Fitness Craze Madness!

Warning: This Post May Contain Trace Amounts of Ranting and Sarcasm

This Sunday we were heading back from Church in the van. Jobina mentioned yet another person she knows who was enjoying her Zumba class. Zumba, in case you didn't know it, is the latest fitness craze. How do I know? Because everyone is talking about it of course! And because they are leaving behind their old fitness crazes to do it. I will be the first to admit that I know nothing about Zumba but I find the slogan on their web site compelling:

"Ditch the Workout, Join The Party!"

If you go to their website you can see from the pictures that the people are very, very happy. Perhaps they are just having a party and noticed that they were getting fit? I'd be happy too!

When the kids asked what Zumba was I explained it like this; it is the latest fitness craze. Every 6-12 months a new craze comes out and everyone abandons the past craze to take on the newer, shinier one. Then people stay in it for awhile, gushing to all of their friends how they have lost a few pounds and are having so much fun. You have to try it, they say. Then you buy the DVD or join a class. After a few weeks (a couple of months if you are serious about working out) most people stop working out all together. They remain quiet and look at the floor when people ask them how their ________ class is going. Sadness and depression sometimes sink in. Then, just when it appears to be too late, the next fitness craze comes around the corner. Thank goodness! Everyone is saved! Then the cycle repeats itself . . .

My theory is that fitness crazes will continue to be successful (but with short shelf lives) because they do two things. First, they promise a way to make exercise fun again that is very compelling. Our human nature that craves creativity and variety will find almost all exercise to be repetitive rather quickly and so we jump at the chance for something new. It's like crack cocaine to us. Secondly, fitness crazes usually appeal to our sense of laziness. We want to be fit without putting in too much time, effort, and sweat. Thus, each craze suggests that their way is the most efficient way to get fit quickly and with minimal effort. "Only 12 minutes a day!" "Workout while you watch TV!" "Easier then getting up!" (OK, I made that last one up, but you get the idea).

The problem is that exercise is tough. It takes something called discipline, it requires work, it hurts, and even with creativity it is very, very repetitive. Nothing will change that. Even Zumba is little match for reality. The people who do well with fitness crazes are the ones who possess the discipline, work ethic, time, and willingness to suffer that all people who eventually get in shape have. The rest end up with a closet full of fitness DVD's for things like Tae-Bo, Military Boot Camps, P-90X, Pilates, Wii Fit, Pole Dancing, Richard Simmons, Belly Dancing, etc. that mostly gather dust.

Personally, I could try and fight against the fitness craze but I'm too canny for that. Instead I introduce to you the newest fitness craze:

COLD YOGA (TM) !!!

Cold Yoga was developed either in the frozen wilds of Siberia or by elves at the North Pole (whichever seems to better received by focus groups). It's based on the fact that people like Yoga (and that Hot Yoga is already being replaced by Zumba which is yesterday's news) and . . . science. Yes, powerful science! Research has proven that if you stay for extended periods of time in very cold temperatures you will definitely lose weight! In fact, people who go winter camping, for instance, can't actually gain weight, their bodies burn it off too quickly no matter what they eat. Cold Yoga consists of you doing Yoga outside in the snow and in extremely frigid conditions. And it's soooooo fun!! Sometimes people will even throw snowballs at each other and stuff. And go ahead and eat whatever since your body will metabolize things as you battle frostbite. The pounds practically melt off! Look for official DVD series "COLD YOGA: Stop being warm, start being fit" at a retailer near you. Or look for classes at your local fitness studio, equipped with artificial snow, -20 temperatures, and branded ear muffs. Tell your friends!

Fruit and Passion

This is not a post about a store (sorry ladies!). It's about faith.

How do you know if a Christian is close to God? I was asking someone this the other day and they told me they thought it was excitement. Passion, in other words. I have heard this answer many times. "Wow, that guy is really pumped for God!" or "Wow, that girl is really on fire!" The more excitement shown the more spiritual the person. And if you don't have passion, look out. Something is definitely wrong! For many of us passion = spirituality.

