new to you friday–old girls network

I started the week asking if there was some way to model masculinity for a new generation. So I’ll end it with a nod to the many ways women can also be mentors. It’s a responsibility for all of us—a comment on the original post asked if there might be a twenty-year-old girl who could benefit from a relationship with someone my age. Absolutely. And that girl could be a great role model to a preteen. We’re all “older” to someone.

———————————————————————–


Dear older ladies,

First off, do not be offended—by “older” I mean older than me and my friends—not old. Trust me, I’ve been well-trained by my mother that old is at least 10 years older than your current age.

“I just want to age gracefully,” mom says. I’m so lucky to have her as my primary example of godly femininity and she definitely continues to model this as she gets older. Not old. OLDER.


But many women my age and younger don’t have such a great role model, and even those of us who do could benefit from relationships with more than one. I’m writing to ask you to consider committing a few hours each week or even each month for this important job.

As women’s mentoring ministries have hammered into our brains for years, the book of Titus teaches this. And if you want to join or launch a “Titus 2″ group to match older and younger women, that would be a great start. But you don’t have to create anything formal or enlist other volunteers to begin making a difference for the women in my demographic—just choose one or two of us and initiate a relationship.

I know, that’s scary, but if you wait for us to approach you it will never happen. Although I’ve asked a few women to serve as mentors in my life, most of us don’t know we need help—or, if we know, we don’t realize we can ask.


And do we ever need it.

We’re raising kids, raising step kids, trying to get pregnant, trying not to get pregnant. We’re reading “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” because we have no mother, big sister or aunt to clue us in. We’re choosing between homemaking and working outside the home and most of us are trying to do both, in houses with more convenience features than ever before that somehow we still can’t manage to keep clean. No one ever taught us to mend a hem or sew on a button. We can create websites from scratch but not a loaf of bread. We’re working in offices filled with men and holding our own (although still receiving less pay, but whatever). We’re looking at our marriages and wondering if we made the right choice and if we can make this last another forty years and if we want to and if we’re bad people when we don’t.


We need you—your wisdom, your sense of humor, your perspective, your practical help. We don’t expect the answer to every life question; we know we’re facing more choices than any previous generation of women. But we also know the important principles behind making those decisions haven’t changed. Some long-term coaching would be so helpful as we try to figure it all out.

Besides, there are still young women walking around in tube tops. Until every last one of us dresses attractively but modestly, consider yourselves on retainer. Because living gracefully applies to every age, young and old. I mean, older.

Jen

a few good men

“Today, most men in their 20s hang out in a novel sort of limbo, a hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance. This “pre-adulthood”…… doesn’t bring out the best in men,” writes Kay Hymowitz in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal.

Pre-adulthood as a new life stage isn’t limited to men, of course, and “extended adolescence” is not a brand-new phenomenon. But Ms. Hymowitz digs deeper than the usual laments over irresponsible Millennials.

For instance, it’s popular (and too simplistic) to bash men for how they’ve kept women from learning and earning. But the statistics for the next generation tell a different story. More women than men are graduating from college, and doing so with higher GPAs. More women go on to graduate school and in some cities they even make more money than their male peers.


However,  Hymowitz says this “rise of women” has also given a generation of men permission to act like boys.

“Today….with women moving ahead in our advanced economy, husbands and fathers are now optional, and the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles—fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity—are obsolete, even a little embarrassing,” she writes.

Why should they grow up? “No one needs them anyway. There’s nothing they have to do.”


The entire situation raises (at least) two questions for me:

First, are we as a society going to tell our women to dumb it down, sit down, and pipe down because if they live up to their potential it might emasculate men? Young women have realized most men in their 20s are unwilling to think about commitments like marriage; is limiting our own choices and achievements during that decade the only way to make them catch up?

If not, who’s going to model a better way? As Hymowitz notes, if women take the reins men tend to disappear or disengage. But just telling them to stand up and man up isn’t the solution—we need to redefine masculinity for a new generation. Feminists have looked to everyone from Virginia Woolf to Tina Fey; who can inspire today’s men?


“Today’s pre-adult male is like an actor in a drama in which he only knows what he shouldn’t say,” Hymowitz writes. I’d add that today’s pre-adult female is still figuring out how her femininity and sexuality should fit into the script. Both genders—an entire generation—need some cues. What’s our role in the solution?

new to you friday–my name is jen and…..

