back from retreat, hey hey

Dave Lowe: Why Mvts Everywhere?

Last week I had the awesome opportunity to spend time with the Cru/Epic/Destino/Bridges gang at UC Davis. Tina Greenwell And Dave Lowe are doing a wonderful job of decoding a multiple movement / movements everywhere strategy. Dave’s skills are definitely in adopting a movement building strategy to multiple entities. This is one of the reason I think they are seeing some of their success.

Here are some of Dave’s thoughts regarding how they landed on their current direction - and how they are trying to pull it off.

What made you decide to launch multiple spiritual movements on one campus?
The diversity of our campus made it apparent that there were large segments of the campus population that we weren’t reaching through our traditional Cru approach to ministry. We saw that ethnically, there were many students who would not get involved with our group. In order to reach them, we had to be willing to take a new approach. We had to sacrifice the idea that there would be only 1 group on campus.

Every campus has its share of diversity. One-third of our campus population was Asian American (it’s nearly 40% now). Initially, we thought that we could have a movement that was “multi-cultural”. It turns out, that “multi-cultural” simply meant having an ethnic diversity of students that had adopted the white (Cru) culture. We had about 20 Asian Americans that were involved in Cru so we thought we were doing pretty well. But we realized that there were a lot of Asian American students who were checking out Cru at the beginning of each year, and ending up somewhere else. We weren’t growing in our influence within the Asian American culture. With that group being such a large percentage of the campus population we expected more than 20 Asian Americans to be involved in a “multi-cultural” group.

As we began to look at the reasons why many Asian Americans were not sticking around and getting involved in Campus Crusade, we found out that many were plugging into other ministries where Asian Americans were the dominant culture. At that point, our Epic ministry decided to step out and have a meeting of their own. 40-50 people showed up and at least 20 of them were new students who had never come to a Cru meeting. We realized right then that there was a need for a ministry that reflected Crusade’s distinctives but allowed Asian Americans to be the dominant culture. Hence, Epic moved in a direction of becoming more separate.

We have encountered some resistance to having separate ministries from students and even from staff. But what is surprising about all this is that we have developed more leaders. When Epic was simply a group within Crusade, there was no need for many of the Asian Americans to step up and do things and to lead. But when they decided to go out on their own, they needed to find people within their group who could lead events, plan events and give leadership to the overall ministry. That fact alone has increased the number of committed leaders within our groups.

If you were asked to be the local leader at a new a new campus, how would you approach the job?
The first thing I would do is de-code the campus and determine what the different cultural groups were. Then I would seek to launch a movement that targeted the group that represented the largest percentage of students. I would seek to build within the DNA of that group the idea of reaching the lost, and being willing to cross cultural lines to do it.

We talk about going overseas, and we invite students to participate in cross-cultural missions overseas, but we don’t always invite them to do that here at home. Getting multiple movements started initially will entail somebody crossing a cultural barrier. Once the barrier is crossed and leaders are raised within that culture, then the movement begins sustaining itself and those within the movement are simply reaching their own. However, I would continue to try to build, within the DNA of every movement, the value of reaching out cross-culturally. Then you will have movements being launched by other movements. Then those movements will then launch other movements, etc.

What do you these different spiritual movements do together/separate?
Some of our movements are in the embryonic stage and do almost everything with the large group (Cru). Other movements that are more developed, like Epic, do most things on their own. They have their own weekly meeting, their own small groups; they do their own Orientation week events; they have their own ministry teams, etc.

However, we do some things together because it is beneficial for maximizing our resources. We do our Fall Retreat together. We do Saturday afternoon training seminars about once a quarter. We promote those together and do them together. We do our men’s and women’s retreats together. We do our Spring retreat together. We have a corporate meeting together about 2 times per quarter. We rotate who leads those meetings. We have a mixed leadership team. Our Shepherd team is comprised of leaders from many of the different groups who meet our leadership criteria.

Here’s how I look at the multiple movements strategy. On our campus, we easily have a dozen evangelical Christian groups. They all have their niche and their way of doing things. Some are ethnic specific, some are church-based and some are para-church groups.
I find that many of the Christians on our campus are uncomfortable with the notion that there is more than one Christian group. “Why can’t we all be together”, is what some have said.

Some on our campus have tried to bring us all together by doing inter-fellowship events like praise nights or worship nights, etc. But what I notice whenever I attend these events, is that most of the students sit in groups with other students from their own group. So there is very little “inter-fellowshipping” going on.

I think what unites the different groups is our common bond in Christ. The reason we are separate groups is related to the fact that we have different mission statements, different purposes, different ways of doing things, etc. The only way to truly have one group on campus is for every group to adopt the same vision and mission. But that would require some groups to change their vision and mission in order to accommodate the other groups.

What we are doing with a multiple movement strategy, is creating a number of groups that have different audiences, but who share the same vision, the same mission, and the same conviction regarding how we are going to do things. Now, when we do a “corporate” event, we are bringing together different groups that really do share a common vision; groups that have a similar conviction about what our mission is and how we’re going to fulfill it. When you bring these groups together, the atmosphere is electric and energizing. There really is a sense that we are all in the same boat, even though we are involved in separate groups. There is a sense of camaraderie.




and

Bob Fuhs: Some Wise Observations

A few weeks ago I helped lead a gathering of 80+ leaders with the US Campus Ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ. We had some great discussion, some decent disagreement and frustration with a sense of greater hope generally sprinkled in. Depending on which email I read last, we either did a wonderful thing, or we are all going down with the ship.

So – I would like to post some thoughts from some of the key leaders in attendance. This from Bob Fuhs – formerly directing the ministry at UCLA and now hanging with the Golden Gophers of Minnesota.

These are simply some bullet points from Bob regarding next steps for the UMW Region (a bunch of cold states with names like Dakota). I particularly like his take on the barriers.

Have each local leader and metro leader give us a snapshot of their scope including # of campuses, # of students, ethnic breakdown on each campus, what is currently happening on that campus.

Our region needs to talk about multiple movements exclusively in terms of ethnic students. To talk about it in terms of anything else (the band kids, theatre kids, etc…) is too distracting and confusing and takes us away from what really needs to be happening on our campuses.

Get back to expansion work. A team can take one day a week to do launching this semester…and find a way to stay involved with that launch (as opposed to the Desert Road trips that were a one time deal with no continuing involvement). Also, some student leaders might really get into helping to launch a new campus.

Add a new campus or movement launch to a possible Target Area for a training group or action group.

U of M raise up interns to solely do expansion within the MSP area…and they are on our team and not Metro.

We need to make reproduction a non-negotiable. Multiplication can be a negotiable, but not reproduction. This gives some focus to our training groups and what we need to require.

Launching movements takes time. Even finding a person of peace does not guarantee a started movement. Students are (can be) immature, broken, fickle, flaky…making it hard to build something with them.

Key leaders are out there. This is why in launching, we need to target those already spring loaded for leadership. Is it possible to find those high-leverage high school seniors and know where they are off to college?

-Can we get a small booklet published with stories of launched movements and pictures of win-build-send and principles to use with staff and students?

Possible barriers to launching ethnic movements:
*we are fighting 50 years of momentum
*there are no key ethnic leaders regionally, nationally and globally. Our leadership face is still white.
*The name “Crusade” might be too hard edged, smacking of “olde tyme religion,” smacks of white establishment.

God has called CCC to be involved in and lead the charge in accelerating getting the gospel to every person on planet earth-starting with university campuses. We must never forget this is why we exist.

Try these exercises with your team:
It’s 2010 and our movement is marked by the fact that we are really reaching every student on our campus. How did it happen? What principles guided us? What worked? What things did we try? What things did we need to do? What problems did we need to solve?

A successful launch needs a least 4 things:
1. Tools. How to’s in terms of small groups, weekly meetings, evangelism, discipleship…
2. Modeling. They need to see what a movement looks like. Either they come to us or we go to them. Summer projects are key. It’s hard to create something you have never seen.
3. Ongoing support and encouragement.
4. Consistency of leadership at some level. Could be staff, volunteers locally…someone who will be there longer than the average shelf-life of a student leader (i.e. more than 4 years).

time article!

Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2007
The Power of Birth Order
By Jeffrey Kluger

It could not have been easy being Elliott Roosevelt. If the alcohol wasn't getting him, the morphine was. If it wasn't the morphine, it was the struggle with depression. Then, of course, there were the constant comparisons with big brother Teddy.

In 1883, the year Elliott began battling melancholy, Teddy had already published his first book and been elected to the New York State assembly. By 1891—about the time Elliott, still unable to establish a career, had to be institutionalized to deal with his addictions—Teddy was U.S. Civil Service Commissioner and the author of eight books. Three years later, Elliott, 34, died of alcoholism. Seven years after that, Teddy, 42, became President.

Elliott Roosevelt was not the only younger sibling of an eventual President to cause his family heartaches—or at least headaches. There was Donald Nixon and the loans he wangled from billionaire Howard Hughes. There was Billy Carter and his advocacy on behalf of the pariah state Libya. There was Roger Clinton and his year in jail on a cocaine conviction. And there is Neil Bush, younger sib of both a President and a Governor, implicated in the savings-and-loan scandals of the 1980s and recently gossiped about after the release of a 2002 letter in which he lamented to his estranged wife, "I've lost patience for being compared to my brothers."

Welcome to a very big club, Bro. It can't be easy being a runt in a litter that includes a President. But it couldn't have been easy being Billy Ripken either, an unexceptional major league infielder craning his neck for notice while the press swarmed around Hall of Famer and elder brother Cal. It can't be easy being Eli Manning, struggling to prove himself as an NFL quarterback while big brother Peyton polishes a Super Bowl trophy and his superman stats. And you may have never heard of Tisa Farrow, an actress of no particular note beyond her work in the 1979 horror film Zombie, but odds are you've heard of her sister Mia.

