Anyone who thinks that God has been banned from public schools ever since 1962 needs to check their history. Their recent history, that is.
Most Christians are familiar with (and shake their fists at) two Supreme Court decisions from the early 1960s, both ruling against teacher-led religious practices at the start of the school day. The first case involved prayer; the second, scripture readings.
But a lesser-known decision from 2001 is the more relevant one, opening the door for the gospel in public schools - if Christians are willing to seize the opportunity. In Good News Clubs v. Milford Central School the Court ruled that if a public school offers its facilities to any outside organizations for after school clubs, they must be made available to everyone. Quite plainly, religious clubs enjoy as much access as the Boy Scouts, art and drama clubs, or club sports teams.
Good News Clubs are a creation of Child Evangelism Fellowship and enjoyed accommodation in some school districts, but not all, which is what led to the 2001 case. What the decision did is clarify that Good News Clubs could not be kept out just because they were religious in nature. Or to put it another way, if a school lacks a Christian club, it isn't because the school is keeping them out, but because Christians haven't gone in.
How are we doing in San Diego? According to CEF's interactive website (you can view the county map here), there are 19 schools in Oceanside, 2 with clubs; 10 schools in Encinitas, 1 with a club; 10 schools in San Marcos, 2 with clubs; and 9 schools in Carlsbad, none with clubs.
So here's the opportunity: an after school club that meets at a school site one day a week, usually for the hour after school gets out, staffed by a team of volunteers, with curriculum and administrative support from CEF (they have an office in North County). The potential audience is any kid who goes to that school. Schools will usually send home the flier and permission slip announcing the club. The potential effect is huge.
What the club looks like is essentially a reflection of its makeup and the team running it. There is a book of lessons put out by CEF which form the backbone of the curriculum (and a separate set targeted at middle schools, although no middle school in the county currently has a club). But the environment and dynamic (games, music, skits, snacks, crafts) is limited only by the creativity and will of the organizers. CEF recommends that no fewer than six people form the team so there's plenty of help and supervision. It's also noted that the meeting time right after school makes it a convenient option for high school students looking to fulfill service hour requirements. What's more, a pastor in Encinitas has developed a strategy for bridging the gap between school clubs and churches, so the club can do what it does best - outreach - while funneling interested students into local churches for growth and discipleship.
There's another reason to love this Court decision. Not only does it give Christian groups access, but it actually promotes the presence of the gospel. One has to seriously question whether "God was in the schools" prior to 1962 by virtue of the prayer that was recited. The prayer in question in Engel v. Vitale went like this:
Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.
Whether you believe such a prayer is sufficient, overly religious, or innocuous, it isn't the gospel, and doesn't begin to reach where an in-school club could reach. Furthermore, would you really want a public school teacher who may not be a Christian to be leading your kid in a prayer like that? I wouldn't. To me, that models hypocrisy: all that counts is the words, not the sentiment behind them.
An after-school club is totally legitimate: it is non-coercive - kids who come have chosen to come and are there with parental consent - it is convenient - no extra transportation by parents is needed - and it is easy for kids to invite friends to - it happens right on their turf. And it is led by a group of caring adults who want to invest in kids that might never darken the door of a church. Moreover, it visually demonstrates to Christian kids that God - and by extension, faith - doesn't live at church.
Sometimes I wonder if evangelicals prefer to curse the darkness than to light candles. We fixate on legal restrictions or the slightest bit of resistance and call it persecution. Give me a break. The real issue is whether we will step up to the opportunities we have. This is one such opportunity - a huge one.
Interested in hearing more? A small but growing team of people is meeting monthly to plan, pray, and strategize about establishing more clubs in North County. They're working to get the word out - to Moms in Touch groups, area churches, and anyone interested in reaching kids - about the possibilities. The next meeting is Tuesday, February 5, at noon at Coastline Community Church in Encinitas. Anyone is welcome to come. E-mail me if you want more info.
