Eldan's Photoshoot

My son (for whom this blog was named) was recently given the opportunity to be in a promotional photoshoot for a local photographer. If you would like to see the results, click here. What can I say? The kid's got charm!

A "Housewife" or a "Stay at Home Mom"

(The following article was submitted by my wife, Danielle Doan)

The question I would like to propose to you in my first blogging attempt is this: Are you a housewife or a stay at home mom? Looking at those two statements, you are probably thinking, “what’s the difference.” In the general sense both are referring to a woman who has the wonderful privilege of having her home as her primary “job.” But, when you delve a little deeper you will see that there is a distinct philosophical difference between the two titles. Hopefully by the end of this article you will see this distinction.

My husband and I have just recently finished reading the book, A Family of Value by John Rosemond. In his book he discusses the problems of modern parenting. In a parenthetical section he discusses the change that has occurred in a woman’s role in the family. Where in the past a wife and mother would have been called a “housewife”, she has now been given the title of a “stay at home mom”. A housewife was a woman who was married, stayed at home and was a wife first and a mother second. Her main goal was to make her husband a success and rear obedient children. And yes, she also had her own hobbies and activities that she was involved in.

Unfortunately modern women have digressed to the role of a “stay at home mom. “ Hear me out before you draw the wrong conclusions. Today children run the schedule. A woman has become a mom first, wife second. The funny thing is that most stay at home moms are rarely ever home. Between soccer, piano, play groups, etc., moms have become nomads who basically use their minivans as a “home base”. No, I am not saying that these activities are wrong, but who is often left on the back burner?--Dad. Our families are falling apart and we are letting it happen.

Now please realize as you are reading this I am a new mother of an adorable four month old baby boy (see pictures for proof). So most of what I have written is theory. But, I realized after I read the section of the book about being a housewife that I had already starting giving less time and energy to my husband and my marriage. I am not advocating child neglect. One of the most important things you can do for your children, as a mother, is to stay home and be there for them. However, I would say that something even more important for them is that you love and adore your husband. The most secure children are those who know there parents love them and that their parents love each other.

So which will it be for you? As I am still adjusting to my new roles in life, I am making it my goal to keep the perspective of a housewife.

On Pragmatism

A few weeks ago, I caught myself thinking about one of my college class lectures. I don’t do this very often because I don’t remember the specifics of most of the lectures I attended. This particular lecture, however, holds firm in my memory. I think this is because of the question that the guest lecturer repeated numerous times during the class period. I remember him asking the following question at least a half-dozen times, “Men [the class was comprised entirely of ministerial students], are you going to do what is right or what works in your ministry?” This question was the essence of his lecture that day. His motive, as it became clearly evident, was to dissuade that group of future ministry leaders from becoming enveloped in the philosophy of ministry that is willing to compromise in order to grow. A philosophy which characterizes the so-called “seeker-friendly church” movement that has been popularized by several well-known pastors of several well-known “mega-churches” in our nation. I don’t remember much else of what he said that day, but I will never forget that question. (Probably because he repeated it so often.)

I was prompted to recall that lecture by a number of statements I have heard or read in recent months. Statements which appear to draw the same line of distinction that this guest lecturer drew in my class over five years ago. This man’s oft-repeated question and the statements to which I referred above all seem to create a very strict dichotomy for ministry methodology. Judging from these statements alone, it appears that pastors and ministry leaders have but two choices for how they will conduct their ministries day by day—they can do what is right or they can do what works. The logical conclusion of this dichotomy is that what is right will not work and that what works cannot be right. Granted, most of the men who make these types of statements would hardly agree that what is right will not work. There does appear to be an underlying assumption on their part, however, that what works simply cannot be right, and that is an assumption that bothers me. At times, I sense a fear in the church circles in which I currently reside (which are of the Independent Fundamental Baptist variety) that any new idea or method in ministry that attracts large numbers and is especially appealing to people is probably a compromise of scriptural principles. If people like it, are comfortable with it, and it’s new, then it cannot be right! Conversely, the methods that worked in the “good old days” may not be as popular with the masses today but they are the right ones. (Or so goes the argument as I understand it.)

