Winning at Potluck

When I lived in the South, there was some aversion to the word "potluck" because we Christians know there is no such thing as luck. Providence and all that... 

Regardless of what you call it, pitch-in-dinner, pot-providence, whatever, the people of the South know how to do it. During my over 16 years living in the American South, I never once attended a potluck dinner where there wasn't enough food. Not once. They are the experts. I don't know if they invented the potluck, but they know how to win it.

Southerners don't need instructions on how to potluck, but in the geographic area of America where I live now, the people definitely need some instructions. I have been to countless potlucks in which the food ran out before everyone had gone through the line. It's a travesty. Especially if I spent two hours in the early morning preparing a dish or two and I go home hungry. Why does this happen here with such regularity?

It's simple. Some people need help. They need some guidelines. It doesn't have to be complicated, but apparently it needs to be said. So I'm going to say it. Here are the potluck rules. Follow them and be filled.

Rule #1
Make Enough to Feed Your Own Family and AT LEAST Two Other People. 
This is aimed at the wives/moms who are the ones doing the cooking in most conservative Christian families. Make a main dish. It can be a meat dish like a meatloaf or it can be a casserole. Tuna and noodles is just fine. If you have 7 in your family, your potluck main dish should serve AT LEAST 9 people. You might  need to bump up your regular recipe, maybe double it, just in case. Be generous. This is probably the only meal that people are going to eat today!

Rule #2
Make a Dessert.
That's right. Bring a main dish AND a dessert. You and your children are going to eat a main dish AND a dessert, right? So bring both.

Just a word here about salads and side dishes:  Don't worry about it. No one is going to go home disappointed if there wasn't enough coleslaw or green beans. If your main dish tastes better with a particular side dish, for example you don't like meatloaf unless you have mashed potatoes, then go ahead and bring a side. But don't bring a side dish INSTEAD of a main dish. The only exception is if you are a widow or a single person and it would be outside of your ability or budget to bring a main dish. Single young people can get away with bringing something from the deli, like a potato salad or a bag of Nacho Cheese Doritos. Everyone likes those and we don't expect single people to know how to cook for a crowd.

Rule #3
Teach Your Children How to Go Through a Potluck Line
Parents need to teach this and someone from the church should remind parents about it right before they ask God to bless the food and the potlucking commences. Children under 10 (and maybe even 12) should not be allowed to go through the food line alone. One or both parents should accompany them. Young children need someone else to hold their plate. The church should provide trays for moms trying to fill 3 or 4 plates at once.

I have been to churches that invite moms with young children to go through the line first. This is ideal because the older children can help the moms with younger children, since the older children are not worried about getting into the line.

Children should only take food that they are very likely to actually eat. This isn't the time to force your children to try some of everything. If they don't like broccoli salad, leave that for the adults who DO like it and will be happy to get it. It is better if a child goes through the line and ends up with only one food that she will eat than if she has 10 items that end up in the trash. At potlucks, children may be more interested in playing than eating, so don't  make a scene. If you are worried that your own children will be hungry later, then either train them to suck it up or bring a snack in the diaper bag that they can eat later.

Do not let children go directly to the dessert table. Everyone should go through the regular line before visiting the dessert table. At my church, there are adults who go directly to the dessert table upon entering the potluck room and take a dessert to their table to make sure they get the dessert they want. This is completely unbelievable to me and the height of selfishness. If the worst thing that happens to you after a great day of worship and fellowship is that you don't get the dessert you want, you should sleep well. They are also setting a terrible example for the children who are being taught to delay their gratification.

Teach your children to take only one dessert. This may be two cookies or one piece of cake or pie. After it is clear that everyone has had a chance to get a dessert and there are still goodies remaining, children may return for a second dessert.

Rule #4

Take Responsibility For Set Up

 At a southern potluck dinner, each person who brings food will find a place on the serving table to set her dish (usually grouped by category: main dish, sides, dessert) and will provide or find some sort of serving utensil to place in the dish. For some reason that I cannot get anyone to explain, in this area, one or two people are expected to do all of the set up, including heating anything that needs heating, setting the food out at the appropriate time and making sure there is a serving utensil. If the meal is taking place following the worship service, the kitchen help are expected to be absent from worship so they can stay in the kitchen and "prepare" the potluck. I put "prepare" in quotes because the whole point of the potluck is that no one has to do anything except bring a dish to share and set it out. If it needs to be heated, or ingredients need to be combined, that task is performed by THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE DISH! 