Info, articles, and thoughts for parents of kids at North Coast Calvary Chapel.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
2008 To Do List: Let's Minister to Families
For some time now it's been fashionable for churches to assert that "parents are the primary disciplers of their children." This is sometimes offered as an assurance (we're not trying to take over your role), other times apologetically (we refuse to take over your role), and other times as a hedge against criticism (hey, we can only do so much!). But as I've written about (see, for instance, this post), the nature of partnership between parents and churches when it comes to the spiritual nourishment of kids is such that one need not fear the other, because the roles are distinct. Parents need churches - there are certain things a church body can accomplish that an individual family cannot - and churches need families - a church institution cannot surrogate for the individual care and nurturance that young souls need.
The problem is, in most churches - this one included - there isn't much bridging between the two environments. Going to church as a family entails splitting up once on-site and reuniting in the parking lot when it's time to go home. What happens in between constitutes "the ministry". Not that the ministering would necessarily be better if families merely stayed together; my entire family sat together in church weekly from birth-age 18, but that doesn't mean the church was "reaching" us as a family, collectively. Church remained an individualistic enterprise.
What does it mean, then, when we talk about ministering to whole families? I would suggest a few things:
1. Ministry to the family gives everyone a common language and facilitates further discussion. In spiritually nourishing home environments, God is talked about freely. One of the best things churches can do is put parents and kids on equal footing so there is actually something to talk about. Of course it's great whenever we touch on something in the 4th-6th grade class that paralleled the teaching in adult church, but this is always purely by coincidence. Am I suggesting that churches should coordinate their teaching series across age groups? I'm not. Some churches do this, but believing as I do that the content of a lesson should meet the needs of the learner - ideally, we need to be answering the questions they're already asking - I can't buy into prescribed curriculum. To me, it disregards a pastor's individual judgment, when in fact pastors are charged with "know[ing] well the condition of [their] flock." But what ministries can do is give their hearers a common language with which to dialogue about spiritual things. This is really a question of consistent theology: what does a church teach about who God is and how God works and his will for all mankind and the role of the church and the meaning of "salvation" and what it means to follow Jesus? Families who are of one heart and mind on these things will find it easy to support one another spiritually, and to pray.
2. Great ministry to families recognizes the need to develop the whole person. This would be in contrast to a view that sees the job of the church as equipping parents primarily to do religious instruction. The difference, I think, hinges on an understanding of the word "salvation" and, consequently, one's understanding of the role of the church in bringing this about. For if you view salvation as "crossing the goal line" and securing eternal life through the forgiveness of sin, you will value church for its work in proclaiming truth, and Christian Education largely takes on the form of presenting precepts and unchanging propositions. However, a more holistic (and I think correct) view of salvation takes into account the ongoing work of redemption; salvation begins with the forgiveness of sins, but it is not limited to that, and a child's ability to both enter into and experience the ongoing work of salvation will be shaped and limited by who they are - physically, emotionally, cognitively, and socially. Another way of saying this is to observe that each of us travels a different path to reach the one path, Jesus. Individual testimonies describe how a person entered a relationship with Christ, but they don't necessarily prescribe how that ought to happen.
All of this is to say that churches need to be mindful of the health of the whole person, and particularly with regard to children, their emotional development. To teach kids to be empathetic, to recognize emotions, to communicate, to resolve conflict, to assert their needs, to think critically - these are all proper for churches to teach, and they are not the same as merely talking about character values: be kind, be modest, be happy, be quiet, be sober, be abstinent. That teaches what to do but not how. Good ministry to families - to anyone, really - comes alongside of rather than stands facing; it talks with, not to. The better we are situated to meet individual needs, the better we will be able to equip families.
3. This relates to a third need, which is to network families together. Sometimes a sympathetic ear is worth more than loads of expert advice. There is great comfort in knowing you're not the only parent dealing with a defiant child, or an unbelieving spouse, or an unmotivated son, or an image-obsessed daughter. So in addition to putting the best resources and scholarship in the hands of parents, churches can do a service simply by bringing people together. The secondary effect of this is that childhood friendships sometimes grow out of adult ones. But this doesn't happen by accident. With kids from more than 88 different schools in the last 12 months in the 4th-6th grade alone, the reach of this church is vast. What do we do to bring people from disparate neighborhoods together, and even to get those who are geographically close to know that the other exists?
