On My Kitchen

Looking through some kitchen photos featured on weather.com some time ago got me thinking again about our own kitchen.  Naturally, my opinions on the subject are colored by past experiences, so a brief background might be in order: 

Mom at her sink

I grew up in a home with a decent-sized kitchen, complete with the necessary appliances, numerous cabinets, yards of beautiful laminate countertops—including an island with further counter space and cabinets—a dishwasher that usually worked, and a laminate floor with enough space for my brother and I during our elementary school years to gleefully slide around with wet sponges on the pretense of “cleaning.”  It only wanted a little more space for the kitchen table when extended to its largest size, and it only ever seemed small on those occasions we served food to large parties of teenagers and adults.  

My parents' kitchen

I also had experience in those days with church kitchens—some mere kitchenettes, and some great, industrial-sized affairs with two or more sinks, ovens, and refrigerators each, stocked (or not) with a motley array of utensils and cleaning supplies.  Later in college, I shared a walk-in closet of a kitchen with about a hundred other girls in McCreery dorm.  As one might imagine, I only bothered to use it on special occasions.  I later lived in an apartment after college with a kitchen about the same size as the one in McCreery, fortunately shared between only three girls this time and deprived of half a wall; instead, a counter behind the sink separated the kitchen space from the living room and made it feel larger than it was.  Still, cabinets and counter space were minimal, which made storing food, cleaning dishes, and cooking a bit of a challenge.

And then I married.  And we began renting a house.  And this house has a kitchen.  And this kitchen is far less than desirable. (And I know I “shouldn’t” start sentences with “and,” but I chose to do so for effect, so there!)

I accepted our rental house with all its faults (the kitchen being only one of them—along with mold in the basement and bathroom, severely cracked front and back stoops, stained carpets and tub, cracked wall paint, etc.) due to the reasonable rent, decent location, and relatively cute and cozy design.  However, I accepted it with the thought that my husband and father would soon fix the kitchen counters and perhaps paint the scratched-up paint on the cabinets.  Yet, as often happens with procrastinators such as ourselves, we postponed such renovations to finance other projects, instead—partially with the idea that we’d be moving in a year.  But a year later, we assumed we’d move in six months; in six months, we planned to move in the next two years—and so on till we’ve now rented that house for six years!  (Thank goodness the rent is reasonable!)

I’ve coped with our kitchen: I hid the peeling plastic cover and crumbling counter with our coffee machine, large griddle, and dish rack. I stacked four, white plastic bins between the oven and one of the lower cabinets (partially blocking the latter’s door) to provide extra pantry space, then topped it with a cutting board.  I bought a collapsible bamboo shelf to split part of a cabinet shelf horizontally so I can fit more items inside and retrieve them more easily.  (I made more improvements in the cabinets after discovering small cockroaches *shudder*, as you may recall from a previous post.)  I set up a squarish old school desk with a cardboard recycle bin underneath, miscellaneous storage within, a microwave on top, and—its base resting on the desk—two wiry shelves above it all.  Then, some years ago, a rearrangement of the latter tower, kitchen table, and fridge improved the space.  However, getting anything out of that blocked cabinet by the cutting board stack is tricky, and a large trash can, by necessity, partially blocks the pantry door on the other end.  (We’ve at least shifted Joel’s 110 lb anvil so the door will open, but it also takes up floor space in that corner since we won’t risk the wobbly stairs and Joel’s safety by trying to cart it to the basement.)  Also, nothing can disguise the poorly-laid floor tiles that look dirty even when clean or the particularly bad bit of crumbling countertop in front of the dish rack.  

my current kitchen

I feel a twinge of guilt for complaining this much and thus feel obliged to moderate this description with the admission that it could be far, far worse.  I might not have a kitchen at all—or might have only a kitchenette.  I am grateful the space is not smaller and that the sink is deep and that the appliances all work—and that our landlady’s handyman keeps the faucet, drain, and garbage disposal in working order.  Still, when I see pictures of beautiful, spacious kitchens, when I try to cook multiple dishes at once, when we try to squeeze two or more guests around our kitchen table, or when I dismiss the idea of making a certain meal because the necessary appliances are tucked into a difficult-to-reach cabinet... *sigh*

