Phill Sacre

Category: Personal

Miscellaneous ramblings about my personal life. Unfortunately, the most common entry on this blog. Also the most boring / useless. But hey, you never know…

  • Sexual harassment in schools: is education the answer?

    Sexual harassment in schools: is education the answer?

    I’ve noticed a spate of worrying articles coming out over the past year or two. It seems that sexual harassment is on the rise among young people – especially in schools. It’s becoming such a problem that earlier this year MPs launched an enquiry into it. This is something which is especially an issue for young girls, who are often the victims of it – pressured into sending sexual pictures or having sexual contact before they really want to.

    The other day I read an interesting article about girls dealing with pornography-addicted boys (the Fight the New Drug website itself is excellent and well worth reading).

    In the survey report, entitled Don’t send me that pic, participants reported that online sexual abuse and harassment were becoming a normal part of their everyday interactions. And while the behavior seemed so common, more than 80% said it was unacceptable for boyfriends to request naked images.

    Sexual bullying and harassment are part of daily life for many girls growing up as a part of this digital generation. Young girls are speaking out more and more about how these practices have links with pornography—because it’s directly affecting them.

    The numbers are, quite frankly, frightening. It seems that we have a real problem on our hands with easy access to pornography – especially for teenagers. Watching pornography, over time, rewires your brain. This is especially true for teenagers, where brains are still developing (I believe the technical term is ‘neuroplastic’). Looking back to my teenage years, I’m very glad I didn’t have access to the internet – porn wasn’t a part of my daily life in the way it is for many people now.

    What’s the solution to all this?

    Christine Blower, secretary of the National Union of Teachers, is quoted in the Guardian – from the article I linked to at the beginning:

    “As today’s report highlights, the pressures young people face are not going away. It is therefore vital that PSHE and age-appropriate SRE [sex and relationships education] becomes mandatory in schools.”

    So, the solution is: education. Hmmm. If the message of sites like Fight the New Drug etc could be broadcast to young people – it could make a difference.  If teenagers could be prevented from watching porn then it might help – but I think that particular horse has bolted. It may do some good, but I think we have a deeper issue which goes far beyond our schools and young people.

    In days gone by, pre-sexual revolution, sex was seen as something which should occur within the confines of marriage. Although that ideal was not always kept, I think there was a general understanding that sex should be reserved for marriage, and that when it didn’t there was a clear breach of a conventional moral standard. Now, however, sex is virtually encouraged for just about everyone – whatever you like, just so long as it’s consensual and not harming anyone. So, sex has become simply another consumer product: you do it in  the way that you want, to make you happy. Your happiness and satisfaction is the most important thing – no need to worry about making another human being happy long-term. If a sexual partner doesn’t satisfy, move on to the next one.

    I think this is reflected in the statistics about marriage and family breakdown, as collected by the Marriage Foundation: it’s becoming increasingly uncommon for people to be married before having children, for example. Couples who cohabit have a much higher rate of break-up. Why is this the case? I think it is partly due to a consumer attitude to sex and relationships: romantic partners are seen as being there to serve our own interests, to make us happy, rather than being seen as an act of mutual self-giving (something which the CofE marriage vows make clear).

    The logical end of all this is can be seen in the so-called “ethical non-monogamous community”. Carl Trueman wrote an excellent piece on this a couple of weeks ago. It’s worth quoting at length:

    There was once a time when sexual intercourse was thought to be full of rich social and emotional significance. Now, even our language betrays our impoverished and negative attitudes. That we speak of “having sex” and not of “making love”—that the latter phrase can even evoke sniggers—is significant. A man can have sex with a prostitute. He can only make love to a woman he knows and about whom he cares.

    So is Gracie X “sex positive” in her attitude? Well, sexual intercourse used to mark the transition from childhood to adulthood. That has been taken away. Sex has been reduced thereby, as indeed has adulthood—the childish obsession of Gracie with herself is surely no accident. There was also a time when sexual intercourse was only considered legitimate between a man and woman committed to a lifelong partnership. It marked their exclusive relationship to each other. That too has been taken away. Sex is no longer the consummation of an exclusive bond. Now it is just a form of recreation. A bit like golf, but usually cheaper and generally without the plaid pants.