We all desire to have passion in our relationship with God (I know I do). But I wonder, what if we changed the question a little and said this: How do you know if a Christian has become "mature," "fully grown," etc? I don't think the answer would be passion. The way I read the Bible the answer would be fruit and obedience:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." - Galatians 5: 23-34

In my mind fruit is much more important then passion. Passion (or zeal) by itself is not good (Rom 10:2). Now I'm not saying it's a bad thing. In fact in Romans 12:11 we told to "Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord." You can be zealous without being obedient. And you can definitely be zealous (or passionate) without having fruit.

Fruitless passion . . . sucks. We have all seen and experienced it. Zeal without love does so much damage. Passion without joy is downright scary sometimes. Being on fire but not having self-control eventually leads a person to very bad places. I find myself quick to judge my fellow Christ followers sometimes and I need to be careful of that. So many of the external things I treasure (like passion) become super important and the most important things (fruit and obedience) are minimized and ignored. Imagine if we hired and followed our leaders, not based on their passion but on the spiritual fruit that their lives displayed? Fruit doesn't lie and you can't fake it (at least for any length of time). Look for the fruit in yourself and others. This is what I'm learning right now.

Thou Dost Protest Muchly

Lately I've been reflecting on something. Kind of swishing it around in my brain. I have two children, ages 5 and 7 and sometimes they argue (OK, they argue quite a bit). I don't like to listen to it but lately I've heard the catchphrase "It's not fair!" repeated a lot. I felt this kind of "deja vu" feeling. Because I realized that I hear that phrase alot in my counselling office.

"It's not fair!" Whenever children (or adults start dropping this phrase), productive communication is just about done. The phrase drips with protest and a vague understanding of some universal but hidden (to the other person!) truth. When we suggest that something is not fair, what we are really meaning is "It's doesn't seem fair to me."

The problem is that fairness is totally subjective (subjectivity - judgment based on individual personal impressions and feelings and opinions rather than external facts ). By trying to label something as unfair, we attempt to show someone that the universal standard of "fair" has been broken and so we protest. But since fair is different for everyone, it almost never settles anything. We just argue over why my version of fair is truer then yours. Solutions rarely come out of such contests.

When we ask someone to submit themselves to our definition of fairness we are asking them to let go of their definition of fair and take on ours. That is why it is rarely successful (just come listen to my kids argue for awhile and you'll see this - or come listen to angry couples in therapy). And ven if we could all agree on what is fair, why must people act fairly? Or why must life be fair? Or even why must God be fair? Do you realize how crazy it is for us to expect other people/the world/God to be fair (by our unique definition)? It is madness, madness I say! People are flawed, so is the world, and God's definition of fairness is completely perfect and thus different then ours. Sure, it would be great if people/the world/God would treat us fairly (as we define it) but why must they? Is there a law written saying it ought to be so? Or were you promised such fairness at birth? I know I wasn't!

I think that we need to let go of using the word fair so easily. Like other unhelpful words ("must" and "should" come to mind) I am going to try pruning it from my vocabulary. I realize that the Bible does use the word fair a few times so I won't suggest getting rid of it completely, but few people seem to use it in a helpful way.

Here's a little test, the next time you hear someone fighting over something listen to hear if someone says "you're not being fair." And even if they don't say it out loud, they are probably thinking it. "You should be acting more fairly" (or something similar) is so often our silent argument that we ought to have it tattooed on our foreheads to save us time and energy! By focusing on how unfair things are, I have seen people become depressed, destroy their marriages, ruin their careers, and shipwreck their faith. This is very important: Life is not always fair. In fact, it can be very unfair. That's OK, with God's help and other's encouragement you can survive it. You can take it. And maybe, just maybe, even with all the unfairness you can still have a satisfying, enjoyable, and meaningful life. Go ahead, try and change what you can. But when you can't and life is unfair . . . accept your reality and move on.

