10 Things No One Tells You About Being a Dad

Before I became a Dad, I thought I would be a pretty good Dad.  After all, I grew up in a nice, Christian home.  I even read a couple Fatherhood books, and heard more than a few messages on Biblical parenting.  So I was set.  The children I would raise would be fortunate to have me as their father.

Then, a funny thing happened.  In 2009, I actually became a Dad for the first time.  First came Abagail, then Emma in 2012.  Now I'm a father of two and I know much less about parenting than I did before I became a parent.  I've realized that there are certain things about fatherhood you can only learn when you actually become a Dad.

Here are ten:

1) You are much less patient than you think you are.  Oh, you think you're a loving, patient, sweet peach of a man.  You'll be the guy playing dress-up for hours and carefully instructing your daughter how to ride her bike.  You'll never get short with your children and you'll always know the perfect balance between discipline and love.  Right.  Keep dreaming, my friend.  There's nothing like a live child in your midst to bring out your selfishness, anger and impatience.

2)  Many times you'll have absolutely no clue what to do.  But you still have to pretend you are in control.  Like when your three-year-old melts down in the grocery store.  The books say to do one thing, but there is always a certain paralysis that takes place when it's your little one kicking, screaming and not getting along with the shopping program.  Over time, you'll figure out your child and the best method, but there will be a lot of trial and error along the way.  Mostly error.

3)  You'll realize that minivans are secretly awesome.  Before I ever had children, before I was ever even married, I swore to my best friend on a stack of John Wayne collector's edition DVD's that I would never be seen behind the wheel of a minivan.  I have more than one childhood memory of the six of us stuffed like sardines in my family's used tan Plymouth Voyager.  Then we had our second child and I suddenly saw the awesomeness of minivans.  As stated above, I now have two children and our Mazda 5 just keeps getting cooler.  So cool, in fact, that it's not a minivan anymore.  I have re-christened it the Swagger Wagon.  You can go for long trips and play DVDs.  You can fold the third row seating down to be able to haul large pieces of furniture that your wife finds listed on Craigslist that she thinks you need.  Trust me on this one.  As soon as child #2 comes, you'll find yourself wandering over to CarMax.com to compare the best prices on minivans.

4)  You'll probably never get six continuous hours of good sleep ever again.  And even if you do, you'll never admit it because it will make your wife mad for the broken-up sleep she got when she got up at 1AM to take care of the teething child.  Dads perfect the art of pretending like they are stone-cold sleepers who can't be easily woken.  But really you're just trying to keep your eyes closed long enough so she'll get up and take care of the situation.

5)  There are singular moments of joy so indescribable they can only be experienced.  There are moments of pride and joy that make every single hard-parenting experience seem easy.  There are times of closeness and love that will make your heart burst with rapture.  Sometimes I just sit back and look at my two children and cannot believe God allowed me to be their Dad.  If you're a Dad, you already know what I mean.

6) Your presence is more important than you know.  You may not think you're a good Dad.  You may not think you're all that useful around the house.  But your children need your presence more than you could possibly realize.  God wove fatherhood into the fabric of humanity.  Your consistency and your faithfulness to your wife and to your children will speak volumes to your children about the consistency and faithfulness of their Heavenly Father.

7)  You need to repeat the same words over and over again to your children.  It's not enough to just provide and to be present.  It's not enough to be a model Christian.  Your children must hear over and over again how much you love and accept them.  I try every single day to tell each one of my children that I love them.  There have been times (as recently as this morning) where I've flippantly said something to my oldest daughter and it completely crushed her feelings.  I've had to apologize and seek her forgiveness, and that of my wife as well.  My words matter.  Our words matter.

8)  You will watch less of your favorite shows or movies, play less video games, and will go out with your guy friends hardly ever, if at all.  But this is a good thing.  You are called to serve your family sacrificially.  This often means putting your selfish desires last.  This means not whining.  This means being strong when you want to be tired.  This means being soothing rather than sarcastic.  This means being the brave one when everyone else is terrified.  But if you see your family as your God-given mission, you will gladly give up these things for something better.  Your sacrifice and your presence are not options.  They are callings.

9)  You will embrace your paternal cluelessness as a gift from God.  The further I go into my fatherhood, the more I realize I need help being a good Dad.  I really don't have what it takes.  This is where I lean in, heavily, on my Heavenly Father.  The sooner we realize, as Dads, that we don't have what it takes to succeed, the sooner we'll seek God's help, both through His Word as well as from earthly fathers who can lend wisdom.  I've learned much from the small group I'm blessed to be involved in.  I've learned much from other more seasoned Dads in my church.  I've learned a lot from older Dads who've gone before.

