My disillusionment with Santa began when I started working with preschoolers. Every year, without fail, the parents with the wildest children would stand near the door, with hats and mittens in hand, yelling across the room, "If you don't come put your coat on, Santa won't bring you any presents!" I realize not every parent who encourages the Santa myth uses him (unsuccessfully) to manipulate their ill-behaved kids. But this scene got me wondering how and why parents ever started willfully deceiving their children in the first place.
I don't believe the Bible supports the usage of "little white lies." It says, "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much." Furthermore, Jesus is called the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
If Truth describes God Himself--I want to imitate it as closely as possible. But does this impact that famous, white-and-red lie many parents adopt at this time of year? Would truthful parents encourage belief in the North Pole. elves, flying reindeer, and the "Big Man," too?
I think the author of this blog post, Why Lie to Your Kids About Santa, makes some excellent points.
------
Often, when someone questions a trend that LOTS of people embrace, there is backlash. This case in no exception. But, if you read the comments, Clint (the author) responds to each criticism with respect. I appreciate the way he distinguishes between playing pretend with your child (when he/she knows it's just a game) and telling them something is real which isn't. I also appreciate the way he reiterates that parents must decide what is best for their own children. But, even with all the disagreement, it seems to me the commenters largely failed to address Clint's bottom line:
"I want my children to grow up knowing that their dad never, ever lies to them. About anything."
Many commenters argued, "I believed in Santa, but I didn't consider my parents liars!" Maybe you didn't, but can you see how some children might? Were they being totally truthful? Another person said, "I guess I should take ALL the fiction books off the shelf and throw them away, so my kids don't get confused..." (Even though Clint already explained he thinks fantasy is fun, if kids are in on the "joke.") I realize the issue is not related to "salvation"--which is Christianese for "not that important," and I don't think Santa-selling parents are "bad"....
But I also agree with the commenter who summarized: There is a big difference between reading fiction for entertainment or lessons and selling fiction as truth.
And I want my children to grow up knowing that their mom never, ever lies to them. About anything.
The article continues:
"This may lead to some awkward moments in life, like a premature discussion about where babies come from. But surely adding a stork to the catalog of misinformation can’t be a better tactic than opting for truth in every situation."
I can almost hear the critics now....
"Oh, so you're going to explain sex positions to your 4-year-old?"
Of course I am! We all know "don't lie to your kids" means "tell them everything you know, before they go to bed tonight."
NO! It's my job to present the truth on whatever level my audience can handle. Let's be honest. We're smart enough to give the kid-version of where babies come from without adding untruths about a stork. We should be able to get our kids to mind without making empty threats about coal in the stocking. And, regardless of where you draw yours, there ought to be a line between "truth" and "falsehood." I don't want my kids to think mine shifts.
I want them to know mommy never, ever lies to them. Whether black, white, or red-and-white. About anything.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Christian Oppression...
I came across this picture online recently.
If not, let me change the scenario a bit. Experts project that, within two generations, Christianity will cease being the dominant religion. The Muslim people have a birthrate of roughly twice that of the non-Muslim population, and Islam may be the most widely-practiced religion sometime even before you and I die.
My point is not whether this is “good” or “bad.” I’m only saying that—shortly—the pie chart above may look completely different, with “Muslim” being the big blue area that currently says “Christian.”
Now, let’s imagine it’s the future, and the predictions have come true—there are more Muslims in the world than Christians. Then, let’s suppose I take that pie chart and put a quote above the blue, Muslim area which says, “I’m taking over this plane.”
Is that okay?
Even if there are 1,000,000,000,000 Christians in the world and only two Hindus, if those Hindus seek out others to beat, torture, or even "just" make fun of other beliefs, that's persecution. If they overpower Christians for their beliefs in any way, that's oppression.
"Hey! I'm being treated unfairly!”
Do you notice anything ironic about it?
If not, let me change the scenario a bit. Experts project that, within two generations, Christianity will cease being the dominant religion. The Muslim people have a birthrate of roughly twice that of the non-Muslim population, and Islam may be the most widely-practiced religion sometime even before you and I die.
My point is not whether this is “good” or “bad.” I’m only saying that—shortly—the pie chart above may look completely different, with “Muslim” being the big blue area that currently says “Christian.”
Now, let’s imagine it’s the future, and the predictions have come true—there are more Muslims in the world than Christians. Then, let’s suppose I take that pie chart and put a quote above the blue, Muslim area which says, “I’m taking over this plane.”
Is that okay?
…Or would a Muslim have the right to complain that I’m stereotyping?
If I assume something negative about an entire group of people—and then post a picture making fun of them on the internet—is that oppression? I think it would be offensive, regardless of how many Muslims exist, how many of them become terrorists, whether it's a joke, etc. etc.
It's wrong to categorize and then crack jokes.
If I assume something negative about an entire group of people—and then post a picture making fun of them on the internet—is that oppression? I think it would be offensive, regardless of how many Muslims exist, how many of them become terrorists, whether it's a joke, etc. etc.
It's wrong to categorize and then crack jokes.
------
I’d just like to say two things in response to the pie chart, as it exists today. First, it doesn't matter if Christians out-number members of other faiths in the world. Individual Christians still can experience oppression at the hands of an aggressive group.
Even if there are 1,000,000,000,000 Christians in the world and only two Hindus, if those Hindus seek out others to beat, torture, or even "just" make fun of other beliefs, that's persecution. If they overpower Christians for their beliefs in any way, that's oppression.
Regardless of whether Christian beliefs are“popular," the fact remains: Some of my brothers and sisters ARE oppressed. They are thrown in jail, maimed, cast out of their country, or even killed, because their religion is unpopular in their immediate circle.
It disgusts me that ignorant Americans, with access to chart-developing software, can mock this tragedy with the sarcastic quote, “Help, we’re being oppressed!” just because THEY’VE never seen an arrest, a hanging, or a beheading. (Here are a just a few true examples)
It disgusts me that ignorant Americans, with access to chart-developing software, can mock this tragedy with the sarcastic quote, “Help, we’re being oppressed!” just because THEY’VE never seen an arrest, a hanging, or a beheading. (Here are a just a few true examples)
Secondly, I’m lucky enough to live in a place I don't fear for my life, so I've never personally said, “Help, I’m being oppressed!” That's why I don’t enjoy having those words put in my mouth.
