In What Way Does He Provide?

We spent the first hour or so in my feminism class last week introducing ourselves so that we could get a sense of who is in the class. Now, we sit in a circle so that we can have a better forum for discussion of all the crazy topics Diana introduces. Everyone had a turn, and, like the dork that I am, I took notes. "Eric: enjoys his beard because he prefers not to shave." And, "Caroline: climbed Kilimanjaro." You know, little snippets to remember each person by, because I've found that in discussion classes like this, it's nice to get to know each other by name. Dorky, but useful.

After my introduction, I cannot imagine what my tag line might have been (thankfully no one else seemed interested in writing things down). "Meredith: princess for kids' parties." Or maybe "Meredith: decided to go for more than an MRS degree after non-Christian high school boyfriend, though still plans to be a homemaker." Probably not that last one...it was a bit long. Anyway, I've now successfully pinned myself as the token Southern, Christian, conservative woman in the class, which makes me the go-to girl and voice of authority on my particular sub-culture.

So the topic arises, do any women actually get married hoping for a man to provide for them? I'm head-down, writing notes, but I raise my other hand anyways. I don't even have to look up to see that everyone is staring at me--the sound of their heads sharply turning to look my way was beyond audible. Diana is equally shocked: "I'm curious. In what way are you hoping he will provide for you?" For some reason I become awkwardly inarticulate. Well, it would be nice to have someone take care of me financially. Since the things I like to do don't always pay. But I guess that isn't really true--I mean, I'm doing fine right now on my own, making plenty of money working jobs that I enjoy. But I guess if I were married to someone and didn't have to work, then I could pursue my art more--have time to really devote to writing and such. So I don't really need someone, per say, financially...but I...

Thankfully someone cut me off and eventually the conversation went in a new direction. So it left me pondering for myself--am I really looking for someone to provide? And if so, what does that look like? I mean, if it's money I want, then shouldn't I call up the Hungarian? I'll probably end up married to a missionary or an artist like myself, and we'll both have to fight to make ends meet. I think it might make life more exciting if it turns out like that. Who wants to be comfortable? Where's the fun in that?

Which brings me to my next question: aside from the fact that, frankly, I would just like to be married and have someone to come home to, what overwhelming need does marriage really provide? Because I honestly don't need anything right now. There are plenty of things that would be nice that I don't necessarily have in bulk in my life, but when you boil it down, I'm doing ok.

Now, I've got to head back to my studies: the volumes of dense feminist propaganda, you know...that takes some intensive digestion even during the third round of re-reading. I still maintain my enthusiasm, though I haven't made up my mind to convert just yet (I still gotta make sure I'm allowed to keep Jesus, Thanksgiving, capitalism and so forth). It would be foolish for me to say that the class has changed my mind about wanting to be married, but it's actually giving me the kind of reality check that I think more Christian women (perhaps especially in the South) need--marriage isn't going to fulfill all of your dreams. Though lovely, I'm sure, marriage involves much more than bon bons and soap operas.

Supplimental Information for Previous Post

April 29, 2005

Freshman Writing 140

June Cleaver to Rosie the Riveter: Finding Fulfillment in Choice

From the popular television series Leave it to Beaver to Desperate Housewives and movies like The Stepford Wives and Mona Lisa Smile, popular culture provides much social commentary on gender roles, particularly within the institution of homemaking. The stereotypes themselves are unclear—some maintain a picturesque view of the homemaker vacuuming in pearls while others envision a lazy woman in sweats watching soap operas and talk shows. If a homemaker is defined as a person with no full-time paid employment outside the home, a wide range of possibilities for spending time and energy exist. Some argue that the institution of homemaking is responsible for proliferating stereotypes, but upon further examination of how homemaking has evolved over the years, one finds that a much broader range of possibilities exists. Myths and stereotypes about the institution of homemaking provide no adequate reason to condemn it. Instead, the importance of homemakers to the community reveals a deep moral need for understanding and supporting them, which would strengthen their ability to contribute different and much needed talents to society.

