Complementarianism for Dummies . . .

[Juniper]

I've seen games with three QBs. Not chaotic at all. They just weren't on the field at the same time. ;)

:D

Do all 3 QB's take the field at the same time? Of course not. At any given moment, there is only 1 QB leading the team, even if there are reserve QB's warming the bench.

First off, I did not bring up this illustration to begin with, but I am sensing a deep lack of understanding about the way a football team functions. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

 

Back to the article, what struck me was the areas she was silent on. She did not directly come out and say, "When we have a decision to make and do not agree, dh has the final say." This is the line to me when it has crossed into Patriarchy being called by another name.

 

Now, if she had said that, "Neither one of us has the final say. Decisions are to made together, unless we have previously discussed deferring to the others areas of specific expertise," that would have been interesting. I wonder then if it could be defined as complemantarian? :001_smile:

[Ellesmere]

But what you said on the previous page is that, "Christianity is based on submission." For you, it apparently is.

 

For the Christians I know, their faith is based upon love. That means they love others and don't care/question their gender/sexuality like you do. My Christian friends are guided by the belief that Jesus simply would not care where anyone's naughty bits go, within reasonable boundaries. They think Jesus is busy doing other stuff.

 

For you, it is apparently different. That's the marvelously confusing thing about Xtianity for us outsiders. :D

 

If Jesus didn't care about s*xual morality, why did He tell the adulteress to "sin no more"? Liberals love to quote the first part of that story but they conveniently ignore Christ's admonition of the woman to refrain from further sin. The Bible is quite clear on s*xual morality, even if many of those who claim to be Christians want to pick & choose which parts to follow and which to ignore...

 

Jesus told the adulteress to "sin no more". He most certainly did NOT say, "go ahead, be intimate with whomever you feel like, I don't care what you do as long as it makes you feel good." The person I responded to said she believed Jesus wouldn't care what people do when it comes to s*xual intimacy. However, there is nothing in the Gospels to support such a ridiculous claim, and Scriptural evidence to support a belief that Jesus WANTS us to refrain from sin.

 

Crimson Wife, you said "she believed Jesus wouldn't care what people do when it comes to s*xual intimacy." And that's where you stopped.

 

I think you were responding to Jennifer3141 saying that Christians can love people and not have that love based on gender/sexuality. She did add in "reasonable boundaries".

 

Even most people who disagree on morals are going to say that we should all observe limits and it's a question as to what the boundaries are. Of course, Christians who base their faith on love know there are limits and boundaries. No one here, liberal or not, is saying it is ok to violate someone intimately and assault whoever just because it feels good. We know that's wrong. Most people (well, I think, could be wrong!) will say cheating on a spouse is a great idea if the marriage isn't "open". And I think even the most conservative should be able to say they can love someone no matter how they were born.

[marbel]

Back to the article, what struck me was the areas she was silent on. She did not directly come out and say, "When we have a decision to make and do not agree, dh has the final say." This is the line to me when it has crossed into Patriarchy being called by another name.

 

Now, if she had said that, "Neither one of us has the final say. Decisions are to made together, unless we have previously discussed deferring to the others areas of specific expertise," that would have been interesting. I wonder then if it could be defined as complemantarian? :001_smile:

 

I consider my marriage to be complementarian. The second paragraph above sounds pretty much like the way we do things and fits my understanding of a complementarian marriage. I would add that the person most affected by the decision would also generally be the one to decide. I choose curriculum because I'm the one doing the homeschooling. I choose the bank when we move because I do the banking. Petty examples, but it's the best I can come up with right now.

 

But, sometimes (rarely) we simply can't agree on something. If neither of us has any particular expertise, and the decision affects us both equally, and we simply can't agree, someone has to decide. Who is it going to be?

 

In the complementarian marriage the husband decides, based on his understanding of what is best for his wife (and/or children), not what is best for him alone, or what he wants. Because (sorry to be repetitive), someone has to decide.

 

For those in completely egalitarian marriages: how do you break an impasse? Flip a coin? Draw straws?

 

Sorry if that sounds snarky. I don't mean it to. It's a sincere question which I've asked before and have never gotten an answer to.

 

I would expect that in a good marriage, these sorts of impasses happen rarely.

 

ETA: Thinking this over some more, I've to the conclusion that complementarian marriage really is egalitarian, with the difference that husband is the tie-breaker.