Of all the things that shape who we are, few seem more arbitrary than the sequence in which we and our siblings pop out of the womb. Maybe it's your genes that make you a gifted athlete, your training that makes you an accomplished actress, an accident of brain chemistry that makes you a drunk instead of a President. But in family after family, case study after case study, the simple roll of the birth-date dice has an odd and arbitrary power all its own.

The importance of birth order has been known—or at least suspected—for years. But increasingly, there's hard evidence of its impact. In June, for example, a group of Norwegian researchers released a study showing that firstborns are generally smarter than any siblings who come along later, enjoying on average a three-point IQ advantage over the next eldest—probably a result of the intellectual boost that comes from mentoring younger siblings and helping them in day-to-day tasks. The second child, in turn, is a point ahead of the third. While three points might not seem like much, the effect can be enormous. Just 2.3 IQ points can correlate to a 15-point difference in sat scores, which makes an even bigger difference when you're an Ivy League applicant with a 690 verbal score going head to head against someone with a 705. "In many families," says psychologist Frank Sulloway, a visiting scholar at the University of California, Berkeley, and the man who has for decades been seen as the U.S.'s leading authority on birth order, "the firstborn is going to get into Harvard and the second-born isn't."

The differences don't stop there. Studies in the Philippines show that later-born siblings tend to be shorter and weigh less than earlier-borns. (Think the slight advantage the 6-ft. 5-in. [196 cm] Peyton Manning has over the 6-ft. 4-in. [193 cm] Eli doesn't help when he's trying to throw over the outstretched arms of a leaping lineman?) Younger siblings are less likely to be vaccinated than older ones, with last-borns getting immunized sometimes at only half the rate of firstborns. Eldest siblings are also disproportionately represented in high-paying professions. Younger siblings, by contrast, are looser cannons, less educated and less strapping, perhaps, but statistically likelier to live the exhilarating life of an artist or a comedian, an adventurer, entrepreneur, GI or firefighter. And middle children? Well, they can be a puzzle—even to researchers.

For families, none of this comes as a surprise. There are few extended clans that can't point to the firstborn, with the heir-apparent bearing, who makes the best grades, keeps the other kids in line and, when Mom and Dad grow old, winds up as caretaker and executor too. There are few that can't point to the lost-in-the-thickets middle-born or the wild-child last-born.

Indeed, to hear families tell it, the birth-order effect may only be getting stronger. In the past, girls were usually knocked out of the running for the job and college perks their place in the family should have accorded them. In most other ways, however, there was little to distinguish a first-, second- or third-born sister from a first-, second- or third-born brother. Now, with college and careers more equally available, the remaining differences have largely melted away.

"There are stereotypes out there about birth order, and very often those stereotypes are spot-on," says Delroy Paulhus, a professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. "I think this is one of those cases in which people just figured things out on their own."

But have they? Stack up enough anecdotal maybes, and they start to look like a scientific definitely. Things that appear definite, however, have a funny way of surprising you, and birth order may conceal all manner of hidden dimensions—within individuals, within families, within the scientific studies. "People read birth-order books the way they read horoscopes," warns Toni Falbo, professor of educational psychology at the University of Texas. "'I'm a middle-born, so that explains everything in my life'—it's just not like that." Still, such skepticism does not prevent more and more researchers from being drawn to the field, and as they are, their findings, and the debate over them, continue to grow.

Humans aren't alone
If you think it's hard to manage the birth-order issues in your family, be thankful you're not an egret or an orange blossom. Egrets are not the intellectual heavyweights of the animal kingdom—or even the bird world—but nature makes them remarkably cunning when it comes to planning their families. Like most other birds, egrets lay multiple eggs, but rather than brooding them all the same way so that the chicks emerge on more or less the same day, the mother begins incubating her first and second eggs before laying the remaining ones in her clutch. That causes the babies to appear on successive days, which gives the first-arriving chick the earliest crack at the food and a 24-hour head start on growth. The second-hatched may not have too difficult a time catching up, but the third may struggle. The fourth and beyond will have the hardest go, getting pushed aside or even pecked to death if food, water and shelter become scarce. All that makes for a nasty nursery, but that's precisely the way the mother wants it. "The parents overproduce a bit," says Douglas Mock, professor of zoology at the University of Oklahoma, "maybe making one more baby than they can normally afford to raise and then letting it take the fall if the resource budget is limited."

Orange trees are even tougher on their young. A typical orange tree carries about 100,000 pollinated blossoms, each of which is a potential orange, complete with the seeds that are potential trees. But in the course of a season, only about 500 oranges are actually produced. The tree determines which ones make the cut, shedding the blossoms that are not receiving enough light or that otherwise don't seem viable. It is, for a tree, a sort of selective termination on a vast scale. "You've got 99% of the babies being thrown out by the parent," says Mock. "The tree just drops all the losers."

Even mammals, warm-blooded in metabolism and—we like to think—temperament, can play a similarly pitiless game. Runts of litters are routinely ignored, pushed out or consigned to the worst nursing spots somewhere near Mom's aft end, where the milk flow is the poorest and the outlook for survival the bleakest. The rest of the brood is left to fight it out for the best, most milk-rich positions.

Humans, more sentimental than birds, trees or litter bearers, don't like to see themselves as coming from the same child-rearing traditions, but we face many of the same pressures. As recently as 100 years ago, children in the U.S. had only about a 50% chance of surviving into adulthood, and in less developed parts of the world, the odds remain daunting. It can be a sensible strategy to have multiple offspring to continue your line in case some are claimed by disease or injury.

While the eldest in an overpopulated brood has it relatively easy—getting 100% of the food the parents have available—things get stretched thinner when a second-born comes along. Later-borns put even more pressure on resources. Over time, everyone might be getting the same rations, but the firstborn still enjoys a caloric head start that might never be overcome.

Food is not the only resource. There's time and attention too and the emotional nourishment they provide. It's not for nothing that family scrapbooks are usually stuffed with pictures and report cards of the firstborn and successively fewer of the later-borns—and the later-borns notice it. Educational opportunities can be unevenly shared too, particularly in families that can afford the tuition bills of only one child. Catherine Salmon, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Redlands in Redlands, Calif., laments that even today she finds it hard to collect enough subjects for birth-order studies from the student body alone, since the campus population is typically overweighted with eldest sibs. "Families invest a lot in the firstborn," she says.

All of this favoritism can become self-reinforcing. As parental pampering produces a fitter, smarter, more confident firstborn, Mom and Dad are likely to invest even more in that child, placing their bets on an offspring who—in survival terms at least—is looking increasingly like a sure thing. "From a parental perspective," says Salmon, "you want offspring who are going to survive and reproduce."

Firstborns do more than survive; they thrive. In a recent survey of corporate heads conducted by Vistage, an international organization of ceos, poll takers reported that 43% of the people who occupy the big chair in boardrooms are firstborns, 33% are middle-borns and 23% are last-borns. Eldest siblings are disproportionately represented among surgeons and M.B.A.s too, according to Stanford University psychologist Robert Zajonc. And a recent study found a statistically significant overload of firstborns in what is—or at least ought to be—the country's most august club: the U.S. Congress. "We know that birth order determines occupational prestige to a large extent," says Zajonc. "There is some expectation that firstborns are somehow better qualified for certain occupations."

Little sibs, big role
For eldest siblings, this is a pretty sweet deal. There is not much incentive for them to change a family system that provides them so many goodies, and typically they don't try to. Younger siblings see things differently and struggle early on to shake up the existing order. They clearly don't have size on their side, as their physically larger siblings keep them in line with what researchers call a high-power strategy. "If you're bigger than your siblings, you punch 'em," Sulloway says.

But there are low-power strategies too, and one of the most effective ones is humor. It's awfully hard to resist the charms of someone who can make you laugh, and families abound with stories of last-borns who are the clowns of the brood, able to get their way simply by being funny or outrageous. Birth-order scholars often observe that some of history's great satirists—Voltaire, Jonathan Swift, Mark Twain—were among the youngest members of large families, a pattern that continues today. Faux bloviator Stephen Colbert—who yields to no one in his ability to get a laugh—often points out that he's the last of 11 children.

Such examples might be little more than anecdotal, but personality tests show that while firstborns score especially well on the dimension of temperament known as conscientiousness—a sense of general responsibility and follow-through—later-borns score higher on what's known as agreeableness, or the simple ability to get along in the world. "Kids recognize a good low-power strategy," says Sulloway. "It's the way any sensible organism sizes up the niches that are available."

Even more impressive is how early younger siblings develop what's known as the theory of mind. Very small children have a hard time distinguishing the things they know from the things they assume other people know. A toddler who watches an adult hide a toy will expect that anyone who walks into the room afterward will also know where to find it, reckoning that all knowledge is universal knowledge. It usually takes a child until age 3 to learn that that's not so. For children who have at least one elder sibling, however, the realization typically comes earlier. "When you're less powerful, it's advantageous to be able to anticipate what's going on in someone else's mind," says Sulloway.

Later-borns, however, don't try merely to please other people; they also try to provoke them. Richard Zweigenhaft, a professor of psychology at Guilford College in Greensboro, N.C., who revealed the overrepresentation of firstborns in Congress, conducted a similar study of picketers at labor demonstrations. On the occasions that the events grew unruly enough to lead to arrests, he would interview the people the police rounded up. Again and again, he found, the majority were later- or last-borns. "It was a statistically significant pattern," says Zweigenhaft. "A disproportionate number of them were choosing to be arrested."

Courting danger
Later-borns are similarly willing to take risks with their physical safety. All sibs are equally likely to be involved in sports, but younger ones are likelier to choose the kinds that could cause injury. "They don't go out for tennis," Sulloway says. "They go out for rugby, ice hockey." Even when siblings play the same sport, they play it differently. Sulloway is currently collaborating on a study of 300 brothers who were major league ballplayers. Though the work is not complete, he is so far finding that the elder brothers excel at skills that involve less physical danger. Younger siblings are the ones who put themselves in harm's way—crouching down in catcher's gear to block an incoming runner, say. "It doesn't just hold up in this study but a dozen studies," Sulloway says.