The strong Feminist resurgence of the 1960s and 70s rebelled against the family stereotypes of earlier decades, striving for equality in the workplace and the freedom to choose careers outside of the home. Women no longer wanted to be viewed as domestic help or childcare providers. However, in an effort to prove their capability to compete in the “man’s world,” radical feminists began to see women who were content with homemaking as a threat, and some even argued that any woman who claims to be happy as a housewife is only blind to oppression because of years of social conditioning. While the goal of the movement, which was equality regardless of sex, made many significant advances, some of the extremist views have been detrimental to society as a whole. Today, many women complain that “the pressure to succeed in the public world of commerce and culture is no better than the pressure women felt in those awful, benighted, 1950s to become full-time makers of a home for husband and children” (Fields). Some have misinterpreted the ability of women to choose professional careers as a mandate that all women must enter the workforce. One of the current stereotypes of homemakers today is that they are either too lazy to get a “real” job or are incapable of handling domestic duties along with a profession. Proliferation of this new stereotype has given the institution of homemaking a negative connotation. A recent news article explains:

Feminists and their bosom buddies among the cultural elite sneer at stay-at-home moms. Who would proudly call herself a ‘homemaker’ these days? Not many people. Even the most prominent holdouts recently bowed to pressure. This July, the Future Homemakers of America, a 220,000-member student organization, changed its name. Goodbye, homemakers. Hello, Family, Career, and Community Leaders of America (Gahr).

Society’s negative view of homemaking causes unwarranted shame for those who choose that lifestyle and often promotes an opposite stereotype of women—the assumption that all women want careers outside the home. The general public usually rejects the stereotype that a woman’s “place” is the home, and it should likewise reject the feminist stereotype that a woman’s “place” is the workforce. Consequentially, one cannot blame either the home or the workforce for encouraging stereotypes, but must find fault with those who have a misinformed opinion of both. Though homemaking is often associated with stereotypes, its existence does not encourage the idea that women are only suitable for a domestic role, but merely shows that certain women, and men as well, prefer this lifestyle choice.

While many of the current problems and stereotypes of homemaking deal with feminine subjection, the institution of homemaking is not only open to women. With the growing number of stay-at-home dads in the United States, homemaking challenges gender stereotypes by finding it equally acceptable for either a man or a woman to carry responsibilities in the household. In fact, “more than one-third of the women on Fortune magazine’s list of the 50 most powerful women in business have a husband at home either full- or part-time” (“At-Home”). Some fathers have found this to be an especially challenging position in light of preconceived notions of gender roles. Sometimes even more than women, men feel pressure to justify the choice to be a homemaker because of the stereotype that the husband should be the “breadwinner” and the “perception that [they are] getting off easy” (Soma). For gender equality to be truly effective, society must allow both men and women the freedom to choose any combination of work inside or outside of the home. Homemaking is not an excuse for unemployment or a last resort for the untalented, but a legitimate career choice and commitment. One stay-at-home father explains, “What I do may be called homemaking. But what I am is a pioneer, standing on the social frontier, helping to shape a new image of what a father can do and be” (Soma). Like the feminists before them, male homemakers challenge the gender stereotypes of society. Because “homemaking” is not synonymous with “womanhood,” much of the following discussion applies to both men and women, since male homemakers today can find themselves “subjected” to a female counterpart.

Though extreme feminism, as extremes of all sorts, can be detrimental to society, feminists and homemakers really can work together—or be one and the same. Because feminism encourages freedom for women to make choices in different areas of life, it is only natural that a feminist should respect a woman for choosing to be a homemaker, even if many of the profession’s duties seem domestically subservient. The marked difference is choice: “A feminist homemaker stays home because she wants to be with her children, not because she believes it to be her designated place” (McCloskey). This simple distinction shows how homemaking can be a respectable career choice instead of a lifestyle that a person takes on solely because she feels it is her duty as a woman. Further, the morale of a homemaker will be greatly dependant on her choice since “a homemaker who perceives potential for satisfaction in her work is a more motivated worker in addition to being a happier worker” (York 56). A person who feels as if he or she would be satisfied with specific work will be motivated to do it. The reverse is true as well—if a person does not think homemaking would be a satisfactory career path, he or she would logically be unmotivated to excel. Really, the issue comes down to the personal choices of each individual.

Articulation of these desires is particularly important in marriage. Studies show that even though opinions about gender roles have changed, “men still feel pressure to be breadwinners and women still feel they should keep the home fire burning and the hearth clean. An emotional minefield awaits those couples expecting perfect equality…it is crucial to create a situation each partner perceives as fair” (“Dishes”). When a couple decides to marry, or join in a similar union, articulating their future plans and goals is crucial. If both partners highly value careers, then they can share household duties more equally. However, if the husband feels the need to be the provider for the family and the wife would prefer to care for the home, then the two may split chores more unevenly and allow the wife less time for paid employment in order to focus on the home. Unions between couples with differing ideals can be problematic. The two must either reach a compromise or decide not to marry because marrying without discussing expectations can cause resentment for both individuals involved. The personal decisions cannot be generalized based on sex but must be applied within specific marriages. While homemaking does incorporate the traditional picture of femininity—economic dependence, a career secondary to the family, and emphasis on domestic duties—feminist Liz McCloskey remarks that “ironically, it does not feel so funny after all.” Homemaking may not be the career desire for all women, but for some, it can be a genuinely fulfilling lifestyle, despite the stereotypes it seems to embody.