Open concept

Spacious and efficient

My dream kitchen would have an open concept, connected to the living room and/or dining room.  It'd be arranged for efficiency of movement but with space for three or four people to cook or talk comfortably together with many feet of counter space and an island that a large gathering of people could loop around to snag food set upon it.  Partial stool seating would be an added bonus.  Rather than makeshift shelving, it’d have sufficient cabinet space and a nice, permanent arrangement for the recycle bin and microwave. The stovetop would have four burners under flat glass or upon solid, raised metal with no holes for food to slip into and provide a cleaning challenge.  A built-in range beside this would be nice, perhaps with a cutting board cover.  Two ovens—or both a regular and a warming oven—would help on many occasions.  The dining table (preferably twelve feet long or more when extended) would actually have its own area—not be forced to gobble up floor space that might be used for storage or for visitors to the kitchen or for seating in the living room.  

Lord willing, we’ll be living in our own house with just such a kitchen this time next year, but if we remain stuck with this kitchen much longer, I’d want to remodel.  The counter would be the priority and must be completely replaced—repairs are impossible.  I’d prefer a pale blue or grey laminate with a white tile backsplash.  If we have more money after that, I’d like to see the cabinets scraped and repainted as they are, white and blue—or better yet, replaced with pale wood cabinets, with more cabinets and a microwave nook added above the stove.  I’d replace the bent and torn screen door to the back yard, fix the crack at the bottom of the door to remove the draft, and even replace the floor tiles with faux hardwood laminate or uniform grey or light blue tile.  Then I’d then repair the cracked window pane, repaint the frame, and clean the paint-smeared glass.

Ho-ho!  But if I could go stir-crazy with remodeling, why not bash down the back wall and extend the house another twenty feet!?  Then we could have a proper dining space AND a larger kitchen—and let’s remodel the moldy bathroom and basement while we’re at it, adding a main-floor laundry and bathroom by the back door and fix the cracks in the walls and the crumbling porches and the... Who am I kidding?  I’d never bother with such a huge project with no real return on the money and effort.  (Just the counter alone seems overwhelming, when I think realistically.)

A lightning flash of guilt illuminates the materialism behind these desires, but I close the curtains on those thoughts.  I’ve put up with this wreck of a kitchen for five years, gosh darn it!  I think I’ve demonstrated a laudable amount of contentment (“or laziness,” another part of my brain snidely corrects me—shush, you!).  Surely I’m not wrong to desire something better so long as I don’t let discontentment ruin my joy or my witness as a Christian.  Since I plan to make use of a superior kitchen to provide more frequent hospitality, I hope my desires, if not purely altruistic, are at least not purely materialistic.

On the Phenomenon of Cooperation

I wrote previously of ordinary occurrences, which, upon reflection, often reveal a wondrous quality.  So it is with the phenomenon of people cooperating in a society—that is, persons working together to meet the group’s needs and desires rather than each person working solely for his or her own needs and desires (though the latter may be achieved through the former).  However motivated and however ordinary, it remains amazing!

For instance, have you ever marveled at synchronism between dancers or musicians?  Have you ever wondered how almost all children turn up at school each day or how people gather at churches on Sundays or at sports games or parties?  How fascinating that we could—and would bother to—coordinate our comings and goings!  Even knowing about choreography and music scores, even knowing the signs or invitations that communicate time and place, and even knowing the motives that encourage compliance or attendance, is it not amazing when people choose to obey the commands and summons of others instead of acting separately?

I’ve pondered this many times since childhood, and despite the beautiful side to cooperation, an instance of absurdity first brought it to my attention: At the Girl Scout Camp Daisy Hindman, I arrived late but unfortunately early enough to be forced to join a group of girls doing the “Worcestershire” …um, dance, shall we call it?  If I recall correctly, someone thought to use it to keep us occupied until the kitchen could finish preparing the mush they called lunch.  I cooperated, as was expected, but those familiar with the activity will surely agree that it is quite ridiculous.  During the performance, “dancers” sway side to side as they sing,

“A-worcestershire, a-worcestershire, a-Worcestershire-shire! Uh-huh!