Edited July 7, 2012 by marbel

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

Reading this thread makes me enormously glad to have married a non-religious Jew. I've never even had to be involved in a conversation about submitting to anything. I think dh would get a kick out of the idea of him being the leader and me being submissive to his will. Although, dh could probably use a few lessons in serving. :D

[*Lulu*]

 

For those in completely egalitarian marriages: how do you break an impasse? Flip a coin? Draw straws?

 

Sorry if that sounds snarky. I don't mean it to. It's a sincere question which I've asked before and have never gotten an answer to.

 

 

I do not think it sounds snarky, and I would be happy to answer it for you.

 

Most decisions in our marriage are decided by who is more affected by the decision. (Like what day of the week I go to the store, or when the yard is mowed.) Other decisions are based on who feels the most strongly about the issue. (I do not give two shakes about the model of a vehicle, but DH does. on the flip side, DH used to think some of the things I purchased organic were silly, but I cared so much that he let it go.) There are areas where whoever has the most expertise makes the call, (which is why DH chooses electronics and I chose curriculum), but even there we will sometimes have to hash it out. (DH has raised objections to exactly 3 curricular choices in the past 6 years. Even though it is not his area of expertise, they are his children too, he gets a say.) We do on occasion have a true impasse. The few we have had have been big issues, and have eventually been resolved by the 2 yeses, 1 no theory. (In a marriage it takes both parties in agreement, so two yeses, but if one person is not on board they should not be drug kicking and screaming but respected, so one no.)

 

 

I do not say the above lightly. We have struggled though some big impasses over the years, including family size and cutting off a family member who is an addict.

 

For a time we were influenced by some patriarchal thinking and tried running our household based on submission and complementarian models. Eventually we broke free of the legalism we were being saddled with, and left the submission/complementarianism behind with the other things weighing down our relationships. Since we have moved back into an equal marriage our relationship has been healthy and steady. (Out of 12 years of marriage, 8 have been as equals.)

[Joanne]

For those in completely egalitarian marriages: how do you break an impasse? Flip a coin? Draw straws?

 

Sorry if that sounds snarky. I don't mean it to. It's a sincere question which I've asked before and have never gotten an answer to.

 

I would expect that in a good marriage, these sorts of impasses happen rarely.

 

ETA: Thinking this over some more, I've to the conclusion that complementarian marriage really is egalitarian, with the difference that husband is the tie-breaker.

 

I think it's a false dichotomy. I'm not a fan of egalitarian as a marriage label, either.

 

I've had 2 marriages lasting a total of over 20 years. I've never had to consider a "final say" person. We've had major issues and decisions to make.

 

The reverse, never answered question for me is if one person has final say status based on gender, how can that be equal?

[marbel]

Thanks for your reply!

 

We do on occasion have a true impasse. The few we have had have been big issues, and have eventually been resolved by the 2 yeses, 1 no theory. (In a marriage it takes both parties in agreement, so two yeses, but if one person is not on board they should not be drug kicking and screaming but respected, so one no.)

 

 

I'm trying to think of a situation that would come up where, in an impasse, my husband or I would drag the other kicking and screaming into a decision. I don't think it would happen. Because, even though I say he is the tie-breaker, he also takes seriously the command to love his wife, so he's not going to drag me anywhere. ;) Nor would I drag him.

 

Honestly, I think a lot of the argument is over terminology. And fine nuance of relationships, I guess.

 

I don't get your point about legalism but otherwise I think we mostly agree!

 

Thanks!

[Juniper]

I consider my marriage to be complementarian. The second paragraph above sounds pretty much like the way we do things and fits my understanding of a complementarian marriage. I would add that the person most affected by the decision would also generally be the one to decide. I choose curriculum because I'm the one doing the homeschooling. I choose the bank when we move because I do the banking. Petty examples, but it's the best I can come up with right now.

 

But, sometimes (rarely) we simply can't agree on something. If neither of us has any particular expertise, and the decision affects us both equally, and we simply can't agree, someone has to decide. Who is it going to be?

 

In the complementarian marriage the husband decides, based on his understanding of what is best for his wife (and/or children), not what is best for him alone, or what he wants. Because (sorry to be repetitive), someone has to decide.

 

Exactly! This is what I thought she was NOT saying.