It's not clear whether such behavior extends to career choice, but Sandra Black, an associate professor of economics at ucla, is intrigued by findings that firstborns tend to earn more than later-borns, with income dropping about 1% for every step down the birth-order ladder. Most researchers assume this is due to the educational advantages eldest siblings get, but Black thinks there may be more to it. "I'd be interested in whether it's because the second child is taking the riskier jobs," she says.

Black's forthcoming studies will be designed to answer that question, but research by Ben Dattner, a business consultant and professor of industrial and organizational psychology at New York University, is showing that even when later-borns take conservative jobs in the corporate world, they approach their work in a high-wire way. Firstborn ceos, for example, do best when they're making incremental improvements in their companies: shedding underperforming products, maximizing profits from existing lines and generally making sure the trains run on time. Later-born ceos are more inclined to blow up the trains and lay new track. "Later-borns are better at transformational change," says Dattner. "They pursue riskier, more innovative, more creative approaches."

If eldest sibs are the dogged achievers and youngest sibs are the gamblers and visionaries, where does this leave those in between? That it's so hard to define what middle-borns become is largely due to the fact that it's so hard to define who they are growing up. The youngest in the family, but only until someone else comes along, they are both teacher and student, babysitter and babysat, too young for the privileges of the firstborn but too old for the latitude given the last. Middle children are expected to step up to the plate when the eldest child goes off to school or in some other way drops out of the picture—and generally serve when called. The Norwegian intelligence study showed that when firstborns die, the IQ of second-borns actually rises a bit, a sign that they're performing the hard mentoring work that goes along with the new job.

Stuck for life in a center seat, middle children get shortchanged even on family resources. Unlike the firstborn, who spends at least some time as the only-child eldest, and the last-born, who hangs around long enough to become the only-child youngest, middlings are never alone and thus never get 100% of the parents' investment of time and money. "There is a U-shaped distribution in which the oldest and youngest get the most," says Sulloway. That may take an emotional toll. Sulloway cites other studies in which the self-esteem of first-, middle- and last-borns is plotted on a graph and follows the same curvilinear trajectory.

The phenomenon known as de-identification may also work against a middle-born. Siblings who hope to stand out in a family often do so by observing what the elder child does and then doing the opposite. If the firstborn gets good grades and takes a job after school, the second-born may go the slacker route. The third-born may then de-de-identify, opting for industriousness, even if in the more unconventional ways of the last-born. A Chinese study in the 1990s showed just this kind of zigzag pattern, with the first child generally scoring high as a "good son or daughter," the second scoring low, the third scoring high again and so on. In a three-child family, the very act of trying to be unique may instead leave the middling lost, a pattern that may continue into adulthood.

The holes in the theories
The birth-order effect, for all its seeming robustness, is not indestructible. There's a lot that can throw it out of balance—particularly family dysfunction. In a 2005 study, investigators at the University of Birmingham in Britain examined the case histories of 400 abused children and the 795 siblings of those so-called index kids. In general, they found that when only one child in the family was abused, the scapegoat was usually the eldest. When a younger child was abused, some or all of the other kids usually were as well. Mistreatment of any of the children usually breaks the bond the parents have with the firstborn, turning that child from parental ally to protector of the brood. At the same time, the eldest may pick up some of the younger kids' agreeableness skills—the better to deal with irrational parents—while the youngest learn some of the firstborn's self-sufficiency. Abusiveness is going to "totally disrupt the birth-order effects we would expect," says Sulloway.

The sheer number of siblings in a family can also trump birth order. The 1% income difference that Black detected from child to child tends to flatten out as you move down the age line, with a smaller earnings gap between a third and fourth child than between a second and third. The IQ-boosting power of tutoring, meanwhile, may actually have less influence in small families, with parents of just two or three kids doing most of the teaching, than in the six- or eight-child family, in which the eldest sibs have to pitch in more. Since the Norwegian IQ study rests on the tutoring effect, those findings may be open to question. "The good birth-order studies will control for family size," says Bo Cleveland, associate professor of human development and family studies at Penn State University. "Sometimes that makes the birth-order effect go away; sometimes it doesn't."

The most vocal detractors of birth-order research question less the findings of the science than the methods. To achieve any kind of statistical significance, investigators must assemble large samples of families and look for patterns among them. But families are very different things—distinguished by size, income, hometown, education, religion, ethnicity and more. Throw enough random factors like those into the mix, and the results you get may be nothing more than interesting junk.

The alternative is what investigators call the in-family studies, a much more pointillist process, requiring an exhaustive look at a single family, comparing every child with every other child and then repeating the process again and again with hundreds of other families. Eventually, you may find threads that link them all. "I would throw out all the between-family studies," says Cleveland. "The proof is in the in-family design."

Ultimately, of course, the birth-order debate will never be entirely settled. Family studies and the statistics they yield are cold and precise things, parsing human behavior down to decimal points and margins of error. But families are a good deal sloppier than that, a mishmash of competing needs and moods and clashing emotions, better understood by the people in the thick of them than by anyone standing outside. Yet millenniums of families would swear by the power of birth order to shape the adults we eventually become. Science may yet overturn the whole theory, but for now, the smart money says otherwise.


ps. post #400

death by harry potter (klosterman, esquire)

Death by Harry Potter

Ignoring a cultural phenomenon today may render you completely irrelevant in a few years. Just so you know.


Here is what I know about Harry Potter: nothing.

I haven't read any of the books about him, nor have I seen any of the movies. I know the novels were written by a rich middle-aged British woman named J.K. Rowling with semi-lush hair, but I have no idea what the letters J and K represent. I don't know the name of the actor who portrays Harry Potter in the films, although I think he has eyeglasses. I don't know the names of any minor characters and I don't know the narrative arc of the plot. I don't know where the stories take place or if they are set in the past or the future. Somebody at a steakhouse recently told me that Harry Potter doesn't die at the conclusion of the seventh book (and that this detail was important), but I wasn't even aware he was sick. Christopher Hitchens wrote something I didn't read about this series in The New York Times, but I don't think he mentioned Nixon. I assume there are dragons and griffins and werewolves and homosexual Frankensteins throughout these novels, but I honestly don't give a shit if my assumption is true or false. In fact, if somebody told me that the final Harry Potter novel was a coded interpretation of the Koran that instructed its readers how to read my thoughts, I could only respond by saying, "Well, maybe so." For whatever reason, this is one phenomenon that I have missed completely (and mostly, I suppose, on purpose).

Now, do not take this to mean that I dislike these books. I do not. I have a colleague who feels that anyone over the age of twenty-one caught reading a Harry Potter novel should be executed without trial, but that strikes me as unreasonable; the fact that they're written for British thirteen-year-olds probably means they're precisely the right speed for 90 percent of American adults. I don't hate these novels at all -- in fact, I suspect they're quite good. Moreover, I find it astounding that the unifying cultural currency for modern teenagers are five-hundred-page literary works about a wizard. We are all collectively underestimating how unusual this is. Right now, there is no rock guitarist or film starlet as popular as J.K. Rowling. Over time, these novels (and whatever ideas lie within them) will come to represent the mainstream ethos of our future popular culture. Harry Potter will be the only triviality that most of that coming culture will unilaterally share.

And I have no interest in any of it.

And I wonder how much of a problem this is going to become.

The bookish kids reading Harry Potter novels may not go on to control the world, but they will almost certainly go on to control the mass media. In fifteen years, they will be publishing books and directing films and writing broad jokes for unfunny situation comedies that will undoubtedly be downloaded directly into our brains. And like all generations of artists, they will traffic in their own nostalgia. They will use their shared knowledge and experiences as the foundation for discourse. So I wonder: Because I don't understand Harry Potter, am I doomed to misunderstand everything else?

I have a female friend who has never seen any of the Star Wars movies; if someone on The Office makes a joke about a Wookiee, she knows that it's supposed to be funny, but it never makes her laugh. I also know a guy from college who (under pressure) cannot name three Beatles songs unless you allow him to include their cover of "Twist and Shout," and that's only because it was used in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. On a practical level, those specific knowledge chasms do not hinder either of their lives; I'm sure some would argue they're better off not caring about such matters. But part of me knows that there's an intangible downside to having complete intellectual detachment from whatever most Americans consider to be common knowledge. It's not just that someone who hasn't seen Star Wars won't appreciate Kevin Smith films or that any person who doesn't know about the Beatles won't appreciate the Apples in Stereo; those connections are obvious (and usually meaningless). What's less clear -- and much more important -- is the degree to which all of culture is imperceptibly defined by whichever of its entities happens to be the most popular at any given time.(1)

Within any complex scenario, there are three basic kinds of information:

1) Information that you know you know.

2) Information that you know you don't know.

3) Information that you don't know you don't know.

I'd like to believe that my relationship with Harry Potter fits into that second category; I'd like to view the information in Rowling's books as something I consciously realize that I don't understand. But this is not the case. The phenomenon around these books is so large that I can't isolate the consequence of my unawareness. My relationship to Harry Potter actually falls into the third category: I cannot even pretend to predict what the social impact of 325 million books will eventually embody. As the years pass, the influence of these teenage-wizard stories will be so vast that it will become invisible. In two decades, I will not be alienated or confused by passing references to Harry Potter; very often, I will be unaware that any reference has even been made. I will not know what I am missing. I'll just feel bored, and I won't know why.

Here is what I imagine the seven Harry Potter novels are about: I imagine that Harry is an orphan who had a bad relationship with his father (kind of like Tom Cruise in Top Gun or Days of Thunder or A Few Good Men or any of his movies that didn't involve Ireland). He escapes some sort of abstract slavery and decides to become a wizard, so he attends Wizard College and meets a bunch of anachronistic magic-using weirdos and perhaps a love interest that he never has sex with. There is probably a good teacher and a bad teacher at this school and (I'm sure) they eventually fight each other, and then some previously theoretical villain tries to destroy the world, and all the wizard kids have to unite and protect the universe by boiling black cats in a cauldron and throwing lightning bolts at pterodactyls. Harry learns about life and loss and leadership, and then he doesn't die. The end.