Yet I HAVE said things are unfair--even in America--since society is allowed to make statements about Christians like me which political correctness prohibits being said about anybody else. My "Taking-Over-This-Plane" chart is just one example.
If you believe it's NOT okay to stereotype Muslims with a flippant quote attributed to the whole group--but you believe it's fine to do so with Christians--then here's a thought from ONE Christian on the subject. (Feel free to make a digital poster and pass it around.)
Yet I HAVE said things are unfair--even in America--since society is allowed to make statements about Christians like me which political correctness prohibits being said about anybody else. My "Taking-Over-This-Plane" chart is just one example.
If you believe it's NOT okay to stereotype Muslims with a flippant quote attributed to the whole group--but you believe it's fine to do so with Christians--then here's a thought from ONE Christian on the subject. (Feel free to make a digital poster and pass it around.)
"Hey! I'm being treated unfairly!”
Friday, December 16, 2011
Good Reasons to be Selfish
Reasons to be Rude:
You didn't get enough sleep.
Traffic is moving slowly.
You don't feel like "yourself" today.
You disagree with someone.
You're under stress at work.
You're under stress at home.
So-and-so was rude first.
You have the right to free speech.
You have a "big" personality.
You were joking.
You've been un-selfish for a long time, and you just snapped.
You're online.
No one will know.
Other people are more selfish than you.
You're "right."
Someone else is "wrong."
You're just giving your opinion.
You're criticizing someone famous and he/she should expect negativity.
You learned it from your parents.
You're on a different medication.
They don't have to listen.
Your service was lousy.
You're looking out for number 1.
"I'm not the only one who thinks Barack O-blah-blah is ruining the country." "I just want to enjoy my meal in peace, and sales pitches annoy me." "I feel bad they lost a child, but the Duggar's shouldn't have gotten pregnant again." "This is just how I am--take it or leave it." "If you don't like it, make your blog private." "I've been feeling lonely, and I'm tired of asking God to fix me all the time."
Good Reasons to be Rude:
.
--------------------------
Regardless of our many, many, many excuses, rudeness is pure, inexcusable selfishness. We can't be rude and loving at the same time; we can't possibly focus on serving others while justifying a bad attitude toward them.
Comment with other common "reasons to be rude."
Friday, December 9, 2011
Pseudo-Condolences: Where Is the Love?
Yesterday I posted several disgusting comments by internet-users, who had just learned the news of Michelle Duggar’s miscarriage. Two days ago, I reviewed an article about loving those with whom we disagree (What Does It Have To Do With Love?), and the two posts intersect in several places…
Truthfully, I understand it’s hard to show compassion for somebody you believe invited the problem themselves. Many feel Michelle "should have known better" than carry a high-risk pregnancy, and they declare, "Maybe this will teach her!” It is not Christ-like, but it is understandable. I, too, struggle with impatience and frustration toward people who make bad decisions...
Yet—I state firmly with Dan from the article I reviewed—this should have nothing to do with love. How can someone possibly support the statement , "You don't deserve my pity"? Who refers to a grieving mother's uterus as a clown car? Who really believes the family deserves ridicule because they tell their story in a public forum? Since when is there any excuse to be completely, unapologetically mean?
------
Some of the comments are nothing but unveiled ugliness--sin natures, unchecked and screaming. But the comments by people who mask their hatred as "concern" make me the most sick. Many pose as advocates of Michelle's safety--saying they worry for her health. However, they don't come across very concerned for her spiritual health, encouraging her to worship God the best she can. Nor do they consider if their comments affect her emotional health.
Similarly, some declare concern for her babies....recommending that, instead of carelessly risking a little life, Michelle simply stop giving life altogether. I'm not suggesting that declining to get pregnant is the same as taking a life. But I AM saying that giving a baby a chance to be born--even through complicated pregnancies--isn't barbaric when never getting pregnant always means no chance. I don't buy that people are really worried about theoretical, potential children when they admit they'd prefer if the babies never existed in the first place.
Other good citizens fear that the Duggar children are "publicity stunts," even though the family was independently wealthy before the TV show. They have said repeatedly their real estate properties support the children without the extra money earned from the "sin" of being interesting. The family’s only public “stunt” is remaining dignified while society rips them apart. (A pretty impressive one, I might add.)
Similarly, some declare concern for her babies....recommending that, instead of carelessly risking a little life, Michelle simply stop giving life altogether. I'm not suggesting that declining to get pregnant is the same as taking a life. But I AM saying that giving a baby a chance to be born--even through complicated pregnancies--isn't barbaric when never getting pregnant always means no chance. I don't buy that people are really worried about theoretical, potential children when they admit they'd prefer if the babies never existed in the first place.
Other good citizens fear that the Duggar children are "publicity stunts," even though the family was independently wealthy before the TV show. They have said repeatedly their real estate properties support the children without the extra money earned from the "sin" of being interesting. The family’s only public “stunt” is remaining dignified while society rips them apart. (A pretty impressive one, I might add.)
Finally, a common accusation remains that the Duggar parents aren't doing their job because they rely on support from the older kids. It seems those critics think all parents need to spend four hours a day, one-on-one with their two kids, teaching them the world revolves around them and the finer points of bad-mouthing reality families on the internet, but it doesn't have to work that way. No, I’m not trying to suggest that parents-of-two always train their kids to be jerks--so don't let the last sentence twist your panties. I don't mean that small families are "wrong," while bigger is better. But, I'm mad at the many, many, many, many people who DO say "smaller is better," and they don't understand all the benefits of sibling support. They assume the same thing about having lots of children as society does about getting married 'too soon' :
But what does this really mean? What 'should' kids do with their precious childhood, which gets ruined by spending lots of time together, meeting each other’s needs?
“Their 12-year-olds handle responsibilities which rival a typical 20-year-old’s workload, and that’s just…just…just…bad!”
Really? Then describe the “ideal” childhood. Watching TV? Dancing? Not having a care in the world, besides your own interests? Or maybe just having at least a little time to be at least a little selfish?
Is it a big, unforgivable loss to miss out on those things?
As far as the effects on the children who "don't spend enough time with Mom and Dad," you'd think all the working mothers would stand up for poor Michelle on this one. Child psychologists have been reassuring them for years that 'quality' of time matters, not 'quantity.' Single moms march bravely forward because they hear promises like, "There's nothing wrong with leaving kids in childcare, with strangers, 10-12 hours a day, as long as they know you're doing it for their benefit." Yet. we dare suggest the little Duggars will be damaged, surrounded 24/7 by a huge group of people who love them? Nonsense.