Miss Lonelyhearts and the Three Dealbreakers

I was reading the Winnipeg Free Press yesterday and happened upon a column called "Miss Lonelyhearts." It's basically an advice column, one which usually leans to the seedier aspects of relationships but as a relationship counselors I'm often a sucker for reading these kind of things. Anyway, in one of Miss Lonelyhearts' answers to her readers she mentioned something called the three relationship dealbreakers:

1. Infidelity.
2. Addiction.
3. Abuse.

What do you think of this list? Basically I think she was saying that any of these things warrants a person choosing to end a relationship - faith has been broken. Do I agree? Yes and no. From a Biblical perspective I would say that only one of these is mentioned within a marriage context (infidelity). Even then many spouses choose to forgive and their marriages eventually recover (and many are even better then they were before). I would argue that all of them are justification for separation (depending on the severity and circumstances). Although God's heart is for marriage I don't believe He feels that people should remain in the same home under any circumstances - separating with the intention of reuniting is occasionally a necessary and wise way to work for your marriage. There have to be boundaries and consequences for relationship destroying behavior, correct? Separation should truly be a last resort (as it is risky), but is sometimes what is needed to help a spouse "wake up" to how much of a deal breaker their behavior is.

If you are simply dating someone (even long term) breaking up would certainly be warranted over these three dealbreakers. For engaged persons this list is also good - getting married with any of these hanging over your head and undealt with (again depending on the circumstances) is just asking for trouble.

So what do you think? Is this list fair? Would you add or subtract anything?

What Do You Think Of When You See This Picture?

Honestly, I'm just curious to hear other's impressions. . .

(click to enlarge)

Forgiveness Vs. Pardoning

With the Lockerbie Bomber being released recently (a convicted mass murderer who was convicted in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103) on compassionate grounds, many are divided over their personal reaction to the story. There is general outrage in the United States and much of the world. Abdel Baset al-Megrahi always insisted he was innocent, never showed remorse, and never showed compassion towards the victims or their families. Now he is terminally ill. Someone in Scotland (where he was being held) made the decision, on compassionate grounds, to allow him to head home to Libya. The world erupted in anger. The Libyans are welcoming him back with open arms with some calling him a hero, incensing many in the West even more. Is this letting Megrahi go an act of Christlike forgiveness or it is a travesty of justice?

It brings to mind the topic of forgiveness. Should we forgive someone of such a heinous crime? And what would the grounds be? I heard a really interesting interview on the radio this morning with Wilma Doerksen, a woman who knows about justice and forgiveness. Her daughter, Candace was kidnapped, killed in Winnipeg in the winter of 1984. Wilma has struggled with the idea of forgiveness and mentioned that she thinks about our response to being victimized in terms of two terms: forgiveness and pardon. She thinks that forgiveness is a long process that everyone must eventually go down for their own healing. It doesn't depend on specific response from the victimizer. But pardon is different; pardon must depend on the posture of the victimizer. Are they remorseful? Have they changed? Are they unsafe?

She thinks that because the Lockerbie Bomber showed no remorse that a pardon was unjustified. Compassion is good but her compassion for a terminally ill man does not override her compassion for the families of the victims of Flight 103. Therefore a pardon doesn't fit for her. I haven't thought about it alot but I tend to agree with her.

Perhaps you are struggling with forgiveness. Interestingly, Wilma mentioned that forgiveness is a process and there is a pressure to forgive that is put on victims. Although it is a command of Scripture, it is not one that we should try to impose on others by use of controlling behaviors like pressuring, guilting, or manipulation. Instead we ought to remind each other, be patient, and not demand it. And we need to realize the difference between it and pardoning. Forgiveness does not mean we must pardon people for their crimes or wounding. May we have the grace to forgive those who trespass against us and the wisdom to pardon those for whom it makes sense to.