4. Finally, ministry to the family helps families in crisis. Much of this is already in place here; we just haven't done the best job of communicating it to you. That's changing. We're starting to recognize that the health of individual ministries is enhanced by collaboration among us, because we serve the same body. One example would be the appearance by Tim Smith last fall, and subsequent discussion group on his book, "The Danger of Raising Nice Kids." Another would be the upcoming night (Jan. 31) on Internet Safety with Brian Dixon - which will be offered at the same time as we're doing an outreach night for the kids just down the hall. Divorce Care for Kids has just started for the new year. Grief support groups are starting soon through the Caring Ministry. As we in 4th-6th grade continue to morph from "class" to "ministry" we are better able to identify families in need and refer them appropriately. There is no way for a "children's" ministry to provide all of this on its own. So while the size of a church like ours tends to impose anonymity, the upside is that we have a vast pool of resources here and are able to offer many specialized classes and groups.
We believe in families, and want to invest in them. Programming for families is tricky because it involves coordinating twice as many schedules and either providing content that's age-appropriate for both generations, or conducting parallel programs. So how we will deliver this is a work in progress. But the nature of the church-family partnership demands that we try, or we'll miss the opportunity that exists to give kids every spiritual advantage.
The problem is, in most churches - this one included - there isn't much bridging between the two environments. Going to church as a family entails splitting up once on-site and reuniting in the parking lot when it's time to go home. What happens in between constitutes "the ministry". Not that the ministering would necessarily be better if families merely stayed together; my entire family sat together in church weekly from birth-age 18, but that doesn't mean the church was "reaching" us as a family, collectively. Church remained an individualistic enterprise.
What does it mean, then, when we talk about ministering to whole families? I would suggest a few things:
1. Ministry to the family gives everyone a common language and facilitates further discussion. In spiritually nourishing home environments, God is talked about freely. One of the best things churches can do is put parents and kids on equal footing so there is actually something to talk about. Of course it's great whenever we touch on something in the 4th-6th grade class that paralleled the teaching in adult church, but this is always purely by coincidence. Am I suggesting that churches should coordinate their teaching series across age groups? I'm not. Some churches do this, but believing as I do that the content of a lesson should meet the needs of the learner - ideally, we need to be answering the questions they're already asking - I can't buy into prescribed curriculum. To me, it disregards a pastor's individual judgment, when in fact pastors are charged with "know[ing] well the condition of [their] flock." But what ministries can do is give their hearers a common language with which to dialogue about spiritual things. This is really a question of consistent theology: what does a church teach about who God is and how God works and his will for all mankind and the role of the church and the meaning of "salvation" and what it means to follow Jesus? Families who are of one heart and mind on these things will find it easy to support one another spiritually, and to pray.
2. Great ministry to families recognizes the need to develop the whole person. This would be in contrast to a view that sees the job of the church as equipping parents primarily to do religious instruction. The difference, I think, hinges on an understanding of the word "salvation" and, consequently, one's understanding of the role of the church in bringing this about. For if you view salvation as "crossing the goal line" and securing eternal life through the forgiveness of sin, you will value church for its work in proclaiming truth, and Christian Education largely takes on the form of presenting precepts and unchanging propositions. However, a more holistic (and I think correct) view of salvation takes into account the ongoing work of redemption; salvation begins with the forgiveness of sins, but it is not limited to that, and a child's ability to both enter into and experience the ongoing work of salvation will be shaped and limited by who they are - physically, emotionally, cognitively, and socially. Another way of saying this is to observe that each of us travels a different path to reach the one path, Jesus. Individual testimonies describe how a person entered a relationship with Christ, but they don't necessarily prescribe how that ought to happen.
All of this is to say that churches need to be mindful of the health of the whole person, and particularly with regard to children, their emotional development. To teach kids to be empathetic, to recognize emotions, to communicate, to resolve conflict, to assert their needs, to think critically - these are all proper for churches to teach, and they are not the same as merely talking about character values: be kind, be modest, be happy, be quiet, be sober, be abstinent. That teaches what to do but not how. Good ministry to families - to anyone, really - comes alongside of rather than stands facing; it talks with, not to. The better we are situated to meet individual needs, the better we will be able to equip families.