As far as the effects on the children who "don't spend enough time with Mom and Dad," you'd think all the working mothers would stand up for poor Michelle on this one. Child psychologists have been reassuring them for years that 'quality' of time matters, not 'quantity.' Single moms march bravely forward because they hear promises like, "There's nothing wrong with leaving kids in childcare, with strangers, 10-12 hours a day, as long as they know you're doing it for their benefit." Yet. we dare suggest the little Duggars will be damaged, surrounded 24/7 by a huge group of people who love them? Nonsense.
Finally, what about the writer who thinks Michelle's fertility somehow affects another person's infertility? Some accuse her of wrong because "many couples can't have any kids," and obviously this is Michelle’s fault. It's like they think there is just a small pile of babies at the stork factory and the greedy Duggars keep snatching up more, before other mothers get a fair share. Folks, the good fortune of others does NOT automatically result in your misfortune. Baby-making isn't a game with winners and losers…one where Michelle constantly enjoys success at other people's expense. It’s not a competition!
And, that commenter who "feels more sorry" for infertile couples needs to write this down: compassion shouldn’t be a competition, either. To say one person (a childless couple) deserves sympathy "more" than another (woman with many kids) assumes that kindness is a limited resource. It eliminates the option of having sympathy for both.
Love shouldn’t be a limited resource.
There is no reason some people should “win” our goodwill, while the rest lose out. A person who justifies their insensitivity on the grounds they'd rather feel sensitive for someone else resigns their human responsibility to treat everyone with respect and tenderness. These people--who do not understand that the ability to love only increases with the more love we give--are the real examples of people who shouldn't parent. Anybody who lacks compassion, throws insults, or considers children "burdens" if they arrive after "too many" others, probably shouldn't have any.
But, for upstanding people like the Duggar's, the inability to have another baby is nothing but a tragedy.
...one which deserves true, kindness-filled condolences rather than the fake concern of people who do not understand love...
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Condolences, Internet Style
The Duggar family, whom I have written about before, lost their 20th baby today. Below are just a few things the glorious, anonymous internet (which I also have written about before) had to say:
The womb is not a clown car.
Posted by: Gigi | December 8, 2011, 9:45 pm 9:45 pm
Get a clue! ——-God
Posted by: RomeWasntBurnedInaNight | December 8, 2011, 8:39 pm 8:39 pm
Why are the reproductive issues and decisions of this idiot national news? Who in the world announces to the world that she’s had a miscarriage and actually thinks the world cares? These people need to get over themselves already.
Posted by: Mary Kaye | December 8, 2011, 9:02 pm 9:02 pm
My condolences to the family. maybe time to shut down the oven?
by AttentionDeficit December 8, 2011 5:48 PM EST
I dont understand anyone on here who is defending this woman. Ive lost a child as well and understand her pain but...... NOBODY needs that many children. She cannot possibly give every one of those the INDIVIDUAL attention they NEED, not to mention she is abusing her body by putting it through that much. The human body was not meant to bear that many children.
Posted by: Anonymous, about an hour ago
(in response to someone saying the Duggar's choices are no on else's business)
You’re absolutely correct. It is no one’s business. So why is this in the news? Oh yea, because [the Duggar's] issued a press release telling everyone, thus making it our business and open for discussion! If they don’t want to face public opinion they should go raise their herd in private!
Posted by: Jenn | December 8, 2011, 9:28 pm 9:28 pm
I'm glad I'm not alone in not quite feeling 100% sympathetic about it. Yes, miscarriages are tragic. However, I feel a lot more sympathy towards the women in this country who cannot carry their first or second child to term, or who cannot conceive at all, than for a woman who has child after child after child, and then turns to reality TV to help provide an income to raise them. Those who lose child #1 or child #2 to a miscarriage or who cannot conceive deserve my empathy a lot more than Michelle Duggar does. If that makes me callous or unfeeling, so be it, but someone who has 19 kids and opts for more when there are people out there who can't have even one should have little expectation of sympathy for their own sadness at missing out on #20.
Posted by: AZ, 1 hour ago
Can you imagine if everyone thought like these nutballs!!!!!
by deohgee December 8, 2011 6:04 PM EST
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
What Does That Have to Do With Love?
A commenter recommended this article to me: I'm Christian Unless You're Gay.
It is written by a blogger named Dan, begging people of all beliefs to love one another unconditionally. Read it, and tell me what you think.
Then, you can read below to hear my thoughts.
______
But, in the meantime, my passionate hatred for unholiness probably will continue to flare, and some of my posts will come across as hatred for the people who DO unholy things, even though that isn't my intent. (As I explained, I'm a person who does unholy things myself sometimes.) I also recognize that some of the Bible’s messages leave people feeling uncomfortable no matter how loving we are. None of us LIKES the guilt and sorrow we experience when we realize we’ve messed up in God's eyes. But I will continue praying God makes me more like Jesus so that I can share even those hard-to-hear truths with love.
Jesus took the message, “You’re going to Hell without me” and made it sweet by doing what Dan recommended…putting his arm around sinners and giving them hope.
It is written by a blogger named Dan, begging people of all beliefs to love one another unconditionally. Read it, and tell me what you think.
Then, you can read below to hear my thoughts.
______
In general, I think this guy is totally right. He wants people to be kind, respectful, and loving, regardless of the differences which separate them, and he reminds readers this same principle is found in all the most dominant religions. He's right!
If I had to label his thesis statement, I think it's this one:
“I know there are many here who believe that living a homosexual life is a sin. Okay. But, what does that have to do with love?...What does that have to do with love? Come on. Don’t we understand? Don’t we get it? To put our arm around someone who is gay, someone who has an addiction, somebody who lives a different lifestyle, someone who is not what we think they should be… doing that has nothing to do with enabling them or accepting what they do as okay by us. It has nothing to do with encouraging them in their practice of what you or I might feel or believe is wrong vs. right. It has everything to do with being a good human being.”
Those actions: putting your arm around someone…walking through life with them…treating them with dignity even though they are different--that is the very definition of love.
Jesus said it’s too easy to “love” someone who agrees with you. Even evil people love their friends and family. But you don't really understand the term until you've learned to "love your enemy." Jesus was hated both by critics in his day and many since then, but he died for all of us anyway. That’s real love. He was spit on by the guards nailing Him to the cross, but He said, “Father, forgive them.”