ASBO Jesus Friday: Chasing

(Click to enlarge)

Run

Just curious what you think about this video:

The Secret To Good Sex: Aging?

The Globe and Mail had a short but very interesting article about some research done by Peggy Kleinplatz at the University of Ottawa. Apparently when she put out the call for "great lovers" she was contacted by many older married couples - those who had enjoyed marriage for over 25 years. Kleinplatz found that:

-Several ingredients for “great sex” emerged: being present; connection; deep sexual and erotic intimacy; extraordinary communication; interpersonal risk-taking and exploration; authenticity; vulnerability, and transcendence.
-Optimal sex gets surprisingly better with experience and becomes self-perpetuating.
-Aging may be an asset towards optimal sexual development.
-The findings go against how popular culture portrays fantastic sex, a depiction that stresses performance, technique and novelty. This image of sex sends mixed messages that create unrealistic expectations, anxiety, shame and guilt.

The study brings up an interesting point, what if most of the messages we hear about sex in the media (magazines, TV, movies, internet) are based on untruths? Maybe sex before marriage isn't "normal" or "healthy" and maybe it's not impossible to wait til your wedding? Maybe you don't have to be super skinny/buff/attractive to attract a sexual partner and be able to enjoy great sex? Maybe seeing soft or hard porn actually does affect a person in their heart and mind and will affect their relationships in negative ways? Maybe sex is not only for the young but can actually be better and hotter as you age? I love it when research shows us that our ideas, the ideas we are fed everyday can be wrong, even damaging. Perhaps for us Christ-followers we need to be reminded every now and then that the media isn't the best source for our ideas and info on sexual intimacy . . . and that sometimes we start to believe the lies that we hear - and shouldn't.

On Arranged Marriages . . .

An Indian once compared love with a bowl of soup and marriage with the hot plate of a stove and said: "You Westerners put a hot bowl on a cold plate and it grows cold slowly. We put a cold bowl on a hot stove and it warms up slowly."


I liked this quote. It catches the spirit of why arranged marriages can actually work, and often work well. In most Western marriages, couples attempt to experience most of the best parts of marriage before they get married. Sex, cohabitation, domestic sharing, even children. Yet they are not fully committed. Try before you buy. Experiencing and embracing all of these things without the safety and security of a firm marriage commitment is not just anti-Christian, but creates huge emotional/attachment issues. It is no wonder that so many Western marriages end in disillusionment and divorce. Yet their strength is that there is freedom and consent, and often some form of love.

The strength of arranged marriages is their foundation of commitment. Arranged marriages definitely have severe drawbacks (especially when you don't have the enthusiastic consent of both parties). They usually do not start on a foundation of love (or even "like"), which seems to be a foundational necessity. Arranged marriages focus too strongly on the commitment aspect and are weak on love, something that is just as necessary for a marriage to grow and flourish. Although cultural norms do not encourage those in arranged marriages to divorce, many of these relationships are cold and lifeless.

Commitment and love must both be present and in high amounts in order for marriage to survive and thrive. Although it is best and most fulfilling to have these at the start of a serious relationship there is still much hope for those who didn't have one or both of these. And that is why I do what I do . . .

Protecting The (Dysfunctional) Church System

Here is a story I have heard way too often:

A pastor is doing well at his church. The ministry is thriving, the people like him, and real fruit is being shown in his ministry. As good as things are though, they are not perfect and some of his ideas are not being received well by someone in the church leadership team. Maybe the annoyed party is another pastor (if it's a large church) or someone on the board/elders team. Perhaps they feel threatened or perhaps they disagree with the pastor's approach or theology. For whatever reason instead of the annoyed person talking directly to the pastor in open dialogue, they instead bully the rest of the leadership team (or the pastor directly) to quit. A covert campaign is established (gossip, manipulation, and outright deception) and eventually the pastor can't take it any more and is forced out.

