Monday, January 30, 2012

Valentine's Do's and Don'ts!

Greetings Romantic Readers!

We're a fortnight + two days out from Valentine's Day—the perfect time to begin backwards planning the sincerest expression of our hearts.

Towards that end, we bring you some suggestions based on what we've gleaned through the years.

DON'T wait till the last minute!
DO plan ahead!
DO give it thought!

Here's an exceptional example of that concept...


Sam had these postmarked in Loveland, CO, Valentine, TX, Loving NM, and Romance, AR.  Not sure how he managed it, but one arrived each day (in order) before the Big Day.  He gets a Gold Star!

So…

DON'T automatically spend a ton of money.  (More easily accomplished when you are:  a. thinking ahead, b. not feeling guilty, and c. poor.)
DO personalize it.

Or Maybe a public declaration is in order…


DON'T worry about how long it will take for your man to clean it up/scrape it off!
DO go in with the motto:  More is Better!

Sometimes romance starts in the kitchen...
Like today when I, Maddie, went to wash dishes, realized I was out of dish soap and that I'd forgotten to ask Aaron to pick some up.  But then I checked under the sink and found that he'd bought a bottle all on his own.  Big Red Heart Points!!

DON'T forget to be thoughtful and observant every day.
DO show your love with soapy bubbles.

DON'T forget about the fridge... 
Even if you DON'T have the luxury of playing with a full alphabet!

Next, DON'T forget about Dear Old Mom…


DO save those priceless mementos made with small hands—they'll warm your heart later.

DO save those priceless mementos made with small hands—they'll prove to be astonishingly revealing…

Maddie, Maddie, Maddie—you always had a way with those adverbs!

So Readers, what are your DO's and DON'Ts?  We want to know!  If you have pictures, send them to us!

And DON'T forget to enter the February Burning Love Contest!
Because we DO love hearing from you!

With Candy Hearts All the Way Around,
Maddie and Lisa-Lou


Friday, January 27, 2012

Explanation Of Confusing Burning Love Contest


Good Friday, Readers!
We confused ourselves with our own explanation of the February Burning Love Contest, so while yesterday we went on and on and on about brevity, today we tackle clarity. 

And clearly it will be best to start by tossing out both the Dutch and the Germans.


 Tossing done!





As An Aside:  Last night, I Lisa, asked for help on Facebook concerning this matter.  Pat G. responded, but frankly most of what she said was unintelligible.  Then our friend Ann N. weighed in with this explanation of our contest:

 You want a terse verse
with a splash-n of passion
And the limit in words
Includes nouns & verbs
To describe that soft glow
That all lovers will know
Then you give out a prize
If it tickles your eyes!

Applause Please!!!!!

Yet perhaps still too vague?

Okay, here is what we're looking for in SIMPLE and unpoetic terms:

Stories about the kind of love that burns in a good way—meaning it lights a person from within.  No more than 140 words.

Or a coNUNdrum of exactly 140 words, and we'll reply with exactly 140 words.  (We ripped this off from Jan A.--please follow her at One Hundred Words to save us on court costs.) 

Send your entries to Lisa:  miks@shentel.net   or Maddie:  mfmik@yahoo.com


We'll post them during the month on the blog.

Three coFUNdrum prizes will be awarded—one for our favorite overall entry—two for random entries because we appreciate your participation.

That should do it!  CONfusion cleared—our own mainly.

Hoping you all have a WONderful weekend with those who light up your life!  
(cue music)

xoxo
us

P.S. Rhyming is ALWAYS an entertaining option--anytime, anywhere.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Burning Love in February Contest!


Greetings Readers!
Today we announce our Burning Love in February Contest!!!!   We're hoping it reflects the month—passionate, yet short.  We're basing this contest off a quote and a saying.



The Quote. . . 

"Love is something eternal—the aspect may change, but not the essence.  There is the same difference in a person before and after he is in love as there is in an unlighted lamp and one that is burning.  The lamp was there and it was a good lamp, but now it is shedding light too, and that is its real function." Vincent van Gogh

The Saying…

Man sagt, die Zeit ist das Feuer, in dem wir brennen.
They say that time is the fire in which we burn.

In other words time consumes—we should be careful with it.

In the spirit of the Dutch painter, we'd like to hear your thoughts on the whole    Good-Lamp/Lit-Lamp concept.  All kinds of love (and loving acts) can cause us to "light up"—we want to hear about your own experiences, or times you've witnessed it in others.

In the spirit of those upbeat Germans, however, we'd like for you to keep it short—no more than 140 words.  (14 for Valentine's Day, 0 for additional word count).

Bonus points will be awarded if your entry rhymes! Just kidding.  Unless you really want to.

Perhaps this is rather complicated.  You could just send us conundrums with exactly 140 words.   Then we will answer with exactly 140 words.  Whichever way you decide to write in (miks@shentel.net or mfmik@yahoo.com), we at Connecting Now will go with it.  We're flexible.  Semper Gumby!  