That is real love.
Dan was sooooo very right with the above paragraph, that I was a little concerned when he said, "[loving people are] able to look at [others] and only see strength. Beauty. Potential. Hope… Isn’t that what love actually is?" (emphasis mine)
Part of love is recognizing beauty and potential. And, like Dan, the Bible associates love with the word "hope." (Love is patient, love is kind, it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.)
But this last part about "persevering" makes me believe there is more to the story. What are we supposed to persevere through? That seems to indicate a change is coming, doesn't it? What did Dan mean when he said loves sees potential and "hope?" I think it suggests we are optimistic regarding the future of the person you love? If you really see potential in a man or woman, wouldn't you hope he or she reaches it? I don't think that "love" would leave people in a bad place, if there are things they can do to be better. Consider the alcoholic, or similarly self-destructive person. Their loved ones are the people who MOST want to see them change--not because they hate who they are, but precisely the opposite.
I realize this is a delicate balance. Too many “religious people” think they can save strangers from their sin if they preach long enough, and it ends badly--even though taking biblical advice ultimately would help the sufferer. The fact remains, we must prove our love for others before we earn the right to speak about delicate issues. Without love, pointing out a person's flaws only hurts feelings and starts wars.
For the most part, I think Dan would agree with me on all of the above. There was just one thing he said, which I'd like to question:
"[all religions teach] love for others as the basis for all happiness, and never did they accompany such mandates with a list of unlovable actions or deeds." (emphasis mine)
I believe this is the only sentence in the whole post with which I flatly disagree. Maybe he just worded it carelessly and actually believes differently than the quote sounds. But it seems to me that every, single religion (and every non-religious individual) DOES keep a list of unlovable actions. We each have a moral code--a sense of right and wrong--which is not a bad thing.
Our lists of unlovable actions often include: murder, greed, dishonesty, and selfishness, which we have good reason not to love. Dan himself writes this entire post about something on his unlovable list: the act of being unloving.
He meant to say, I believe, that none of the religions have a list of deeds or actions which make a person unlovable, though the actions themselves are despicable.
I wouldn't call his actions "unloving," even though he speaks pretty harshly about the human condition because his "beef" is with behavior. He is allowed to write about how awful we treat each other and how we need to show love without being contradictory because “love” doesn’t mean “celebrating everything everybody does all the time.” Love is treating somebody with the same esteem and kindness you would IF YOU DID agree with everything they did. It is acknowledging a person's worth and making everything you say to them--whether praise or reprimand--retains their dignity.
When you truly love someone, you will have their best interests at heart, at all times. And that is why I returned to agreement with Dan when he wrote:
“I wish with everything inside of me that [my friend’s homosexuality] didn’t make any difference to others. I wish we didn’t all have to find ways that we’re better than others or more holy and saintly than others in order to feel better about our own messy selves. I wish people wouldn’t cluster entire groups of people together and declare the whole lot unworthy of any love and respect.”
Part of me wants to get defensive along the lines of:
"Just who are these people 'declare whole groups of people unworthy of any love and respect?' Dan already mentioned the Westboro Baptist Church is hated by almost everybody else in the country precisely because the mainstream belief is they are WRONG. I can say with certainty that every, single church I’ve ever attended teaches that we all sin, and we should love our neighbor regardless of how his sin looks. Everybody I know agrees that telling "fags" that they will "burn in Hell" is NOT love, so just who is Dan talking about?"
But, I can't be too defensive because I realize the fact that churches preach unconditional love doesn’t mean their members practice it 100% of the time. And--just because we aren't radical, sign-carrying, name-calling bigots doesn't mean we always have a pure, graceful, loving attitudes. Yes, I worry that telling Christians "not to judge" causes the pendulum to swing the other way--to a point where we aren't willing to confront anybody about things God clearly commands against, even when they are leaders in our own buildings! But, Dan wasn't talking about a Christian who gets away with sin because other Christians are too spineless to correct it. He was talking about communicating with love--with the believer AND the nonbeliever, whether in agreement or disagreement. Never, ever, ever forget love. And, with that I will repeat, I completely agree.
----
To Sarah, the commenter who brought Dan's post to my attention, I want to repeat my apology.
The last time we spoke (under my post “If You Don’t Like MyTeaching…”) you told me you understood getting carried away with beliefs and struggling with words. You said, “I think it is a common issue for people with passion...” and I agree completely. There have been times my loving intentions have gotten lost behind the WAY I’ve delivered the message. And, since love is an action, the delivery is important. If I didn’t deliver the message with love, then I wasn’t loving at all. There have been times I handled critics with respect (for instance, the comments section of Teaching Little Apes.) But, recently, I got off track.
You also said, “To be honest, I would rather be passionate and struggle with how to express it than lack passion.” And I agree with this, too. Intense passion is bound to ruffle feathers, but it sure beats apathy. And, depending on the importance of the topic, sometimes we SHOULD be extremely passionate--and loud, in-your-face, and urgent.
The reason I am passionate about some of the topics on this blog, is I believe it's more than opinion. This is about ultimate truth and whether my actions and your actions please the Creator. All of us must be here on earth for a reason, and it turns out we face a life or death issue: SIN. We deserve Hell, but the Son of God came and died on a cross so that our sin doesn’t have to separate us from Him. We can be forgiven and spend eternity in Heaven, but we must actively accept Jesus’ offer. Those who get to know him personally will be saved. When God asks me to account for all the things I’ve done wrong, Jesus will say, “She is with me. I paid for her ticket.” But those who do not know Him personally will be sent to the pit of fire.
So though I agree with Dan that our beliefs should not affect how we love, I do not believe that love ignores sin. This would mean letting a loved one go to Hell. I will continue writing about selfishness, and how we can allow God to erase it a little at a time, because it is important. And I also write so that fellow believers can know they aren’t the only ones struggling to be good. (Some former posts about my struggles can be found in the “confessions” tab.)
Jesus took the message, “You’re going to Hell without me” and made it sweet by doing what Dan recommended…putting his arm around sinners and giving them hope.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
My Background: Throwing Away my Childhood
I haven't written a great deal about my history with Luke, but I have been inspired very recently to do so. Yesterday I read an article by a man who married young, the way I did, and it left me with a sense of boldness I don't typically feel regarding my highschool-relationship-turned-marriage...