3. This relates to a third need, which is to network families together. Sometimes a sympathetic ear is worth more than loads of expert advice. There is great comfort in knowing you're not the only parent dealing with a defiant child, or an unbelieving spouse, or an unmotivated son, or an image-obsessed daughter. So in addition to putting the best resources and scholarship in the hands of parents, churches can do a service simply by bringing people together. The secondary effect of this is that childhood friendships sometimes grow out of adult ones. But this doesn't happen by accident. With kids from more than 88 different schools in the last 12 months in the 4th-6th grade alone, the reach of this church is vast. What do we do to bring people from disparate neighborhoods together, and even to get those who are geographically close to know that the other exists?
4. Finally, ministry to the family helps families in crisis. Much of this is already in place here; we just haven't done the best job of communicating it to you. That's changing. We're starting to recognize that the health of individual ministries is enhanced by collaboration among us, because we serve the same body. One example would be the appearance by Tim Smith last fall, and subsequent discussion group on his book, "The Danger of Raising Nice Kids." Another would be the upcoming night (Jan. 31) on Internet Safety with Brian Dixon - which will be offered at the same time as we're doing an outreach night for the kids just down the hall. Divorce Care for Kids has just started for the new year. Grief support groups are starting soon through the Caring Ministry. As we in 4th-6th grade continue to morph from "class" to "ministry" we are better able to identify families in need and refer them appropriately. There is no way for a "children's" ministry to provide all of this on its own. So while the size of a church like ours tends to impose anonymity, the upside is that we have a vast pool of resources here and are able to offer many specialized classes and groups.
We believe in families, and want to invest in them. Programming for families is tricky because it involves coordinating twice as many schedules and either providing content that's age-appropriate for both generations, or conducting parallel programs. So how we will deliver this is a work in progress. But the nature of the church-family partnership demands that we try, or we'll miss the opportunity that exists to give kids every spiritual advantage.
Friday, January 11, 2008
2008 To Do List: Let's Stop Running Successful Programs
There's a question I carry around with me in my binder, because it gnaws at me and constantly challenges me to refine and reshape what I do. I think if all churches focused on this question when it came to ministering to children, we'd spend our time - and the kids' time - a lot better than we do. I think we'd stop focusing on having kids jump through hoops and "majoring in the minors." We'd certainly start measuring our success differently, which would in turn affect the product we turned out.
The question is this: What is the best tangible benefit a kid can take away from involvement in our programs?
It's a question I need to keep coming back to because I am satisfied with the wrong things. When someone asks me "how did it go?", I am inclined to respond in terms of the turnout, or the efficiency of the execution, or whether or not someone got hurt, or whether or not a parent complained, or whether the program came off flawlessly, or whether or not I had to deal with discipline issues, or whether the room was set up just right. And the truth is, those things mean just about zip to the average kid.
The question is this: What is the best tangible benefit a kid can take away from involvement in our programs?
It's a question I need to keep coming back to because I am satisfied with the wrong things. When someone asks me "how did it go?", I am inclined to respond in terms of the turnout, or the efficiency of the execution, or whether or not someone got hurt, or whether or not a parent complained, or whether the program came off flawlessly, or whether or not I had to deal with discipline issues, or whether the room was set up just right. And the truth is, those things mean just about zip to the average kid.
When a kid leaves the room, they care if they were bored and they care if anyone talked to them and they care if they were made to feel important and they care that they had a good time. So, many of the marks of "success" are just pretty meaningless:
"The room was full." What is full? Double the room size and your crowd would have seemed tiny. Or, cut the room in half and you can all feel like you're in a crowded space. "Fullness" has no meaning.
"Everything went smoothly." Well, so what? Most organizational details are invisible to a kid, even though it makes us feel better to know there were enough nametags and the money came out just right and we started and ended exactly on time. The sun in kid world doesn't rise and set on such things.