Now, I realize I don't have to guess at these details. I'm sure I could read the entire four-thousand-page plot summarized in four hundred words on Wikipedia, or I could simply walk into any high school and ask a few questions of the first kid I find who isn't smoking crystal meth. I could just as easily buy and read the books themselves, which, as stated previously, I assume are engaging. But I am not going to do this. It doesn't seem worth it, even though I know it probably is. It's an interior paradox. I mean, is it my obligation to "study" these novels, even if I don't want to? Perhaps it is. In many ways, I am paid by Esquire to contextualize this sort of phenomenon, and I assume that will still be the case in the future. It is probably to my long-term financial benefit to read Harry Potter books; ignoring them is like not investing in my 401(k). Were I a more responsible citizen, I would force myself to consume everything I could about this goddamn teenage wizard, simply for economic self-preservation. Yet I still cannot make myself do it. At the end of the day (or at the beginning of the day, or whenever), I don't care if I don't understand this.

Which, I realize, is a dangerous position to publicly adopt. I am constructing my own generation gap on purpose. By making this decision in the present, I will be less able to manage the future. My thoughts about entertainment aesthetics will be outdated, and I will not grasp the fundamental lingua franca of the 2025 hipster. I will not only be old but old for my age. I will be the pterodactyl, and I will be slain. It is only a matter of time.

Footnote

(1) Which is, I suppose, the fundamental question about why "popular culture" is supposed to matter to anyone. Return to story.

children of divorced parents...

Lives of Quiet Turbulence
Elizabeth Marquardt on what happens in the souls of children of divorce.
Interview by Agnieszka Tennant | posted 3/01/2006 12:00AM

For her master's thesis in divinity school, Elizabeth Marquardt wrote a paper called "The Moral and Spiritual Experiences of Children of Divorce." At the time, she found almost no data on the topic. "No one had looked," she says, "at how divorce in childhood shapes how children approach the biggest questions of all: Who am I? Where do I belong? What is right and wrong? What is true? Is there a God?"
• Related articles and links

She suspected, based on her own experience as a child of divorce, that divorce shapes how children answer these questions. So, in a project based at the Institute for American Values, she and Norval Glenn set out to learn more about adults whose parents had parted ways.

The result was a four-year, nationally representative survey of 1,500 young adults between 18 and 35, members of the first generation to grow up with widespread divorce. Senior associate editor Agnieszka Tennant looked up Marquardt recently to chat about her findings published in Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce (Crown, 2005).

How many children of divorce are there?

About a million American children each year experience their parents' divorce. Of 18- to 35-year-olds, which is the generation that I studied, one-quarter are children of divorce. The projected divorce rate for first marriages nowadays is 43 percent. For remarriages, it's about 60 percent. For the first marriages of children of divorce, the rate is roughly 60 percent.

What role does faith play in the lives of children of divorce?

They are much less religious overall than their peers who grew up with married parents. They are 14 percent less likely to be a member of a house of worship and also about 14 percent less likely to say that they are very or fairly religious. They're more likely to agree with the statement, I believe I can find ultimate truths without help from a religion.

They feel just as spiritual as their peers from intact families, but they're much less religious. If Gen X is the generation of the spiritual but not religious, then children of divorce account a lot for that generation's turn.

Doesn't divorce in particular bring out their need for God?

Yes, some of these adults turned to God and faith and the church as a home away from home, as a father they never had, in search of answers and truth they couldn't find in their families.

Thirty-eight percent of the grown children of divorce agreed with the statement, God became the father or parent I never had in real life. Twenty-two percent of those from intact families agreed with this statement. It's a 16 percentage point difference, and, in surveys of this kind, differences that large are striking. I am leading workshops for clergy around the country on this topic.

I imagine that children of divorce would also struggle with seeing God as a parent.

When I asked them if God is like a father or a parent, their reactions would tell me as much about what they thought about their parents as what they thought about God. One woman said, "God's not like a parent. God is something smarter than us." Another said, "God seems more distant, like a manager."

When they do seek God, what faith traditions do people from broken homes tend to favor?

Children of divorce are much more likely to be evangelicals than those from intact families.

Forty-two percent of all grown children of divorce identify as evangelical or born again, compared to 37 percent of those who grew up with married parents. So in America, more divorce is making more evangelicals.

Why is that?

The way that evangelical theology emphasizes the central saving role of the personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God as your Father resonates with some children of divorce. They say, My earthly parents were not there for me-or, My earthly father failed me, but in God I found that loving father figure I never had.

Also, evangelical churches do a somewhat better job of acknowledging divorce as a problem. Our mainline Protestant churches don't want to offend divorced and single parents in their congregations, so they don't reach out to the children as a consequence.

In general, most churches aren't doing a good job at reaching out to children of divorce. Of those grown children of divorce who were active in a church at the time of their parents' divorce, two-thirds said that no one from the clergy or congregation reached out to them at that time. It's really amazing. Only one-quarter said that someone did reach out to them.

How does divorce affect how the children of divorce read the Bible?

Let's take, for instance, the parable of the Prodigal Son. The children of divorce don't focus on the end of the story, when the child comes home and is welcomed by a loving parent. They focus on the beginning of the story, when someone leaves the family home. For them, it's not the child who leaves the home; it's the parent.

Their lives look more like the parable of the Prodigal Parent.

They think about the initial departure of their father or mother, which caused the divorce, or about the many comings and goings that occurred in their families throughout their childhoods because both of their parents worked. They lived separately. They dated. They remarried.

Young adults from divorced families were seven times more likely to strongly agree with the statement, I was alone a lot as a child. They say things like, I was the one who was at home trying to keep the house together, trying to keep a family unit together. One young woman told me, "When I hear the parable about the Prodigal Son, I always think maybe one of these days my dad will decide to come back, too."

How sad.

Then you realize that the parable is supposed to illustrate God's love and compassion and presence-the ever-present, steady, everlasting presence. But children of divorce see themselves in the role of the father waiting for the child to come home; that's the role of God in the story. They have to be their own protector. They have to be the one waiting in the doorway for someone else to come home. It's a scary and anxiety-producing place for a child.

We've all heard people pity some marriages by saying things like, They're just staying together for the kids. But your research suggests that staying together for the sake of the kids can be a noble and Christian thing, not a pitiable concession.

The idea of a "good" divorce is ripe for challenge. The children of so-called good divorces fare worse in many ways than those from unhappy marriages, so long as the parents' marriage was low-conflict. And what most people don't realize is that two-thirds of divorces today end low-conflict marriages.

How do the children of "good" divorces fare worse than those from unhappy, low-conflict marriages?

They're far more likely to get divorced themselves one day compared to those who grow up in unhappy, low-conflict marriages. They are far more likely to say they were alone a lot as children, to say they missed their fathers, to say they had to protect their mothers. They had more responsibility to care for younger siblings than those from intact families.

Some people might be surprised to hear that, because a prevailing attitude among some in recent years is, as one academic put it, "A good divorce or a good marriage-it matters not." Many experts have said, wrongly, that both situations are fine for kids.

What do such optimists mean by good divorce?

If you divorce your spouse, but you minimize your conflict with your spouse afterwards, and you both stay involved in the child's life, then they say the divorce will have relatively little impact on your child.

There are children's books written that portray divorce as an adventure. There's one about how fun it is to stay with your dad in the city and ride on the subway and go to a museum, and then visit your mom in the country and ride a horse. It distorts and silences the children's loss and moral confusion.

I find this happy talk about divorce to be incredibly callous-this idea that children are resilient, as if that justifies what we do to them. Do we say: Well, most children probably can carry a 40-pound sandbag. Some might get injured, but most can probably manage it?

Even if children are resilient, this does nothing to change the burden they must overcome. My research shows that for children of divorce, conflict between the parents' worlds is always alive in their inner lives-even when the parents do not fight. Any kind of divorce, amicable or not, radically restructures children's childhoods and requires them to take on an entirely new job.

What is the nature of this new job?

The job that was formerly the job of the parents-to make sense of the parents' different sets of values and beliefs and ways of living. It's a hard job for all of us who are married. When you get divorced, the job doesn't go away. It's just not the adults' job anymore; now it becomes the job of the child.

What does this restructuring of childhood do to children?

In our study, only one-fifth of the grown children of divorce said their parents had a lot of conflict after the divorce, but two-thirds said their parents seemed like polar opposites after the divorce. Nearly half said they had to be a different person with each of their parents. They were much more likely to say that they had to keep secrets after the divorce. All these percentages are two to three times higher than for people from intact families.

Children of divorce feel like divided selves. They say: I had to be a different person with each of my parents. I had a whole different life with each one. There's only a certain set of memories I talk to my dad about and only a certain set I talk to my mom about.

You've interviewed a lot of outwardly successful adult children of divorce who appear to be fine. Are they?

The successful grown children of divorce hear stories and studies about damaged children of divorce, and they cringe and say, That's not me. I'm not damaged. I didn't get pregnant when I was 14, and I didn't get arrested.

But I've had so many of them say to me, when they talk about their childhoods, "Well, I wasn't abused, but … " Then they stop. They didn't have a language to express what they went through. So what I tried to do in this book is offer a new vocabulary: We had to grow up traveling between two worlds. We had to be early moral forgers. We were little adults. Spiritually, we were child-sized old souls.

What do you mean by child-sized old souls?

So many grown children of divorce told me stories about not going to church anymore after the divorce. Others would talk about seeking out a church in their neighborhood by themselves in their teen years, of being alone at church.

One woman recalled sitting in the back of church while kids with their parents sat up front. This passing comment was a powerful image revealing the truth that children of divorce were often relegated, even if only figuratively, to the back of the church.