 

For those in completely egalitarian marriages: how do you break an impasse? Flip a coin? Draw straws?

 

We do not have them. To reach an impasse someone has to step in the realm of pride, selfishness, impatience, or some other vice. By making sure we approach conflict with love, wisdom, patience and humility it does not happen. Now, should that time ever come, which it has not since leaving this type of belief system, we simply would not make a decision. We would let it rest until we could come to an agreement.

 

Sorry if that sounds snarky. I don't mean it to. It's a sincere question which I've asked before and have never gotten an answer to.

 

I would expect that in a good marriage, these sorts of impasses happen rarely.

 

ETA: Thinking this over some more, I've to the conclusion that complementarian marriage really is egalitarian, with the difference that husband is the tie-breaker.

Like I said in my post this is where the line is between them....in my understanding. That said, like Joanne stated, I do not find either label helpful. Labels are good in helping to define specific behaviors, but I have found them to be mostly unhelpful in regards to larger concepts.

 

For example, I was having a conversation the other day with a man who was struggling with the constant use of the term "bully," in the media. I actually agreed with him in that a child may bully, but labeling them a bully is not helpful towards healing or developing right relationship skills. Granted there are always exceptions and this illustration will eventually fall apart.

 

There are very few places in real life that demand one boss or head. My dh has approximately 4 (sometimes more or less) he is responsible to. CEOs have entire boards, elected officials have entire populations, self employed have their customer base and future customers. I hate to take into the realm of religion, but even EO (which completely embraces the term Patriarchy in its intended form) cannot change, even if they have a council, without the agreement of the people.

 

This whole complementarion thing seems rather young in the scope of history. Have there been times where things have been even worse? Yes. But, going through the thread of time and culture I do not think it is the norm.

 

:001_smile:

Edited July 7, 2012 by Juniper

[*Lulu*]

Thanks for your reply!

 

 

 

I'm trying to think of a situation that would come up where, in an impasse, my husband or I would drag the other kicking and screaming into a decision. I don't think it would happen. Because, even though I say he is the tie-breaker, he also takes seriously the command to love his wife, so he's not going to drag me anywhere. ;) Nor would I drag him.

 

Honestly, I think a lot of the argument is over terminology. And fine nuance of relationships, I guess.

 

I don't get your point about legalism but otherwise I think we mostly agree!

 

Thanks!

 

Once, early in our marriage, I told DH I did not want to purchase a particular vehicle. Lo and behold, he called me at work the next day to tell me he was signing papers on.......the vehicle we had agreed not to buy. Now in our case it was more of a youth and inexperience than a purposeful ignoring of the wife. We have had some friends who have had the experience in thier marriage of not agreeing and one party just making the call knowing the other wouldn't be happy about it. (Not healthy, and thier marriages suffered from this behavior.)

 

When I said legalism I was referring to the whole of the teaching we were hearing, submission of wives was tied up in the package of *true* Christianity.

[marbel]

The reverse, never answered question for me is if one person has final say status based on gender, how can that be equal?

 

Well, the short answer, for Christians, is that God gave responsibility and authority to the man. So, there is not perfect equality in that respect.

 

If a husband is using his responsibility and authority correctly, he is not treating his wife as his inferior. They are making decisions together and when they come to an impasse, he doesn't just ignore her opinion and do what he wants. He considers her wise counsel and does what is best for her (and kids) even if it means not doing what he wants to do. As a practical matter, someone has to decide. Using the team analogy, most teams have a leader who is charged with doing what is best for the team. I guess I can't think of a way a team could be successful if it does not have a captain who has ultimate responsibility for the team.

 

Maybe I am just traditional in my thinking, or maybe I just have an extraordinarily good husband who understands his role. But I've never felt like I was inferior to him, and I've never had to defer to his authority in a way that made me feel he took advantage of me. Sometimes we have made tough decisions and I haven't always liked the outcome, but I've never felt a decision was pushed on me. He hasn't always liked the outcome either. Life is like that sometimes.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

You said "Liberals" and I asked what Liberals have to do with anything. Jesus was a clear about divorce but it seems Conservatives have a high divorce rate. Don't you think you could also say the same about Conservatives? Why bring it up?