My only purpose in this entry is to challenge myself and anyone who reads this to evaluate our convictions about ministry methodology. Notice, please, that I did not say doctrine. I believe that our doctrine should be founded firmly upon solid interpretation of the Scriptures and that doctrinal convictions, if they can be clearly supported scripturally, should never be changed for the purpose of making ministry “work” better. I hope the reader will admit, however, that doctrine and methods are two related yet distinct areas. Perhaps it is a failure to recognize this distinction that causes some to be wary of new methods. In my few (and I do mean few) years of seriously studying the Bible, I have found that God has said much more about doctrine than He has about methods. Much of what is preached or taught as “scriptural” methods is often nothing more than faulty exegesis or a case of a descriptive passage given prescriptive weight (i.e.-Acts 20:20).

I think the reason that God chose not to dictate many specific methods to the church for fulfilling her commission is the simple fact that the NT age would span a period of 2,000 years (at least). Methods are intricately interwoven with the era in which they are used. Methods are very much a cultural phenomenon. What works for one people group or generation may not be effective for another people group or generation. I am sure numerous foreign missionaries could testify to that fact based on their own experiences. As the times change, so, inevitably, do the methods to a certain extent. Most 1st century Christians, no doubt, would feel quite strange attending a modern church service (Fundamental or not). Why? Because the typical way we conduct our services today (our method), is quite different from they way they were conducted by Peter the Apostle in Jerusalem.

The reason ministry methods are subject to so much fluctuation is this—methods are inherently pragmatic. A method is simply a way of getting something done. A local church doesn’t do things just to do things. At least they shouldn’t. They do things for a purpose—ostensibly a godly purpose. They choose a particular way of doing something in order that they might fulfill their purpose. Although they may cite various reasons of principle for choosing a particular technique, the underlying reason they use that method is because they want it to work—pragmatism. I doubt many pastors would insist on using a method that they knew positively wouldn’t work simply because of principle. (Although there might be some!) An auto mechanic doesn’t concern himself with the question of whether it’s right to use a socket wrench to loosen that bolt. The bottom line is—he has to get the bolt off somehow and he knows a socket wrench will get the job done. If there ever came a time when socket wrenches wouldn’t get the job done, he would use another tool and not think twice about it. Some in ministry have trouble accepting new methods because they have forgotten that a method is essentially a socket wrench—a tool—a way to get the job done. A method is not primarily an issue of right and wrong but an issue of what works. (I’ll qualify that statement in a minute.)

Now, I am sure there a number in my circles who would disagree with my conclusions about methods. Many Fundamentalists feel strongly that the “right” methods that worked a generation or two ago will surely work for today because they are “right” methods. The strongest argument against this thinking is the undeniable fact that church methods have changed over the last 2,000 years. For the most part, we haven't done things in the last 100 years the way they were done in Paul’s day. What are we to make of this fact? If methods are unchanging statues of morality, then that means either that one group of Christians has been wrong in their methods or it means that the standard of right and wrong has changed. I doubt seriously that anyone would assert the latter. To give a particular method in ministry the exclusive status of being the “right way” not only speaks where the Bible has not (in most cases) but it paints ministry leaders into a corner. The socket wrench may no longer be getting the job done, but the pastor refuses to use another tool for fear of compromising on what he has been led to believe is “right.” If methods are, as I have stated here, primarily tools for the job, then methods can be updated, modified, or even replaced without a guilty conscience. (Again, there are some qualifying statements coming.)