Still, the traditional picture of a homemaker encounters some unique problems and stereotypes of its own that need to be properly addressed. A central problem to the institution of homemaking is that it leaves one spouse dependant on the other for his or her livelihood. If a wife is uneducated or unaccustomed to the workforce, it may be very difficult for her to support herself should her husband no longer be able to provide or choose not to do so. This presented problems in the past as those described as dependant are often viewed as “weaker.” However, new programs, such as The Displaced Homemaker Emergency Loan Act Program, or DHELA, provide options that prevent the homemaker whose livelihood was upset by divorce, death, or other such displacement from being helpless without his or her provider. The availability of aid, along with wider education options decreases dependence by providing a “way out” that many women of the past were never offered. One recipient of the loan said of her experience: “It has made a tremendous difference financially, but also it has given me a sense of independence that at one time I did not have nor did I feel I could have. Through getting started on my own I have acquired self esteem and self confidence that I am very grateful for” (Commission 48). With new programs like DHELA, women can break free from the stereotype that they are the “weaker sex” and need protection from a man. Male domination of women is also problematic in the idea that “the satisfaction of women with marriage is related to how much the husband values her” (Chang). This suggests that the husband has the ability to make a woman feel either fulfilled or unsatisfactory. While the husband’s opinion of his wife will certainly affect her self-esteem, society as a whole also has a great deal of influence over her opinion of her job, and with the growing number of male homemakers, societal approval becomes increasingly important. If gender stereotypes continue, homemakers will encounter the added battle of defending their choice and could suffer from low morale due to under-appreciation. With less restraint on independence, personal satisfaction is a growing problem for the person who chooses this lifestyle of service.

Meanwhile, a homemaker’s work often extends outside the home and into the community. In Taiwan, the Homemakers’ Union and Foundation, HUF, “created a space for the homemaker’s voice. They, as a socially marginalized group, became movement initiators and actors” (AERC). Because these women do not have careers outside the home, they are able to involve themselves in environmental, educational, and consumer issues that affect their everyday lives. This is certainly a benefit to society, since not many career professionals have the excess time or schedule flexibility to become involved in social work. This type of positive organization and helpful aide to society will do more to break down gender stereotypes that insulting or attempting to abolish the institution of homemaking altogether. The trend toward homemakers as an agent for social change challenges the “prevailing belief that the social activities of housewives are hobbies and volunteer activities. These new interests are also different from those of existing women’s organizations in that housewives organize new groups to bring about concrete results in relation to the issues that affect every day life” (“Mass Movements”). For instance, a group of female graduates of the Department of Korean Literature have organized to discuss ideas for children’s books, with the goal of writing ten books each within the year. A member of this group, Park Juglan explains, “Since we don’t like what we see at the bookstores, we try to include useful ideas and environmental concerns. We want to write something useful for our children to read” (“Mass Movements”). These women have found a creative way to use their special talents to serve a need in the community. While housework is a necessary chore, the modern housewife would consider many of her other endeavors to be the real purpose of her occupation. When the homemaker is able to invest time in other worthy causes, he or she can contribute greatly with his or her own special talents and skills. In many cases, homemakers prefer “the activities where their expertise and experiences can be utilized rather than tasks involving simple physical labor” (“Mass Movements”). Though they do not receive monetary pay for work, if they feel that they are able to contribute to a worthy cause that utilizes their unique abilities, homemaking is more fulfilling. For some people, their personal talents and aspirations may involve areas of work outside of the traditional “nine to five” job. For instance, a person who possesses a passion to help the homeless might spend time each week volunteering at a shelter, or a mother who wants to help out the public school system invests in the PTA. Many organizations rely on the volunteer work of those willing to help, and the lack of salary for this labor does not make it any less noble than other professions. In fact, volunteer work may be more commendable because it is performed out of a selfless desire to help others instead of with the intent of getting a return (like a paycheck) for one’s labor. If a person finds that his or her specific skills are more suited to this type of lifestyle, he or she should be encouraged to pursue it. All people are suited for different roles in life and should work together so that each contributes in a unique way to create the most complete and advantageous community possible. By repudiating housewives, society would destroy a very important contributor to its well-being and would weaken the life experience for all involved.