I was shocked the first time I was in the kitchen placing my casserole in the oven before worship in order to keep it warm for dinner, and other women started coming into the kitchen with their food and started explaining to me what needed to be done with it. Sort of the same way parents just drop their babies in the church nursery for someone else to deal with. I had no idea why they were telling me what temperature oven was needed and what time it needed to go into the oven so it would be hot, but not burnt, at potluck hour. They were not happy when I told them that I had every intention of being at every second of the worship service and had no plans to stand around in the kitchen like some sort of caterer. 

Anyway, if you are new to the place, and you don't know where to find the serving spoons, bring your own from home or just ask where the drawer is located. If you are bringing a dish that needs to be served hot, bring it in a slow cooker or put it in the oven which will be set on a low temperature for that purpose. Don't bring raw food and expect to be able to turn the oven up to 400 degrees and have someone else cook it while you're worshipping. Obviously (ok, maybe it isn't obvious to everyone) all the women can't expect to use the oven to cook their food at the same time, and while the worship service is happening. 

Bring it hot and ready to eat, and put it where it belongs so we minimize the amount of time and the effort needed between when worship ends and when we start eating. 

And that's it! If you follow these simple rules and teach the rest of the families at your church to do likewise, you will never run out of food. You will have enough for visitors and sometimes  you will even take home a few leftovers. That's why you should always make food that you, yourself, like to eat. You may have to eat it.

Did I forget anything? What is your experience with potlucks, especially at church? What do you think about churches assigning which families bring what? What about those websites where you list what you're bringing? (I hate those)

Don't Do It Just Like the World, but Expect Different Results

I was prompted to blog today by this post over at Dalrock.

Dalrock was asked some questions by a commenter named Rachel about how to help her daughters find husbands. Her inquiries concerned her daughters' behavior with young men and whether a Christian girl should "settle" in choosing a marriage partner. This mother obviously has concerns about her daughters being at risk for spinsterhood and she wants to avoid that. 

While Rachel didn't mention her husband, Dalrock said that she does have a husband. If that is the case, why is she not following his lead on this matter of marrying off the daughters? Why did Dalrock, who blogs specifically for Christian men, not direct her to seek wisdom from her husband? To his credit, Dalrock admitted that he has no experience in this area. But one thing I have learned from knowing God is that God empowers those whom He has put in authority and gives wisdom to those who ask, without upbraiding.

Unfortunately, Dalrock went on to offer advice on the behavior of young women in general. By doing this, he is consenting to the presupposition that single women should be on the hunt for their own husbands and that they are somehow qualified by their design to do this. It is saying, if only we can explain these things to women, they will behave exactly correctly and use good judgment and make right decisions. And yet we know, and Dalrock knows from his years in the manosphere that women, by their very design, do NOT make good decisions based on reason and sense.

Women are simply unqualified to decide who they should marry. It isn't a matter of intelligence or training. It isn't even a matter of godly character.

What should Dalrock have done instead? He should have appealed to men who have already had success with their daughters. He should have appealed to men who have spent years studying the Bible to see what God has said about marriage, about sex, and about avoiding fornication. Interestingly, in the comments, such a man appeared!

Most of the comments consist of complaining about how awful women are and how hopeless it is to think a man can get a good wife or that daughters can be raised to adulthood without rebelling and fornicating and choosing the world over Christ. And when a commenter suggests that dads can have fulfilling marriages and joyful daughters who look to dad to find them a husband by following the guidance of the Word, the other men pile on with shouts of "You'll go to jail!" "It can't be done!" "It's too hard!" "No one will like you!"

Yes. Daddy is not a popular guy. So what? Do you want your daughter to be a fornicator or a spinster? Do you want her to be a shrieking feminist? If not, take heart. God is good and He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.

There are a LOT of comments, so hopefully this link will take you to where the good comments start.

Dreams of Our Daughters

At some point before our daughter was married, my husband was speaking with the father of a man who could have been a potential suitor. My husband was explaining to the father that our daughter had been prepared for marriage and that she was looking forward to becoming a wife and a mother. Then, as if the father had not heard a thing that was said he responded with, "That's all fine, but what are her dreams?"

