyone else. She also waits while we pray, and, just recently, made clear that she wants to hold my hand while I pray. She’s also in the process of learning her first catechism question (Who made you?). I believe she has an appropriate attitude for partaking of the Lord’s Supper. I think she is able to judge the body, and recognizes that she is missing something that everyone else is receiving.

As for why I’d like her to come to the Table, I guess there are a few different answers for that. Firstly, I’d like her to participate for the same reasons that I do: to strengthen her faith, encourage her in faithfulness, receive anew (be reminded of) the promises of God (and call on God to remember His promises), to deepen the bonds with her brothers and sisters in Christ, and to receive the grace of God in a tangible way.

If you’re asking why I think she should be admitted to the Table now, as opposed to later, I’d say there are a number of reasons. First, she’s a child of God, included in His covenant dealings, and has a right to all the blessings and benefits of the covenant. Second, she recognizes that something is happening, and that she is being excluded from it. In this, I believe she is judging the body. Only, she would be judging herself outside of the body, and that is not true. And I wouldn’t want her to judge the body wrongly. Thirdly, when a person is excluded from the Table, it is an indication of their spiritual status. Admittance to the Supper discriminates those that have been brought into The Family from those that are without. This, coupled with my first and second points, leads to my conclusion that Fiona is not without, and I don’t want her to think that she is. Finally, I think she should participate now because she actively takes part in other portions of the worship service. She sings a bit, she says ‘amen’ with the rest of the congregation, and she raises her arms to the glory of God when we sing the Doxology. She wants to be a part of the celebration, and she ought to be a part of as much of it as she is capable of.

No Comments