A few weeks ago, Christian Standard published an article by Brian Jones on “why churches should euthanize small groups.” It caused a bit of kerfluffle (75 comments and counting–check it out here) and is interesting since Brian is speaking at the Small Groups Ministry Conference at CCU in April.

But irony is fun, and I resonated with many of Brian’s thoughts. Small groups have never done it for me, but a 12-step group might. As I noted in the original post, the radical honesty and equally-radical acceptance demonstrated in many of these groups is crucial to overcoming addictions—and it should be more a part of our journey to overcome sin.

——————————————————–

This weekend I finished reading Lit, Mary Karr’s memoir about her relationship with her husband, her addiction and her God.

Every page was a poem—no wonder the book appeared on dozens of “best of 2009″ lists last month. But what struck me most was her experience in Alcoholics Anonymous. As she gets sober and commits to daily meetings, Karr encounters a corps of unlikely comrades: a well-known musician who brings homemade cookies. A black man with tattoos from the Khe Sanh Combat Base in Vietnam. A classics professor. Hookers and bankers. Rich women in Chanel suits and mechanics picking at the grease under their fingernails and still-drunk lawyers and a young man with schizophrenia who once attended a meeting wearing a helmet made of tinfoil.

Karr joined the group after hitting bottom—ending a professional appearance by drinking martinis and wine and chartreuse until blacking out, then trying to drive home until a concrete road divider stops her progress and shoots her out of the moving car.


“A moment of deep self-loathing makes not drinking seem your only conceivable option,” she writes. “But I know that day how swiftly such moments pass, how cunning, baffling, and powerful my own logic can be….for the first time, the disease idea isn’t just metaphorical.”


Although every person at AA can tell a similar—or much worse—story, each one is welcomed, valued, listened to. Jack, the schizophrenic, created his tinfoil hat because he was “convinced his girlfriend was beaming messages to him through the radio,” Karr writes. “It’s a tribute to the radical equality of the room that I never overheard anybody challenge the reasoning.”

This radical equality permeates the group because everyone acknowledges their lives “have become unmanageable” and they cannot successfully and sanely live life without help from each other and a Higher Power. There is no pretense about being more together or less sick than anyone else. The meetings and the community and the prayer save their lives.

And so I was deeply moved by Karr’s experience and deeply convicted about the different experience to be found in many churches—places that, after all, should have the corner on the Higher Power.

We do not admit our lives are unmanageable; in fact we usually find our faults both manageable and excusable. We do not pray and admit our past wrongs and make amends with the desperation of an addict out of better options. We do not find it impossible to go on without submitting our will in complete humility.

Because most of us have not hit bottom in our addiction to sin.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe your church accepts anger and skepticism and even hostility toward the Higher Power. Maybe your members regularly take a moral inventory and confess “the exact nature of their wrongs” and “defects of character” to one another. Maybe they daily help each other fight the disease of our fallen natures. Maybe Jack and his aluminum helmet would fit right in.

If so, I haven’t been to your church. But I’d like to, because my name’s Jen, and I’m a sinaholic.

things I don’t understand, part 11

The circumstances that would cause anyone to need a “Trenta” size coffee from Starbucks.

Talking on your cell phone while using the bathroom.

Why the world needs a fourth “Pirates of the Caribbean” movie.

Why Nashville schools are closed two days for half an inch of snow.


Long hair on men. If David Beckham can’t pull it off, you definitely can’t.

Choosing pest extermination as one’s profession.

Why Pentecostal women wear so much eye makeup.

Scrapbooking. I’m sorry, I just don’t.

Growing a beard long enough to braid.




Why my neighbor’s roosters crow at one in the afternoon.

Why my neighbors have roosters.

Parts 1-10 here.

new to you friday–popping (a) question

I love to hear how couples met.

It’s one of my very favorite questions, both to break the ice with acquaintances or to spark reminiscing among old friends. Although love is ancient and unchanging, modern romance is very specific: he asked me out to this dance, she wrote me this letter, this friend introduced us at this party. I enjoy watching people share the details of the one love story in which they play the starring role.