"I felt good about it." Some nights put me on a high. Others make me feel low and empty. So what? The elements of a program that drive my feelings are far from those that help a kid make up his mind whether what he just came through was important or irrelevant, meaningful or boring, a future draw or something to avoid. Looks lie, and if we adults are honest, we would admit that aesthetic factors - usually the noise level - exercise greater influence on our perception of success than they ought to.
That too few kids showed up or that the music didn't cue at the right time or that we ran out of snacks or that the kids laughed during a part of the message that wasn't intended to be funny or that we dismissed 10 minutes late really hardly matters more than a week after it happens. What does matter begins with the experience of the kid and ends at how truly God was represented through the event (or class or encounter or project).
What is the reason we minister? For the kids or for us? If it is "because we love kids" then our programs can become so child-centered that the kids' total satisfaction becomes our utmost pursuit: McMinistry. Yet an efficient program can drive us to the other extreme, where kids' needs are disregarded - and I've seen that happen, too. Then "The Program" becomes an end in itself - and it might well be spiritual, but it doesn't constitute good ministry to kids. Good ministry happens when God is glorified and kids experience this in a meaningful way. By "meaningful" I mean that the experience translates - kids are understanding what they're learning and it affects them beyond the classroom door.
That integration is usually beyond the scope of the "programmed" aspects of church. Unlike adults, who can be "fed" simply by listening to a half-hour sermon, kids learn differently. I've found that in teaching kids, it's very hard - almost useless - to "make a point" expecting kids to absorb your own understanding. Kids need to figure out how new information fits with what they already know and have experienced. They need dialogue. They need to ask and answer questions. That's why we teach very interactively in our class. But what we do from the front isn't enough.
"The room was full." What is full? Double the room size and your crowd would have seemed tiny. Or, cut the room in half and you can all feel like you're in a crowded space. "Fullness" has no meaning.
"Everything went smoothly." Well, so what? Most organizational details are invisible to a kid, even though it makes us feel better to know there were enough nametags and the money came out just right and we started and ended exactly on time. The sun in kid world doesn't rise and set on such things.
"I felt good about it." Some nights put me on a high. Others make me feel low and empty. So what? The elements of a program that drive my feelings are far from those that help a kid make up his mind whether what he just came through was important or irrelevant, meaningful or boring, a future draw or something to avoid. Looks lie, and if we adults are honest, we would admit that aesthetic factors - usually the noise level - exercise greater influence on our perception of success than they ought to.
That too few kids showed up or that the music didn't cue at the right time or that we ran out of snacks or that the kids laughed during a part of the message that wasn't intended to be funny or that we dismissed 10 minutes late really hardly matters more than a week after it happens. What does matter begins with the experience of the kid and ends at how truly God was represented through the event (or class or encounter or project).
What is the reason we minister? For the kids or for us? If it is "because we love kids" then our programs can become so child-centered that the kids' total satisfaction becomes our utmost pursuit: McMinistry. Yet an efficient program can drive us to the other extreme, where kids' needs are disregarded - and I've seen that happen, too. Then "The Program" becomes an end in itself - and it might well be spiritual, but it doesn't constitute good ministry to kids. Good ministry happens when God is glorified and kids experience this in a meaningful way. By "meaningful" I mean that the experience translates - kids are understanding what they're learning and it affects them beyond the classroom door.
That integration is usually beyond the scope of the "programmed" aspects of church. Unlike adults, who can be "fed" simply by listening to a half-hour sermon, kids learn differently. I've found that in teaching kids, it's very hard - almost useless - to "make a point" expecting kids to absorb your own understanding. Kids need to figure out how new information fits with what they already know and have experienced. They need dialogue. They need to ask and answer questions. That's why we teach very interactively in our class. But what we do from the front isn't enough.
This process of kids restating and re-formulating and coming up with their own examples and thinking about - all of this takes time. It also takes personal attention. It's one of the reasons we started sending the HomePage last year at this time, not only to keep parents up to speed about what we're learning, but to keep the kids thinking. But in our rooms, we're far from giving personal attention some weeks - with 8, 9, 10 or more kids assigned to one leader, it's all that leader can do to give each kid even one minute of undivided attention. That's a problem.