10)  You will realize your ongoing need to repent, confess, apologize and forgive.  You will mess up, almost daily.  And so you will need to admit to your wife and to your children your mistakes and ask their forgiveness.  You will learn the underrated value of an apology, how quickly it earns you respect and attention.  You will have to forgive your children for their sins.  You will need to practice these as well with your wife.  In doing so, you will model to your children what the Christian life looks like.  It's not a life of perfection, but of brokenness, surrender and grace.

Jeff Carson Books: Dire (David Wolf Book 8) Cover Vote

Jeff Carson Books: Dire (David Wolf Book 8) Cover Vote: Thanks for your help. Here are the two versions of the book I am considering. Please let me know which one you like best in the comments bel...



Definitely Cover #2! Blends into the background, adding to the "Dire" consequences of whatever's coming!

Review of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (2003)

Surprisingly Good Remake

The horror/sci-fi movie critic Richard Scheib coined the term "Backwoods Brutality" to describe the slew of low-budget movies that emerged in the late 1970's which had as their main theme the violent and abrupt destruction of middle-class serenity. The concept has occasionally found expression outside of the horror genre (see Straw Dogs, Deliverance) but since Wes Craven's "Last House on the Left" (1972), it has been a mainstay of the horror genre. Even thirty years later, the basic idea continues to be remade and re-interpreted.

I believe the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) is the most successful exponent of the genre. As it often does in the American variations of this genre, the TCM takes the so-called blue state/red state dichotomy to a grotesque extreme:  the backroads of the Deep South are another country and its inhabitants exhibit unrestrained contempt for every unsuspecting wayfarer. Its use of tension, which is meticulously established in the film's first forty-five minutes, and its release--the last forty-five minutes--is almost elegant in its simplicity. Throughout, violence is used in sparing and sudden bursts until the adrenaline-fueled final act, during which it is mercilessly sustained.

With some minor qualifications, this description also fits Marcus Nispel's 2003 remake. Here the enlarged budget and technical expertise have worked both for and against the film. On the one hand, a variety of new elements have been added to the story. Some, like the mysterious little boy or the ending, are average; others, like Leatherface's skin mask or the "extended family" are effective. On the other hand, the professionalism and attention to detail demonstrated by Daniel Pearl (whose cinematography here is magnificent; he was the lead cinematographer on the original after all) on down to those responsible for filming locations and set detail is consistently impressive.

So the basic "tension-release" framework has been lifted from the original but instead of improving on it the filmmakers have saddled it with characters, situations, drama and violence. (We learn from the HD extras, happily, that some 'tender moments' were left on the cutting room floor). Ultimately I believe it works as a horror movie on its own terms--in fact, I don't believe a better horror movie has been made until the genre's recent resurgence (i.e. The Walking Dead, etc)--and Nispel/Kosar deserve credit in attempting to revise the concept in minor ways for hardcore fans of the franchise. On the balance, however, the original's low-budget guerrilla-like realism as well as some of its visceral power have been compromised.

Finally of note is the performance of Jessica Biel. Having earned her acting chops on the former TV show-slash-Cheesefest "7th Heaven", Biel has as of late found a niche playing physically tough but likeable and intelligent characters (see Blade: Trinity). She's actually quite excellent here; as it was for the original TCM's Marilyn Burns, Biel's performance is exhilarating and intense--almost a kind of cinematic endurance test. But one ends up actually believing she has the acuity and toughness to survive the whole ordeal.

(Some fun trivia courtesy of IMDb:  A then unknown John Larroquette provided the narration in the original TCM. Despite becoming a distinguished actor in the years since, he more than happily agreed to reprise his role for the remake). 

Drawing Lines

This post is inspired, in part, by conversations I've had on this topic basically all my adult life, but especially since I truly declared myself to be a Christ-follower fifteen years ago, and even more especially in what has become polite apologetic talks I've been having, both online and in person, for about the past two months..  This topic has come up again and again, but now that light has been shed in what once were considered dark places, and now that this word "Tolerance" has become the new catchphrase of our culture, it seems a line must be drawn in the sand, now more than ever before. But what is funny, ironic, and sad at the same time is this idea: The Church is too quick to declare certain behaviors right and wrong. That's judgmental and just plain . . . wrong.