    Fortunately, Gracie is an extremist, even by today’s standards. But she is the logical end term of our culture’s simplistic, pornographic, selfish, abusive, mechanistic, and, yes, negative view of sex. Sex’s sole significance is what it does for Gracie as an individual, and damn the consequences if that hurts anyone else. It is who she is, after all.

    Sexual harassment in schools is simply the logical outworking of the message our society is sending out to young people: sex is all about you. It’s all about your pleasure, your desires, your fulfilment.

    How can we change this? I’m not sure that there are easy answers.  Trying to change a society’s view of sex is a bit like trying to change the direction of an oil tanker. It takes miles and miles. There are a couple of things I can think of:

    • Trying to limit access to pornography. I’m not sure how this would best be achieved, but it seems undeniable that pornography is a huge part of the issue. If its impact could be reduced we’d be a lot further forward. There are many barriers to overcome – things have been tried and failed over the years – but with the right motivation I think we might get closer to a solution.
    • Promoting sex in the context of marriage. I think many young people are unaware of the benefits of marriage (which some people are cottoning onto – for example, this Guardian article earlier this year on how sex is more enjoyable within marriage). It’s not enough to simply say “thou shalt not” when it comes to moral behaviour – we have to promote a positive image of sex and relationships, and I think that is found ideally in marriage.

    Rome was not built in a day, so they say,  and the sexual attitudes of a society do not change overnight. Nonetheless, I think we need to be realistic about the challenges that face us, burying our head in the sand will not help. Nevertheless, oil tankers do change direction – societies can change. We need to think about taking positive steps now to safeguard the future of our children.

  • King Saul and King Jesus: Thoughts on 1 Samuel 10

    In the past few weeks at church we’ve been working our way through the Bible, trying to get the ‘big picture’ of the whole Bible story. This week we reached 1 Samuel 10, where God chooses Saul to be the next King of Israel and Saul is anointed by the prophet Samuel.

    It’s a fascinating passage in many ways. There are details in the story which make you scratch your head, some of them are a bit puzzling. In the Old Testament, the key to understanding it is to realise that it is actually all about Jesus – and I think that is exactly the case here. I just wanted to jot down a few thoughts about how this passage is actually about Jesus, in the way that he contrasts with Saul. (The actual passage we had this morning was 1 Samuel 10:9-26. The other passage was the Triumphal Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem from Luke 19 – the reasons for mentioning that will become clear…)

    The passage in 1 Samuel 10 follows on from a rather comical story about Saul being sent to look for some lost donkeys. His father sends him out to find them, but doesn’t find them anywhere. They nearly give up, but Saul’s servant suggests asking the “man of God” – Samuel – who could help them. Saul is presented as a bit of a helpless case really: he doesn’t find the donkeys, he doesn’t really have any initiative – his servant is portrayed in a better light than he is!

    Contrast #1: Jesus, the man of God, sends his disciples out in Luke 19 to bring back a donkey. He doesn’t need to search for it: he knows exactly where it will be found. Jesus is greater than Saul.

    Samuel said to Saul  that “The Spirit of the Lord will come powerfully upon you, and you will prophesy with them; and you will be changed into a different person” (1 Sam 10:6). This is exactly what happens at the beginning of our passage, as Samuel had said.

    Contrast #2: The Spirit of God came upon Jesus at his baptism – but he didn’t need to be changed into a different person. His heart didn’t need to be changed. Jesus is greater than Saul.

    Twice in this passage Saul tries to duck his responsibility. Firstly he didn’t tell his uncle what Samuel said about being made king, and then he hides himself among the supplies to try and stop the people making him king! Hardly what you would call king material. In fact, his main qualification to be king (apart from, of course, the fact that God chose him) was that he stood a head taller than anyone else. In other words, he looked the part – but he wasn’t on the inside.

    Contrast #3: When God sends Samuel a bit later on to anoint David as King, the Lord says, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” Saul had the appearance of a good king physically, but his heart was not right. Jesus, on the other hand, as Isaiah 53 puts it: “had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.” He didn’t look like a king – and yet, his heart was completely right and true. Jesus is greater than Saul.