The other problem with programs is that they don't care. Despite the fact that every kid arrives having different home issues, parenting situations, life experiences, learning styles, interests and values, programs mash them all together so that they become "the kids". But they're not "the kids" - there's this one, and that one, and the next one, each distinct from the other and each who will forge their own journey of faith. Come and look at our "School Wall" sometime and ask, as I do, "Who's investing in that kid right there?" and "Does anyone know what's going on with her?" and "How is she doing?" and "Does this make any sense to him?"
Programs happen at a moment in time. But lives are lived out constantly. Whatever effect a talk or a night or a weekend or a sleepover may have had when it happened, the better question is, what effect is it having still? We don't make a difference with kids by what's already past. We make a difference by the ongoing work of Jesus in their lives.
And all of this begins with kids becoming known individually within our ministry. You can join us. We are always looking for caring souls who want to make an impact on preteens. There are five qualities we look for in a volunteer: are they caring, loving, playful, patient, and committed? If that's you, maybe you should be on our team. Our next no-obligation orientation night is Tuesday, January 29. Come and hear more about our vision: the Biggest Dreams, the Best Discipleship, and Most Care. With every soldier we add to the ranks, we move away from being just another program and toward being a church that cares, personally and deeply, for kids. I'll take that over slick programming any day.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
The Culture Gets it Wrong Again on Sex
Surprise: Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant. Have you heard? The younger sister of Brittney Spears and the star of her own show on Nickelodeon finds herself pregnant at 16. The news is considered surprising because Jamie Lynn supposedly represented all the virtue Brittney had turned her back on. What's really surprising, though, is how quickly her pregnancy has been adopted as Exhibit A in the case against teaching abstinence.
Typical is a column by Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post where Marcus recounts an exchange she had with her preteen daughters about the Jamie Lynn pregnancy.
Marcus: So, what do you think the lesson is here?
Ten-year-old Julia, brightly: Don't have sex until you get married!
Marcus continues: "Uh, um, is that the lesson? ...This is the conundrum that modern parents, boomers and beyond, confront when matters of sex arise. The bright-line rules that our parents laid down, with varying degrees of conviction and rather low rates of success, aren't -- for most of us, anyway -- either relevant or plausible. When mommy and daddy didn't get married until they were 35, abstinence until marriage isn't an especially tenable claim.
Nor is it one I'd care to make. Would I prefer -- as if my preference much matters -- that my daughters abstain until marriage? No; in fact, I think that would be a mistake. But I'm not especially comfortable saying that, quite so directly, to my children, partly because that conversation gets so complicated, so quickly."
So what is the counsel Marcus will give, once her girls have aged some? "It could happen to you--even if you're the kind of "conscientious" girl who, as Jamie Lynn's mother described her, is never late for curfew. And so, whenever you choose to have sex, unless you are ready to have a baby, don't do it without contraception."
It's both compelling and regrettable that Marcus (whose sentiments I imagine do reflect those of many modern parents) is reluctant to articulate a "bright-line rule", presumably (and one must read between the lines here) because she had such a rule laid out for her and she broke it.
My purpose is not to point fingers at Marcus or other contemporaries or teenagers now who've had sex or kids who someday will have sex as teens. Condemnation is off the table. My point is to shine a spotlight on this unwillingness to hold out a standard that's above anything you, personally, were able to meet. One hopes that Marcus would allow that there is a difference between laying down a "rule" for kids when it comes to sex - the violation of which would presumably strain the parent-child relationship at a time when parental support was needed most - and articulating a "standard", which is an ideal that is born of (but does not limit) love. But Marcus' essay would lead you to believe that she either doesn't appreciate the distinction or that she feels even a standard of abstinence is for some reason unwise.