Arguably, feminism has achieved great accomplishments in encouraging society to value the thoughts and opinions of women. Such a dramatic and radical movement may have been necessary to bring some of the blatant circumstances of inequality to light, and now society can move toward a more acceptable middle ground—where personal autonomy in relation to lifestyle choices is respected and revered for the business professional and homemaker alike. If the homemaker feels happy with her role at home and finds appreciation from her spouse and the society at large, she is then free from the oppression and stereotyping that women’s liberation movements have tried to prevent. Likewise, the introduction of men into the institution of homemakers continues to abolish gender stereotypes for both sexes. Gender equality and homemaking can go hand-in-hand. Today, “Junes” and “Rosies” can be best friends—both respectful of each others’ choices and proud of the special contributions each has made to her community.

Works Consulted

“At-Home Dads on the Rise.” ProQuest. Voice Male. (2003): p 6. 21 March 2005 .

Chang, Hyekyung, Kim, and Youngran. “A Study of the Psychological and Emotional State of Full-Time Housewives.” ProQuest. Women’s Studies Forum. 17 (2001): p 163. 21 March 2005 .

Commission on the Status of Women. An Evaluation of the Displaced Homemaker Emergency Loan Act Program. Sacramento: 1990.

“Doing More Than the Dishes, Honey?” ProQuest. Voice Male. (2005): p 7. 21 March 2005 .

Fields, Suzanne. “The High Honor of Being a Homemaker.” LookSmart’s FindArticles. 2002. News World Communications, Inc. 22 March 2005 .

Gahr, Evan. “Former Homemakers of America.” LookSmart’s FindArticles. 1999. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. 22 March 2005 .

The Hearst Corporation. Reader Reactions to Magazines: A Study of the Homemaker Readers of Six Magazines. New York: Market Facts, 1963.

“Housewives: New Mass Movements.” ProQuest. Korean Women Today. 41 (1993): p 7. 21 March 2005 .

Liao, Shu-chuan. “Voices from Within-Homemakers as Agents for Social Change.” 2001 AERC Proceedings. 2001. Northern Illinois University, USA. 20 March 2005 .

Mackeprang, Muriel. A Comparison of the Marital Adjustment of Couples in Which the Wife is Gainfully Employed Full Time Outside the Home with Couples in Which the Wife is a Full-Time Homemaker. Los Angeles: The University of Southern California Graduate School, 1949.

McCloskey, Liz. “Feminist Homemaker Confesses: Taking the Irony out Housework.” LookSmart’s FindArticles. 1996. Commonweal Foundation. 22 March 2005 .

Soma, Tom. “What Do You Do? – Father as Full-Time Homemaker.” LookSmart’s FindArticles. 1995. Mothering Magazine. 22 March 2005 .

York, Karen Portugal. Factors of Occupational Satisfaction in the Work of the Homemaker. Los Angeles: The University of Southern California Graduate School, 1969.

Floundering Feminist: When Jones Aren't Enough and the Genes are Missing

This summer, I'm taking a class on feminism and despite what most would assume about me, I'd actually like to ally myself with these bra-burners. Throughout the years, "women's libbers" have gotten a pretty bad rap--especially from those in the white supremacist capitalist patriarchal neocolonialist Western society in which I was raised. (Yeah, say that five times fast--the book I'm reading loves to refer to this demographic as such.) From the moment my parents gave me my first baby doll, mommy-training seemed the most natural vocational route for me. I cook. I sew. I clean. And I love all of it. Domesticity is more prominent in my blood than antibodies.

