Marriage and L'Abri

Thought provoking, to say the least, Kevin!
Okay, my 2 kids are napping, so I clicked on your links above.
My oh my- how very interesting.
So do you live at a Catholic Worker commune even now? And as an
anarch-pacifist, do you believe in marriage? Have you any children?
The Chalcedon Report, eh? Yes, many Classical Christian education
proponents are theonomists. I know all about it.
So you were asked to leave an Orthodox Presbyterian church, and yet are not
a member of the Roman Catholic Church (or are you?). Do you also, as an
anarch-pacifist, see no need for church, or at least, church "membership"?

And Dorothy Day (founder of Catholic Worker)- right down my alley- reading
about women, especially American women from the beginning of this century.
She was a contemporary of Margaret Sanger's- sex was some new big deal for
women then- having good sex would transform the whole world, they all
thought- I see Day became pregnant before her "common law" marriage with
another man (whom she later left), and that this first pregnancy ended in
abortion. Normally, I would whince- well, I still did whince, but I didn't
totally reject her altogether, because after reading about the women in the
lineage of Jesus Christ (not sure if you read those posts of mine), a
sordid past is not anything with which God is not familiar.

So this other man, Batterham, she had her daugher Tamar with. How very
interesting that she chose the name Tamar- this is one of the women in
Jesus's lineage whose story I retold in that post about a week ago.

You don't have to respond to all of this all at once- sorry- but there's SO MUCH on your site, that my mind ends up racing...

> Thought provoking, to say the least, Kevin!
> Okay, my 2 kids are napping, so I clicked on your links above.
> My oh my- how very interesting.
> So do you live at a Catholic Worker commune even now?

For the last year I have been in the process of moving out of the
CW in Santa Ana and starting a new house in the Coachella Valley.
My grandparents (both deceased now) had a winter home out there,
which I've been invited to use for a good purpose. I'm in the desert
right now, and will head back to Santa Ana/L.A.tomorrow early.

Big fan of marriage, but haven't met a Godly woman who is (nevertheless!)
willing to marry an "anarcho-pacifist." All the anarchistas and pacifistas
I've met haven't been able to stomach my "Bible-banging" fundamentalism.
I'm trapped in a twilight zone between "left" and "right."

If you know any anarcho-pacifist EdithSchaeffer types, willing to
move into a CW-L'abri home, just let me know!

> And Dorothy Day (founder of Catholic Worker)- right down my alley- reading
> about women, especially American women from the beginning of this century.
> She was a contemporary of Margaret Sanger's- sex was some new big deal for
> women then- having good sex would transform the whole world, they all
> thought- I see Day became pregnant before her "common law" marriage with
> another man (whom she later left), and that this first pregnancy ended in
> abortion. Normally, I would whince- well, I still did whince, but I didn't
> totally reject her altogether, because after reading about the women in the
> lineage of Jesus Christ (not sure if you read those posts of mine), a
> sordid past is not anything with which God is not familiar.

I love it when I read about someone that causes me to wince only to
find out that they converted!! There's something really satisfying about that.
I enjoyed William Miller's biography of DD. What have you read by
or about DD?

On the other hand, there's the man DD regarded as the true founder of
the CW, Peter Maurin, about whose past we know comparatively little.
But his present (and doctrine) are great. Ellis' biography (*Prophet
in the 20th Century,* or something like that) of Maurin is one of my
all-time favorite books.

I like to tell Catholic Workers that Dorothy Day was the founder of the
"Religious Right." Early CW papers claimed that the movement was
a movement to the "right," against the Stalinist "left." Everyone
in the CW today, it seems, is on the "left."

I don't always have time to get to the L'abri list, but when I do I look at
your posts, which I enjoy. (The reason I got started reading your posts
in particular was because you have the same name as my sister
[tho' she spells it Amy].) I used to teach in a Christian school (pre-CW).
Then we became a kind of home school clearing house, acting
as legal umbrella for families.

I wish I had something fascinating to contribute re: women biographies,
but I really don't. I like Elisabeth Elliot's books but still haven't gotten
around to reading her bio of Amy Carmichael. Don't know why.

> So this other man, Batterham, she had her daugher Tamar with. How very
> interesting that she chose the name Tamar- this is one of the women in
> Jesus's lineage whose story I retold in that post about a week ago.
>
> Kevin, do you know anything about Tamar Day? Is she living?

