At my wife’s family’s Christmas celebration the kids are turned loose at a designated time and everyone rips into their gifts in an atmosphere of joyful chaos. Adult eyes are everywhere, watching our own children opening gifts, trying to watch for our nieces and nephews opening the gifts we got them, watching our children try to steal their cousins’ toys, receiving words and hugs of thanks all at the same time.

At my own family’s Christmas celebration, everyone receives their gifts and then we take turns opening one gift at a time. So one person opens one gift, shows it to everyone, says thank you (with words – hugs come later), and then the next person opens one gift. The children get a little antsy to be able to open their gifts, but they do enjoy watching everyone else open theirs (and have to be reigned in once in a while when their desire to help gets a little overbearing). It takes a very long time to get through all of the gifts, and we’re usually hot and tired afterward. But the ritual is accomplished with much eating and much laughter.

I then ask the audience, at which celebration would you rather be the giver of the gift? Despite the fact that my description of my parents’ celebration always seems more boring than the actual event, the audience invariably chooses it over the celebration of my in-laws. Why? Because everyone is watching the recipient of the gift open it, taking the time to see what the gift is, taking time to appreciate it together, and sharing in the love behind it. Even gag gifts make their way into this ritual, signifying our knowledge of each other and an appreciation of our family’s collective sense of humor. The giver of the gift is appreciated at least as much as the gift itself.

Teaching our children to receive gifts well perhaps needs to go beyond reminding them to say “Thank you.” It may require parents to teach their children how to

• recognize gifts that come in not-so-obvious forms that might otherwise go unappreciated
• appreciate the meaning behind certain gifts, “This was your grandfather’s carving knife. He gave it to you because he hopes you’ll enjoy wood carving as much as he did.”
• take the time to appreciate one gift before rushing on to another
• learn how to appreciate gifts that were not on the wish list
• learn how to accept disappointing gifts with graciousness and love

The main idea is to teach our children that the gift is a sign of love from the giver. The gift is meant to be enjoyed, but the giver of the gift should be appreciated and loved more. Think of the implications of teaching our children the art of receiving a gift well. Especially when they realize that all created goods are gifts from God, given to us as signs of His love.

What would it mean to move through life enjoying the gifts, but loving the Giver more? It would mean living a life of supernatural temperance. Temperance as a natural virtue helps us to find a balance in the enjoyment of physical goods and pleasures that is healthy for us spiritually and physically. Supernatural temperance adds to that healthy balance the awareness that every physical good and pleasure is imbued with the meaning of the love of God. When we focus on the Giver more than the gift, we are able to enjoy the gift even more because we receive both the goodness of the gift and the love of the Giver.

The implications for human relationships are the same. We would interact with others in an attitude of gratitude and love, recognizing all the ways that they offer themselves as gifts to us (and, of course, returning the gift of love in service to them as well). Battling selfishness and greed would be made easier by the enjoyment of the love of neighbor.

The implications for chastity are amazing. What would it mean to see sex within our romantic relationships as a gift? What would it mean to receive that gift well, to focus on the love of the giver more than on the gift itself? Sex before marriage would be seen as ripping into the gift early, without regard to the giver (since it does not yet reflect the true commitment of married love). However, the gift of one’s sexuality (the ability to give and receive love as a man or as a woman – which extends beyond the act of sex or even the context of romance) would be shared in the context of true love. Sex within marriage would be seen as a mutual gift of love, not just a means to pleasure. Of course, the pleasure is enjoyed as well – and even more since it comes with the awareness and sharing of love.

Focusing only on the gift (materialism) offers only temporary and incomplete happiness. Focusing on the giver leads to enjoyment of the gift, plus appreciation of the love of the giver. What a beautiful way to live our lives.

Check out these books at the From the Abbey bookstore about giving and receiving love.

Crystal Star Angel is about a boy who wins a special gift by discovering the true meaning of love. This is a great book for teaching children about giving and receiving gifts. This is a Christmas story.

Divine Pity explicitly makes the argument about supernatural temperance and the importance of loving the giver more than the gift.

[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Dr. Ray Guarendi is right! Not that I needed U.S. News World Report to tell me that. However, I find this article very interesting. Dr. Ray claims that parenting experts have ruined parenting by making parents paranoid that they might permanently damage their children, maybe even causing them to appear on Jerry Springer to reveal tot he world why they are so messed up. According to Dr. Ray, parents need only to have love for their children, a good moral compass and a firm, consistent hand in discipline. Author Rachel Hartigan Shea agrees.

But by the 1920s, one mother was so overwhelmed with child-care instruction that she confessed, “I try to do just what you say, but I am a nervous wreck just trying to be calm.” Indeed, the “century introduced a vision of children and of child rearing that entailed a new kind of vigilance,” says Ann Hulbert, author of the new book Raising America: Experts, Parents, and a Century of Advice About Children. It also introduced the idea that a good parent is, by definition, an anxious one.