You may enter as often as you like.  We'll award three fun prizes at the beginning of March—one for our favorite entry (In the event this decision induces ulcer formations, we may ask for outside unbiased help)—and two for random entries because we really appreciate your participation.

SIDENOTE:  We're pretty sure we were subliminally influenced in the set up of this contest by Jan over at One-Hundred Words.  So if you read this and aren't a follower of hers, please go HERE and sign up.  We don't want her taking us to court over intellectual property theft.   

That and we love her.

So there it is, Readers!  Let the confusion begin!

Mucho Amore,
Lisa and Maddie


Monday, January 23, 2012

Miss Cosmopolitan Foreign Speaker Extraordinaire !

Dear  Mik-Chiks,
I have a lot of friends from far-away places (as I know many other readers do as well). Also like many of you, I'm fascinated with words and expressions and love to learn new ones. Which brings me to my difficulty: is it considered acceptable for an American to use expressions such as "cheers" and "ta", or would that be viewed as an affectation?
Regards,
Miss Cosmopolitan

Dear Miss C.
Yes, we have many friends who are "out there," and can say with some authority that there are oodles of minuscule factors that can make these things okay or not okay. Mostly it has to do with your personality and your inflection.

If you can keep it casual when you use these words, and blend them into your speech in such a way that it's normal for you, then it's fine. If you find ways to construct obscure sentences so that you can whip out something fancy, then you're being obnoxious.

Also, it's not okay to randomly assume the accent of whatever language the word is from. That's totally pretentious. Everybody knows when you're a Vanilla Wafer American, and you should own that birthright and slaughter other linguistic pronunciations with abandon. The only exception to this rule is if you're trying to make a joke of how horrible your accent is--by trying overly hard to get it right.  then it's acceptable.

We are all about self-deprecation.

Readers!
Parlez vous foreign language etiquette?

Tchuss!
Maddie and Lisa

Friday, January 20, 2012

Lisa's gone and we're out of conundrums...

Readers!

There's been a lot of heavy stuff happening on the blog for the last week, and while it's all been good, it's starting to harsh my mellow, yo.

Plus, Lisa's out of town, and you know how I get when that happens.

So I'd like to propose that we all take a deep breath, and spend a few moments looking at this picture:

And then speculate on how we think God prefers to take His Almighty Chill Pill.
Cause everybody's gotta unwind, right?

I'll go first:
I think God likes a brisk morning walk, fancy cheese, a good haircut, swimming in lakes, all three Toy Story movies, cinnamon in His coffee, and fainting goats. I think He made fainting goats just because he was down one day and needed a good laugh.

Seriously.
I mean, I'm laughing right now.
If it works for God, it works for me.
I'm not picky.

What about you?
How do you see Him chillaxing?

Have a happy, laid back, and funny weekend.
Love,
Maddie

P.S. The title to this blog was serious, we're actually out of conundrums. Send us some if you're feeling it!

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Gays in the Church--Wrap-up

Greetings Readers--

Thank you for the time and care you took in responding to Jack and Larry's Neighbor.  We had no idea how you would respond to the question of gays in church, and were frankly surprised with the mostly positive outpouring.

This is a topic we've given considerable thought to for several years.  Partly, because we see so many young people turning their backs on God over this one issue.  It's hard for them to reconcile a faith that seems full of harsh judgment against people who were born that way, with a loving God. 

Heck, it's been hard for us to reconcile this matter.  And if we were gay, we'd feel the injustice of being called a sinner simply because of our sexual orientation—something we had nothing to do with.  We'd also feel insulted at nice Christian people trying to "fix" us like we were pet projects—or trying to bully it out of us—like one reader experienced when Christians suspected she and her roommate were gay.

Though if we only looked at the comments on the last blog, we'd think this issue isn't so complex—most were in favor of inviting Jack and Larry to church.

But the issue is complex.  Why?

We think it goes beyond scripture that can be quoted to make points for either side.  We went to websites with opposing views where verses were pulled apart word by word in a myriad of languages to prove each viewpoint was right.  It made our heads hurt.

We're not theologians.  But we've read and studied the Bible enough to see that perhaps there are two key ideas that are simple, basic, yet have the ability to be polarizing. 

The first one is the love of Jesus.  He never mentions homosexuality.  The only people He rails against are the hypocrites.  The overarching directive He gives us is to love one another.

The other concept has to do with God the Father, the Creator.  He put order and design into all of His creation—including men and women and the family. Is there any believer out there who can dispute that there was a plan?  Just as our senses (and science) tell us that most gays were born that way, our senses (and science) tell us that God designed the universe—and it was perfect.

Then came The Fall.  And nothing was perfect.  Including our genetic make-up.  And this brings us to the crux of it—the place you may want to stone us.  In a perfect world would any of us be born gay?  We don't think so—nowhere in the Bible does it indicate so, and in nature (if you are an evolutionist), homosexuality certainly doesn't perpetuate the species. 

Why is this point so important, and in our opinion so divisive?  For two reasons—first on the surface, it's insulting to gays.  And second, because most people who are gay or who are proponents of gay rights adhere to the premise that all sexual orientations are equal, and that all family configurations are equal.  The underlying statement is that what man designs is equally good (or better even) than what God has designed.