As bad, as evil as that is, what really bothers me is what often happens next. The church leadership team - heavily influenced by the church bully - tells the pastor that, "for the good of the church," to leave quietly. In some cases financial considerations (compensation) are attached to the pastor leaving quietly without "raising a stink" about what happened to them. The pastor believes the lie that if he would let the people in the church know about the underhanded and terrible way that he was treated that this would "wrong." He worries that it could divide the church, that he would be doing it out of bad motives, and that it would just be too much trouble and bring up the bad feelings that he is trying to bury. So he agrees not to say anything. The people are confused on why the pastor is leaving (except those in the know) and he exits the church defeated, angry, bitter, and disillusioned. The average churchgoer has no idea of the dysfunctional element in their leadership and the cycle begins again with the new pastor.

Depressing, isn't it?

What bothers me the most is not that church bullies hurt good pastors (although the tolerance of church bullies is a whole other rant which I will share another time) but the fact that the dysfunction within the church is not brought up to the light. Pastors justify their lack of sharing the truth with the congregation by believing the idea that they are saving the church from further strife and division, but really they are just prolonging the dysfunction. And the members of the leadership team, even if they don't agree with what happened, become part of the code of silence to "protect the church." Someone needs to tell the church the truth if there is to be any hope to fixing things! Someone needs to have the courage to stand up and say "Yes, I know this will be disturbing to you, but this is what happened to me and it was not right." Instead the pastors feel the noble thing to do is fall on their sword. They are encouraged in this by the dysfunctional leadership team and their misplaced concern for the well being of the church. Yet Paul was not afraid to publicly call Peter and the church of Jerusalem on their sinful actions, and neither should we. Could bringing to light what is happening in the church result in terrible things for you, your family, and your ministry? Absolutely, and it is a decision that must be weighed carefully. But to choose not to expose sinful actions in the church is nothing short then collusion with evil.

It is like being abused by your father and not telling your family because you don't want it to "create strife" or "damage your mother." But if you choose not to tell about the abuse, someone else in your family has a good chance of being abused as well . . . and I don't think they would be happy knowing that you knew and didn't warn them. Essentially this is what too often happens in churches - I know several that have dysfunctional leadership teams who have burned through several pastors, damaging them while the congregation was completely unaware. And these congregations would be outraged to know how these pastors were really treated, but they don't know if know one tells them, right?

Standing up and telling the congregation the specific things done to them that were sinful is not an easy thing to do. You may get great results or you may not. But at least you tried, and yes, you did the right thing. Whether you are a pastor or just a member of your congregation, we need to stand up for what is right. We need to call it as it is, no matter the consequences. The church, the system, depends on it.

How Much Money Is A Pet's Life Worth To You?

On the way back from a board meeting tonight I was listening to CJOB which is a local news/talk radio station here in Manitoba. Even though it probably makes me old and boring, I really like news and talk radio. There, I'm coming out of the closet. Don't judge me! Don't judge me.

Anyway, there was an interview with a guy from the Humane Society. The host admitted to him taking his dog to the vet a few days ago and confessed that after he got his bill for over $400 he fleetingly wondered "How much would have cost just to put the dog down?" This lead into a big discussion on how much a person would be willing to put into saving their animal before they'd say "enough." Never being really attached to my pet, I thought $400 was a crazy amount. But soon someone called in and said they had paid over $1000. I was shocked. But then someone said they had paid over $3000 - (twice) on their dog's health! That's over $6000 on an animal. Many of these callers said that money was no object. Once you get attached to an animal you will anything within your power to save them.