American parents hadn’t used to rely heavily on experts, but much in the 20th century was so new that old standbys–grandmothers and religion–seemed to have lost relevance. With more than half of Americans living in cities in 1920 (up from a third in 1890), adults led very different lives from their own parents’. And they were enamored of the idea that science could improve child rearing as it had improved everything else. “It is childhood’s teachableness that has enabled man to overcome heredity with history,” declared one turn-of-the-century expert.

Isn’t it interesting that foresaking faith and family led to feelings of guilt and anxiety? Embracing the enlightenment ideals of scientific progress led to paranoia and feelings of inadequacy. The rub is that most of the so-called scientific advice was based on flimsy science. The desire to be scientific outstripped the ability. Today, over 100 years later, not much has changed. There are some scientific gems – I am especially fond of Erik Erikson’s psychosocial stages of development and the theories on bonding – but by and large parenting advice is more political than scientific.

While this article makes some good points, it makes some questionable assumptions.

Women’s status was changing, too. The move away from farms freed women from a lot of household labor–and from having to give birth to enough farmhands to keep the crops going. Women were even heading off to college, but since motherhood was still regarded as the only true feminine vocation, experts worried about how to make it palatable to these educated women. The answer, supplied by pioneers in the new fields of pediatrics and psychology, was to professionalize motherhood. Under the guidance of Holt and Hall, and later John Watson and Arnold Gesell, mothers were to put aside instinct and become scientific examiners of their children’s behavior. (Fathers, it should be noted, were barely mentioned.) Holt required women to learn the latest research on nutritional matters and adhere to strict feeding schedules, while Hall deputized mothers as his research assistants by issuing lengthy questionnaires on everything from “doll passion” to religious experiences. Gesell issued color-coded charts for tracking urination, playtime, feeding, and weight; anthropologist Margaret Mead’s mother (a devout Holtian) filled 13 volumes on little Margaret’s development.

These claims are not completely ficticious. Yes, women’s roles did change with the shift from rural to urban populations. It is also true that psychologists encouraged women to become scientific observers of their children. However, I question the assumption that the professional advice to scientifically study their children was an attempt to professionalize motherhood because motherhood was teh only palatable vocation for women. In fact, Dr. Malcolm W. Watson of Brandeis University teaches that the focus on scientific parenting came from evolving theories of childhood, not from an attempt to perpetuate gender stereotypes. Isn’t it interesting that the same author that points out the myth of parenting experts so uncritically embraces a feminist myth of female persecution?

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

USNews.com: Cokie Roberts on the founding mothers

History books rarely mention the woman who, in a way, signed the Declaration of Independence.

Mary Katherine Goddard was a printer who ran a newspaper in Baltimore. She printed the declaration, and her name is right there on it, at the bottom. She later became the first female postmaster in the country, but then a man wanted her job, and got it.

You include recipes from some of the founding mothers. Did you worry that the recipes would trivialize them?

One of my points is that while they were doing everything else, they were still doing everything women do. I certainly cook every night except when I’m on book tour. It’s a point of connection with them. And I highly recommend Martha Washington’s crab soup.

In 2004, Cokie Roberts published a book, Founding Mothers: The Women Who Raised Our Nation. I have not yet read it, but it is on my reading list. Once I do read it, I’ll publish another post on it if it is worth commenting on. However, I had to briefly comment on this interview from U.S. News & World Report, April 26, 2004 print edition.

One of the positive contributions that modernism has made to historical studies is to get us to acknowledge the contributions of women and of people of various ethnic backgrounds. One of the more annoying tendencies of modernist history is to focus on the insignificant and mundane rather than the big ideas and events that shape history (modernism does not believe in big ideas & events shaping human history). Likewise, feminist studies have done a great service to our understanding of history by drawing our attention to important, influential women in history. One of my favorite women in history is Abigail Adams. She was a model of proper feminism, but also of love and dedication to her husband and family. The letters between John and Abigail Adams radiate love, humor, and the great intellect of both of these great people. On the other hand, feminist studies often stretch well into the mundane to find female contributions to our country’s history. I strongly believe that women played important roles in history, but it will take time and study to show real, substantive contributions.

From this short interview, it seems that Cokie Roberts may have actually done a pretty good job in her handling of women in history. I don’t know much about Mary Katherine Goddard, and I look forward to studying about her. It seems quite a stretch to claim that she was almost a signer of the Declaration of Independence because her name appears on the first public printing. I hope the interviewer, and Cokie, had tongue firmly implanted in cheek for that statement. To be a signer of the Declaration meant more than simply having your name on the bottom of the document – it meant being involved in the debate, compromises, and worries that went into the formation of that document. However, the importance of printers in gaining support and unity for the Revolutionary War is undeniable, and the story of the first female postmaster would be valuable to study as well. I get a kick out of the question, “You include recipes from some of the founding mothers. Did you worry that the recipes would trivialize them?” Why would recipes trivialize the founding mothers? Is it trivial to be mothers, home makers, and wives? Does the interviewer have such little regard for the familial role of women? Cokie’s response was wonderful. I wish historical studies would stress the familial role of men as husbands and fathers more. Such a focus shouldn’t trivialize their role in history to know which of our founding fathers were good husbands and fathers.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.