I haven't heard anything about Tamar in years. She made Dorothy
a great-grandmother several times over. I'll ask around for the latest.
As I recall (and it's rather foggy, so don't rely on it)
she wasn't named after the woman in the Bible, but TamarA,
and only because DD liked the sound of "Tamara Teresa."
I'm probably wrong. The L.A. CathWkr is having a big seder
this weekend. Lots of old timers will be there. I'll ask 'em all.

You're too kind. I love causing racing! "Do unto others, &c."
Don't hesitate to tell me if you find something that you really hate.
I can take it.

I responded to everything at once because I tend to get swamped and
unable to get back to earlier letters. But I'd love to hear from you again,
if you want to get into a little more detail on any or all of the subjects you
raised.

Thanks again for writing!

Christ's blessings,

Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/KEVIN4VFT/MooreKidz.htm
---------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

Subj: Re: [LABRI-FORUM] Check out http://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday/search.cfm
Date: 4/8/99 11:18:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: arnmrn91@MIDWEST.IDSONLINE.COM (Aimee R. Natal)
Sender: LABRI-F@LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU (Friends of L'Abri conducting L'Abri Style Ministry)
Reply-to: LABRI-F@LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU (Friends of L'Abri conducting L'Abri Style Ministry)
To: LABRI-F@LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU

Hi Kevin,
Interesting about Tamara (Day)- yeah, it IS Tamara- not Tamar. So skip
that other thought.
Anyway- they're distributists, I see- I've learned a little about that from
Steve Schaper on this list. She and her husband David live on a farm in
Vermont- at least, did in the late 70's. It has been almost 30 years since
the journal entries were written which I read (thru the site in the subject
line) of Dorothy's, about visiting Tamar on their farm. And she had 9
children, at that time. Perhaps more before her fertility was gone?
That surprised me. I think I thought Dorothy Day's daughter would not
embrace being a wife, mother and worker in the home. But that is only
because I had not read enough of Dorothy Day herself.

What she says here below, I had to copy and share. It penetrates to the
depths of me.

She wrote, January 19, 1948, while at Tamar's farm, awaiting the birth of
another of Tamar's babies:
"It would seem to the unthinking that mothers of children, whether of one
or a dozen, are intensely preoccupied with creatures; their little ones,
food, clothing, shelter, matters that are down to earth and grossly
material such as dirty diapers, dishes, cooking, cramming baby mouths with
food, etc. Women's bodies, heavy with children, dragged down by children,
are a weight like a cross to be carried about. From morning until night
they are preoccupied with cares but it is care for others, for the duties
God has given them. It is a road once set out upon, from which there is no
turning back. Every woman knows that feeling of not being able to escape,
of the inevitability of her hour drawing ever nearer. This path of pain is
woman's lot. It is her glory and her salvation. She must accept.

We try to escape, of course, either habitually or occasionally. But we
never can. The point I want to make is that a woman can achieve the highest
spirituality and union with God through her house and children, through
doing her work which leaves her no time for thought of self, for
consolation, for prayer, for reading, for what she might consider
development. She is being led along the path of growth inevitably. But she
needs to be told these things, instructed in these things, for her hope and
endurance, so that she may use what prayer she can, to cry out in the
darkness of the night.

Here is her mortification of the senses:

Her eyes are affronted by disorder, confusion, the sight of human
ailments, and human functions. Her nose also; her ears tormented with
discordant cries, her appetite failing often; her sense of touch in agony
from fatigue and weakness.

Her interior senses are also mortified. She is alone with her little
ones, her interest adapted to theirs; she has not even the companionship of
books. She has no longer the gay companions of her youth (their nerves
can't stand it). So she has solitude, and a silence from the sounds she'd
like to hear, conversation, music, discussion.

Of course there are consolations and joys. Babies and small children are
pure beauty, love, joy--the truest in this world. But the thorns are there
of night watches, of illnesses, of infant perversities and contrariness.
There are glimpses of heaven and hell."

wow- thanks for the introduction to a woman whom I now want to know more
about, Kevin. I'm quick to stereotype- and Catholic Worker sounded too
"radical" (whatever THAT is) to me at first- which it very well may
actually be- but Dorothy Day and her daughter's life, witness, are models
we CHristian women need.

more in part 2

Sincerely,
Aimee Natal in IL
..................................
See our Classical Christian Ed website!
http://userweb.idsonline.com/ARNMRN91/index.htm

Subj: [LABRI-FORUM] Aimee's Part 2 about Day, etc...
Date: 4/8/99 11:17:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: arnmrn91@MIDWEST.IDSONLINE.COM (Aimee R. Natal)
Sender: LABRI-F@LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU (Friends of L'Abri conducting L'Abri Style Ministry)
Reply-to: LABRI-F@LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU (Friends of L'Abri conducting L'Abri Style Ministry)
To: LABRI-F@LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU

And Kevin, (I know you'll be away from the computer for a while, but for
when you do get back on)
you say, "If you know any anarcho-pacifist EdithSchaeffer types, willing to
move into a CW-L'abri home, just let me know!"