    The passage finishes with these words: “But some scoundrels said, ‘How can this fellow save us?’ They despised him and brought him no gifts. But Saul kept silent.” Scoundrels throw insults at Saul and question whether he can “save” them. But Saul keeps silent – which is perhaps an implied criticism of Saul, maybe he should have spoken up and said something. Another example of how Saul was not king material – at least, not in the eyes of the world.

    Contrast #4: When Jesus was hanging on the cross, people threw insults at him and said “He saved others, but he can’t save himself” (Mark 15:31). And Jesus, before Pilate, was silent (Mark 15:5). In the words of Isaiah 53 once more, “as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.” Jesus was the one who could truly save others. Jesus is greater than Saul.

    I think these contrasts are all here to point to the fact that Jesus is the great King, the King of Kings, the one whom God has chosen and anointed to rule eternally. The Israelites wanted to be like the other nations, they wanted to have a king just like everyone else – but God has very different ideas about kings.

    It turns out that what they – and we – really need is not one who is physically impressive, a brilliant strategist who is able to lead an army into battle. No – what we really need is a king who has a right heart, a king who can truly save others – not from physical danger but from their sins. Saul could never be that king: the only one who could is Jesus.

  • Genesis 3 and Gender

    symbol-male-and-female-mdThis morning I was preaching on Genesis 3 – ‘the fall of man’. It’s a fascinating passage, very carefully and cleverly constructed, and bears studying carefully. One of the things I noticed in my preparation time but didn’t really have time to elaborate on in the passage is the way gender is portrayed.
    In Genesis 1-2, the creation, a sort of order of hierarchy is established within creation. God creates the world, creates the man, and places him in the garden “to work it and take care of it” (2:15). The Lord commands the man not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
    Mankind is also given dominion over creation – God says to “rule over” the animal kingdom (1:28).
    However, and in our society this is probably the most controversial part of Genesis 1-3, there is something of an order within the relationship between the man and woman as well. Genesis 2 describes how no ‘helper’ suitable for the man could be found in the animal kingdom, so God created a woman from the rib of the man. The man names her ‘woman’ in 2:23 (and further on in 3:20 he names her Eve). Now, naming something is significant, because it does signify a kind of authority – for example, God brings the animals to Adam for him to name them (2:19-20). Naming is what God does in chapter 1, e.g. in 1:5 God calls the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’. So the act of naming itself indicated that Adam had a kind of authority over Eve – although that isn’t exactly spelled out in detail here.
    Just as an aside while I’m here – the more I think about this the more I think how fundamental gender difference is to marriage. God takes one – the man – and creates two – the man and woman. One becomes two – but in marriage (if I may say this without invoking memories of the Spice Girls) – two becomes one. Husband and wife become ‘one flesh’ (2:24). Something which two men or two women cannot do. Anyway, this is a digression, but an important one given today’s society.
    So, according to Genesis 1-2, the ‘order’ of creation before the fall is: God – Man – Woman – Animals. So, what’s interesting about Genesis 3 is that that order is completely reversed.
    The story of the fall begins with the snake, “more crafty than any of the wild animals…” The snake, a representative of the animal kingdom, then talks to the woman. The woman eats the fruit, then gives some to her husband. Only then does God get involved. The order of Genesis 3 is Animals – Woman – Man – God. It’s a reversal of creation – it is, in a sense, ‘de-creation’.  Creation is undone.
    Why is all this important, and how is it relevant to us? It’s relevant because I think we’re seeing a huge amount of gender confusion at the moment. What seems to be happening is that people think being a man or a woman is basically unimportant – sure, there are some biological differences, but it doesn’t really matter if you’re a man or a woman: people are pretty much interchangeable. I think we see this play out in the transgender movement, same-sex marriage, and so on.
    We seem to believe as a society (or at least, movers and shakers in our society are imposing the idea) that being male or female is of no real consequence. Women and men are simply people, and aside from a few biological differences, there’s nothing to distinguish them. Same-sex marriage is a just a logical consequence, because there’s virtually no difference between two people of the same sex getting married as there is with two people of the opposite sex: it’s just the same love, right? Whether or not you have certain body parts is immaterial.
    The problem here is that, according to Genesis 1-3, being a man or a woman is an important thing. Being a man or a woman is, in fact, a gift of God. We are not amorphous beings, people who simply happen to have a different physical body. Men and women are created both in the image of God and reflect his glory, but they reflect it in different ways. Men and women literally need each other, and we need each other as men and as women. This seems to be to be common sense to me: in my own experience, I do relate differently to men than to women. It’s just the way the world is. Men and women are not simply interchangeable, there is some kind of fundamental difference.
    The other day I was reading an article by Alastair Roberts: Why we should jettison the “Strong Female Character” (it’s a long read but good). One of the things that struck me while reading that was that to blur the lines between male and female actually is harmful to women. If women are supposed to be strong in the sense of being able to do better than men in what are traditionally seen as masculine things, what value does that place on things which are traditionally feminine?
    What happens when the boundary lines between male and female gets blurred is that things which are uniquely masculine and femine get lost. If being a woman isn’t really significant, who is going to champion being a wife and mother? Should a woman feel like she has to be ‘strong’ in that she needs to be more masculine than a man?
    The real irony of steamrolling over differences between the sexes is that I think it is detrimental to both men and women – but especially women. Generic people, men and women, have jobs, play sports, spend time with friends etc – but there are things which only a woman can do, e.g. be a wife and mother. During the last election, my wife felt quite undervalued: David Cameron kept on talking about people being in work as if the most important thing that anyone could do was to be an employed worker. Not once was there a mention of mums (or dads, for that matter) who choose to stay at home to look after their children. Mums and Dads parent in different ways – I’ve noticed this with my daughter. I’m not a generic parent – I’m a Dad. I bring something different to the table than a Mum.
    I apologise that this blog post has gone on a bit. This is because my thoughts are still in the process of forming. However, I do feel like our society’s view of gender at the moment is following the pattern of Genesis 3. We need to get back to God’s pattern for our lives and in particular Gender – to rediscover what it means for men to be men and women to be women. To cherish the unique gifts that each can bring, rather than simply erasing all differences.