Ordinarily, the topic makes me very self-conscious. Maybe it's because I started dating Luke during my insecure stage of life, and I've never really let it go....? Maybe I surrendered my confidence to the Devil a long time ago and didn't realize it. But regardless of why, I often feel as though my marriage is being scrutinized by the world.
Even after almost eight years together, I feel the need to prove to others my level of commitment to my husband. I've always believed, secretly, that everybody was waiting for us to fail. It's a form of egotism--assuming people think negatively of me when they probably don't think of me at all! But this underlying hang-up makes it uncomfortable when somebody asks, "Why did you marry so young?"
Instantly, I tense and my mind spins with defenses, to help the asker understand marriage wasn't just an impulsive decision made by a desperate girl, smitten with the first guy who said "I love you." I feel the need to assure the stranger Luke and I dated for over four years, and then I want to prove we're still doing fine in all categories. (Not drowning in debt. Luke doesn't beat me.) But then, sometimes, the asker follows up with questions which make me even more self-conscious: "Didn't you feel like you grew up too fast? Why didn't you take your time and enjoy being young?"
I never knew how to handle that situation....until.
The above article reminded me that finding a spouse is a blessing from God, and being mature enough to do so early was a good thing. I don't mean to say people should get married as soon as they can, or that being young is the "right way" to have a wedding. But I think people should be ready for marriage as soon as possible, in terms of striving for adulthood. Young people should desire to leave selfish, childish ways behind them and accept responsibility, which is the mark of a "grown up." And, in turn, being a selfless grown up makes a person marriable, whether they end up getting married or not.
I should be proud that I left youth behind and became marriable at a young age. I should be thankful God presented a marriable husband during the same time, so I didn't have to wait for that blessing. In our case, our biggest struggle was finding a few good mentors to give us the benefit of the doubt and show us how to make it work.
---
In April of 2004, Luke asked me to "be his girlfriend." This was via Yahoo Instant Messenger. We were 16.
A few days later, we exchanged class rings, and that's when our relationship became a public spectacle...at least, that's how it felt. We went to a small, Christian high school, so, literally, everyone knew about "us" within hours. Predictably, everyone had opinions about it.
Generally, I loved being held to a higher standard by intimate friendships at Kokomo Christian. As a teenager who genuinely wanted to please God, I appreciated the accountability. You'd never hear me tell someone to mind their own business, while I ran off and rebelled. I mean, it's never easy to hear when you're wrong, but at the end of the day, I cherished the correction. And some of my best growing experiences happened while I was at KCS, sharing life with fellow Jesus-lovers.
Unfortunately, there were people at KCS who didn't love my relationship with Luke.
At first, our biggest obstacle was...I suppose....skepticism? Understandably, most people simply didn't think a high school relationship had lasting power. So, we saw a lot of eye-rolling, and we heard comments about "one day, when we REALLY knew what love was." Even at the time, I knew why critics brushed us off. I would have done the same thing. But, simultaneously, I hated that there was nothing I could do to prove our seriousness except wait for time to tell.
I distinctly remember school picture day our junior year, when one of my teachers asked if I'd worn Luke's ring for my portrait. When I said I had, she teased, "Twenty years from now, you'll wonder, 'whose ring was this?'" She wasn't trying to hit my sensitive button, but I wondered why she couldn't imagine us together two decades later--or why she thought I wouldn't even remember the boy I'd been dating over two years by then. Most irritatingly, though, I couldn't figure out an intelligent way to rebut. (Somehow it seemed counter-productive to yell, "Nu-uh! We'll be together forever! Our love is real!!!") So, I said nothing and tried to accept that our school family didn't take us seriously.
As time wore on, the commentary changed just a little. Instead of apathy, there were two times we heard absolute objection about our relationship.
A girlfriend of mine wrote a letter saying she felt Luke and I were "too close." I asked what she meant, since school rules prohibited public displays of affection, or ANY physical contact between guys and girls. And I insisted we weren't crossing physical boundaries away from school either. (Read: no sex.) But she remained adamant that our connection was "dangerous," because we were creating emotional bonds which would hurt when we broke up.
A few days later, I asked a guy friend for his opinion (one I respected for his knowledge of Scripture, and who knew me, Luke, and the girl who wrote the letter). He responded with a letter of his own, in which he agreed with the girl saying it just wasn't right for high-schoolers to get too close. He explained the odds of Luke being "The One" God wanted for me weren't very good...so, why allow ourselves to get serious? He recommended using our highschool years to invest in lots of friendships, rather than getting tangled in a boyfriend-girlfriend one.
We were only 17. No jobs. No diplomas. And more than one person believed our interest in marriage was unwise--due to our immaturity.
The only trouble was, few people took the time to share how to become mature. I asked those two friends, point blank, "How would two God-honoring, maturity-pursuing individuals prepare for that magical "future" when seriousness wasn't bad?" But it seemed this was the wrong thought-process; it was, perhaps, just evidence I was a desperate girl, trying to hang on to the possibility of a long-term relationship, when what I needed to do was let it go until I got older.
Meanwhile, I understood that being poor and diploma-less were problems, but we were moving toward fixing those things--with plans for college and interviewing other young-marriers about how they did it. We also received warning that life as newlywed students would be hard, but we also knew that waiting caused different kinds of difficulty and that "Marriage would be hard" no matter when we jumped in. So, as far as I was concerned, people weren't giving us a definite reason to separate, except that most high schoolers don't understand love. Then, when we asked for enlightenment, most teachers, youth leaders, and other mentors only wanted to talk in abstract ways regarding "when we're older."
Now that I'm an adult, I see why counseling a teenage couple about marriage could come across as enabling--or even pushing them into a commitment--instead of merely "educating." I understand the safest thing to do, as a minister or mentor, is recommend all young students "just wait" and spend plenty of time "growing up" before making big decisions. Most kids let advice go in one ear and out the other, so it's best to allow many years for maturity to stick!
But I'm afraid youth pastors become so used to speaking about what kids "should do" then watching them do the opposite, that they have a hard time getting their hopes up when a spirit-filled teen makes responsible choices. Maybe it's almost too good to be true? But some kids really respond to messages like, "Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young...set an example...you are just as capable as any adult to glorify God....you can pray, study the Word, and prepare for your future spouse NOW..." buuuuut, they feel frustrated when they try to practice it and hear, "You're awfully young for a relationship."