Dorothy Day herself was actually an Edith Schaeffer type, wasn't she. And
I believe Tamara is, too. Now, politically, they vary, I'm sure- but their
lifestyles are centered around God and their family and home, yet with an
eye to the world, making an effect for Christ upon it.

Before my further reading today, I had thought to write to you that
"anarcho-pacifist" and "Edith Schaeffer types" just don't mix, don't go
together. So that you would need to choose one moreso over the other. If
you are able to live with celibacy and are called more to a "cause," and
want to devote your entire life to this pursuit, then I'd say go heavier on
the "anarcho-pacifist" side.

BUT (I don't know your age, BTW), if living within the mini-community of a
family itself is what you need and desire, the companionship of a lifelong
mate, and the children which result from your union- then that takes
sacrifice, commitment, responsibility, even priority in a man's life. A
"rebel" can't really be a good husband. Settling down does not sit well
with him. The term "family man" comes to mind. --Sort of like finding an
"anarcho-pacifist Edith Schaeffer type." That's like finding a "rebel
family man type." It's hard to be both of those things, without ending up
sacrificing one or the other, at least in some amount (doesn't have to be
entirely).

In my view of Dorothy and Tamara, Tamara has emphasized (and some would
rudely say overemphasized) the "Edith Schaeffer type." meaning- she has
lived a life as a true wife and mother- totally devoted herself, sacrificed
her life for the life of her family (and experienced great reward and
pleasure for it, I'm sure).

Whereas Dorothy, Dorothy lived, in her younger years at least, more of the
"anarcho-pacifist-distributist, socialist and whatever else" type of life.
And in so doing, had an affair (s?), abortion, bore her only child, and had
a "marriage" which was short lived and dissolved completely.

See what I'm saying? I still don't believe one can successfully be both or
have both. I'm sure Tamara has political beliefs, causes, is intelligent
all the same, just as her mother- yet her life was given in being a wife
and mother. If she had given her life to causes, movements, etc..., then I
doubt she would have moved to a remote farm and raised 9 children, let
alone have even gotten married.

Marriage IS a commitment- it's a MAJOR thing- which is what most of us
don't realize initially (if ever), and why the covenants are broken left
and right, all over this country, within the Church and outside of it. And
the children are left with the ruins, which we rationalize as better than
being in the crossfire.

In the end, there'd be no crossfire if BOTH parties weren't shooting off
ammunition. One can cease fire. Again, it's another sacrifice for a woman
to shut up or stop harboring the resentment- in the interests of her
children, she sacrifices. Someone has to. Women especially don't want to
anymore. I know I don't. BUt sometimes I think that's the only way it
EVER worked through all these centuries that have come and gone.

Does that mean I'm a doormat? Maybe I SHOULD be. Was Christ a big haughty
hot shot, demanding His rights, His way, sensitive to every little
perceived wrong or inequality? Rushing off in a huff, screaming his lungs
out at His Bride, the Church? No, He laid down His life so we could
trample upon Him. Just like a doormat.

Bye for now Kevin, and everyone,
Aimee

Sincerely,
Aimee Natal in IL
..................................
See our Classical Christian Ed website!
http://userweb.idsonline.com/ARNMRN91/index.htm

Subj: [LABRI-FORUM] Aimee meets Tamar, pt 1
Date: 4/11/99 1:03:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: KEVIN4VFT@AOL.COM (Kevin Craig)
Sender: LABRI-F@LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU (Friends of L'Abri conducting L'Abri Style Ministry)
Reply-to: KEVIN4VFT@AOL.COM
To: LABRI-F@LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU

In a message dated 4/8/99 11:18:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Aimee
<arnmrn91@MIDWEST.IDSONLINE.COM&rt;writes:

> Anyway- they're distributists, I see- And she had 9
> children, at that time. Perhaps more before her fertility was gone?
> That surprised me. I think I thought Dorothy Day's daughter would not
> embrace being a wife, mother and worker in the home. But that is only
> because I had not read enough of Dorothy Day herself.a

The CW movement has always (in theory) maintained that the life
Tamar led was closer to the ideal than the soup kitchens. I think
you see some of this idealism in Dorothy's descriptions of Tamar's
crafts, etc. DD's writing re: the soup kitchens is always more of a
critique of the effects of the modern world on the poor than it is a
rallying call for more soup kitchens. It is, in fact, a rallying call for
more Tamars.