What light do your findings shed on your understanding of marriage?

Marriage is a complex institution that secures mothers and fathers for the children that their sex acts create. It is flawed, but it's the most pro-child social institution that virtually all civilizations have come up with so far. It's a rich and fairly radical idea that different people should come together and do something really hard, like stay together for a lifetime despite everything in the culture that's encouraging them to go it alone.

How many divorces are unnecessary?

We have this misperception that when people get divorced, it's because they're at each other's throats. Solid research has found that about one-third of divorces end high-conflict marriages. Children on average do better when a high-conflict, abusive, and violent marriage ends.

But most marriages that are ending in divorce are low-conflict and look a lot like the ones that are staying together. Research shows that married couples generally fight about the same five things: money, sex, in-laws, religion, and time. Some choose to get divorced over it; some don't. If, after divorce, you could find new strength within yourself to get past your issues and cooperate with your ex, then you could do it before he or she is your ex.

What do you say to spouses in low-conflict marriages who grow apart?

It is troubling to live in a marriage when you're not sure if you love each other; that hurts. But the kids are largely unaware of these things. If you're living with your children and taking care of them, if you're not fighting much, that's what your children care about. Your preschooler doesn't care if you're having great sex with your husband. But she will be concerned when suddenly she wakes up every day and Daddy's not there like he used to be.

Did you ask your respondents about the commandment to honor fathers and mothers?

Those with married parents generally said something like this: The older I get, the more I realize what my parents did for me. Honoring my parents means, as they get older, I'll take care of them.

People from divorced families had a very different reaction. The command immediately caused them to question what their parents did for them. If Dad abandoned the family and Mom heroically raised them on her own in trying circumstances, they said, I honor my mom. Given everything she did for me, how could I not? But they got stuck on the issue of how to honor their father.

Some said, I just can't honor my parents. They weren't there for me, father or mother. Often people who said that were either kind of stuck in their faith journey or were not interested.

What about those with an active faith?

They said that the commandment called them to stay in relationship with their parents, when they might otherwise have abandoned it. It was both hopeful and sad. It was a sign of how weak their family relationships had become, but also how powerful a faith journey can be in helping you find a sense of wholeness even amidst these broken family relationships.

"blank" driven youth ministry

"blank" driven youth ministry
joshua griffin

Your youth ministry is driven by something. They all are. In their eagerness to do good youth ministry, many well-meaning youth workers get caught in the trap of being driven by something other than a sound, biblical philosophy. Maybe they are simply basing their ministry on what they knew when they were in youth group. Maybe the latest youth ministry fads were too hard to resist. Either way, the key to long-term, healthy youth ministry is not to rely on personality, fads, or programs - but to discover balance in your ministry and the eternal purposes of God. Here’s a look at a few of the youth ministry models that are potentially flawed.

Personality Driven Youth Ministry - the youth worker with the most charisma wins. Everything is about the person leading the ministry, as long as he or she doesn’t burn out. The church went out and found the sharpest, funniest, most outgoing youth worker they could. The youth ministry ends up being a mile wide and an inch deep.

Entertainment Driven Youth Ministry – bigger and better is the idea of the day here. Lights, camera, action! All flash with no substance. Entertainment, media and creativity certainly have their place in youth ministry, but without the proper balance this ministry puts on a good show that impresses but rarely sees life change.

Program Driven Youth Ministry – in this model, a youth group that has students out every night of the week is a successful one. The emphasis here is on attendance, where the busyness actually pleases church parents and keeps the elders off your back. People are always secondary to programs.

Babysitting Driven Youth Ministry – just keep everyone happy. Gather the students together in their holy fellowship huddle and teach them the Bible for discipleship. Parents love it because they have some adult time and you are teaching their students the Bible they aren’t getting at home. The discerning youth worker will eventually realize the shallowness of this approach.

Here's another approach that's geared towards building a healthier youth ministry foundation focused on God's purposes.

Purpose Driven Youth Ministry – a youth group that is balancing the purposes of God’s church. The ministry focuses on the Great Commandment and the Great Commission - evangelism, fellowship, discipleship, ministry and worship. The design is simple, the process is clear. There is more of an emphasis on spiritual growth, on their own, as opposed to attendance of programs. The ultimate goal is that every student is reaching out to their unchurched friends, connected in a small group, developing spiritual habits on their own and involved in ministry.

transformers target version!

10 mistakes

http://www.myspace.com/terrymatsuoka

10 Mistakes White People Make When Talking About Race

Posted October 16, 2007 | 04:00 PM (EST)
Read More: discussing race, race, Racial Attitudes, Racial Comments, racial identity, racial politics, Breaking Living Now News

stumbleupon :10 Mistakes White People Make When Talking About Race digg: 10 Mistakes White People Make When Talking About Race reddit: 10 Mistakes White People Make When Talking About Race del.icio.us: 10 Mistakes White People Make When Talking About Race

Over on SirensMag.com, we're in the midst of a race-themed issue. Heavy/scary, I know. But I can't tell you how much the act of discourse about this all-important topic has opened our eyes - and those of our readers. But not all discourse is good discourse (see idiotic political blabbermouths of late). It's easy to botch an important discussion about race with fear, ignorance, or just plain silliness. Uninformed--or even overly politically correct--white people are the major offenders, sure, but anyone without adequate information can be guilty of sounding like a racist or an idiot (wait, that's redundant). With the help of some favorite (and vocal) celebrities and writers, here are 10 things not to do when trying to have an intellectual discussion about race--which, to be clear, you should do. But first learn from these mistakes:

* Email
* Print
* Comment

1. Thinking It's Not OK to Talk About It

Race is such a touchy topic because it is often associated with all of the negative history and oppression of minorities in this country. Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans share a history of physical and social abuse at the hand of the white majority. Yes, that leads to anger and distrust, feelings so strong that they've survived for centuries. But the only way to bridge the gap and move forward as a more unified society is to talk about it: all of it.

We are supposed to be engaged in a cultural conversation about race - a dialogue largely taking place on television and at the movies. We've traded unquestioned racism for a twisted multicultural correctness. Everything is celebrated, nothing can be discussed. We seem to want to live in an imaginary world without racism, where we celebrate differences but never base our beliefs on them."

- Sallie Tisdale, author of The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Harvest Moon and Lot's Wife, Stepping Westward and Talk Dirty to Me

2. Using Culture-Specific Slang to Relate to Other Races

K-Fed, you ain't. And you just shouldn't try to be--ever.

Black people have a wide array of colorful terms that come in and go out of style and can be used in a myriad of different ways. White people, it will be extremely tempting to try and incorporate these terms into your everyday language. Don't. When you guys start using our words, that's when we know it's time to stop using them.

- Nick Adams, author Making Friends With Black People

3. Assuming Biracial People Identify More with One Side Than the Other

The majority race in America today isn't white, black, or even Latino. It's biracial. And this will only increase with each successive generation. We're a society that loves to check off boxes, but the greater challenge is to stop seeing people as shades and start knowing them for who they are.

As the child of a black man and white woman, born in the melting pot of Hawaii, with a sister who is half-Indonesian, but who is usually mistaken for Mexican, and a brother-in-law and niece of Chinese descent, with some relatives who resemble Margaret Thatcher and others who could pass for Bernie Mac, I never had the option of restricting my loyalties on the basis of race or measuring my worth on the basis of tribe.

- Barack Obama, Kenyan/White American, Illinois Senator, presidential candidate

4. Thinking Race Is Only an Issue for Minorities

The tendency is to think of "race" as something that only black/brown/Asian/Hispanic people have - whereas "white" is the default setting ( i.e., we say "American" to mean white, but "Black American," "Asian-American," etc. to identify other Americans of different colors). Everyone has a race. This is a nation of immigrants, from England, Ireland, France, Germany, Poland, Africa, Asia, and beyond.

To be white is to have a race and a racial perspective as well, and that needs much greater acknowledgment in our culture. Discussions of race will always be limited until white Americans can have an honest, open discussion about what it means to be white in America - the good and the bad.

- Molly Faulkner-Bond, biracial Harvard grad who explored issues of interracial friendship in the current Sirens issue

5. Using Outdated Terms When Describing Different Races

Oriental, Colored, and Indian went out of style a long time ago; in fact, they're considered offensive. So, too, is lumping every Spanish-speaking person into a general category like "Mexican" or any Arab-looking person as "Persian" (it's a specific country, people). Feeling the need to identify is a nervous reaction we have when faced with issues of race. Black, white, Asian and Latino/a are generally accepted, but when in doubt, how about you just call someone by their actual name. Who says we have to classify ourselves all the time anyway?

I had to deal with my prejudices. I had to learn to ignore the taunting labels of other blacks who had everything figured out, including how I should act according to the color of my skin. I am human first, and that's where my efforts have gone.

-- Donna Leonard Conger, author of Don't Call Me African-American

6. Believing Stereotypes

Yes, black Americans dominate most sports, more Asians are accepted into MIT than any other race, and Latinos have been known to tear up a dance floor. Though some race-specific stereotypes seem like positive assumptions, imagine yourself on the other end, with high expectations placed on your shoulders simply because of a scrutinized minority. White people don't have the pressure to be the best in math or sports; they just have to be good enough. Everyone else should get the same slack.

One could say (I don't) that stereotypes are benevolent: All Asians are smart and hard-working. All Asian men are geeky engineers with high-flood-water pants and calculators on their belts. All Asian women are either passive, submissive chrysanthemums or seductive, manipulative hotties. I suppose it's true that these aren't hugely destructive stereotypes, but they are stereotypes nonetheless, and they can have hurtful consequences. I think to get rid of these stereotypes, Asian Americans are going to have to be more vocal and political. The same goes for other races.