Youth ministers, I don't mean to complain. You have a tough, tough job, and you do it well! But I encourage you to remember that--even despite the rebellious, hard-headed, unteachable kids in your group--some of them will listen. Some will receive God's word like seeds on fertile soil. Please don't trample the fruit, when it's easier to dismiss a young person's ambitions as crazy than wonder if God is behind it. Don't look down on them, if they are ready to set a good example...
Anyway, to our delight, there were individuals in our lives ready to say, "If marriage is God's plan for you, then here is what you need to know." Through talks with my dad, Luke's grandpa, and groups of various friends/family---we learned that sometimes young relationships last. What's more, it turns out a healthy marriage had nothing to do with luck and was entirely in our control. Love is an action instead of a feeling. If we wanted to stay in love forever, we needed to act lovingly toward one another, the way Jesus does. This actually was MUCH simpler than the mystical "future you will figure it out" vibes we had been given by nervous critics. And once I felt reassured we weren't WRONG to pursue commitment, we set to the task with teenage enthusiasm and energy. Thank God we weren't stuck in our ways or jaded by life to the point we threw in the towel before we'd begun. We were excited to start practicing sacrificial, selfless love, whether or not most teenagers chose the same.
----
Luke asked me to marry him in May of 2007, and we threw away our childhood the following year. I don't wish I was still young in the sense I miss getting away with foolishness. I don't wonder what I missed, "settling" for Luke. I'm proud of myself for never buying the crap about compatibility and trying to figure out what I "wanted" in a man (beyond godliness), and I'm proud that I was young when I began trading selfishness for true, sacrificial love. Praise be to God that He saw fit to bless me with a teachable, tenderhearted, Christlike man with whom I could grow up.
Ordinarily, the topic makes me very self-conscious. Maybe it's because I started dating Luke during my insecure stage of life, and I've never really let it go....? Maybe I surrendered my confidence to the Devil a long time ago and didn't realize it. But regardless of why, I often feel as though my marriage is being scrutinized by the world.
Even after almost eight years together, I feel the need to prove to others my level of commitment to my husband. I've always believed, secretly, that everybody was waiting for us to fail. It's a form of egotism--assuming people think negatively of me when they probably don't think of me at all! But this underlying hang-up makes it uncomfortable when somebody asks, "Why did you marry so young?"
Instantly, I tense and my mind spins with defenses, to help the asker understand marriage wasn't just an impulsive decision made by a desperate girl, smitten with the first guy who said "I love you." I feel the need to assure the stranger Luke and I dated for over four years, and then I want to prove we're still doing fine in all categories. (Not drowning in debt. Luke doesn't beat me.) But then, sometimes, the asker follows up with questions which make me even more self-conscious: "Didn't you feel like you grew up too fast? Why didn't you take your time and enjoy being young?"
I never knew how to handle that situation....until.
The above article reminded me that finding a spouse is a blessing from God, and being mature enough to do so early was a good thing. I don't mean to say people should get married as soon as they can, or that being young is the "right way" to have a wedding. But I think people should be ready for marriage as soon as possible, in terms of striving for adulthood. Young people should desire to leave selfish, childish ways behind them and accept responsibility, which is the mark of a "grown up." And, in turn, being a selfless grown up makes a person marriable, whether they end up getting married or not.
I should be proud that I left youth behind and became marriable at a young age. I should be thankful God presented a marriable husband during the same time, so I didn't have to wait for that blessing. In our case, our biggest struggle was finding a few good mentors to give us the benefit of the doubt and show us how to make it work.
---
In April of 2004, Luke asked me to "be his girlfriend." This was via Yahoo Instant Messenger. We were 16.
A few days later, we exchanged class rings, and that's when our relationship became a public spectacle...at least, that's how it felt. We went to a small, Christian high school, so, literally, everyone knew about "us" within hours. Predictably, everyone had opinions about it.
Generally, I loved being held to a higher standard by intimate friendships at Kokomo Christian. As a teenager who genuinely wanted to please God, I appreciated the accountability. You'd never hear me tell someone to mind their own business, while I ran off and rebelled. I mean, it's never easy to hear when you're wrong, but at the end of the day, I cherished the correction. And some of my best growing experiences happened while I was at KCS, sharing life with fellow Jesus-lovers.
Unfortunately, there were people at KCS who didn't love my relationship with Luke.
At first, our biggest obstacle was...I suppose....skepticism? Understandably, most people simply didn't think a high school relationship had lasting power. So, we saw a lot of eye-rolling, and we heard comments about "one day, when we REALLY knew what love was." Even at the time, I knew why critics brushed us off. I would have done the same thing. But, simultaneously, I hated that there was nothing I could do to prove our seriousness except wait for time to tell.
I distinctly remember school picture day our junior year, when one of my teachers asked if I'd worn Luke's ring for my portrait. When I said I had, she teased, "Twenty years from now, you'll wonder, 'whose ring was this?'" She wasn't trying to hit my sensitive button, but I wondered why she couldn't imagine us together two decades later--or why she thought I wouldn't even remember the boy I'd been dating over two years by then. Most irritatingly, though, I couldn't figure out an intelligent way to rebut. (Somehow it seemed counter-productive to yell, "Nu-uh! We'll be together forever! Our love is real!!!") So, I said nothing and tried to accept that our school family didn't take us seriously.
As time wore on, the commentary changed just a little. Instead of apathy, there were two times we heard absolute objection about our relationship.
A girlfriend of mine wrote a letter saying she felt Luke and I were "too close." I asked what she meant, since school rules prohibited public displays of affection, or ANY physical contact between guys and girls. And I insisted we weren't crossing physical boundaries away from school either. (Read: no sex.) But she remained adamant that our connection was "dangerous," because we were creating emotional bonds which would hurt when we broke up.
A few days later, I asked a guy friend for his opinion (one I respected for his knowledge of Scripture, and who knew me, Luke, and the girl who wrote the letter). He responded with a letter of his own, in which he agreed with the girl saying it just wasn't right for high-schoolers to get too close. He explained the odds of Luke being "The One" God wanted for me weren't very good...so, why allow ourselves to get serious? He recommended using our highschool years to invest in lots of friendships, rather than getting tangled in a boyfriend-girlfriend one.
We were only 17. No jobs. No diplomas. And more than one person believed our interest in marriage was unwise--due to our immaturity.