> What she says here below, I had to copy and share. It penetrates to the
> depths of me.

[snip]

> Her interior senses are also mortified. She is alone with her little
> ones, her interest adapted to theirs; she has not even the companionship of
> books. She has no longer the gay companions of her youth (their nerves
> can't stand it). So she has solitude, and a silence from the sounds she'd
> like to hear, conversation, music, discussion.
>
> Of course there are consolations and joys. Babies and small children are
> pure beauty, love, joy--the truest in this world. But the thorns are there
> of night watches, of illnesses, of infant perversities and contrariness.
> There are glimpses of heaven and hell."

To too great an extent, even Tamar's lifestyle was infected with modern
conceptions of the Family. My model is Abraham. He wasn't a "movement,"
he was just doing what a head of a family should be doing. Hospitality
enlarged the ranks of his household by dozens, if not hundreds. His home
was a home school not just for his own kids (?) but for castaways of
the Empire. Gen 14 reveals that his "domestic apprentices" learned many
skills and were experts at them, and I would bet there was an incredible
diversity of music and discussion around the farm. Music is so central
to the Christian life (just open your Bible up in the middle and see),
that I imagine Abraham had many expert musicians and not just expert
bodyguards. The "nuclear family" is sub-Biblical, and gives us more
a taste of the lonliness of hell than the community and joy of heaven.

> wow- thanks for the introduction to a woman whom I now want to know more
> about, Kevin. I'm quick to stereotype- and Catholic Worker sounded too
> "radical" (whatever THAT is) to me at first- which it very well may
> actually be- but Dorothy Day and her daughter's life, witness, are models
> we CHristian women need.

Now that I think about it, you are so right. An entire book could and
should be edited compiling DD's insights on family and farm. I wonder
if male publishers have kept the wrong DD books in print. Her
"movement" books are still in print, but I notice that her first "On
Pilgrimage" book, from which your 1948 excerpt was taken (?), is
out of print. She said that book was written for women.

DD often reminded her readers that "radical" meant going back to the
"roots," which for the Christian are the Scriptures. The general
understanding of "radical" is now "member of a protest movement,"
or a non-family "hippie." This is not what DD & CW are really about
(though in some cases modern CW Houses have degenerated to this).
Dorothy kicked a few rebellious "hippie-protesters" out of the CW
on occasion.

Families that are not "radical" in the sense Dorothy encouraged
are often families which have sold out to modernism and consumerist
materialism. "Personal Peace and Affluence" as FAS called it.
Most "conservatives" today are "liberals" compared to conservatives
of Dorothy's era. Dorothy's "radicalism" is really arch-conservativism.

Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/VF95Theses/paradigm.htm
---------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

Subj: Re: [LABRI-FORUM] Aimee's Part 2 about Day, etc...
Date: 4/11/99 2:36:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: KEVIN4VFT@AOL.COM (Kevin Craig)
Sender: LABRI-F@LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU (Friends of L'Abri conducting L'Abri Style Ministry)
Reply-to: KEVIN4VFT@AOL.COM
To: LABRI-F@LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU

In a message dated 4/8/99 11:17:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Aimee
<arnmrn91@MIDWEST.IDSONLINE.COM> writes:

> And Kevin, (I know you'll be away from the computer for a while, but for
> when you do get back on)
> you say, "If you know any anarcho-pacifist EdithSchaeffer types, willing to
> move into a CW-L'abri home, just let me know!"
>
> Dorothy Day herself was actually an Edith Schaeffer type, wasn't she. And
> I believe Tamara is, too.

In an immediate sense you are probably correct. But at the end
of the road I believe they would meet. Dorothy the pacifist said she
was for peace. Edith might echo the title of the book to which her
husband contributed: "Who is for Peace?" (the book's answer:
those who are for war. [Excuse my pejorative; "those who are against
pacifism."]). Had these two mothers gotten together, there would have
been some very interesting and powerful exchanges, but I think they
would have come out in agreement. I wish I had the same confidence in men.