-- Don Lee, author of Yellow: Stories

7. Thinking Affirmative Action Has Anything to Do With Someone's Success

One of the most controversial issues of the past 20 years is affirmative action, a term widely over-used and often misunderstood. It was supposed to explain educational and hiring policies put in place to encourage more diversity on college campuses and in the public sector. The naysayers made it sound like minorities were given hand-outs, which has resulted in an assumption, even years after most of those progressive policies have been killed, that a successful minority must have been given an easy ride. How about you ask Oprah if she was given an easy ride when networks constantly told her she looked and sounded too "ethnic" early in her career? Do you think the late CBS anchor Ed Bradley was given a break when he accidentally became the first African-American White House correspondent, a result of his network sending him to cover what they thought would be a Jimmy Carter loss? And of these two "View" hosts, who do you think earned their coveted role more: Lisa Ling, a trained journalist, or Elizabeth Hasselbeck, a "Survivor" contestant?

A white boy that makes C's in college can make it to the White House.

-- Chris Rock

8. Assuming One Man's Success = An Entire Race's Progress

It's commonplace to celebrate the breakthrough successes of minorities, the firsts, the bests. These people deserve our accolades, certainly, but the success of a few doesn't mean an oppressed minority is triumphant. We still have a long way to go. The day we stop clapping for the minority in a "good for you, kid" condescending manner is the day we've made real progress.

I never thought I was going to be a success. I was the longest-produced comedy at Warner Bros. and I don't feel special. When you have to work harder just to break even, it's hard to feel special. I got cancelled so they could put Cavemen on the air. It doesn't make sense.

-- George Lopez, whose The George Lopez Show was the longest-running, most profitable all-Latino show in the history of network television

9. Thinking Cultural Exclusion Is Racism

White people are in a difficult situation in this struggle to talk about and understand race. On the one hand, they are reprimanded for being the majority that alienates all other races. But are minority races guilty of the same exclusion by keeping to themselves? Or is such elective segregation the only way to preserve community and a strong racial identity?

I don't even like the term 'self-segregate.' Kids group together on common lines of interest and experience. If Hispanic kids want to sit together and speak in their mother tongue, that shouldn't bother anyone, but they should have the same opportunity to meet other kids. My decision to sit with people who I share things in common with is not the same as legalized imposition of segregation.

-- Beverly Daniel Tatum, Ph. D, author of Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? and Can We Talk About Race?: And Other Conversations in an Era of School Resegregation

10. Declaring You Are "Colorblind"

There is no such thing as colorblind (in fact, it's a long-running Stephen Colbert gag for just that reason). It is not a racist stance to see color, but a fact of life. Ignoring it promotes ignorance.

You cannot live in this country and not see color. We all need to step out of the naiveté box and stop pretending it really doesn't exist. We need to understand that we live in a world that gives certain people privileges because of the color of their skin.

-- Oprah Winfrey

david crowder band - surely we can change

And the problem is this
We were bought with a kiss
But the cheek still turned
Even when it wasn’t hit

And I don’t know
What to do with a love like that
And I don’t know
How to be a love like that

When all the love in the world
Is right here among us
And hatred too
And so we must choose
What our hands will do

Where there is pain
Let there be grace
Where there is suffering
Bring serenity
For those afraid
Help them be brave
Where there is misery
Bring expectancy
And surely we can change
Surely we can change
Something

And the problem it seems
Is with you and me
Not the Love who came
To repair everything

Where there is pain
Let us bring grace
Where there is suffering
Bring serenity
For those afraid
Let us be brave
Where there is misery
Let us bring them relief
And surely we can change
Surely we can change
Oh surely we can change
Something

Oh, the world’s about to change
The whole world’s about to change

good stuff

Jo and I have gone through the process you went through. You know what, it isn't easy finding a "good" church, and it's impossible to find a "perfect" church that meets all your needs. Our process took MUCH longer than we ever imagined, like a year. Part of that was the pregnancy and birth complications and all that. But let me share our process, and maybe it can help you.

1) Weed out the churches: Investigate the church's website, taking into account their demographics, and fellowship opportunities, etc. Most important for us was reading their statement of faith, to see if we agreed with it. Listen to some sermons if they have it, to see whether it's theologically correct, and if you like the style.

2) Narrow down your list to your top 3. You can't visit every single church. And if the first 3 don't work out, expand your list. Also, if you have to visit more than like 10 churches, consider the possibility that you may be being too picky.

3) Visit the churches: You can't gauge a church based on one visit. It's too short to make any judgments, and any given week might be a one-off. I.e. visiting preacher, or special sundays, or whatever. Visit each church for at least 3 weeks. I don't think it necessarily has to be consecutive weeks.

4) Gauge immediate impact - sermon: For your visits, take notes during the sermon. Afterwards, think about the sermon. Ask yourself questions like, Was it illuminating? Did you agree with it? Did it expand your knowledge of God? Did it make you want to change your life to be more in line with Christ? Did it put Christ first and foremost? Was it biblically based, or more world-based? etc.

5) Gauge immediate impact - welcoming: How churches deal with newcomers shows part of their church philosphy and way of being. I believe that how churches welcome people is a reflection of their walk/maturity in God. Did they welcome you? Did you feel a part of the church, or did people just kinda glance at you, acknowledging your newness, and then walk away because they didn't know how to welcome? Did it make you want to be a part of the group? Did they give you gospel tracts, etc?

You can repeat the same process for your top 3 churches.
During, and after the three weeks, evaluate the top churches for long term impact.
6) Gauge long-term impact - sermon: Look back over your sermon notes. Was it a memorable sermon? Did it have any impact on your life? Was it something you still agree with? For me, I want to look back on a sermon and think, yeah, that was a pretty good sermon.

7) Gauge long-term impact - welcoming/congregation: Does your time with the congregation make you want to get to know them better? Do their actions reflect Christ-likeness? Do they encourage and exhort each other? How does their fellowship seem?

8) Gauge long-term impact - outreach: What are the church's outreach opportunities like, if any? Do they have a good local, and global, view of missions, and are active in spreading God's Word? Are people interested and involved?


After visiting the churches and gauging them, you should have a leading or top contender. At that point you need to just make a decision and choose a church and get involved. That's how you truly find out how a church is.
9) Attend fellowship. Interact with people. Get involved.

10) Serve. Find some ministry or activity or something where you can be at God's work.


I can guarantee you that you will always find a handful of things wrong with any church. Nothing is going to be perfect. But that's why it's like a marriage. No spouse will be perfect, but you make a commitment, and you stick with it, bearing through any faults.

It's not an easy process, and because you want everything to be just perfect since you're looking for something "better", Jo and I found ourselves being very wishy washy when it came to picking a church. It's too easy to be critical and say, well, I like this aspect, and not that one. I like this church better because of this, but then that church is better because of that. The sermon's better, but bad music, or the music's better, but less congregational fellowship, etc etc. And you find yourself looking for the next church that improves on all aspects, etc. But be careful, because I think it's like a pit from Satan that will pull you away from God. Because the more church searching you do, the more you will be merely a critical spectator, and less and less involved in serving God. That's how I felt. Going from a bible study leader and worship team member to just being one person in the audience. It left me feeling pretty empty and inactive. We didn't even really go to a fellowship during that time because we were afraid to get too involved that we might feel like we couldn't switch. In the end, we just had to PICK one and get in the THICK of it, and STICK with it. (Haha, I just made that up.)

Anyways, I'm pretty excited, because now that Jo and I have picked a church, we're getting involved again. We attended one of the first couples' fellowship meetings, and just got the next book that we're going to be studying, so we're pretty excited. Also, I'm looking to see if I can get involved with the music ministry, and I'm hoping things will really turn out. And I'm excited to get to know a group of people and see how we can all help each other grow closer to Christlikeness, and experience God together.

But again, that took like 8 months, which is TOO long if you ask me.

Keep praying!
Posted 10/15/2007 11:35 AM by chinchy

why do they hate us? (michael spencer)

Why Do They Hate Us?

Evangelical Christians are almost universally disliked. Is there a good reason? (P.S. Democrats....this was written in 2002!)

by Michael Spencer

I don't really know why someone thought it was necessary to do a poll to see just who were the most disliked groups in society, but the results are in. While serial killers and IRS agents still come in last, hot on their heels are evangelical Christians. Not Christians in general. Not Roman Catholics. Not all Christians, but evangelical Christians.

If you're like me, you have three reactions to this news. First, you tend to blame the media. Almost every portrayal of an evangelical Christian on television or in movies makes us look like the worst version of every stereotype we fear. Of course, one cannot expect the mainstream media to take up the cause of rescuing the evangelical public image, and these days virtually every group has a list of complaints with various kinds of media portrayals. There is more to the public perception of Bible believers than a media vendetta.

The second reaction is what we tend to say to one another to reassure ourselves that we are really OK after all. "It's the Gospel," we say to one another. Evangelicals are identified with a message that no one wants to hear, and so they are disliked. If you don't believe it, watch what happens when an evangelical leader appears on a talk show. It's like raw meat to hungry lions, no matter if the evangelical in question is rude or wonderful. (I have seen some of the nicest evangelicals torn limb from limb in these settings including liberals who gave away the store.)

I would never argue with the basic premise of this observation. I have seen its truth too many times. They crucified Jesus. Enough said. But as true as this is, it is too simplistic to explain the increasing level of general despising of evangelicals in our society. It explains one thing, but it does not explain many other things. It actually may tend to blind us to our own behaviors. Like the residents of Jerusalem who were convinced their city could not fall because the temple was there, evangelicals may explain this dislike as reaction to the Gospel and then be blind to those things- in addition to the Gospel- that create legitimate animosity.

The third reaction is the guilty knowledge that evangelicals really are, very often, easy to dislike for many obvious reasons. Many evangelicals know exactly what the survey is registering, because they feel the same way themselves. We've all observed, in others and in ourselves, distinctively evangelical vices, hypocrisies and failures. We hoped that our good points would make up for these problems, but that was another self-deception.