The fact that Ruth Marcus' 10-year-old daughter can draw the conclusion that "you shouldn't have sex before marriage" is a clarion call to parents everywhere who are about to throw in the towel on teen sex and rush out to put their daughters on birth control. In that simple conclusion, I hear a 10-year-old recognizing that pregnancy is a too-high price to pay for early sexual involvement. In her mother's less-than-enthusiastic endorsement of her daughter's resolve, I hear a mom resigned to a different reality, willing to introduce a complexity into her daughter's decision making that isn't there. I say, so what if the girl continues to believe, into her teens, that she shouldn't have sex until she's married? To which Marcus would presumably reply, "If (when) she gives in, she'll end up feeling guilty, or worse, pregnant." But that's a smokescreen. Pregnancy and feelings of regret aren't the issue. Sex is. And the bottom line remains: teenagers ought not to be having sex.
They are too young emotionally.
They are too young physically.
They tend to follow social cues in determining "readiness" rather than moral precepts.
They haven't learned commitment.
They misread lust for love.
Sex early in a relationship will set a pattern for their relationships that will be very difficult to break.
They won't learn or enforce healthy boundaries.
Girls will get used. Boys will get hurt.
10-year-olds intuitively understand this. That's not to say the young girl in question won't someday change her mind. Certainly she'll be pressured by her friends and her first serious boyfriend and all of teen culture to soften that"no sex" stance. But just because it's a hard position to hold doesn't make it the wrong one.
To say "Well, no one is perfect" is to acknowledge that no one lives up to societal expectations all of the time, that we all have character flaws or skeletons in the closet or track records that keep us from claiming moral high ground. Fine. But using "no one is perfect" to argue that there is no high ground and therefore there can be no standard at all is quite another thing.
Are we really powerless to redeem a culture? Is it naive and hopeless to want better for your kids? Certainly there's truth to the proposition that a strong leader ought to model the character they wish to develop in their charges. But if we were doomed to only imitate the values we saw in our elders and incapable of conceiving better than what we'd directly observed, our culture would be sucked dry of virtue entirely by now. If I, as a leader, could only lead people to be as well or healthy as I am, and no better, the prospects for future generations would be grim, indeed.
That's why I cannot agree with parents who, for instance, don't feel they have the courage or moral authority to tell their kids not to use drugs because they themselves smoked marijuana or whatever. Guess what? "Do as I say, not as I did" is not the same as "Do as I say, not as I do". Yes, it's hypocritical to expect your child to be something you're not now (in other words - to paraphrase the old TV commercial - parents who use drugs should expect to have kids who use drugs); but it's idealistic and commendable to wish them to be something better than what you were. Will they take your admission of indiscretion as "permission" to indulge themselves? They might. But you know what? If you leave them hanging, giving no guidance at all, they'll feel confused at best and entitled to do exactly as you did at worst.
So let me say it again: it's not wrong to hold out standards for your child when it comes to moral behavior that are high and idealistic and perhaps above what you kept for yourself. Kids need that. "My generation got it wrong, but yours can do better" is golden; "My generation messed up and yours will be worse" is garbage. Dismally low standards or no standards at all communicate a parental pessimism that kids are able to behave morally. When that's all we have to offer kids by way of guidance, the culture is doomed.
Typical is a column by Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post where Marcus recounts an exchange she had with her preteen daughters about the Jamie Lynn pregnancy.
Marcus: So, what do you think the lesson is here?
Ten-year-old Julia, brightly: Don't have sex until you get married!
Marcus continues: "Uh, um, is that the lesson? ...This is the conundrum that modern parents, boomers and beyond, confront when matters of sex arise. The bright-line rules that our parents laid down, with varying degrees of conviction and rather low rates of success, aren't -- for most of us, anyway -- either relevant or plausible. When mommy and daddy didn't get married until they were 35, abstinence until marriage isn't an especially tenable claim.
Nor is it one I'd care to make. Would I prefer -- as if my preference much matters -- that my daughters abstain until marriage? No; in fact, I think that would be a mistake. But I'm not especially comfortable saying that, quite so directly, to my children, partly because that conversation gets so complicated, so quickly."
So what is the counsel Marcus will give, once her girls have aged some? "It could happen to you--even if you're the kind of "conscientious" girl who, as Jamie Lynn's mother described her, is never late for curfew. And so, whenever you choose to have sex, unless you are ready to have a baby, don't do it without contraception."