So let me get this straight: You are absolutely sure that its wrong, sinful, terrible to tell someone that their behavior is wrong. This, my friends, is the new tolerance. I've seen this repeated over and over again in the last few weeks/months/years by people who want to help the Church shed it's stuffy reputation. And I get it, in some ways. I think there are areas where the Church needs to repent, times when the Church has been hurtful, wrong, and on the other side of important issues. Made up of humans, sinners, we've often, in our checkered 2,000 plus years of history, strayed from our Gospel moorings.

However, it's interesting, this discussion we are having in our culture. If you bend your ear to hear what many people, most people are saying: "You shouldn't judge someones personal behavior (usually sexual preferences). You should respect their choices and give them the widest possible berth. They should be afforded all rights and privileges to practice the behavior they choose." That's what they are saying. "For you (as a Christian) to draw the line where you draw it, based on your belief system, is just plain wrong." This is what we are told; this is what I am told, whether directly or indirectly, nearly every day.

The only problem is that we don't actually believe this, do we? For instance, it's considered wrong now to tell someone that they are engaging in wrong behavior. If you follow an orthodox, Biblical position on sexuality, for instance, you are usually labeled a bigot, insensitive, and well, ironically, wrong. If you say that your basis for conduct is the trustworthy, inherent Word of God, well then you are considered narrow, not really open-minded, and well, ironically, wrong. If you declare that God is love, a love that expresses itself in right justice against sin and if you declare that everyone is born into Sin and with a Sinful nature, you are considered judgmental and, ironically, wrong. If you declare that God passionately pursued sinners by sending Jesus Christ, the only God-man and that his death, burial, and resurrection are the only way back to God, to eternal life, and to spiritual wholeness, you are considered intolerant and well, wrong.

But here's the problem underlying all of this "tolerance": it doesn't work out. In order to definitively declare something wrong, you are acknowledging that there is a basis, somewhere, for actually deciding right and wrong. It tells me that while you don't like where I put my line, you clearly have a line. You're not as tolerant as you might think. You have a value system that determines what is right and what is wrong. Because you have just told me that I'm wrong for thinking the way I do. Nobody actually believes the idea that truth is relative, that my body of truth that works for me is okay and your body of truth that works for you is okay. Because what happens when they conflict? What happens if my body of truth says that its okay to steal your iPad? How does that test your tolerance? All of a sudden we're pretty big on "Thou Shalt Not Steal." We're not advocating "conversations" and talking of a God who is "less black and white and more shades of gray", at least when it comes to my truth that says it's okay to steal your iPad.

Do you see where I'm going?

You may think you are the most progressive, nonjudgmental, hip, non-legalistic cool Christian out there, but you have a line somewhere. The question is, where do you draw it and on what basis? If I say that I take my code of right and wrong from the Bible, that may sound a bit archaic or old-fashioned. Fine. So where do you get yours? Is it the consensus of the prevailing culture? That's fine, but here is the problem with a majority-opinion type of value system. It depends on the goodness, the virtue, the character of the culture. And you don't have to look far into history to see cultures, many, whose values systems would make us recoil in horror. For most of American history, the majority considered black people to be less than human. It considered them, at times, 3/5ths human, worthy of buying and selling like property, and for a long time, not worthy of voting, holding office, or even sitting at the same lunch counter as whites. If, during that time, you allowed culture to determine your value system (as many Christians, sadly did), you'd think it was okay to treat your fellow man in this subhuman way. So you see the futility of drawing the line where culture determines the lines should be drawn?

Perhaps culture is not your measuring stick. Maybe it's Tradition. Maybe it's your own upbringing or experiences that shape your belief system. My point is not so much that you should accept the God of the Bible as the best arbiter of right and wrong as I do. My point is to help you see that, like me, you too have a system of right and wrong. You draw the line somewhere. And you base it on something, a set of core beliefs. You may not like me saying you have a set of core beliefs, but you have a set of core beliefs. I know at least one of those core beliefs: "Thou Shalt Not Steal my iPad". Am I right?...

The question is to ask yourself and for me to ask myself is simply this: Who determines who makes the rules? Who determines where the line should be drawn? What constitutes good and evil, sin and charity? What shapes our definitions of these things and how justice is served?

All of us are making judgments, whether we realize it or not. To declare someone intolerant is, in it's own way, a judgement about someones values. It's a statement, based on some kind of belief system.