It is easy to say that people's dislike of Christians is the dislike of the Christian message, but that simply doesn't hold up in the real world. It may be true of the Christian you don't know, but the Christians you do know have it in their power to either make it easy or difficult for you to dislike them. For example, the Christian in your car pool may believe what others refuse to believe, but his life provides a powerful antidote to any prejudice against him. Thousands of missionaries have been opposed for simply being Christians. But hundreds of thousands have lived lives that adorned the Gospel with attractive, winsome and loving behavior. A past president of our school was revered by Muslims during and after 6 years of Peace Corps service in Iran, years where he talked about the Gospel to Muslims every day and saw many trust Christ. The fact that the Gospel has penetrated into many hostile environments is evidence of the power of the Holy Spirit, but it is also evidence that one way the Spirit works is by making Christians a display of the fruits of love, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness and self-control.

We are loathed, caricatured, avoided and disliked because we often deserve it. There, I said it and I'm glad I did.

Here's my list of why evangelicals are among the most disliked persons in America.

1. Christians endorse a high standard of conduct for others, and then largely excuse themselves from a serious pursuit of such a life. Jesus is the most admired person in history, but evangelicals are far more likely to devise ways for Jesus to be like us than for us to be like Jesus.

If it hasn't struck you lately that you do the very thing you condemn others for doing, (Romans 2:1) urge others to do what you don't do or excuse in yourself what you require in others, then you probably don't get this article at all.

Did it irritate you when your dad said "Do as I say, not as I do."? Then you get the picture.

2. Evangelical Christian piety in America is mostly public. Whether it's our entertainment-saturated "worship" services, our celebrity cults or our mad obsession with worldly success, we love for others to see what "God is doing in our lives." Of course, Jesus had plenty to say about this, and the essence of it is that when your piety is public, then there is almost certainly a lack of serious, life-transforming, private obedience and discipleship.

I have lately been strongly convicted by J.C. Ryle's little book, "A Call To Prayer." Ryle makes a devastating case for the obvious absence of the discipline of private prayer among Christians. What would Ryle say today? Does our public manner grow out of a true inward experience of private prayer? You see what I am talking about. If its public, we do it well. If it's private discipleship, we probably don't do it at all.

3. Many evangelicals relate to others with an obvious- or thinly disguised- hidden agenda. In other words, those who work with us or go to school with is feel that we are always "up to" something. You mean, they know we want to convert them? Apparently. Ever been yelled at for saying "I'll pray for you."? Maybe there was a reason.

You know that feeling you get when a telemarketer interrupts your dinner? I get that feeling sometime when my Pentecostal/Charismatic friends are trying to persuade me into their camp. It's not that I don't know they are good, decent, law abiding people who like me. I just want them to quit treating me as a target or a project and start treating me as a person who is free to be myself AND different from them.

This same feeling is prevalent among those who dislike evangelical Christians. They are annoyed and sometimes angered that we are following some divine directive to get them to abandon their life choices and take up ours. They want to be loved as they are, not for what they might become if our plan succeeds.

Evangelicals have done a lot of good work on how to present the Gospel, but much of that work has operated on initial premises that are irritating and offensive. I have taken my share of evangelism courses, and there is a great blind spot on how to be an evangelist without being annoying and pushy. We somehow think that the Holy Spirit takes care of that aspect of evangelism! Thanks God for men like Francis Schaefer and Jerome Barrs who have done much to model evangelism that majors of maintaining the utmost respect towards those we evangelize.

4. We seem consumed with establishing that we are somehow "better" than other people, when the opposite is very often true. Many evangelicals are bizarrely shallow and legalistic about minute matters. We are frequently psychologically unsound, psychiatrically medicated, filled with bitterness and anger, tormented by conflicts and, frankly, unpleasant to have around.

I have an atheistic acquaintance who never misses an opportunity to post a news story about a morally compromised minister. Is he just being mean? No; he is pointing out the obvious mess that is the inner life and outward behavior of many evangelicals, truths we like to avoid or explain as "attacks of the enemy." Our families are broken, our marriages fail and our children are remarkably worldly and messed up. Yet, we boldly tell the world that we have the answer for all their ills! How many churches proclaim that a sojourn with them will fix that marriage and those kids? Do we really have the abundant life down at the church, ready to be dispensed in a five week class?

We are not as healthy and happy as we portray ourselves. The realities of broken marriages among the Christian celebrity set underlines the inability of evangelicals to face up to their own brokenness. Was there some reason that Sandi Patti and Amy Grant were supposed to be immune from failed marriages? Why did their divorces make them pariahs in evangelicalism? The fact is that most evangelicals are in deep denial about what depravity and sinfulness really means. The world may have similar denial problems, but I don't think they can approach us for the spiritual veneer. The crowd at the local tavern may have issues, but they frequently beat Christians by miles in the realistic humanity department. Maybe they should pity us, but the fact is that, as the situation becomes more obvious, they don't like us.

5. We talk about God in ways that are too familiar and make people uncomfortable. Evangelicals constantly talk about a "personal relationship " with God. Many evangelicals talk as if God is talking to them and leading them by the hand through life in a way only the initiated can understand. Christian testimonies may give a God-honoring window into the realities of Christian experience, or it may sound like a psychological ploy to promote self importance.

Evangelicals have yet to come to grips with their tendency to make God into a commodity. The world is far more savvy about how God is "used" to achieve personal or group ends than most evangelicals admit. Evangelicals may deny that they have made God into a political, financial or cultural commodity, but the world knows better. How does an unbeliever hear the use of Jesus to endorse automobiles, political positions or products?

In my ministry, I have observed how difficult it is to evangelize Buddhists. One of the reasons is that the Buddhist assumes that if you are serious about your religious experience, you will become a monk! When he sees American Christians talking about a relationship with God, yet does not see a corresponding impact upon the whole of life, he assumes that this religion is simply an expression of culture or group values. Now we may critique such a response as not understanding certain basic facts about the Gospel, but we also have to acknowledge the truth observed! Rather than being people who are deeply changed, we are people who tend to use God to change others or our world to suit ourselves.

6. Evangelicals are too slow to separate themselves from what is wrong. Because ours is a moral religion, and we frequently advertise our certainty in moral matters, it seems bizarrely hypocritical when that moral sense is applied so inconsistently.

I note that my evangelical friends are particularly resistant to this matter, but the current Trent Lott affair makes the point plainly. Lott says that he now repudiates any allegiance to segregation or the symbols of segregation. Suddenly, he sees the good sense in a number of things he has opposed. But bizarrely, Lott stands behind his evangelical Christianity as the explanation for his sudden conversion.

Watching this spectacle, there are many reactions, but what interests me is how Lott's Christianity only seems to apply now that he is being dangled over political hell. Where was all this moral sense in the 1960's? Where was it ten years ago? Why does it appear that Lott is using his religion at his convenience? It's not my place to judge what is going on between Lott and his God, but his apparent pragmatism in these matters is familiar to many people observing evangelicals on a daily basis.

Most evangelicals are not the moral cutting edge of contemporary social issues. Despite the evangelical conscience on issues like abortion, it is clear to many that we no longer have the cutting edge moral sense of a Martin Luther King, Jr. or a William Wilberforce. Evangelicals are largely annoyed at people who tell them to do the right thing if it doesn't enhance their resume, their wallet, their family or their emotions.

What is odd about this is that many of those who dislike evangelicals have the idea that we want to impose our morality upon an entire culture. Fear-mongering liberals often talk about the Bush administration as populated by fundamentalist Christian Taliban poised to bring about a Christian theocracy. I wonder if they have noticed that President Bush- an evangelical right down to his boots- is practicing religious tolerance over the loud objections of evangelical leaders like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell?

7. We take ourselves far too seriously, and come off as opposed to normal life. Is it such a bid deal that Christians are offended at so many things others consider funny? I'll admit, it is a small thing, but it is one of the reasons ordinary people don't like us.

I read an incident written by a preacher to an internet list I monitor. He told about taking his youth group on an outing, when the students began singing a popular country song about a guy who leaves his wife to pursue his fishing hobby. It's a hilarious song. But this fellow's reaction was predictable. He asked them to not a song about a marriage that breaks up, and to instead sing something that honored God. I routinely hear students ridiculing a fellow teacher who labels much of what students find funny as "of the devil."

These incidents show something that evangelicals need to admit. We are frequently unable to see humor, absurdity, and the honest reasons for humans to laugh at themselves. What very normal, very healthy people find laughable, we find threatening and often label with the ridiculous label of "the devil."

The message here isn't just that we are humorless or Puritanical. The message is that being human or being real is somehow evil. This is one place I can feel exactly what the unbelievers are talking about. When I see Christians trying to rob young people of the right to be normal, ordinary and human, it angers me. I feel threatened. It's hard to like people who seem to say that God, Jesus and Scripture are the enemies of laughter, sex, growing up and ordinary pleasures. Some Christians sometimes seem to say that everything pleasurable is demonic or to be avoided to show what a good Christian you are. Isn't it odd that unbelievers are so much more aware of the plain teaching of scripture than we are?

I am sure there is much more to say, but I have ridden this horse far enough. Certainly, unregenerate persons are at enmity with God by nature. And, without a doubt, Christians represent a message that is far from welcome. Christians doing the right thing risk being labeled enemies of society. Much persecution is cruel and evil. But that's not the point. Christians are disliked for many reasons that have nothing to do with the Gospel, and everything to do with the kind of people we are in the relationships God has given us. The message of salvation won't earn a standing ovation, but people who believe that message are not given a pass to rejoice when all men hate you...for any reason, including reasons that are totally our own fault.

No doubt someone will write me and say that, to the extent people like us, we have denied the Gospel. Therefore, being despised and hated is proof that you are on the right track. And there is a certain amount of truth to that observation in some situations that Christians may find themselves in. But that is an explanation for how we are treated, not directions on how to make sure we are rejected and hated by most people for reasons having nothing to do with the message of the cross. I hate to say it, but I've learned that when a preacher tells me he was fired from his church for "taking a stand for God," it usually means he was just a jerk.