It's both compelling and regrettable that Marcus (whose sentiments I imagine do reflect those of many modern parents) is reluctant to articulate a "bright-line rule", presumably (and one must read between the lines here) because she had such a rule laid out for her and she broke it.
My purpose is not to point fingers at Marcus or other contemporaries or teenagers now who've had sex or kids who someday will have sex as teens. Condemnation is off the table. My point is to shine a spotlight on this unwillingness to hold out a standard that's above anything you, personally, were able to meet. One hopes that Marcus would allow that there is a difference between laying down a "rule" for kids when it comes to sex - the violation of which would presumably strain the parent-child relationship at a time when parental support was needed most - and articulating a "standard", which is an ideal that is born of (but does not limit) love. But Marcus' essay would lead you to believe that she either doesn't appreciate the distinction or that she feels even a standard of abstinence is for some reason unwise.
The fact that Ruth Marcus' 10-year-old daughter can draw the conclusion that "you shouldn't have sex before marriage" is a clarion call to parents everywhere who are about to throw in the towel on teen sex and rush out to put their daughters on birth control. In that simple conclusion, I hear a 10-year-old recognizing that pregnancy is a too-high price to pay for early sexual involvement. In her mother's less-than-enthusiastic endorsement of her daughter's resolve, I hear a mom resigned to a different reality, willing to introduce a complexity into her daughter's decision making that isn't there. I say, so what if the girl continues to believe, into her teens, that she shouldn't have sex until she's married? To which Marcus would presumably reply, "If (when) she gives in, she'll end up feeling guilty, or worse, pregnant." But that's a smokescreen. Pregnancy and feelings of regret aren't the issue. Sex is. And the bottom line remains: teenagers ought not to be having sex.
They are too young emotionally.
They are too young physically.
They tend to follow social cues in determining "readiness" rather than moral precepts.
They haven't learned commitment.
They misread lust for love.
Sex early in a relationship will set a pattern for their relationships that will be very difficult to break.
They won't learn or enforce healthy boundaries.
Girls will get used. Boys will get hurt.
10-year-olds intuitively understand this. That's not to say the young girl in question won't someday change her mind. Certainly she'll be pressured by her friends and her first serious boyfriend and all of teen culture to soften that"no sex" stance. But just because it's a hard position to hold doesn't make it the wrong one.
To say "Well, no one is perfect" is to acknowledge that no one lives up to societal expectations all of the time, that we all have character flaws or skeletons in the closet or track records that keep us from claiming moral high ground. Fine. But using "no one is perfect" to argue that there is no high ground and therefore there can be no standard at all is quite another thing.
Are we really powerless to redeem a culture? Is it naive and hopeless to want better for your kids? Certainly there's truth to the proposition that a strong leader ought to model the character they wish to develop in their charges. But if we were doomed to only imitate the values we saw in our elders and incapable of conceiving better than what we'd directly observed, our culture would be sucked dry of virtue entirely by now. If I, as a leader, could only lead people to be as well or healthy as I am, and no better, the prospects for future generations would be grim, indeed.
That's why I cannot agree with parents who, for instance, don't feel they have the courage or moral authority to tell their kids not to use drugs because they themselves smoked marijuana or whatever. Guess what? "Do as I say, not as I did" is not the same as "Do as I say, not as I do". Yes, it's hypocritical to expect your child to be something you're not now (in other words - to paraphrase the old TV commercial - parents who use drugs should expect to have kids who use drugs); but it's idealistic and commendable to wish them to be something better than what you were. Will they take your admission of indiscretion as "permission" to indulge themselves? They might. But you know what? If you leave them hanging, giving no guidance at all, they'll feel confused at best and entitled to do exactly as you did at worst.
So let me say it again: it's not wrong to hold out standards for your child when it comes to moral behavior that are high and idealistic and perhaps above what you kept for yourself. Kids need that. "My generation got it wrong, but yours can do better" is golden; "My generation messed up and yours will be worse" is garbage. Dismally low standards or no standards at all communicate a parental pessimism that kids are able to behave morally. When that's all we have to offer kids by way of guidance, the culture is doomed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)