“A-worcestershire, a-worcestershire, a-Worcestershire-shire!

“Thumbs up!”

The performers repeat this, and on the second go-around, add “Wrrrists togeth-ah!”  Third time, “Elbows togeth-ah!”  Then knees together... butt out... tongue out... versions may vary.  By the end, one is in a very peculiar position, indeed.

Considering the ridiculous sounds and movements required by this little ditty, I’m not amazed that younger children enjoy it, but I was sufficiently old enough (perhaps eight) to comprehend its inanity and to wonder why it was required... and why we all went along with it instead of running off to do something far more fun.  Was it respect for authority?  Was it fear of punishment?  Was it fear of ridicule?  (Ironic, that latter possibility.)  I recall wondering thus at our compulsory obedience even as I felt disgusted with myself for lacking the wherewithal to do otherwise.

One can bring to mind more productive forms of cooperation—as well as some more pernicious.  Cooperation as practiced in this “Worcestershire” example, though, I would consider “neutral”—neither necessary nor detrimental.   As evinced, it may resemble busywork, or double as temporary amusement or exercise.  (Thankfully, not all of this type are as irksome as “Worcestershire.”)  Most often, people request neutral cooperation of others to ensure future cooperation; they may aim to build rapport in a group or to maintain cohesion during slack periods between times requiring more useful or necessary forms of cooperation.  Thus, reflection requires me to admit that it may serve a more useful purpose than it seems to for the participants at the time. 

On the more positive side of the cooperation spectrum, we know sociologically that cooperation is necessary for peace and order; it ensures mutual life and happiness, and it enables us to achieve together more than individuals could achieve alone.  Thus we have such inspiring instances as families, barn raisings, potlucks, symphonies, and rescue missions.  On a larger scale, we have economies, stunning architecture, the development of ideas, and medical and technological innovations.  All depend on cooperation to succeed.

Such positive cooperation both requires and builds trust.  Too, diversity and individualism often enrich cooperation rather than harm it or become casualties of it.  Cooperative ventures only stutter to halt when (excluding external barriers) they are faced with individualism that refuses to trust and work with other individuals or that refuses to compromise where necessary and sensible.

Finally, and most unfortunately, we also know the human tendency toward cooperation and imitation can pervert our individual morality when we take our cues from group (or “mob”) mentalities rather than from our conscience.  Too many follow irrational consumerism trends and selfish Black Friday behavior; children pick on classmates for no other reason than that others do the same; passersby merely watch—or worse, stand filming—while another person suffers a heart attack or is even beaten, robbed, raped, or killed before them.  They rationalize their action or inaction, feeling more or less secure in their morality because they behaved no worse than everyone else; they cooperated with the masses.  

What about people who don’t cooperate?  

Individuals who neglect to include others in a project tend to end up overworked, with annoyed or increasingly apathetic partners and a project riddled with errors due to miscommunication and a lack of helping hands.  In turn, individuals who fail to cooperate with willing partners out of laziness or a failure to communicate are trusted less and less.

Individuals who refuse to cooperate with certain laws or social norms on moral or ideological grounds—conscientious objectors, civil resistors, protesters, religious separatists, etc.—may or may not achieve their purpose or even maintain the same convictions years later.  Onlookers may laud or abuse them, but who cares what the majority thinks, anyway?  Those individuals, on the other hand, who refuse to cooperate with society at all include hermits, criminals, and anarchists.  ...‘Nuff said.

And what of individuals who refuse to cooperate with God or who offer partial cooperation, adhering only to God’s behavioral laws and not submitting to Jesus Himself?  They inevitably suffer problems related to pride in this life and then suffer a painful separation from God in eternity, just as those souls mistakenly wanted during life.  It’s heartbreaking for those who love both them and the Lord, and harmful in other ways to the ones said individuals affect.  However, partial cooperation by accepting Jesus but slipping on His moral requirements from time to time is another matter, and though such individuals are eternally secure, a lack of obedience (cooperation) does cause them unnecessary difficulty in this life. 