The only trouble was, few people took the time to share how to become mature. I asked those two friends, point blank, "How would two God-honoring, maturity-pursuing individuals prepare for that magical "future" when seriousness wasn't bad?" But it seemed this was the wrong thought-process; it was, perhaps, just evidence I was a desperate girl, trying to hang on to the possibility of a long-term relationship, when what I needed to do was let it go until I got older.
Meanwhile, I understood that being poor and diploma-less were problems, but we were moving toward fixing those things--with plans for college and interviewing other young-marriers about how they did it. We also received warning that life as newlywed students would be hard, but we also knew that waiting caused different kinds of difficulty and that "Marriage would be hard" no matter when we jumped in. So, as far as I was concerned, people weren't giving us a definite reason to separate, except that most high schoolers don't understand love. Then, when we asked for enlightenment, most teachers, youth leaders, and other mentors only wanted to talk in abstract ways regarding "when we're older."
Now that I'm an adult, I see why counseling a teenage couple about marriage could come across as enabling--or even pushing them into a commitment--instead of merely "educating." I understand the safest thing to do, as a minister or mentor, is recommend all young students "just wait" and spend plenty of time "growing up" before making big decisions. Most kids let advice go in one ear and out the other, so it's best to allow many years for maturity to stick!
But I'm afraid youth pastors become so used to speaking about what kids "should do" then watching them do the opposite, that they have a hard time getting their hopes up when a spirit-filled teen makes responsible choices. Maybe it's almost too good to be true? But some kids really respond to messages like, "Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young...set an example...you are just as capable as any adult to glorify God....you can pray, study the Word, and prepare for your future spouse NOW..." buuuuut, they feel frustrated when they try to practice it and hear, "You're awfully young for a relationship."
Youth ministers, I don't mean to complain. You have a tough, tough job, and you do it well! But I encourage you to remember that--even despite the rebellious, hard-headed, unteachable kids in your group--some of them will listen. Some will receive God's word like seeds on fertile soil. Please don't trample the fruit, when it's easier to dismiss a young person's ambitions as crazy than wonder if God is behind it. Don't look down on them, if they are ready to set a good example...
Anyway, to our delight, there were individuals in our lives ready to say, "If marriage is God's plan for you, then here is what you need to know." Through talks with my dad, Luke's grandpa, and groups of various friends/family---we learned that sometimes young relationships last. What's more, it turns out a healthy marriage had nothing to do with luck and was entirely in our control. Love is an action instead of a feeling. If we wanted to stay in love forever, we needed to act lovingly toward one another, the way Jesus does. This actually was MUCH simpler than the mystical "future you will figure it out" vibes we had been given by nervous critics. And once I felt reassured we weren't WRONG to pursue commitment, we set to the task with teenage enthusiasm and energy. Thank God we weren't stuck in our ways or jaded by life to the point we threw in the towel before we'd begun. We were excited to start practicing sacrificial, selfless love, whether or not most teenagers chose the same.
----
Luke asked me to marry him in May of 2007, and we threw away our childhood the following year. I don't wish I was still young in the sense I miss getting away with foolishness. I don't wonder what I missed, "settling" for Luke. I'm proud of myself for never buying the crap about compatibility and trying to figure out what I "wanted" in a man (beyond godliness), and I'm proud that I was young when I began trading selfishness for true, sacrificial love. Praise be to God that He saw fit to bless me with a teachable, tenderhearted, Christlike man with whom I could grow up.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Critical Thinking T.K.O.
In another post (regarding the time I presented an if-then conclusion about Sarah Palin to a self-proclaimed critical thinker...who couldn't follow it), I linked to a study which found college students are not learning to think critically by the time they graduate.
In THIS article, the author suggest a big chunk of the problem is many teachers don't recognize critical thought themselves.
It's a long, academic-sounding article. But for somebody interested in the education process, it is fascinating! A student was told to use objective evidence to support their preference for a specific kind of music. Then, that essay (and one written by an adult who was part of the experiment) were given to teachers for grading. As the author explains, the instructions themselves reflect a common misunderstanding of critical thought, since they ask for objective justification of something which is subjective by nature: taste in music. The student's essay, "Rock Around the Clock," was written with "spark" and interesting stories--ultimately concluding that rock music is better than other kinds. The second essay, "Can I Prove Rock Music is Better?" gave objective reasons why he/she couldn't assess music objectively.
Some of the things teachers said about the two essays (#1 being Rock Around the Clock, #2 being Can I Prove Rock Music is Better?):
1. Special Ed. Teacher: [#1] “Point total: 7. This essay listed three criteria on which to base a judgment. It gave examples of each — maybe better examples could be found. The writer attempted to analyze a basically subjective issue in concrete terms — what the songs do for them: not objective, but a fairly concrete assessment of music’s subjectivity. [#2] “Point total: 0. This essay did not seriously attempt to answer the issue at hand. Instead it concluded, quite lamely, that no objective statement of worth could be made. While this may be accurate in the broadest sense, no effort was made to justify that position.”
2. A Math Teacher: [#1] “I would give the first essay a 5 because it did not support the judgment well but did make many references.
[#2] “I would give the second essay a 3 because it is not very evaluative! It did analyze the subject but provided no real support of any judgment.”
3. A Math Teacher: [#1] “I would give this paper a grade of 7 because criteria were evident, analysis was good and it had lots of supporting evidence. [#2] “I would give this paper a 3 because criteria are given but nothing was analyzed and no supporting evidence.”
(As a side note: look how many times a teacher said the second essay "didn't offer evidence" or "support," and actually penalized the writer's correct conclusion that there is no objective way to support your taste in music. Did the teachers want more stats, figures, and "outside sources," assuming that's what it takes to think critically?)
Anyway, this article also lists comments from teachers who scored the second (better-written) essay HIGHER--but even those teachers seemed confused about WHY that one exemplified good critical thinking. For example:
An English Teacher: [#1] “Score: 3. The writer in essay one has discussed how he/she feels about rock and pop music, but generalities are given and his/her statements aren’t supported with evidence. The assignment is to ‘justify’ preference, not discuss that it makes him/her ‘feel good’ period. No criteria have been established, so the essay just rambles on about ‘feelings’ and not much else. Reasons and evidence are lacking. [#2] “Score: 5. This essay does a little bit better in attempting an argument. The essay establishes two ‘criteria’ on which to base his/her essay.... Examples of ‘answers’ in paragraph 3 are needed as evidence . . . Paragraph 4 isn’t developed. Needs reasons and evidence/ examples. Weak Conclusion.”