 

I have concerns about the use of "liberal" too in relation too "loose values" which I think is often implied in our country:(

 

I tend to be very liberal yet I strongly believe in the strong values of fidelity, loyalty, marriage, family, modesty, hard work, integrity, and helping one another. It drives me nuts when I hear the word "liberal" as implying a lack of values.

Edited July 12, 2012 by priscilla
oops spelling

[mamaraby]

For those in completely egalitarian marriages: how do you break an impasse? Flip a coin? Draw straws?

 

To be honest, this idea of a tie breaker sounds rather foreign to me and a little absurd. Why does there need to be a tie-breaker?

 

In all these years of marriage we have never reached an impasse. Maybe that's because we have no expectation of someone being a "tie-breaker." We don't go into a decision with the expectation that someone can get their way just by being a particular gender. We go into it expecting that we're going to have to come to a mutual decision.

 

That isn't to say that we've never disagreed or done so passionately. Sometimes we may table the discussion for awhile - sleep on it, live through it, ponder it, but I can't think of any decision that we've had to make that had only two options (mine vs his), there have always been a multitude of ways forward.

[SwallowTail]

Well, the short answer, for Christians, is that God gave responsibility and authority to the man. So, there is not perfect equality in that respect.

 

If a husband is using his responsibility and authority correctly, he is not treating his wife as his inferior. They are making decisions together and when they come to an impasse, he doesn't just ignore her opinion and do what he wants. He considers her wise counsel and does what is best for her (and kids) even if it means not doing what he wants to do. As a practical matter, someone has to decide. Using the team analogy, most teams have a leader who is charged with doing what is best for the team. I guess I can't think of a way a team could be successful if it does not have a captain who has ultimate responsibility for the team.

 

Maybe I am just traditional in my thinking, or maybe I just have an extraordinarily good husband who understands his role. But I've never felt like I was inferior to him, and I've never had to defer to his authority in a way that made me feel he took advantage of me. Sometimes we have made tough decisions and I haven't always liked the outcome, but I've never felt a decision was pushed on me. He hasn't always liked the outcome either. Life is like that sometimes.

 

I am sorry, but the bolded part is a ridiculous assertion and not to be found in the Bible. The (very few) verses used to back this up are entirely misinterpreted, both in the text and by the people reading it. Just because some of the religious groups have decided that this point is dogma and is truth, does not by any means make it so. The Bible, read in its proper language and with understanding of the historical context and audience, certainly does *not* place man in authority over women.

 

Interestingly, some of that particular piece of misogynism can be found in Augustine's writings, as he was a particular hater of women (while at the same time enslaved to his lusts). His personal self-loathing turned inside out into woman-domination, which became part of the theology of much of the modern church.

 

Thankfully, scholars who understand the Greek, the Hebrew, and the Aramaic, along with understanding the culture and what terms meant specifically to that culture, have helped many understand God's place for all in the church and in the family. (working alongside one another, graciously loving and submitting to one another, serving one another)

 

I am personally happy to allow people to live the way they want, and if a woman wants to be a lesser being in her own home and church, that is fine. However, I don't like it being forced on people. I abhor women being told to remain in abusive relationships, admonished that if only they were more submissive, their husband would change. I also dislike seeing women not allowed to use their God-bestowed gifts, because of their sex. I also don't at all agree with churches who preach that this is the only way to be a "Christian" wife.

[marbel]

To be honest, this idea of a tie breaker sounds rather foreign to me and a little absurd. Why does there need to be a tie-breaker?

 

In all these years of marriage we have never reached an impasse. Maybe that's because we have no expectation of someone being a "tie-breaker." We don't go into a decision with the expectation that someone can get their way just by being a particular gender.

 

I'm sorry I wasn't clear that this has nothing to do with anyone "getting their way." And maybe "tie-breaker" wasn't the best term to use.

 

The point is that sometimes there may be a difficult decision required and an agreement cannot be reached.

 

Here's an example: family has wage-earning husband and stay-home wife. Husband loses job. He finds a good job but it requires moving. Wife does not want to move. Husband also prefers not to move but can't find job in current city. He believes it is best to take the job and move; wife disagrees. They can't come to a mutual decision. Neither wants to move, but there is no job without moving. Husband makes decision to take job and move. He didn't "get his way" because he doesn't want to move either. But he has to work.