Huh? What are her dreams? Did you just hear what my husband said? She wants to be a wife. She is looking forward to fulfilling the role for which she was created. Only women can be wives. Only women can be mothers. It is the most important thing she will ever do. She will impact the lives of countless thousands by becoming a wife.

I am somewhat confused as to why men would find it an attractive trait in a potential wife that she wants to be something other than a wife.

Perhaps I have been jaded by the lies I've been told by both the world AND the church. Actually, I KNOW I'm jaded by it. I am not going to pass along those lies to my daughters. It is depressing to think that they may embrace such lies after they leave my home, but they certainly won't hear them from me. And I will actively work to prepare them to resist untruth.

So you can imagine how refreshed I was to read this post at Chalcedon by Jenni Zimmerman. I hope you will click on the link and see what she has to say about their oldest daughter.

Like EVERY author I have read in my life, I don't agree with absolutely everything Jenni says. I don't even agree with everything I've ever written. So I will just say up front, in case anyone is wondering, I do not agree with this statement that she makes, and don't believe the Bible teaches or supports this view of wives:

 She is chief counselor to her husband, knowing the word of God alongside him, giving godly counsel when needed.

Raising daughters is difficult. I appreciate what the Zimmermans are doing with their daughters and I stand with them, encouraging them to stay the course. Perhaps it won't be long until their oldest daughter is married and putting all of her good training to use. 

Breastfeeding is NOT Immodest

I saw this very interesting story and thought it would go well with my post here.

In my previous post, I tried to make the case that Christians ought to own the idea that openly breastfeeding human children is normal. I know that several of the links in that story are broken now, but the point still stands and there are still some good images remaining.

In this link you will see some photos that I would call precious. Mothers, cherishing their limited time of nourishing their children at their breasts. Don't look if you are too squeamish and are still judging God for His audacious design, that design where He actually caused human milk, food for infants, to be manufactured within breasts. Further, He designed for the milk to be removed from the breast and made available to babies by means of suckling. Scandalous, I know.

Here is the link again, in case you missed it above: Victorian-era Deguerreotypes of Women Breastfeeding


After posting the above, I came across this in the Daily Mail

Teach the Young Women To Love Their Husbands

This is going to be a follow up to my previous post on whether husbands and wives should be best friends. In the comments on that post, the topic of how a woman should love her husband was raised and I am going to share here the results of my research on the meaning of Titus 2:4.

Let me preface this by saying that I am not a Greek scholar and I don't even play one on TV. For the most part, I believe that a good English translation of the Bible is sufficient for English speaking people to understand how to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, which is man's primary purpose according to the Westminster Confession of Faith with the accompanying proof texts. However, because of our culture and because of our pathetic use of the English language, Americans have lost the meaning of many important words, replacing their meanings with mere shadows of their former selves.

For that reason, sometimes it helps a person, like a homemaker, to consult the Greek text in order to fully understand and exercise her duties to God. Over the years there have been several important New Testament passages which have guided me in my relationship with my husband, with 1 Peter 3:1-6 and Titus 2:3-5 topping the list. I have already covered 1 Peter 3:1-6 here.

On to the text!

Titus 2:1-5King James Version (KJV)2 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:2 That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

There is so much here that could be addressed, but this is a blog post, not a book, so I am going to attempt to limit my discussion to only verse 4 and the words “to love their husbands.” Right here I'm just going to add that this is a grave issue. It is highly important, because when the older women don't do their duty to teach these skills to the younger women, it results in the word of God being blasphemed, which sounds pretty awful and I don't want that to happen.

The word translated “love” here is the Greek word philandros. This is a combination of two words, the word philos which has the basic meaning of dear, fond or affection. As a noun, by itself, it can mean associate, neighbor or friend. The second part of the word is aner which means a man (an individual male), fellow, husband or sir. Putting these two words together into philandros, combined with the context (an act or skill that is to be taught to young wives) I believe the most useful working definition of it would be “to love their husbands in an affectionate way, the way a wife loves a husband.” In other words, teach them to be their husbands' lovers. George Ricker Berry's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament says it this way:

...that they may school the young [women] lovers of [their] husbands to be

Let's ignore that it sounds like the Yoda translation, shall we?