As a sinful, fallen, Gospel-loving Christian saved by God's grace, I choose to anchor my value system to something timeless: God's unchanging revelation of Himself in His Word. I may not always interpret the Bible clearly because I "see through a glass darkly", but I've found that it's a more reliable standard than the changing whims of human emotion, popular culture, and social science.

All of us are planting our flags somewhere, whether we admit it or not. I'm planting mine here.

Review of "Superbad" (2007)

Superbad is a parable of values and friendship, reminding us that a good and earnest moral upbringing will be able to safely glide us through life and make us achieve happiness much easier. Its characters are well-mannered and sweet, not to mention inherently likable, as well as everything being morally correct and admirable.

Now onto the real review. Superbad is a shamelessly raunchy R-rated comedy with more four letter words than a Webster dictionary. Again, this sounds like the introduction I'd give a poorly rated film. By no means is Superbad a bad comedy. It is a smart, witty, and factual teen movie side-stepping clichés and underwritten primary characters, while at the same time remaining funny and entertaining until the end.

2007 was the year where Judd Apatow took off. He gained attention in 2005 with The 40 Year Old Virgin, but pretty much garnered a household name with this and Knocked Up, both starring Seth Rogen. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that Superbad is an autobiography, since the writers of the film, Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, share the same names as the lead actors. Maybe that could be why this feels so sentimental and close to home. Or maybe it's because Superbad is aware what kind of unsettling situations high school can put you through and knows how to document them in a fun way.

The film centers around loudmouth pervert Seth (Hill) and self-conscious, paranoia-stricken Evan (Cera) as they endure their last few weeks of being high schoolers before they are shipped off to separate colleges. Seth and Evan have been friends for years, and are tired of the fact that their separate ways have been the talk of their parents and friends.

Seth has a crush on the recently-popular Jules (Stone), a beautiful redhead, who trusts him with supplying alcohol for her party. Evan has a crush on Becca (MacIsaac), a sweet and simple girl who agrees to meet up with him at Jules' upcoming party as well. In order to purchase the alcohol, both Seth and Evan trust their pal Fogel (Mintz-Plasse), who plans to acquire a fake ID. Because of this ID, Fogel now becomes his fake name, "McLovin," a name that has garnered much fame on the web.

The night unfolds into a chaotic spectacle of unprecedented stature, so much so that I won't go into explaining the routes and acts of desperation the characters take in order to be liked, admired, or even noticed. Fogel winds up teaming up with two police officers (Hader and Rogen) who act more like the bad guys rather than good guys. This setup and sort of topsy-tursvy treatment of character roles create limitless comedic possibilities, most of which are well utilized.

But what truly makes the film work is its level of realism and intelligence. It has wit, and puts it to use. The writing and acting captures the awkwardness of the teenage lifestyle with pinpoint accuracy, at the same time makes it fun and painful to witness. I can think of quite a few films that allow their characters to thrive on ego and self-interest, with no redeeming qualities. Here, the characters in Superbad just want to fit in and achieve the girl of their dreams, but shallow stereotypes and one stutter too many prevent this goal from happening.

Superbad is quite a rarity; a funny, good-natured comedy focusing on things of the immoral nature.  Sadly,  too many people believe these films are just raucous sex comedies with no substance, soul, or charm. However, the characters are likable and charismatic, and lack the oh-so-typical nihilistic, "I just want to have sex with anything that moves" mentality. Some may be surprised at the level of nuanced emotional instances the film reaches. The performances are fun, the writing is polished and witty, and the antics never seem to go over the top. It's too bad the women roles in the film feel a tad underwritten. Hopefully we have a well-written follow up to explore that angle sometime soon.

Review of "The Black Cat" (1934)

If anything, "The Black Cat" proves that awkward and unconventional film-making is nearly as ancient as cinema itself. This incredibly strange film hasn't got a plot (or at least not a highly significant one), but it nevertheless remains one of the greatest classics in the horror genre for a large number of other reasons. It represents the first – and undoubtedly finest – teaming of horror cinema titans Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff, and the sequences they share together (which are quite many) are so competitively brilliant you'll often think they really did behave like enemies on the filming sets.