Sure, we can see that cooperating with people and with the law (Man’s or God’s) puts certain restraints on one’s personal freedom, but (and this topic deserves a blog post of its own) one could also see the decision to cooperate or not as a decision between two forms of bondage: bondage to God and Goodness verses bondage to Self and Sin.  Freedom in the former case, then, refers to freedom  from slavery to our passions and from deception about our Selves.  Considering this, and of course excluding mindless mob mentalities, I rather prefer the benign constraints of cooperation to the inexorable prison of self-centered autonomy—especially when the One with whom I cooperate is more trustworthy than I.  

On All Saints' Day

On Christmas, we see Santas and nativities.  On Easter, we see bunnies and crosses.  On Halloween, we see witches and pumpkins...  Wait!  No memorial candles or martyrs?  Whatever happened to celebrating All Hallow’s Eve?  Why doesn’t that Christian celebration have equal footing with the secular or pagan ones?

It may help to understand that All Saint’s Day dates from the early 600s (Wikipedia, “Halloween”), perhaps originating as a Christianized harvest or pagan festival—though not Samhain or Calan Gaeaf, as is commonly supposed, which are first recorded in the 10th century and from which we get a lot of our current Halloween practices of dressing up and extorting treats from others (Wikipedia, “Samhain”).  

The Catholic church still celebrates deceased saints during All Saint’s Day on November first, followed by All Souls' Day on November 2nd.  The former is a Holy Day of Obligation (a day other than Sunday when Catholics must attend mass).  The Eastern church, however, commemorates the saints on the first Sunday after Pentecost, and has done so since the late 800s (Wikipedia, “All Saint’s Day”).  Protestants, if they observe it at all, remember saints both past and present.  
As the United States is peopled with more Protestants and unbelievers than Catholic and Orthodox Christians, perhaps it's no wonder most Americans do not observe All Saint's Day or see advertisements in churches and stores.  Maybe we’d hear of All Saint’s Day more if we were Catholic or lived in a country that had it instituted as a national holiday, but for most, All Saint’s Day seems no more than a footnote in the history books.  A few Christians might buy flowers to put on graves.  The rest either stay at home with the porch light off, visit the local Judgement House, or gear their children or grandchildren up as princesses or superheroes to gather goodies from the neighbors.

It’s hard to say why the secularized pagan elements of Halloween have remained and the Christianized elements have just about disappeared, unlike at Christmas and Easter.  I suspect it may have to do with the way dressing up and collecting candy is a lot more fun than remembering all the loved ones we’ve lost.  

If Christians insist on observing such secular practices, I do wish more would dress up like penguins or Totoro instead of ghouls or criminals.  Why don’t more people decorate their yards with benevolently smiling pumpkins and shiny unicorns instead of scary fake corpses and large spiders?  *Shudder*

Though as for that, should Christians celebrate such a secular—and previous pagan—holiday at all?  Sure, few people still engage in pagan worship on Halloween, but how innocent are the secular practices, really?  Should we urge our brothers and sisters in Christ to celebrate All Saint’s Day instead?  Or would it be better not to celebrate either one?  

Scripture never tells us to remember the dead—nor Christ’s birth nor death, for that matter.  Scripture doesn’t forbid non-biblical celebrations, either.  We like to have things to celebrate and to mix up our routine.  If it’s wrong to celebrate a secular Halloween, is it also wrong to celebrate such events as Thanksgiving and Veteran’s Day and Talk Like a Pirate Day?  If it's wrong to celebrate All Saint's Day, is it also wrong to celebrate Christmas and Easter and Pentecost?

I believe this falls under the “disputable matters” category Paul spoke of in verse one of Romans 14.   He states in verses 5-11, 

“One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.  For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself... we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

“Why do you pass judgment on your brother?  Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written ‘every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God’” (ESV).

and later,

“For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died… So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding… [W]hatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (v 15, 19, 23b).

I suppose that the real questions, then, are “Does my style of observing a particular holiday glorify God?”  “Do my actions trouble or edify my brothers and sisters in Christ?" and "Do my actions present outsiders with an accurate view of the Truth?”  

How would you answer?  Put your comments down below.