And as much as we love our gay friends and our gay family members, we don't agree with that premise.  Nothing man comes up with will ever be as good (or better) than God's design for His beloved.  But we also don't think we, non-gays that we are, are any more perfect than anyone else.  We aren't—our physical bodies are ALL imperfect—we all breakdown; we all die; we all rot. We are ALL born sinners—and that has NOTHING to do with our sexual orientation.

Some would say—true, it's not being gay that's the sin—it's the acting on being gay where the sin comes in.  And we say—yup, but if we were gay, we'd probably be right there with them.  God created us to love and be loved—and imperfect as our bodies are, that yearning is strongEveryone born of the flesh has struggles with the flesh, and though there are people who have given up those desires for their greater love of God, it strikes us as hypocritical to glibly tell gays to give up earthly love, when the majority of us would be unable to.  At least not until Christ had brought us to that place.

So where are we going with all of this?

We're not sure. 

Maybe it's to say that grace could and should be extended on both sides.  It's easy to see conservative Christians as intolerant haters who use scripture to clobber gays on the head.  Perhaps proponents of homosexuality could understand that many Christians are grappling with their desire to be obedient to God's design, with their love of all people.  Few Followers of Christ are haters.

On the other hand, maybe non-gays could be more sensitive and less glib about people who are.  Maybe they could extend invitations, share meals, laugh—and pray together.  Maybe they could see how so many gays are like them—loving, kind, devoted, faith-filled human beings. 

Then maybe fewer young people would turn their backs on God. 

Which brings us back to Jack and Larry's neighbor and her "radical" question:  wouldn't it be better for The Kingdom of God to have hundreds of thousands of gay Christians?

Our answer is yes. 

Yes, it would be.

And we don't know why, but as we were writing this, the image of a foot washing came to mind.

And lastly, we want to thank you all again for your considered input.  These conversations are good. 
All in Goodwill,
Lisa and Maddie

Monday, January 16, 2012

Should Gays Be Invited to Church?

Good Monday Morning, Readers--
Here's the COD--Conundrum of the Day--and it's a Doozy.

Dear MikChiks--
 Yesterday my neighbor Larry called out a greeting to me over our fence. "Hey," he said. "We're having a bunch of friends and family over for a picnic tomorrow. There'll be lots of food--c'mon over!"

I told him that we weren't sure of our plans; our grandson would be spending the weekend and we might take him to the zoo. 

"Well, come over if you can," said Larry. "Bring your grandson, if you want. Jack would love to see him."

Yeah. Jack. That would be Larry's domestic partner. Our neighbors, Jack and Larry.

So today when we got back from the zoo, DH headed to the man-cave for sports and a nap, and Levi and I headed to Jack and Larry's house next door for some picnic food. We met several of their extended family, enjoyed some puppy chow (that stuff rocks), and chatted a bit with a mom with two young kids who were eyeing Levi. Really nice folks, all of them, and many of them would be spending the night. That's when I actually had a physical struggle with myself--I came this close to saying "You're welcome to join us at church in the morning--it's just right over there." And it is--our church property adjoins Jack and Larry's backyard.

But I didn't. Because honestly, I'm not sure how welcome they would be at my church. Oh, the straight ones would be, but Jack and Larry--not so much. And there may have been some gay friends there, too--I'm not sure, since they weren't wearing rainbow nametags. What I do know is that Jack and Larry are the best neighbors we've ever had, and they're far kinder and more compassionate than a lot of Christians I know.

Here are some of the things troubling me.

I believe homosexuality is a sin--I really do--but no worse a sin than the myriad sins I commit all the time. And where else should a sinner be but in church? Yet in the vast majority of Christian churches, gay men and women do not feel welcome at all. Why do we pick this one sin, above all others, to ostracize? There are unmarried heterosexual couples who attend regularly--couples who are certainly not chaste. I'm not really sure how that's different.  Churches certainly have abusers and pornographers sitting in the pews, too--but their sins are hateful and secret, while the homosexual's sin is simply loving someone, openly. I just don't get it. 

I can't get away from the image of hundreds of thousands of gays who've left the churches where they were raised because they feel rejected there--and their bitterness must certainly extend to God. Wouldn't it be better for the Kingdom to have hundreds of thousands of--here comes a radical thought--gay Christians? Surely once they come to faith, God would work with them as he works with other sinners.

Oh, heck. I'm pretty sure that you're not going to solve this one. Maybe you can tell me if I should have extended that invitation after all. Maybe you can suggest ways for churches to be more welcoming places for everyone. Or maybe you can explain why my current thinking is way off base. 
 Sign Me,
Jack and Larry's Neighbor 

So Readers--there you have it.  What do you think?  We're looking forward to your thoughtful and kindly-worded responses, regardless of your views. 

We'll respond on Wednesday.

All in Goodwill,
Maddie and Lisa

For the Tweeters among the Readers...

  © Blogger template Simple n' Sweet by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009 * © customized by Mari @ Free2Bedesigns.com/

Back to TOP