sickies

It's been quiet around here, and it may continue to be for a little while longer as we fend off a pair of sinus infections. All the best to you and yours during this beautiful Holy Week.

bruises by train

Not long ago, I was tooling around in my car and a Train song came on the radio. I really liked the song, and as Amazon would have it, the album was on super-sale just that day. So I plinked down my two dollars and have been enjoying it ever since. Today, I thought I'd share a different song from that album with you.

If I hear it correctly, it's two friends from high school who haven't seen each other in ages -- 10 years or more. They're catching up on each other's lives, careers, relationship statuses, etc. It's kind of a cute conversation, and they each have some big ups and downs to share. It's the chorus that I like, though. It refers to the "downs" as bruises, and it says that everybody's got 'em and they are what make for good conversation.

That idea -- that our willingness to show our "bruises" contributes to good conversation -- has been rattling around in the back of my mind as I get to know my new friends here a little better. As I share more of my history with people who haven't been around to witness most of it, I feel the weight of there being too much...too much drama, too much pain, too many seemingly bad choices (even too many babies!). I worry that my story is too much, and that I bring too much to the table, and therefore I am not enough. My friends have not once given this impression, but the insecurity persists.

This song has been a nice reminder, popping up in my memory here and there and speaking a sort of peace into the occasional storm of thoughts. It's ok, it's really ok; people will still love me, and I am not inferior...I'm even possibly more interesting! Pat Monahan is maybe not the calibre of spiritual advisor I'd seek out, but I do think he'd be a good friend (and, in my case, a celebrity crush that has lasted 13 years and counting). And with that thought, I'll leave you with this:

breaking the habit of "us"

As I get further out from being part of an "us" and I spend more time talking to new friends, I find myself not knowing what to do when there's a relevant reason for mentioning something from my past life, whether it's a story or what. I hate feeling like I am bringing up my dead marriage and all of that, but at the same time I don't want to NOT share aspects of myself just because they are, in my memory, inextricably linked with my ex.

For example, if I am talking about dog breeds with someone (which is something I do!) it might be relevant to mention the fact that I had a border collie when I was married. I don't have her now, and my ex doesn't either (she now lives with a family that has three young kids she can herd). Sometimes just saying I used to have a border collie is enough, but sometimes there are follow-up questions that would require me to mention my ex in some way or another. Is that weird? I can't decide; regardless, though, I don't like talking about him. But I haven't figured out a workaround.

There are some times when I can just say "when I lived in Denver" or "when I was going to the Presbyterian church" or whatever, but that doesn't always work. Talking about being a single-car family, for example. These days, it makes sense that I would be a "single car family" because I'm the only adult; there was a time, however, when I was part of a pair of adults sharing one car, and I don't know how to refer to that. It's weird if I say "when I lived in Richmond, we only had one car" because the pronouns don't match up and not everyone I talk to knows I'm divorced. Gah! This kind of thing doesn't happen often, but it happened a couple of times recently so it's niggling me.

I think the biggest issue is that I still feel compelled, at some level, to tell "the whole truth" all the time. It doesn't matter that I went to a firing range because it was something my husband and I did together; all that is significant is that I've been to one. There's a shift that needs to happen, somewhere in my mind and in my habits, but identifying exactly what needs to shift and how to make it happen has proven tricky.

Maybe it's just something that comes with time. Thank goodness there's plenty of that left.

friday link, baptism edition

Just one link today. Here's something a friend posted on Facebook recently on ways to celebrate your baptism. Just thought I'd share! It's got some great ideas for remembering your baptism and/or that of your child(ren). Maybe I'll get to do some of these with my own boy!

Do you celebrate your baptism anniversary? Would you?

i vote for the andorpersand

Here's a little example of something my editorial colleagues and I find humorous:

Eight new and necessary punctuation marks

What strikes me as salient about these punctuation marks is that quite a few of them would offer signals about intent that would otherwise be missed due to the nature of the writing - presumably text messaging, where things are often written in haste and there isn't much opportunity to craft and nuance your words in a way that conveys your mood (for example, the "I'm not angry" and sarcasm-related punctuation). I wonder if the coming years will see the development of new punctuation (or repurposed punctuation) to meet that need.

Which one is your favorite?

some thoughts on baptism

This school year I've been going through the adult inquirer's class at the church where I've sort of planted myself. Inquiring means I am learning about pertinent topics in Christianity and how we as Christians and as Episcopalians can begin to think about these topics.

Most recently the class talked about baptism. I have never really understood baptism, and whenever I've tried to understand baptism, I get stuck in the "infant baptism doesn't make sense" trap. In short, here's the deal: baptism is a one-time thing (at least for mainline denominations). Once you're baptized, you're baptized. You can't undo it and you can't re-do it, either. The purpose of baptism is to set yourself apart with a public declaration of your acceptance of God, Jesus, the gospel, etc. There's a covenant involved, where you answer questions and make a commitment out loud in front of the congregation (who also makes commitments to you). It's an act of intent, and most people are required to go through some sort of education process beforehand, because it's kind of a big deal.

So because it's kind of a big deal, it's a one-time-only thing, and it's a personal commitment, the question is, why do we baptize babies? They aren't capable of making this commitment and shouldn't we let them choose for themselves? I was generally of this persuasion until this last inquirers class. That's when one of the other parents in my discussion group said something about how meaningful the line in the Episcopal baptismal covenant says "you are marked as a Child of God" (or something like that), and I started to rethink my stance.

It probably goes without saying at this point that Gabriel isn't baptized. This is in part because I wasn't sure I "agreed" with infant baptism, and it's also in part due to the fact that his dad is a minister and there is some inherent conflict there that I am not quite ready to face. If I had him baptized, I would want it to be at our church, where the people know and love him and he'll presumably grow up. I imagine Brian pictures himself as the one to baptize Gabriel, but I for personal reasons have a lot of reservations about that, because among other things I think it would be painful, awkward, or both, especially if he's still a baby. We could do it at my church, and the priests there have offered to have Brian involved if we did that, but it would be strange for me to see Brian in that context. We could do it at whatever church he'll be serving next, but that would be really weird for me, and I'm not sure what the point is if it's a congregation where no one knows him and he has no real connections. Someone suggested doing it at Brian's home church, where people know and care about all of us, but I don't plan on darkening their threshold any time soon, so that's out for me, too. There aren't any other churches in the area where we have any ties, too. So if I want to pursue this baptism thing, I am left with doing it somewhere not-at-a-church, which is fine except it kind of goes in contrast to one of my biggest draws to baptism -- the congregational witness. So I'm back to thinking maybe I shouldn't impose baptism on him and let him decide for himself when he's older, so we can follow his lead.

Hearing that line about him being marked as a child of Christ, though -- that's something this mama very much wants for her little boy.

for all you overly curious out there

Just a little heads up: I've added a new Goodreads widget to the blog layout.

Don't you just love that word? Widget. Hilarious.