This made me think, how much would I be willing to spend to save a dog? And is there an ethical problem if you are not willing to spend money giving life giving donations to starving children but you are willing to pay thousands to replace your dog's hip or repair its torn ACL? I suppose the reason someone can do this is because they are emotionally attached to the dog and not emotionally attached to the starving children. Intellectually we know that millions of children starving is more important then one dog, but because we get bonded to an animal that is in front of us, it's no contest - the dog will win every time. I'm not saying we shouldn't do all we can to save animals (I think animals deserve care and compassion) but I wonder where we ought to draw the line? And what does God think of it all? Is he impressed by our compassion for animals even as we ignore the human needs around us?

The Ethics of Venting

“The words of gossip are like choice morsels; they go down to a man’s inmost parts.”
-Proverbs 18:8

I was emailing a friend yesterday about the possible differences between venting and gossiping. How do you stop venting from becoming gossip (or slander)? How do you tell the difference? Most people agree that we should be able to vent our frustrations, feelings, etc. in some healthy way. If we don't it gets bottled up until eventually it comes out in unhappy ways. But how do you protect your venting from becoming gossip or slander? I think its a slippery slope and I have seen way too many Christian teams, churches, families, and friendships slip off the mountain without even realizing what happened to them (and I'm guilty of it myself).

What are the ethics of sharing one's frustrations with others who are not directly involved? How can we vent without talking to people behind their backs? What are the ethics involved? I'm curious to hear what others think as it is something that affects us all.

Don't Panic!

Well, we are into a recession.

I haven't blogged much about this much because I feel like I'm still waiting it out. How bad is this thing? Perception is in the eye of the beholder. For me it doesn't seem too bad. As a counselor, bad economic times don't really affect me much (in fact, bad times may actually increase the number of people seeking counseling). My other short term job (as adjunct faculty at Prov) isn't really effected either although there have been recent layoffs of some full time faculty. My rental property is still going strong and my equity in my houses hasn't been affected too badly (if at all) as Winnipeg/Manitoba has one of the strongest real estate markets in Canada right now. Seriously there are still lots of "offer to purchase on ____" out there which says that although we aren't in a seller's market, we aren't in a buyer's market here either. Most of the time I feel fairly secure in things. I am quite interested to see how many companies are "culled" by the forces of capitalism though. Will GM and Chrysler die? Fascinating (although morbid) stuff. I thank God that I have never invested in stocks though!

How's this recession thing affecting you? What are you seeing?

I recently read The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy by Douglas Adams which is an excellent book. His advice, which I am trying to take to heart and is pasted in big letters on the outside of the mythical book is "Don't Panic!" Simple and good advice. The book itself is amazing; a piece of genius writing really. The fact that the title was conceived by the author as he lay drunk in a field somewhere in England fits perfectly with the overall feel of the book. It was the first sci-fi comedy and its written in a deliciously dry British wit. What really impresses is the creativity that the author has and how he plays with existential and scientific themes in ways that are completely unforseeable. Seriously, every serious reader should read this book at least once. A "trilogy in four parts," the first parts are the best. When you read it, you get the same kind of sense as when you read Lord of The Rings for the first time; everyone has copied this. So many of the ideas/concepts in Hitchhiker were borrowed by other authors. And isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery?

Anyway, I think "Don't panic" applies to almost everything. How can panicking ever help you? Panic is a poor substitution for thinking and acting. Panic is like a favorite short term coping mechanism. Like alcohol, one night stands, drugs, porn, or overeating; it feels good enough to help you forget/dull the pain/numb the emptiness but eventually you come back to real life and your problems are still there. I feel for the many people who have lost money in investments or even lost their jobs - this is a painful time. But solutions will present themselves to even those who are hardest hit - it's not the end of the world. Right?

Transparency

When I was 11 or 12 I remember feeling a strong desire to go and explore the forest and bush (on our quarter section of land) but also feeling great fear and trepidation about doing so. I can vividly remember standing behind our house and looking longingly into the distance towards the trees but finding myself frozen with fear. I literally couldn't take a step. What was I afraid of? Wild animals mostly (wolves, bears, cougars, etc.). Yet my heart wanted to know what lay in the woods. My instinct and my fear duelled for supremacy.