In the car on Thursday I heard about 45 seconds of Edith on the L.A.
Christian talk radio station. I wonder what she would think about
the GulfWar and now Kosovo? I hope she and Dorothy Day would have
agreed not to support those wars. (Why aren't the "radicals" protesting
the Democrats' intervention in Yugoslavia? Why do "radicals" only protest
US aggression against leftist regimes?)

But aren't people who are trying to have an effect on the world
"radicals" and "movement" people? (NOT!)

> Before my further reading today, I had thought to write to you that
> "anarcho-pacifist" and "Edith Schaeffer types" just don't mix, don't go
> together.

I wish I had a better set of labels to communicate my position.
Maybe I should forget about labels altogether; labels aren't the
"Mark of a Christian," they are the mark of a "movement" person.

> So that you would need to choose one moreso over the other. If
> you are able to live with celibacy and are called more to a "cause," and
> want to devote your entire life to this pursuit, then I'd say go heavier on
> the "anarcho-pacifist" side.

I hope being a part of a "cause" does not require celibacy.
I hope being a part of a family does not require cultural irrelevance.

> BUT (I don't know your age, BTW), if living within the mini-community of a
> family itself is what you need and desire, the companionship of a lifelong
> mate, and the children which result from your union- then that takes
> sacrifice, commitment, responsibility, even priority in a man's life.

Re: "Mini-community."
Abraham's household was a community. Full-fledged. My belief ("Lord,
help my unbelief" [Mk 9:24]) is that by the time I am Abraham's age
I can have a community of Christian anarcho-pacifists. Or at least
Christians "recovering" from archism and vengeance. I refuse to
believe that the Spiritual power available to Abraham exceeds that
which is available to a Christian in the New Covenant.

Re: Sacrifice, responsibility, etc.
My view of the husband is very conservative: provider, breadwinner,
wife as "helper meet for him." (Gen 2:18)
One reason I gave the decade of the '90's to life in a CW "commune"
is because we lived primarily on donations. We were in many ways
early-RonSider dumpster-divers. I admit I don't have the guts to
live consistently with some of my more "radical" views and be a
good husband. I don't know how to be as good a provider as my
father has been for my mother, and still obey Biblical commands
re: money. For a wild web site, see:

http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/frn/index.htm

I agree with you, Aimee, which is why I am still single. I feel like
my views keep me from being a good provider/bread-winner for
a wife and family. Not only am looking for an anarcho-pacifist Edith
Schaeffer, but also one who sees the problems with
"Federal Reserve Notes" and is willing to sacrifice
"personal peace and affluence" in order to obey God's commands.
(And I have met some EdithSchaeffer types who understood these
issues, but were either not anarcho-pacifists, or were already married!)

Re: my age -- I just crossed the big 4-0, which is how old Isaac
was when his father Abraham got him a wife. :-)
Alas, my parents still haven't been convinced of the necessity
of arranged marriages!

http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/Gen24/notes.htm

[Must continue in next post]

Subj: Re: [LABRI-FORUM] Part [3] about Day, etc...
Date: 4/11/99 2:47:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: KEVIN4VFT@AOL.COM (Kevin Craig)
Sender: LABRI-F@LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU (Friends of L'Abri conducting L'Abri Style Ministry)
Reply-to: KEVIN4VFT@AOL.COM
To: LABRI-F@LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU

In a message dated 4/8/99 11:17:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Aimee
<arnmrn91@MIDWEST.IDSONLINE.COM> writes:

> A
> "rebel" can't really be a good husband. Settling down does not sit well
> with him. The term "family man" comes to mind. --Sort of like finding an
> "anarcho-pacifist Edith Schaeffer type." That's like finding a "rebel
> family man type." It's hard to be both of those things, without ending up
> sacrificing one or the other, at least in some amount (doesn't have to be
> entirely).

"Settling down" has been my dream for years. One of my favorite
"rebels," the French anarcho-socialist Pierre Joseph Proudhon, was
a rebel against statism, and a defender of being able to "settle down"
under one's own "vine & fig tree."

http://members.aol.com /xmaspiracy/6/proudhon.htm

But romantic/idyllic pastoral settings may be a myth (or at least very
hard to attain). It takes a lot of work -- hard struggle -- to "keep
unspotted from the world" (Jas 1:27) and still provide for a family.