I feel very confident in saying that Paul believed the young wives need to be taught how to be affectionate towards a husband, particularly in a physical way. This word is used in no other place in the New Testament, Paul chose this very specific and detailed word to describe the acts of a woman toward a man to whom she is married and toward no other person in the world. It refers to acts unique within the marriage relationship. It would include, but not be limited to, how to make love.

This verse demonstrates graphically that Greek is superior to English in expressing specific types of love. In this very same verse we see another related word, philoteknos, which is translated “to love their children” which conveys a very different type of affection from that shown to a husband. Also, the word is not only specific to being an affection for children, it is also specific in being a maternal love, that is, the type of affection that comes only from a mother. Even though fathers should love their children, this Greek word would not be accurate in describing that action.

It is not possible to use Titus 2:4 to state that wives should be “friends” with their husbands or even that they should love them with “brotherly love.” The Greek language, in which this passage was originally recorded, offers better and more specific descriptions of the nature of a wife's love toward her husband. This love is not a feeling or an emotion. This love expresses itself in acts of affection and physical relations.

There may be some confusion as to whether wives are commanded by God to love their husbands. I would say they are not, or at least not in Titus 2. The context here is one of the apostle Paul instructing Titus in how to shepherd the flock, the church, at Crete. Titus was there to set it in order. By application, these instructions should apply to all pastors. Pastors should direct the older women in the church, if they aren't doing it already, to school the younger women in proper behavior within their homes, towards their husbands and children, as well as in the greater congregation and world-at-large. The difference between commands and instructions is that a violation of a command of God is sin, even if the transgressor is not aware of the command. Instructions are there for the improvement of a person. We all need skills to make our lives enjoyable, to enable us to survive, and to improve our relations with our fellows. Just as children are to be trained up in the way they should go, young wives need guidance to acquire proficiency in areas that are less than intuitive.

As children are not punished for not knowing how to do a task, wives are not punished for not knowing how to love (philandros) their husbands. A failure in this area is not a sin but simply evidence of the need for better training. A church full of young wives who do not love their husbands is not necessarily the evidence of rebellious women, but is more likely the evidence of older women not passing on their knowledge of how to do this. The danger of this is that the young women will either wing it or acquire wrong instruction from the popular culture. I can see why Paul thought it important enough to admonish Titus to pay attention to this.

Busy Bodies

Here is another excellent post by Purva Brown the Classical Unschooler.  She is addressing so-called "free range children" and the busy bodies who seek to destroy their families using the state. Mrs. Brown shared a quote from C.S. Lewis in her article and I'm going to share it here because it is just so good:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

I Like Being With My Children

Even in the days before the internet and social media it was not uncommon for me to hear moms complaining about their children and wishing they could get a break from them. As a home educating mom, other moms felt compelled to tell me that they could never homeschool because they couldn't stand being with their children all day. In other cases women would talk about how they longed for time away from their families and for special "me time." I see these sorts of comments on the internet every day.

I have a confession to make. I never feel that way. As far as I can remember, I have never wanted to be away from my children. Sometimes I wish they would alter their behavior, but I don't want them to go away. Even my adult children. I miss them if I go to the store without them. I really enjoy going out with my husband, and I don't regret spending time with just him, but I never find myself saying, "I'm so glad the kids aren't here." I enjoy their company. Although I am an introvert and sometimes I prefer silence, I don't want to be separated from my family. I take comfort and solace in their presence. The very idea that I participated in making these humans and that I have a relationship with them is pleasant.

Now, I don't want to give the impression that there is some moral superiority in the way I feel about my children. It is neither here nor there morally whether a person likes or doesn't like spending lots of time with people. The only reason I mention it is because I cannot relate in any way to the feeling of wanting to get away from my children. I think other moms assume that I share this with them, but I don't. I also can't relate to people who like cats, or to people who think it is fun to jump from high places. When I see a meme of a mom getting drunk and talking about how her kids drive her to drink, or how she can't wait until they move out, I couldn't be more nonplussed. "Why," I say to myself, "would anyone not want to be with their own children?"

Maybe my kids are just better. Probably not. Anyway, if it were up to me, all of my children, including the adults and the married ones (with their spouses and my grandchildren) would all live under one roof so I could enjoy them every day.