The scriptures tell us that the early Christians were both persecuted and thought well of for their good lives and good works. What was possible then is still possible now. I've seen it and I hope I see more of it...in my life.

Michael@internetmonk.com

the fruit of the spirit, practically:

Marks of the True Christian

9 Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. 10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. 11 Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, [7] serve the Lord. 12 Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. 13 Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. [8] Never be wise in your own sight. 17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it [9] to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.


romans 13:8 -
let no debt remain outstanding except the continual debt to love one another, because the one who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.

from jonathan edwards

Advice to Young Converts
by Jonathan Edwards


Jonathan Edwards' Advice to Young Converts was originally a letter written
to a young Christian woman needing pastoral advice. It was published
posthumously and has enjoyed wide circulation over the years.

Dear Child,

As you desired me to send you in writing some directions on how to conduct
yourself in your Christian course, I will now answer your request. The sweet
remembrance of the great things I have lately seen at Suffield, and the dear
affections for those persons I have conversed with there, give good
evidences of a saving work of God upon their hearts and also incline me to
do anything that lies in my power to contribute to the spiritual joy and
prosperity of God's people there. And what I write to you, I would also say
to other young women there who are your friends and companions and the
children of God. Therefore, I desire you would communicate it to them as you
have opportunity.

one

I would advise you to keep up as great a strife and earnestness in religion
in all aspects of it, as you would do if you knew yourself to be in a state
of nature and you were seeking conversion. We advise persons under
convictions to be extremely earnest for the kingdom of heaven, but when they
have attained conversion they ought not to be the less watchful, laborious,
and earnest in the whole work of religion, but the more; for they are under
infinitely greater obligations. For lack of this, many persons in a few
months after their conversion have begun to lose the sweet and lively sense
of spiritual things, and to grow cold and flat and dark. They have pierced
themselves through with many sorrows, whereas if they had done as the
Apostle did in Philippians 3:12-14, their path would have been as the
shining light, which shines more and more unto the perfect day.
Not that I have already all this, or have already been made perfect, but I
press on to take hold of that which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers,
I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do:
Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on
toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in
Christ Jesus. (Phil. 3:12-14)

two

Don't slack off seeking, striving, and praying for the very same things that
we exhort unconverted persons to strive for, and a degree of which you have
had in conversion. Thus pray that your eyes may be opened, that you may
receive your sight, that you may know your -self and be brought to God's
feet, and that you may see the glory of God and Christ, may be raised from
the dead, and have the love of Christ shed abroad in your heart. Those that
have most of these things still need to pray for them; for there is so much
blindness and hardness and pride and death remaining that they still need to
have that work of God upon them, further to enlighten and enliven them. This
will be a further bringing out of darkness into God's marvelous light, and a
kind of new conversion and resurrection from the dead. There are very few
requests that are not only proper for a natural person, but that in some
sense are also proper for the godly.

three

When you hear sermons, hear them for yourself, even though what is spoken in
them may be more especially directed to the unconverted or to those that in
other respects are in different circumstances from yourself. Let the chief
intent of your mind be to consider what ways you can apply the things that
you are hearing in the sermon. You should ask, What im, provement should I
make, based on these things, for my own soul's good?

four

Though God has forgiven and forgotten your past sins, yet don't forget them
yourself. Often remember what a wretched bond slave you were in the land of
Egypt. Often bring to mind your particular acts of sin before conversion, as
the blessed Apostle Paul is often mentioning his old blaspheming,
persecuting, and injuriousness, to the renewed humbling of his heart and
acknowledging that he was the least of the apostles, and not worthy to be
called an apostle, and the least of saints, and the chief of sinners. And be
often in confessing your old sins to God. Also, let this following passage
be often in your mind:

Then, when I make atonement for all you have done, you will remember and be
ashamed and never again open your mouth because of your humiliation,
declares the sovereign LORD. (Ezek. 16:63).

five

Remember that you have more cause, on some accounts a thousand times more,
to lament and humble yourself for sins that have been since conversion than
those that were before conversion, because of the infinitely greater
obligations that are upon you to live to God. Look upon the faithfulness of
Christ in unchangeably continuing his loving favor, and the un, speakable
and saving fruits of his everlasting love. De, spite all your great
unworthiness since your conversion, his grace remains as great or as
wonderful as it was in converting you.

six

Be always greatly humbled by your remaining sin, and never think that you
lie low enough for it, but yet don't be at all discouraged or disheartened
by it. Although we are exceeding sinful, we have an advocate with the
Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, the preciousness of whose blood, the
merit of whose righteousness, and the greatness of whose love and
faithfulness infinitely overtop the highest mountains of our sins.

seven

When you engage in the duty of prayer, come to the sacrament of the Lord's
Supper, or attend any other duty of divine worship, come to Christ as Mary
Magdalene did.

When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was
eating at the Pharisee's house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume, and
as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with
her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume
on them. (Luke 7:37-38)

Just like her, come and cast yourself down at his feet and kiss them, and
pour forth upon him the sweet perfumed ointment of divine love, out of a
pure and broken heart, as she poured her precious ointment out of her pure,
alabaster, broken box.

eight

Remember that pride is the worst viper that is in the heart, the greatest
disturber of the soul's peace and sweet communion with Christ. It was the
first sin that ever was, and lies lowest in the foundation of Satan's whole
building. It is the most difficult to root out, and it is the most hidden,
secret, and deceitful of all lust, and it often creeps in, insensibly, into
the midst of religion and sometimes under the disguise of humility.

nine

That you may pass a good judgment on your spiritual condition, always
consider your best conversations and best experiences to be the ones that
produce the following two effects:

first, those conversations and experiences that make you least, lowest, and
most like a little child; and, second, those that do most engage and fix
your heart in a full and firm disposition to deny yourself for God and to
spend and be spent for him.

ten

If at any time you fall into doubts about the state of your soul under
darkness and dull frames of mind, it is proper to look over past
experiences. Don't, however, consume too much of your time and strength in
poring and puzzling thoughts about old experiences, that in dull frames
appear dim and are very much out of sight, at least as to that which is the
cream and life and sweetness of them. Rather, apply yourself with all your
might to an earnest pursuit after renewed experiences, new light, and new,
lively acts of faith and love. One new discovery of the glory of Christ's
face, and the fountain of his sweet grace and love will do more towards
scattering clouds of darkness and doubting in one minute than examining old
experiences by the best mark that can be given for a whole year.

eleven

When the exercise of grace is at a low ebb, and corruption prevails, and by
that means fear prevails, don't desire to have fear cast out any other way
than by the reviving and prevailing of love, for it is not agreeable to the
method of God's wise dispensations that it should be cast out any other way.
When love is asleep, the saints need fear to restrain them from sin, and
therefore it is so ordered that at such times fear comes upon them, and that
more or less as love sinks. But when love is in lively exercise, persons
don't need fear. The prevailing of love in the heart naturally tends to cast
out fear as darkness in a room vanishes away as you let more and more of the
perfect beams of the sun into it:

There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has
to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. (I
John 4:18)

twelve

You should be often exhorting and counseling and warning others, especially
at such a day as this:

Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but
let us encourage one anotherand all the more as you see the Day approaching.
(Heb. 10:25)

And I would advise you especially to be much in exhorting children and young
women who are your equals; and when you exhort others that are men, I would
advise that you take opportunities for it chiefly when you are alone with
them or when only young persons are present.

I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with
braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds,
appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in
quietness and full submission. (1 Tim. 2:9-11)

thirteen

When you counsel and warn others, do it earnestly, affectionately, and
thoroughly. And when you are speaking to your equals, let your warnings be
intermixed with expressions of your sense of your own unworthiness and of
the sovereign grace that makes you differ. And, if you can with a good
conscience, say how you in yourself are more unworthy than they.

fourteen

If you would set up religious meetings of young women by yourselves, to be
attended once in a while, besides the other meetings that you attend, I
should think it would be very proper and profitable.

fifteen

Under special difficulties, or when in great need of or great longings after
any particular mercies for your self or others, set apart a day of secret
fasting and prayer alone. Let the day be spent not only in petitions for the
mercies you desired, but in searching your heart, and looking over your past
life, and confessing your sins before God, not as practiced in public
prayer, but by a very particular rehearsal before God. Include the sins of
your past life from your childhood up until now, both before and after
conversion, with particular circumstances and aggravations. Also be very
particular and as thorough as possible, spreading all the abominations of
your heart before him.

sixteen

Don't let the adversaries of religion have any grounds to say that these
converts don't carry themselves any better than others.

If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the
tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you
doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore,
as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt. 5:46-48)

How holy should the children of God be! And the redeemed and the ones
beloved of the Son of God should behave themselves in a manner worthy of
Christ. Therefore walk as a child of the light and of the day, and adorn the
doctrine of God your Savior. Particularly be much in those things that may
especially be called Christian virtues, that make you like the Lamb of God.
Be meek and lowly of heart and full of a pure, heavenly, and humble love to
all. Abound in deeds of love to others and of self-denial for others, and
let there be in you a disposition to account others better than yourself.

seventeen

Don't talk of things of religion and matters of experience with an air of
lightness and laughter, which is too much the custom in many places.

eighteen

In all your course, walk with God and follow Christ as a little, poor,
helpless child, taking hold of Christ's hand, keeping your eye on the mark
of the wounds on his hands and side. From these wounds came the blood that
cleanses you from sin and hides your nakedness under the skirt of the white
shining robe of his righteousness.

nineteen

Pray much for the church of God and especially that he would carry on his
glorious work that he has now begun. Be much in prayer for the ministers of
Christ.

Particularly I would beg a special interest in your prayers and the prayers
of your Christian companions, both when you are alone and when you are
together, for your affectionate friend, that rejoices over you and desires
to be your servant.

In Jesus Christ,

JONATHAN EDWARDS