  • Happy Christmas!

    Happy Christmas to one and all! I’m sorry for being a bit light on the blogging front this year, but thank you everyone for engaging.
    I’ve just returned from our candlelit carols service, and we looked at the difference between Santa and Jesus.

    At the end of the service we had this reading, which I’ll close with (as I did last year):

    The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognise him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. (John 1:9-13)

  • Review: The Plausibility Problem

    I’ve just finished reading The Plausibility Problem by Ed Shaw. The book is subtitled “The Church and Same-Sex Attraction”, and I can understand why that might immediately put people off: surely, we don’t need yet another book on the church’s view of sex? And this is exactly the reason I wanted to write this brief review: in my view this is one of the most important books to have been written on the subject – it is not what you think it is!

    The real strength of the book for me is the fact that it doesn’t deal with traditional / revisionist Biblical arguments (although they are treated in two appendices), but rather seeks to outline how evangelical churches have made the church’s traditional teaching on sexuality implausible by a number of ‘missteps’ in the past few years. In other words, the problem which traditional Biblical churches face is not what they believe about sexuality – it’s how that teaching can be plausible in today’s society. Too often in today’s churches, the orthodox Biblical view of sexuality is seen as implausible because the church has lost focus on a number of other important teachings. These are what Ed Shaw labels ‘missteps’.

    These missteps are:

    1. Your identity is your sexuality;
    2. A family is Mum, Dad and 2.4 children;
    3. If you’re born gay, it can’t be wrong to be gay;
    4. If it makes you happy, it must be right!
    5. Sex is where true intimacy is found;
    6. Men and women are equal and interchangeable;
    7. Godliness is heterosexuality;
    8. Celibacy is bad for you;
    9. Suffering is to be avoided.

    In all these areas, Shaw demonstrates how evangelical churches have often bought into cultural assumptions or perhaps not taught the full Biblical picture in a certain area. For example, I found his chapter on being “born gay” helpful: he argues that evangelical churches who argue that being gay is simply a ‘lifestyle choice’ are detrimental to the cause – it is in fact irrelevant whether same-sex attraction is chosen or not, and arguing that it is chosen will do nothing but alienate those for whom it is not a choice (or is experienced that way).