 

Maybe this is an outlandish example though it is one I've seen in a family (not mine). In a healthy relationship it wouldn't get to the point of the husband having to decide. Both parties would have decided together. But if they can't, sometimes someone has to.

[Juniper]

Okay, back from my walk with dh. Can you guess what the conversation was about? ;)

 

He let me ramble for quite awhile :D, and then he had a few interesting comments. Ignore at will. ;)

 

His first comment was on the portion of scripture itself, Titus. He observed that Paul gives a topic statement, "Submit to one another." Then he lays out some illustrations of what these can look like for the wife, husband, children and parents.

 

He then went on to clarify why having a "tie-breaker/final say" designee is actually contrary to the admonition to "love your wives." In legal speak you will write a clause into a contract that say's something like, "In the event of an impasse so in so gets the final say." This is predicting a time of impasse, it is written to protect one person from being at the mercy of the other party. This is not love.

 

Anyway, I thought it was interesting. :001_smile:

[Juniper]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear that this has nothing to do with anyone "getting their way." And maybe "tie-breaker" wasn't the best term to use.

 

The point is that sometimes there may be a difficult decision required and an agreement cannot be reached.

 

Here's an example: family has wage-earning husband and stay-home wife. Husband loses job. He finds a good job but it requires moving. Wife does not want to move. Husband also prefers not to move but can't find job in current city. He believes it is best to take the job and move; wife disagrees. They can't come to a mutual decision. Neither wants to move, but there is no job without moving. Husband makes decision to take job and move. He didn't "get his way" because he doesn't want to move either. But he has to work.

 

Maybe this is an outlandish example though it is one I've seen in a family (not mine). In a healthy relationship it wouldn't get to the point of the husband having to decide. Both parties would have decided together. But if they can't, sometimes someone has to.

But don't you think he can only decide to take the job and move? He cannot force her to move with him? She still has a choice.

Just a thought. He has to make the decision that he ultimately thinks is right...the problem is when this is hitched to her having to submit to it.

 

Hope that makes sense. :001_smile:

[marbel]

But don't you think he can only decide to take the job and move? He cannot force her to move with him? She still has a choice.

Just a thought. He has to make the decision that he ultimately thinks is right...the problem is when this is hitched to her having to submit to it.

 

Hope that makes sense. :001_smile:

 

Sure, she can stay behind. This does not seem to me to be a solution that is healthy for the marriage.

 

Of course there are other possibilities. He could commute, perhaps. She could get a job. But the point, which I seem not to be able to make so maybe I should stop ;), is that sometimes, someone has to make a tough decision. It should never get to that, though. Husband and wife should be able to come to an agreement that is good for their family without one person having to make a unilateral decision that makes the other person unhappy. That is love, that is submitting to one another, that is how a family/married couple should operate. And no one should be talking about "getting their way."

Edited July 7, 2012 by marbel

[Juniper]

Sure, she can stay behind. This does not seem to me to be a solution that is healthy for the marriage.

 

Of course there are other possibilities. He could commute, perhaps. She could get a job. But the point, which I seem not to be able to make so maybe I should stop ;), is that sometimes, someone has to make a tough decision. It should never get to that, though. Husband and wife should be able to come to an agreement that is good for their family without one person having to make a unilateral decision that makes the other person unhappy. That is love, that is submitting to one another, that is how a family/married couple should operate.

 

I do not disagree with this at all. :001_smile:

[happyhomemaker25]

I am sorry, but the bolded part is a ridiculous assertion and not to be found in the Bible. The (very few) verses used to back this up are entirely misinterpreted, both in the text and by the people reading it. Just because some of the religious groups have decided that this point is dogma and is truth, does not by any means make it so. The Bible, read in its proper language and with understanding of the historical context and audience, certainly does *not* place man in authority over women.

 

Interestingly, some of that particular piece of misogynism can be found in Augustine's writings, as he was a particular hater of women (while at the same time enslaved to his lusts). His personal self-loathing turned inside out into woman-domination, which became part of the theology of much of the modern church.

 

Thankfully, scholars who understand the Greek, the Hebrew, and the Aramaic, along with understanding the culture and what terms meant specifically to that culture, have helped many understand God's place for all in the church and in the family. (working alongside one another, graciously loving and submitting to one another, serving one another)

 

I am personally happy to allow people to live the way they want, and if a woman wants to be a lesser being in her own home and church, that is fine. However, I don't like it being forced on people. I abhor women being told to remain in abusive relationships, admonished that if only they were more submissive, their husband would change. I also dislike seeing women not allowed to use their God-bestowed gifts, because of their sex. I also don't at all agree with churches who preach that this is the only way to be a "Christian" wife.