Was Francis Schaeffer a bad husband/father because he had
a great impact on the world? Because he was a rebel against
autonomous Humanism and "the New Elite" and started a "movement?"
Being salt and light and remaining unspotted from the world
is my definition of a "radical." I am only in rebellion against the
old age, of which Satan was the prince (see the definition of
"archist" on my "anarchist" web page:

http://member s.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/archist.htm

> In my view of Dorothy and Tamara, Tamara has emphasized (and some would
> rudely say overemphasized) the "Edith Schaeffer type." meaning- she has
> lived a life as a true wife and mother- totally devoted herself, sacrificed
> her life for the life of her family (and experienced great reward and
> pleasure for it, I'm sure).

But Edith, through her books, had a remarkable influence.
Some have argued that Edith may have had as much of an influence
on the people who visited L'Abri as Francis did (the old "seminar vs
cinnamon roll" debate).

> Whereas Dorothy, Dorothy lived, in her younger years at least, more of the
> "anarcho-pacifist-distributist, socialist and whatever else" type of life.

Oh I disagree! Dorothy was on the side of the "archists" in her early
socialist years. (This disagreement is really my fault, getting back
to the problem of labels.) DD was a "socialist and whatever else"
but NOT (at that point) an anarcho-pacifist or distributist. She
was more of a hedonist (though a hedonist with an un-cauterized,
emerging conscience [1 Tim 4:2; Eph. 4:19]). It was said she
could drink Eugene O'Neill under the table (and any other of her
Bohemian co-rebels). Tamar (I don't think) spent much time in
bars.

> And in so doing, had an affair (s?), abortion, bore her only child, and had
> a "marriage" which was short lived and dissolved completely.
>
> See what I'm saying?

I agree totally. "Anarcho-pacifist" does not mean (for me) a Bohemian
hedonist. The Bohemian lifestyle is incompatible with marriage,
if not life itself. My presently-unattained goal is to combine marriage
with being salt and light; family with radical adherence to the Scriptures.

> I still don't believe one can successfully be both or
> have both. I'm sure Tamara has political beliefs, causes, is intelligent
> all the same, just as her mother- yet her life was given in being a wife
> and mother. If she had given her life to causes, movements, etc..., then I
> doubt she would have moved to a remote farm and raised 9 children, let
> alone have even gotten married.

Tamar was totally the product of her mother. She was the fruit of her labor
in more than one way. Tamar lived what Dorothy (and esp. Peter
Maurin, CW co-founder) exhorted. (I might also draw a parallel with
what Paul Weyrich was saying a couple months ago.)

> Does that mean I'm a doormat? Maybe I SHOULD be. Was Christ a big haughty
> hot shot, demanding His rights, His way, sensitive to every little
> perceived wrong or inequality? Rushing off in a huff, screaming his lungs
> out at His Bride, the Church? No, He laid down His life so we could
> trample upon Him. Just like a doormat.
>
> Bye for now Kevin, and everyone,
> Aimee

As a pacifist, I have frequently been accused of doormat theology.
I don't believe in "rights":

http://members .aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/rights.htm

And I skipped the Los Angeles Catholic Worker's Seder (so I wasn't
able to ask anyone there about whether Tamar is still alive. Sorry, Aimee,
but I'll try some other channels.) I skipped in part because I was helping
a friend with a car which lost its alternator, but also in part because
(even though I love the people a great deal) the event itself is not a
family feast like the Biblical passover originally was, but it is sort of
a highly politicized "protest," a "movement" event, staged for consumption
by "radicals." (I've endured the "protest" side of this seder over the years
because I love meeting the people there, but this year I was too tired
to get through that.)

So here's my question:
Can a Christian (that is, a radical one) successfully combine marriage,
family, hospitality, and being salt and light? The **direction** of my
political involvement or cultural influence may be different from that
of the Schaeffers (call me "unpatriotic"), but the **degree** of involvement
I envision is not fundamentally greater. Maybe I'm "over the hill" and will
end up marrying a widow whose own kids are just now "leaving
the nest." But in theory the question still intrigues me. Did the
Schaeffers neglect other duties to advance the "L'Abri movement?"
If not, then neither did (or would have) Dorothy Day, and if not,
I'm still on the prowl for an anarcho-pacifist Edith Schaeffer. :-)

Thanks for a thought-provoking letter, Aimee! Your inquiry and enthusiasm
over Tamar brought a refreshing reminder of my own goals. This
has been very good.

Kevin Craig
http://members.aol.com/V F95Theses/paradigm.htm
---------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7

Kevin's Wacked-out views on
Marriage, L'Abri, Dorothy Day, and "Anarcho-Pacifism"

The Christmas Conspiracy

Virtue

Vine & Fig Tree

Paradigm Shift