    In my opinion, the area of sex and sexuality is shaping up to be the biggest area of contention between the church and the world and what Shaw outlines in this book is absolutely vital to enable people to make the move from the world to the church. It is no longer enough to simply teach what the Bible says about sex and sexuality – our church must regain its hold of teachings which have perhaps been under-emphasized in recent years.

    I heartily commend this book to anyone who has an interest in the church – especially to anyone involved in church leadership in any capacity (including things like PCCs and so on). It is sorely needed, a real word in season for the church of today.

  • Finishing College and Ordination

    ChurchThose of you who have been paying attention will know that I’ve spent the last three years of my life in North London, studying for full-time Christian ministry in the Church of England at Oak Hill College. Well, those three years have positively flown by, and in the next two weeks I am going to finish at college, be ordained, and start work in my new role as curate in Great Clacton.

    In short, it’s going to be absolutely crazy for a while. (Don’t expect too many blog posts over the next few weeks… I don’t know how much time I will have for blogging once I’m a curate, but hopefully I can do the occasional post).

    I thought it might be worth reflecting on a few things I’ve learned over the last three years at college, focussing on this final year:

    • God is amazing. To be honest, I didn’t really need three years of college to know this – but I think I have a much deeper appreciation of it now. As I said in my review of Simply God, “I’ve found my faith enlivened as we have considered together what it means for God to be God”. What does it mean for God to be eternal, omniscient, infinite, perfect…?
    • God’s Word is amazing. This is something which I’ve particularly noticed since coming to college – I now have far more confidence in the Bible (i.e. God’s Word) than I used to have. I’ve had my eyes opened in a new way to how the Bible fits together, how to understand it, how to teach it. I believe God has called me to a ‘ministry of the Word’, i.e. a particular emphasis on preaching and teaching the Bible to people, and as such this is the kind of thing which gets me out of bed in the morning.
    • What God has done for us is amazing. In the last term we’ve been looking at Justification, and how God could “justify the ungodly” (Romans 4:5). The implications of this are huge: what motivates us to love and serve God, for example? Are we motivated out of fear, wondering whether we could ever do enough to merit God’s favour? Or are we motivated by love, in thankfulness for what God has already accomplished?
    • How God works is amazing. I’m thinking particularly here of the Pastoral Counselling course we did back in the first term. It was one of the most helpful practical courses I’ve done at college: how does the Gospel work out in people’s lives? It’s been very helpful for me both in my own life, and in talking to friends and family. God is at work in our situations, even if we don’t know the “why”.

    I could go on, at some length, but that’s probably enough for now. I think it’s appropriate to finish with the doxology from the end of Hebrews:

    Now may the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

  • Steve Chalke and the Bible vs Hebrews

    Steve Chalke wants to start a global discussion about the Bible – see the video here or the document here. You may remember, he made his views on same-sex marriage clear last year, and I commented then that I didn’t agree with his understanding of Scripture. He’s gone one step further this time, but I don’t want to waste time discussing it here when others have already written an excellent response. The gist of it is basically that what Steve Chalke is proposing ultimately undermines confidence in the Bible, the opposite of what he was intending!

    Over the past few weeks I’ve been studying the book of Hebrews as part of my college course. Hebrews is a difficult book (I remember reading it as a student and being baffled by much of it!), but it has some important things to say to us regarding how we understand Scripture. Hebrews is interesting because it’s preaching a sermon about Christ, but it uses exclusively Old Testament texts to talk about Christ (it hardly refers to his earthly ministry at all). As such it teaches us a lot about what it means to understand the Old Testament.

    As we all know the best place to start is the beginning – this is how Hebrews kicks off:

    Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

    So. God spoke to “our fathers”, i.e. the Jewish people, through the prophets – but recently he has spoken to us by “his Son”. What’s interesting here is that both the prophets and Jesus are counted as “God speaking”. As we will see, it’s not the case that Jesus is somehow a ‘superior’ revelation to the prophets per se, more that the Old Testament speaks of and points forward to Christ.