 

But it's not possible that some people misinterpret the text in the opposite direction? Maybe, just maybe, God did mean that a husband was the head of a wife and that the wife should submit to the husband as unto the Lord. No, I don't think women should try to submit more to a man who is abusing her. I think she should separate herself from him. Of course I also don't think it's RIDICULOUS to believe that maybe God did set up a sort of hierarchy in the family. I do think it RIDICULOUS to tell someone else that their faith and beliefs are RIDICULOUS!

In a true Christian relationship the husband is to love the wife as Christ loves the church. No where do we see Christ abusing the church. The wife is to submit to her husband and trust that God will take care of her. In the end it all comes down to how much faith do you have in God to take care of you. I trust that God will supply all of my needs and watch over me. If my husband abuses his role in our marriage then, "Vengeance is mine says the Lord". I'm in no way responsible for my husband's actions. I am only responsible for mine.

[marbel]

I am sorry, but the bolded part is a ridiculous assertion and not to be found in the Bible.

 

OK, how about next time I substitute "the way I've been taught" (by scholars who understand Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, btw) for "Christians," and you don't tell me my assertion is ridiculous, OK? ;)

[Singingmom]

I have a friend who is really into this complementation stuff. I have a suspicion that this becomes an issue only when something in the relationship is amiss. My husband and I defer to each other. We just love each other, and don't want the other to be unhappy. There is just a natural give and take that works. All this talk about who is going to submit to whom just seems foreign to us. He's not going to push for something that will make me unhappy, and vise versa. We look to please each other, and to please God. Simple.

[mamaraby]

Of course there are other possibilities. He could commute, perhaps. She could get a job. But the point, which I seem not to be able to make so maybe I should stop ;), is that sometimes, someone has to make a tough decision. It should never get to that, though. Husband and wife should be able to come to an agreement that is good for their family without one person having to make a unilateral decision that makes the other person unhappy. That is love, that is submitting to one another, that is how a family/married couple should operate. And no one should be talking about "getting their way."

 

Yes, there are a multitude of other ways through it outside of he says to move, she says they won't and that's the point. It's not that "someone" has to decide as if there's one person who has the ultimate authority and the other has to go along with it because they're not chosen by god to do so. It's "they" have to decide because it impacts both of them. She could get a job. They could both get part-time jobs (in any combination) until something better suited comes along. They could sell a house, downsize, move in with family, etc, etc.

 

The perspective matters a great deal. Neither of us believes that my husband is the final authority, "tie breaker," or head of the household so we by necessity have to be able to work our problems out together. Compromise.

 

If there are other problems in our relationship that hinder our ability to work together then we address those issues outside of the decision in question. If we can't resolve those issues then working together is no longer an option and we have no business being married. Divorce is very likely the best solution if it comes to that.

 

IMO the only time that a "tie breaker" is necessary is if you believe that neither partner has the free-will to leave an unhealthy situation and so then you need a way of forcing the issue. I do not.

 

You can try to dance around the issue all you want . You can try to avoid it, soften it, and make it pretty, but "wifely submission" means a hierarchy, authority, power structure. The love bit is to make it more palatable, but the base is still about who's really in control. Otherwise why talk about "submission" in terms of parent/child, slave/master, Christ/the church? This is precisely where the passage about husbands/wives falls. It's meant to be seen that way and it's absolutely within a culture that saw women as possessions...patriarchy. The "dummies" explanation did a fantastic job of skirting the issue, but that doesn't mean it's not there. If you believe otherwise, we'll agree to disagree.

 

If it works for your relationship and you accept that then I won't tell you that you shouldn't do it that way. I just happen to think that it's not the best way to approach marriage. IMO there are far better, more humane, ways that manage to both function and to show love for one another in a marriage. I'd rather raise my daughters in that sort of environment which is why I choose to live the way that I do.

Edited July 7, 2012 by mamaraby

[Joanne]

Here is the blog entry I love about this topic.

[Singingmom]

I loved it, too. Thanks for sharing that!