 Other than the stellar performances of the two veterans, "The Black Cat" is a landmark horror film because of the unspeakably sinister atmosphere and the featuring of hugely shocking & controversial themes. Remember this film came out in 1934, and was Universal's highest grossing production that year, yet it revolves on topics like Satanism, torture and a wicked type of taxidermy! Some of the little trivia & monologue details, whether or not relevant to the plot, are almost too morbid and unsettling for words. For example: houses that are build on mass graves of World War One's concentration camps, vivid stories of war imprisonment and a rather explicit depiction of physical retribution during the climax. These are all elements that easily come across as shocking by today's standards, so I'm really curious what kind of effect "The Black Cat" must have had on movie-goers in 1934. I bet several people were traumatized for life. And then last but certainly not least, "The Black Cat" is a purely genuine (and one of Hollywood's only) highlight of the Expressionistic filming style. Not coincidentally, because writer/director Edgar G. Ulmer is European and previously worked with some of the greatest directors who first translated the artistic trend to cinema screens, like Fritz Lang ("Metropolis", "M") and Paul Wegener ("Der Golem"). With some of the aforementioned macabre themes, you're anticipating old dark houses and grim torture dungeons, but instead the sets are brightly lit, futuristic and even somewhat relaxing. It's a truly beautiful piece of work to behold, thanks to Ulmer's directorial vision and Charles D. Hall wondrous art direction.

 With such a beautiful depiction of atmospheric morbidity and the powerful acting showdown between Karloff and Lugosi, it's hard to deny that the absence of coherent storytelling is somewhat of a letdown. "The Black Cat" is virtually plot less and definitely doesn't owe anything to the writings of Edgar Allen Poe, even though the title and the reference of his name during the opening credits suggest otherwise. The film just unfolds the story of a vendetta between two war veterans. Hjalmar Poelzig (Karloff) was responsible for the 15 years lasting imprisonment of Dr. Werdegast (Lugosi) and tricked his wife and daughter into believing he died on the battlefield. By now, the purely evil Poelzig even promoted himself to being the High Priest of a devil worshiping cult and fiendishly plots to sacrifice the enchanting Joan Alison who was, along with her husband Peter, traveling with the vengeful Werdegast. The story often feels underdeveloped and it seems like the entire cast & crew realized the production primarily focused on style and visual flair. With a slightly more competent script "The Black Cat" easily would have ranked in the top five greatest horror movies ever made. Now it's still a highly recommended classic, and worth seeing if only for the nostalgic and almost magical sequence where Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi play chess together.

Review of "Looper" (2012)

Sitting here a few days after viewing Rian Johnson's Looper, parts of it are still falling in to place. Standing out amongst this years crop of mostly underwhelming sequels and comic book adaptations, Looper thunders onto the screen, showing, much like Inception did two years ago, that there is a place in 2012 for fresh material and just how good it can be when it's done right.

The film tells the story of Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a hit-man for an organised crime syndicate tasked with assassinating targets sent from the future. After being confronted with his future self (Bruce Willis) and failing to perform, Young Joe is forced to track down Old Joe and finish the job before being tracked down himself by the nefarious mob led by Abe (Jeff Daniels). However there is much more to the story than the basic premise, and Johnson isn't afraid to keep details close to his chest until later in the film than most movies of this type, so I won't spoil them here.

While certainly paying subtle homage to its predecessors, Looper is a stunningly original sci-fi masterpiece, vastly superior to any of the higher profile action releases this year. While certainly made on a much larger playing field than Johnson's previous work (Brick, The Brothers Bloom), there is still a small-scale, independent feel to the film, and it benefits from clearly staying completely under the control of the young director. Delivering excitement sprinkled with thoughtful themes of personal sacrifice, he offers us much to chew on.

Johnson understands that a successful action film doesn't need an explosion every ten minutes, and allows ample time for developing character and story, something which will likely divide audiences. Looper is very deliberately constructed, and after the highly charged opening establishing the intricate time-travel premise and direction of the plot, Johnson scales back the action almost too much as he ambitiously juggles the many and varied story elements he has created. Thankfully, any weakness in the middle of the film is largely overshadowed as Johnson launches the third act with such ferocity that the stark change of pace leaves you breathless.

Despite the problems in the middle of the film, Looper overcomes its flaws purely by being that rare beast in Hollywood nowadays, the totally original script. Not an adaptation, not a sequel or remake, but a fresh idea from the mind of an immensely talented young film-maker. In a perfect world, Looper would be the game changer it deserves to be, slapping Hollywood studios across the face and announcing that not everything has to be a PG-13 franchise based on a comic book. It's unlikely that this will the case, and it remains to be seen whether or not the film will even be a success, but it's encouraging to see that there are young auteurs at work who are fighting to craft new and exciting stories, even if we only get to see the results every year or two.