My freshman year at SC, I was in a philosophy class that focused on social/moral issues, which was linked to a writing class that encouraged us to further research and explore those ideas for ourselves. Here I met Alli, who would be my roommate for the following year and a half as well as the primary feminist voice in my life. I think that Alli and I became friends because we were mutually intrigued by one another. I was inspired by her passion and enjoyed getting into debates with her about the class's hot topics: abortion, death penalty, etc. Alli knew her stuff, which made me want to solidify mine. If I want to be anti-abortion, for instance, I need to know why. So in the same way, if I plan to claim that feminists are manish, hairy work-a-holics, I need the proof to back it up. Which of course I haven't found. Actually, I'm discovering the opposite: the feminist mantra is anti-sexism, not anti-manism or anti-femininity. In fact, I wrote one of my favorite papers from that year about the value of homemakers (see next post)--and how feminists who demean homemaking are actually undermining their own cause by taking from their sisters the freedom to choose staying home. I think what scared me off from feminism initially was that I made the false assumption, which so many people continue to hold on to, that feminism just wants to pick a fight. In truth, well-studied feminists discourage stereotyping on a grander scale. No, women are not made for the home, but that doesn't mean that they are solely made for the workplace. It means just that we don't fit into neat little categories--which is great. So if I want to be married and stay home with my children, then feminists should be (and are) behind me all the way.

All this being said, the class reading has been very discouraging to my budding feminist beliefs. Though I am pleased by the definition of feminism that the book (Feminism is for Everybody by Bell-Hooks) and my class provide, I still find that many feminists are unwilling to allow just anyone to join their cause. They don't want any half-hearted supporters--which I do applaud. There's nothing more irritating that a person who is lukewarm about their beliefs. But what I can't figure out--and I hope I learn by the end of the class--is why I must believe certain ideas about certain issues in order to have any clout among feminists. I feel betrayed by my birth status--as a white, upper-middle class woman, I'm already disadvantaged because, according to Bell-Hooks, I don't understand the plight of most women in America. And the fact that I support capitalism may the last straw to trigger the demise of my inner-feminist. How could I support women's equality if I also support a economic system in which people "unfairly" gain because of their hard work? How dare I suggest that I support equality when I give favor to those that, for their efforts, deserve it? I'm willing to give everyone a fair shot (read: opportunity to work hard for their own success) regardless of gender, color, class and so forth. But I just can't see how it would benefit anyone involved to start handing out free stuff, free advancement, free acceptance to people. Communism, anyone? The theory sounds fine and dandy until you try to put it into practice and we all become lazy slobs.

If being a feminist simply means being anti-sexism, I'm ready to join the bandwagon. Unfortunately it's those little disclaimers that might get me. Equality? Yes. But not if it means closing my eyes to the realities of human nature and the way societies function.

I can't wait until I start dissecting these theories in light of the Bible...

To Have and to Hold

I always thought I wanted to marry a GQ-type guy so that the two of us always looked darling standing next to each other, a magazine worthy couple. But I may be second guessing that...just a little bit...

As if I needed another reason to want to be married, I found a new, and much more legitimate and convincing one, today.

I need the extra closet space.

The Hungarian Sugardaddy and A Pet Lion: My Reality and My Dreamworld

To explain how I ended up at a formal dinner where my roommate and I were the only two women under forty five in a room full of over 100 ex-football players would actually be fairly simple, but I think it makes the story more interesting if we jump right into the action. After our first drinks (rum and diet coke...but mostly rum), rolls and a salad, most of the other dinner guests paid strict attention to the speaker while the staff served the main course (which included both steak and chicken). But Frankie, my new Hungarian friend, since we were sitting at the same table, paid his strict attention to me. I should have known things would shortly head downhill when his friend leaned over to me to say that Frankie really needed to be distracted from bidding on the silent auction. Apparently, he'd already thrown down over 10 thousand (which he could afford, says his friend). We try to distract Frankie so he won't blow his entire fortune on football memorabilia. I begin talking to him and learn that he used to play soccer for the Hungarian national team. Still not sure how he was connected to the football alumni event we were attending. Perhaps he got confused by America's athletics misnomer, "football," which means something entirely different to us than the rest of the world. Regardless, I had an old athlete on my hands. Quite literally, really, since he kept grabbing my hand and kissing it. "I give you my number," he says, and I laugh because it doesn't require me to come up with the right words to respond on the spot. "I give you my number, and you call me. I make it worth your while." His accent is thick, but not so much so that I don't realize this is a proposition. People are staring and hoping we'll hush him so that everyone can listen to the speaker. "You call me. I take you to Beverly Hills. I pick you up in nice limo. We go to nice restaurant. I buy you nice things." More awkward smiles. More forced laughing. "I give you my number. You call me. I take you to the moon!" An impressive offer if I've ever heard one. His friend tries to help out, and Frankie leans over to him, but I overheard. So does everyone within a table's radius of us: "I know I'm ugly as **** and old, so I must pay for love..." More shh-ing. Eventually the roommie and I make our escape, but not without more hand-kissing and Frankie's card in my purse. Of course I throw it away (lies: it's sitting on my desk) because I would never actually call (despite my desire for a shopping spree) since it's completely inappropriate (not to mention a pretty sweet offer). Do people actually do stuff like that??