There are many other direct quotes from teachers, and I encourage you to look at it! Also, read the evaluations of the critical thinking expert about what good deductive reasoning looks like, AND scroll down to where it says "Three examples of Student Reasoning." He explains what rational vs. irrational logic looks like.
I said this study fascinates me, and it does. But it also frightens me a bit. If teachers can't recognize good critical thinking, how can we hope the students will improve?
In THIS article, the author suggest a big chunk of the problem is many teachers don't recognize critical thought themselves.
It's a long, academic-sounding article. But for somebody interested in the education process, it is fascinating! A student was told to use objective evidence to support their preference for a specific kind of music. Then, that essay (and one written by an adult who was part of the experiment) were given to teachers for grading. As the author explains, the instructions themselves reflect a common misunderstanding of critical thought, since they ask for objective justification of something which is subjective by nature: taste in music. The student's essay, "Rock Around the Clock," was written with "spark" and interesting stories--ultimately concluding that rock music is better than other kinds. The second essay, "Can I Prove Rock Music is Better?" gave objective reasons why he/she couldn't assess music objectively.
Some of the things teachers said about the two essays (#1 being Rock Around the Clock, #2 being Can I Prove Rock Music is Better?):
1. Special Ed. Teacher: [#1] “Point total: 7. This essay listed three criteria on which to base a judgment. It gave examples of each — maybe better examples could be found. The writer attempted to analyze a basically subjective issue in concrete terms — what the songs do for them: not objective, but a fairly concrete assessment of music’s subjectivity. [#2] “Point total: 0. This essay did not seriously attempt to answer the issue at hand. Instead it concluded, quite lamely, that no objective statement of worth could be made. While this may be accurate in the broadest sense, no effort was made to justify that position.”
2. A Math Teacher: [#1] “I would give the first essay a 5 because it did not support the judgment well but did make many references.
[#2] “I would give the second essay a 3 because it is not very evaluative! It did analyze the subject but provided no real support of any judgment.”
3. A Math Teacher: [#1] “I would give this paper a grade of 7 because criteria were evident, analysis was good and it had lots of supporting evidence. [#2] “I would give this paper a 3 because criteria are given but nothing was analyzed and no supporting evidence.”
(As a side note: look how many times a teacher said the second essay "didn't offer evidence" or "support," and actually penalized the writer's correct conclusion that there is no objective way to support your taste in music. Did the teachers want more stats, figures, and "outside sources," assuming that's what it takes to think critically?)
Anyway, this article also lists comments from teachers who scored the second (better-written) essay HIGHER--but even those teachers seemed confused about WHY that one exemplified good critical thinking. For example:
An English Teacher: [#1] “Score: 3. The writer in essay one has discussed how he/she feels about rock and pop music, but generalities are given and his/her statements aren’t supported with evidence. The assignment is to ‘justify’ preference, not discuss that it makes him/her ‘feel good’ period. No criteria have been established, so the essay just rambles on about ‘feelings’ and not much else. Reasons and evidence are lacking. [#2] “Score: 5. This essay does a little bit better in attempting an argument. The essay establishes two ‘criteria’ on which to base his/her essay.... Examples of ‘answers’ in paragraph 3 are needed as evidence . . . Paragraph 4 isn’t developed. Needs reasons and evidence/ examples. Weak Conclusion.”
There are many other direct quotes from teachers, and I encourage you to look at it! Also, read the evaluations of the critical thinking expert about what good deductive reasoning looks like, AND scroll down to where it says "Three examples of Student Reasoning." He explains what rational vs. irrational logic looks like.
I said this study fascinates me, and it does. But it also frightens me a bit. If teachers can't recognize good critical thinking, how can we hope the students will improve?
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
If You Don't Like My Teaching
An Open Letter to Victims:
This blog is not for you. Unless you want to be offended by an arrogant, out-of-control, right-wing nutcase, stop reading and go find something interesting on Youtube. (Preferably a talking animal or something else that won’t accidentally inspire you to make a personal change.)
I talk a LOT about individual responsibility around here, and I don’t buy that anyone in America is helpless to society. I believe everyone runs into obstacles (some legitimately unfair), but that most problems occur as a result of sin. And even truly mistreated individuals have the power to overcome it. This is good news because it means change is possible! Bad things can be fixed!
Unless you like being a victim. If you like blaming other people, or you’re not brave enough to take charge of the things over which you have control, then run. Run away! Don’t let me challenge you with my “you-can-do-it” insanity!
I’ll use studies and statistics often. But I don’t fill each post with footnotes for two reasons:
1. 1. If you’re already inclined to disagree with me, you’ll find something wrong with my research anyway.
2. 2. A large percentage of my citations don’t come from a source in a science journal. They come from The Source: the Bible. If you have a problem with it, I dare you to fact check this Source for yourself. (Spoiler: MANY people have tried to disprove it and failed.) Meanwhile, if you practice the biblical principles I put forth, you’ll see they work 100% of the time.
Sometimes my style causes an uncontrollable urge to call me names and accuse me of having serious problems. But I only want to talk about ONE serious problem, which all of us has in common: sin stemming from selfishness. If you don't think you're a sinner, you’ll find nothing of value here. If you think being a victim will work for you eventually—you like protesting the government, you blame your spouse/kids for your problems, or you want to enjoy lots of food/sex/recreation in hopes they make you happy, that’s fine! Just find another blogger for support.
Here, you’ll see that selfishness which leads to disobedience of the Bible which leads to societal problems interest me. You might say that’s my specialty. I’ve done a lot of thinking about it. I’ve done a lot of reading/observing. And this is where I put my conclusions... So, if you wouldn’t tell your English teacher, “I don’t trust all this stuff about verb tenses…where is the proof?” (Or, if you wouldn’t insult the math whiz with, “You always have answers, and it makes you sound cocky. Is there anything you DON’T know, Mr. SmartyPants?”), then please don’t criticize me when I share what experience and practice have taught ME. Just find a teacher who says what you want to hear.
I’m just saying, if you don’t like what I’m teaching, kindly exit my classroom.
Thank you.
P.S. For a similar read-at-your-own-risk post (which includes a few reasons I appeal to The Source), check out For Those Ready to Eat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)