Many ministry leaders who find themselves in the philosophical position of my guest-lecturer—a “what’s right or what works” position— will find a startling conclusion if they honestly evaluate their convictions. I truly believe that many of the “right” methods used by previous generations (door-to-door soul-winning, tent revivals, “come-forward” invitations, and three services a week to name a few) were given the exalted position of being right, not because God established them, but because they worked. I won’t deny it. For a time, these methods flourished. To some extent, they still work today. Yet, somewhere along the way we confused the quality of effectiveness with the quality of “rightness.”

We need to evaluate our convictions in the area of ministry methods. We need to see methods for what they are—tools. Although methods should be based upon standards of right and wrong, they are not themselves the standard of right and wrong. If the time comes, as I believe it is, when some of these tools no longer get the job done, it is not only acceptable for the next generation of ministry leaders to find new, more effective tools—it is absolutely necessary. Can we not do what is right and what works?

Qualifying Statements
Lest anyone misunderstand or misrepresent my position, let me offer the following:

1) I am not arguing that methods are amoral or neutral. Nor am I adopting a “the end justifies the means” position in which a method is right if the motive behind it is right. On the contrary, I believe every method can be classified as either right or wrong. Any method which violates Scriptural principle or precept is a wrong method. It just seems to me that the number of right methods is larger (quite a bit larger) than many in my circles will admit.
2) I am not arguing that a method should be evaluated solely on the basis of whether or not it works. There are a number of factors that a ministry leader should take into consideration when deciding what methods to use. Not the least of these is the question of whether a method violates Scriptural principle or precept.
3) I am not arguing that the methods used by Fundamentalists and others in the previous two or three generations are wrong and should therefore be discarded with out further notice. That would make me guilty of the very narrow-mindedness I am attempting to oppose. I simply believe that a ministry leader ought to be able to choose the morally right methods (of which there are many) that he believes are best for accomplishing his ministry goals. He ought to be able to do this in the freedom of his own conscience without being publically berated by others or suffering the Fundamentalist version of excommunication.
4) Finally, I am not arguing that the leaders of America's "mega-churches" are as innocent as the wind-driven snow. It is my opinion the typical response to these men from those in my circles is often over-blown and of the "knee-jerk" variety. I must admit, however, that the prophets of the "seeker-friendly" movement and I do not agree on a number of doctrinal and practical issues.

Vacation Video 2006

If you would like to view an 8 minute video of our recent summer vacation, simply click on the black screen and then on the play button below. If the video does not play within a few seconds, please click here to watch it.

Fearfully and Wonderfully

On several occasions during our two week hiatus in Colorado, I was struck with the incredible detail of God's creation. I saw this on a cloudy Thursday afternoon as we drove through Rocky Mountain National Park on Trail Ridge Road. The mountain vistas are unbelieveable. A powerful rain storm blew across the region in an impressive demonstration of God's strength. During our short outing, I was rejoicing in God's expert craftsmanship. Yet, when we returned to the house, I was also reminded of the greatness of God's creation as I watched my son lying on a blanket on the living room floor. He lay there-arms and legs in a state of perpetual motion-smiling, cooing, and focusing on things around him. The changes that I see in him are astounding--and its only been two months! I never realized one of the most amazing parts of having a child--that is, watching your baby develop and grow day by day. It's almost as if you are witnessing God's creative process as it happens. I was not a spectator when the mountains of RMNP were formed. I am sure it was an awe-inspiring sight. Yet, what an incredible priviledge to be an eye-witness to the developmental process of the crown-jewel of God's creation--a human life. I know it will happen faster than I think, so I am going to just sit back and enjoy the show.

First Impressions

Eldan with his great-great grandmother, known affectionately as "Mouse." Now how many kids do you know who have met their great-great grandmother?

Eldan and great-grandmother Gatley on June 2nd, 2006.

We are in Colorado for 2 weeks visiting my side of the family. Eldan has done very well so far considering all of the time he has spent in his car-seat the last few days! More vacation pictures are forthcoming!

Parenthood...it's true--so far.