So on a completely unrelated note, I dreamed last night that I was living in the Menlo house again, only it was a real house with a garage and a back yard. And our landlord was over, trying to assess our request for an orange cone to hold open the gate in our backyard. I think this was a sketchy thing to ask for since we wanted it for some secret entrance for Alli during an upcoming event. So being the best liar in the bunch, I come up with some excuse and take the landlord to explain and demonstrate. Mid-excuse, our pet lion digs up a yellow cone (not what we really wanted, but it would do) and presents it to me. Everyone is thankful for the lion who saved the day. A couple of my friends write a song to honor him and promote lion-awareness and respect for this underrated species. The lion stands up and gives me a hug. He is strong and dangerous, and when he strokes my hair I think about my vulnerable position and how he could easily rip my head off. Meanwhile, the song is a hit, and I think about the hidden Christian implications of a gentle lion who could kill you but doesn't. Later I am at a big hotel in Vegas where we are having a retreat. Scott and Lara put me in charge of Harper, so I carry him around from club to club. At one, I finally find Justine (because apparently I am looking for her) and she's having dinner with a bunch of people I don't know. So Harp and I join, then we clear the room for a princess party which I feel bad about because the poor owner isn't making any money on drinks. After we're done, I traipse off with Harper on my hip to find some of the AGO guys because they are supposed to be somewhere it the hotel. Before I know it, I am involved in a grand and highly illegal plot to blow up the building, but because I'm smart, I save the day--we effectively explode what needs to be exploded and I create a diversion by singing into this pile of metal coils which distracts the people that are out to get us and protects the ones we love. The next morning, I safely return Harper to Lara, borrow some clothes from her because I am somehow naked. Then like a true Shakespearean comedy, everyone gets married in the end.

Beth Moore Book Review

Several months back, I recommending this book to someone, even though I hadn't read it yet, on the authority of those that consider Beth Moore to be one of the greats of Christian women authordom. Actually, I bought Jesus, the One and Only my freshman year when I was looking for some new books to read. Yesterday, I finally picked it up. The book chronicles the life of Jesus in a way that makes it more like a narrative. Not that reading any of the gospels is insufficient in itself, but Moore takes the time to explain certain words and ideas from their original language and context, so that the reader will understand a more complete picture of Jesus. For so many, Bible stories exist in this fictitious, other-world of "way back then," but Moore invites us to imagine with her what things might have been like. Still, she's very clear when it comes to explaining which parts are doctrine, historical facts, and her own imaginings, which is of course important to me because I find nothing more frustrating than someone's misrepresenting God.

While I have by no means finished it yet, I wanted to share some thoughts about what I've read so far and how God has used the book to speak personally to me. I love how He is so personal--how He knows me through and through. I think there are big things happening around me that I've been lately unaware of. Twice this week, I woke up ridiculously early (like yesterday at 4 am) feeling completely awake for some reason. So I start to pray, thinking that maybe someone somewhere needs prayer. Then I got up and pulled out this book, which I've been meaning to start soon.

Chapter one blew me away. It was like God woke me up early just so that I could read these words:

"Have you almost given up on God answering an earnest, long-term prayer of your heart? Not becoming hopeless over a repetitious request can be terribly challenging. God never missed a single petition from the children of Israel to send their Messiah; nor did He miss a solitary plea from the aching hearts of a childless couple. God does not have some limited supply of power, requiring that we carefully select a few choice things to pray about. God's power is infinite. God's grace and mercy are drawn deeply from the bottomless well of His heart...Like Zecharaiah and Elizabeth, continue to walk faithfully with God even though you are disappointed. Walking with God in the day-in/day-out course of life swells your assurance that God is faithful and enjoyable even when a request goes unmet. Recognizing all the other works God is doing in your life will prevent discouragement as you await your answer. Zechariah waited a long time for God's answer, but when it came, it exceeded everything the priest could have thought or asked."

God blessed Zechariah's barren wife with a baby, who turned out to be John the Baptist, the forerunner of the long-awaited Messiah. I'm sure it sucked for Elizabeth to wait all of those years, wondering why God had not given her any children, but the situation made John's birth all the more incredible.

I still hate to wait, but yesterday morning, it was as if God softly whispered in my ear.

I love you, Meredith, and I hear your prayers. Trust me. This is going to be good...