    (more…)

  • Two Cheers for Human Rights?

    human rightsThe modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. – G.K. Chesterton: “Orthodoxy”

    I read an article about a month ago called “Two Cheers for Human Rights“. It was published on 27th December so I was probably still too full of turkey and Christmas Pud to really digest it properly (did you see what I did there?!) Anyway, the article makes interesting reading – especially if you’re a fan of human rights (and who isn’t in the UK?)

    I thought it might be worth quoting from the article. The writer, John Gray, is an atheist (as far as I can tell) but he has some worthwhile observations about the nature of human rights. (more…)

  • Paedophilia and Orientation

    I read something interesting today: the American Psychiatric Association (APA) now classifies Paedophilia as an orientation:

    In the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM V), the American Psychiatric Association (APA) drew a very distinct line between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder. Pedophilia refers to a sexual orientation or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation, whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality.

    I’m just not quite sure what to make of it at the moment. Here we have a particular sexual desire – an ‘orientation’ – being seen as acceptable, whereas acting on this particular orientation is not. (Edit: this article (see comments) indicates that the article is based on a misunderstanding and is not actually the case. However, given the article in the next paragraph, I think this post still applies, if only as more of a hypothetical – there are certainly those who would wish to change paedophilia to an orientation and it has been discussed in official circles.)

    What’s even more interesting is another article on Paedophilia from earlier this year: it suggests that the ‘harm’ aspect of Paedophilia – which I would imagine most if not all people would see as proscribing any kind of paedophilic behaviour – is actually more gray and complex than you might think.

    (more…)

  • Surviving Parenthood

    LydiaAs I’ve mentioned a couple of times now, lately I have become a Dad. Now that Lydia is four weeks old, I thought it might be worth sitting down to type up a few reflections on my experience so far. It may be interesting to look back on, and if anyone else out there is looking forward to becoming a parent any time soon – it may be interesting to read.

    I’m not going to make this long, but here are my thoughts in handy bullet-point format:

    • It’s really, really hard to describe what it feels like. On Monday, the day before Lydia was born, I had a normal day at college. A few short hours later, there I was – with another little life. It’s really strange.
    • Neither of us needed to worry about bonding with Lydia. In fact, it was lovely to watch Mrs Phil (who was a bit worried about it beforehand) being given the baby for the first time and immediately being a loving mother. I’m not really a “baby person”, if that makes sense, but I think Lydia is the most gorgeous little girl I’ve ever seen.
    • The only thing anyone ever talks about beforehand (in my experience, at least) is all the hard bits: sleepless nights, nappy changes, crying, that sort of thing. I think we’ve been lucky with Lydia, but as yet we’ve had things pretty easy. The first two weeks were probably the hardest sleep-wise: she usually didn’t settle in her moses basket and would only go to sleep if someone was holding her. Also, babies are born nocturnal (or something like that) and so are usually more wakeful at night. Fortunately, Mrs Phil’s Mum was staying with us for the first week so and could take Lydia at night (with three of us, we all managed to get some sleep in turn). But things improved gradually: at first she would be happy to sleep in our bed with us, then in her moses basket. Now she’s getting into more of a rhythm. Mrs Phil has it worse at the moment because she’s breastfeeding and so needs to be up more during the night, but I don’t think it’s as apocalyptically bad as I was led to believe (plus – naps are invaluable!)
    • Speaking of sleep, I’ve been reading up a little bit about sleep training on the internet lately. One thing I’ve found is that there is a huge amount of conflicting advice out there. Even from among the experts. It’s worth remembering that every baby is an individual: babies are not machines who are programmed to do things at certain times. They are born with personalities… anecdotally, plenty of people have told me how their children were all different e.g. one sleeping through the night at an early age, one not sleeping very much at all for months etc. Take any advice you receive with a pinch of salt.
    • The strangest thing about all this? How normal it’s seemed. I think I was worried about having a little person coming into our house, how disruptive it would all be (very self-centred, I know…) But what I’ve found is, we’ve just had to get on with it – when you have a baby to look after you have to do what you have to do. We’ve had a lot of help from various sources (thanks to family, friends, college and church) but at the end of the day we’ve survived.

    All in all, being a parent is an amazing feeling. It has its ups and downs, but it’s worth it. And we’re surviving. I hope that, reading this, if you’re in a similar situation to our situation a few weeks ago this is an encouragement!