My wife was pregnant for about 9 months. This, from what I am told, is normal. You see, for the 40 weeks of pregnancy and the 7 weeks since, I have discovered that when people find out a couple is expecting (a baby) this knowledge produces two results: 1st, people suddenly feel the freedom to touch or rub the woman's belly, and 2nd, people feel the responsibility to give you advice and words of parental wisdom and encouragement (mostly unsolicited, I might add.)

I must admit that before Eldan was born, I grew quite weary of both of these results, the latter in particular. At times, I wanted to firmly but kindly tell people to mind their own business. It seemed as if everyone was saying the same thing in slightly different ways. As my wife's due date approached, I was more than ready to hear the last of these deep thoughts. "Everybody's an expert!" I thought scornfully.

However, as I look back over the first two months of my son's life, I have to admit (grudgingly) that much of what my wife and I have been told is true. I have chosen several of the most common tidbits of insight to include in this post.

1) "Delivery isn't really that bad, when it's your own child." - I heard this comment countless times because it was a well-known fact that I was quite nervous about being in the delivery room. Hospitals and I have never been on good terms, and I have come close to fainting in several situations involving needles. I sincerely longed for the bygone era when the father waited outside the delivery room with a card game or a good, long book. Despite my protests, my wife stubbornly insisted that I be present for the arrival of our firstborn. (My mom was standing close by in case I lost consciousness or my lunch.) I had determined not to look at...anything...except my wife's face. As we grew closer to the final push, however, my curiosity was insatiable. I decided to look, just once. To my great surprse, I was not nauseated in the least. I saw the top of a head and EARS! Real ears! I was fascinated. I couldn't look away. I continued to watch until Dr. Harper cut the umbilical cord. (Which, by the way, was still gross.)

2) "Newborn diapers don't smell that bad." - Diaper-changing was one aspect of parenthood I was not in any way anticipating. For 25 years I had cleverly avoided this task because it was always someone else's baby that needed changing. A cousin, a sibling, a friend, it didn't matter. It wasn't my baby, so it wasn't my responsibility. Now, there was no avoiding it. The kid would have my genes, so I had no choice. I was even less enthusiastic when the nurse at the hospital told me I needed to make sure that all crevices were clean. CREVICES! That was one thing I didn't want to hear. Because of some unexpected circumstances, I changed more diapers in the first five days of Eldan's life than I had ever planned to. And now, as a well-seasoned diaper changer, I must admit--they really don't smell that bad. They do smell, but the doo-doo isn't necessarily stomach-turning. I have also learned that diaper-changing can even be a bonding time. (As long as your child isn't screaming bloody murder at the time.)

3) "You'll fall in love with your baby the moment you see him." - I am an emotional guy. Just ask anyone who was at my wedding. (Does the word "bluthering" mean anything to you?) I wasn't sure how I would react when my child was born. Would I start weeping? Would I start laughing? Would I do both? My wife told me that someone made the above statement, and I was kind of skeptical. I must testify, however, it's true! I don't know quite how to explain it, but it's true. I didn't feel as emotional as I thought I would. I didn't cry, I didn't laugh, I didn't do anything. I just felt an overwhelming sense that this baby boy was mine. He was completely depending on us for everything. He was a little life, and he was (and is) mine...well, ours. It's weird, but its true. If there is such a thing in the world as love at first sight, it happened in a labor suite in Licking Memorial Hospital in Newark, Ohio on April 12, 2006, around 9:25pm.

So, despite my irritation, I have come to the point where I will freely admit--much of what you hear is true. Parenthood is as scary, rewarding, exciting, frustrating, and fun as people say it is--at least, so far it is. Check back in with me in a couple years and I'll give you an update. I am sure, however, that my opinion will be the same.

Me, my wife, and my firstborn

Eldan Andrew Doan arrived on April 12, 2006 at 9:18 in the evening.
Although it has been a challenge adjusting to our new lives as parents, we are enjoying Eldan immensely!

New Header