These stories are, of course, as different as the people involved. There’s the woman convinced her bachelor beau was a player who would hurt her–until he slowly wore her down with his kindness and character. There’s the guy who asked his future wife to all the big college events and nothing in between, until his roommate told him to get serious or he would ask her out, too. There’s the youth pastor who developed feelings for a barely-in-college former youth group member and honorably talked to her parents about getting to know her. (They’ve been married ten years, have three young kids, and this winter alone have shared the flu among their family of five approximately 43 times.)

I wrote this blog after another sweet friend shared her story and, as many folks do, included phrases about “just knowing it was right.” Three years later I’ve decided some of this certainty is evidence of a good relationship, but some is a function of personality. I hid under cribs in the church nursery and I triple-check my alarm clock each night. I’ll probably never be someone who “just knows”—and that’s okay.


But I’d love to hear your thoughts, and I’d really love to hear your story. Pretend the coffee is hot, the evening is young, and I just asked how you met (or charmed, or chased) your Valentine. Tell us in the comments!

—————————————————————————-

Last weekend I attended a beautiful wedding. The night before, at the rehearsal dinner, I asked the bride how she met her groom and how long they dated before deciding to marry. She replied the whole thing had been rather quick; she knew she wanted to marry him after several weeks, and they got engaged within six months.

I am cautious and careful in most areas of life (other than cross-country moves) so I find this fascinating. My tendency is to double and triple-check everything, including my feelings, and to overanalyze situations until I’m exhausted. I would love to just “know” that someone is “the one” but I don’t experience total certainty in any other important decisions (college major, choice of career, location of home) so I don’t expect to in my dating relationships, either.

You married folks—is that okay? Did you have a total assurance and sense of peace when you met your spouse, and does the lack of that mean the relationship is doomed for divorce court? You single folks, do you expect to feel 100% sure about someone, and is that a requirement for you to commit to a marriage?

good questions

You learn a lot when you write a blog.


One of my friends has apparently moved to Budapest. LOTS of people hate Comcast. And just recently a fellow blogger informed me I am a kidney in the body of Christ. (It’s more of a compliment than it sounds.)

Because I learn so much from you all, I’m asking for your help.


Last week Byron Davis invited me to submit a video for an online conference he’s producing for the new Destiny Leader Magazine. He’s asking each contributor to answer two questions about the theme “One Nation Under ? : Living the Gospel in a Post-Christian America.”

Question 1:  How did we get here? 

Question 2: Where do we go from here?


I told Byron I would be honored to participate, but those questions were just a SMIDGE ambiguous for me. Short of packing my entire liberal arts education (existent but foggy) and seminary training (not existent at all) into six minutes, how does one begin to tackle such a huge subject?

Byron replied that while he intentionally wanted to keep the subject broad, the target audience for the conference was ministry leaders looking to engage non-Christians and equip Christians.

“I am hoping everyone speaks from a place God has ‘disturbed’ them,” he said. “I sense an unrest and I am praying that it’s not just me!”

Hmmm. Well, heaven knows there are plenty of things that disturb me, but I don’t think Destiny Leader wants a video about my dislike of “The Bachelor” or my incredulity at the number of people buying their socks at roadside stands. As I think about some of the more serious issues facing us, I’d love your insights. What is causing unrest in your spirit these days? What would you want to say about living the Gospel in our world?

And I don’t want this to be just another talking head pontificating to a video camera, so I’d love some creative ideas for scripting and shooting it.


You are a smart, creative bunch who regularly give me good stuff to think about. I’d love your help on this one—but no kidneys, Joel.

new to you friday–the parent trap

When I was young, my parents determined what I ate, what I wore and—as much as is possible with a strong-willed child—how I behaved. (They also determined the punishments when I misbehaved.) That’s what parents do.

Now my folks and I relate as adults. I still honor their role, and I try to submit to them as I would to any other believer, but all three of us set boundaries and make our own choices. We even argue occasionally.

In a recent enews from Crossroads Christian Church in Anthem, AZ, lead pastor Steve Wyatt wrote about the difference between parent-child forms of interaction (in which one participant assumes a domineering role and the other passively submits) and the adult-adult form (in which two adults relate to each other as peers).


Steve says, “Far too often, the church traffics in the realm of the Parent-Child relationship. Leaders function in the role of the authoritative “Dad” and faithfully discharge their duties in a rather dictatorial fashion.

In some church traditions, Christians aren’t taught how to think, they’re told what to think. They’re handed a creedal statement and told to memorize it. Young people are given lists of ‘Do’s and Don’ts’ rather than schooled in the art of discernment and wisdom…..

The fact is, the single most popular approach in religion is the Jim Jones model of discipleship (remember him?). He’s the grape Kool-Aid cult leader who led nearly 1000 people to follow him right into the jaws of self-imposed death. That’s the approach of many in religious circles: Treat your flock like mindless children. Demand their acquiescence. Keep them dependent on you and you alone for life’s answers. Create dependency over discipleship.

That’s the Parent-Child approach to church leadership. And it works. In fact, dare I say it? Most of the so-called ‘megachurches’ in our culture function according to this model.”



These are bold statements. And, in some ways, correct ones. I know several megachurch ministers who prefer this parent-child method. (I’ll send you a list for $19.95 plus shipping and handling.)

I also know some who take this approach with their staff; in fact, just last week I heard about another one, a pastor who, without all the facts, belittled a staff member’s ministry and questioned the person’s key relationships under the guise of helping the person “be a good example.” Instead of acting like a spiritual leader, inviting the staff member’s perspective, or—at the least—treating the person like a team member, the pastor mandated conformity to his uninformed ideas of what the staffer’s life should look like.

But I also know senior leaders who quite rightly would bristle at the implication they want church members or staff to mindlessly follow them. Of course, they teach the scriptures unapologetically; adult-adult relationships are not about diluting the truth or making everyone feel good. But some issues really do have more gray than black and white, and many leaders really do want people to study, pray, and develop their own faith.


Which is also God’s preference. If anyone has the right to invoke a parent-child dynamic, it’s the Father, but he requires us to make choices, experience consequences and “work out our salvation with fear and trembling.”

It’s easier, quicker, and more satisfying in the short term to tell people what to think, how to behave, or how to feel; it’s much more difficult and time-consuming to dialogue, explain, and listen. It requires more maturity to accept conflict and messiness as part of the process, and to accept that the process may take decades.

Basically, it requires people to be adults, and the root problem is many leaders—in and outside the church—never learned to relate this way. In these situations we must still honor their roles and submit to their authority. But we can also set boundaries, make choices, and even argue occasionally. It’s what adults do.

war-torn

This weekend a good friend asked what I thought about pacifism. For all my opinionated-ness, this was one issue I hadn’t considered.

So I did.

In principle, I like the idea: that we bring in the reign of God through “militant nonviolence,” that we turn our enemies’ hearts toward God through our love of them, that “it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it” (Arnobius).

But I am too pragmatic (cynical? negative?) to believe we will ever live in a world free of war between nations or neighbors, or to think the methodology of pacifism will always be effective in those conflicts. (Mark Moore offers an alternate view at Stake.)


As with so many issues, proponents of both sides can turn to scripture to support their point. We serve a God who not only taught us to turn the other cheek and forgive 70 x 7, but also exacted justice against entire people groups and nations. Jesus blessed the peacemakers in Matthew 5; in Matthew 10 he declares he hasn’t come to bring to peace. He told his disciples to carry a sword (Luke 22) and told Peter to put it away (John 18).

Last week I re-read Anne Frank’s diary, the “Critical Edition Prepared by The Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation” that includes the unabridged original text and weighs more than some first-graders. After two years hiding in the forgotten rooms of an Amsterdam warehouse, Anne, her family, and four others were arrested and sent to concentration camps. All but one died, most of them just weeks before the Allies won the war.


The pacifism thing holds up for me until I get here.

Were we to let Hitler shove his way across Western Europe, occupying its major cities and exterminating its citizens? Sure, we entered the war for political and economic reasons—that doesn’t (necessarily) mean it was wrong. Can’t bruised and bloody kids finally stand up to the violent playground bully?

It’s trendy to be opposed to the current wars the US is fighting, and I agree it’s more difficult to get behind a war with murky reasons for beginning and an even less definite conclusion. It’s especially tempting to scoff at the idea of a “just war” when you were persuaded into the last one by imaginary WMDs. And certainly there is a limit to what military force can accomplish. But I’m also not ready to say all war is wrong.


I’m not a fan of the gun-toting, good old boy, if-America-is-doing-it-it-must-be-right attitude. But neither am I able to trust that sit-ins and stubborn ideals will single-handedly defeat evil in the world. Until those internal conflicts are resolved, I can’t be a pacifist.