Eventually my heart won out over my fear and I explored the bush. It was exciting, terrifying, and deeply satisfying - all at the same time. I found that the wilderness was a place where God and I could have fellowship. I have never regretted my choice.

This relates to my subject of the day. It seems to me that we wear a lot of masks. The masks protect us from being real with people, of showing them who we truly are. Transparency - the act of being ourselves with others- is frightening and unnatural. We desire it - we crave it in fact - but we fear it at the same time. "What will people think of me?" "What if they knew about my past?" The fears and doubts swirl in our heads. Eventually most of us will take a chance and reveal ourselves to someone. Scary and unsafe it is and sometimes we will get hurt. But really, its the only decent way to live.

Spontaneous Parenting Theory

“Parents who are afraid to put their foot down usually have children who step on their toes.”
-Chinese Proverb

Yesterday I was sitting around the table (at Chez Cora's) with my family. The kids were lost in their own worlds and us adults were discussing parenting. In the midst of our conversation (which was specifically about discipline) I spouted the following theory:

Although some children have natural ADD or ADHD, I'm wondering about how many children's behavioral issues stem from disciplining mistakes made at home. Since so many children are parented by single parents (or because the other spouse is gone so much its almost the same thing), many children end up with only one functional parent. This one parent undergoes what all parents do - the incessant challenging of authority. A single parent must continually fight the desire to "sluff off," compromise, and ignore infractions as the disciplinarian of the household. Unfortunately when one is parenting alone this slide becomes imperceptible. In other words, the parent sluffs off in acceptable levels of discipline without even realizing they've done it. They begin to accept rudeness, disobedience, lack of respect, non-responsiveness, demandingness, etc from their children. Perhaps deep in the back of their minds they realize something is wrong, but they often feel powerless to do something about it.

My theory is that this natural slide of parental discipline and control is worse the more alone the parent is in their duties. There is something beautiful about having two parents call each other on stuff ("Hey, why are you letting him talk to you like that?"), offer fresh solutions ("Why not send them to their rooms?)"), and be an encouragement ("I know you feel bad about taking away her dolls, but you did the right thing"). In other words, parenting seems best when it is done as a team. I have called Jobina on things and she points outs my parental mistakes to me.

I realize my own "slide" mentality when I watch our kids alone for an extended time. Laziness at calling the kids on things, assigning and enforcing consequences, etc. naturally seems to happen the longer I parent the kids by myself. The old stereotypical view that women make the best caregivers and can do just fine without assistance seems dangerous to me. To raise behaved, psychologically healthy, and confident children is not easy, but it is easier (I think) when parents have the opportunity to love and influence their children as a team.

Am I saying that single moms and dads cannot hope to parent as well? Not at all. I think that there are many single parents who are better parents then some mother/father teams! But I think that they have to work much harder then an involved two parent family to get the same results. Also single parents can rely on family, friends, and church family who can help "parent" children and provide those extra person supports (accountability, encouragement, solutions, etc) that every parent needs so badly.

My theory (which you are free to poke holes in by the way) challenges me to not sluff off (which I often do) in the parenting of our children. I'm also challenged to keep my eyes and heart open to be a support to the single parents in my midst. And as long as theory becomes action, I should be OK.

May Light increase!

Desperate

In my counseling I often come across people who's relationship with their spouse is in serious jeopardy. Their spouse doesn't feel love towards them anymore; perhaps because of an affair, abuse, neglect, whatever. Their spouse is done and wants a divorce. Suddenly they realize that the relationship is in peril and they wake up to the danger. Hoping to win the person back, they pursue the person desperately, that is with desperate behaviors. Unfortunately when someone feels nothing towards you anymore, this kind of pursuit rarely helps you - especially in the long term. Feeling sorry for someone is not helpful to breathe new life into a relationship!

Here's why desperate doesn't work: it's not attractive and it doesn't usually have long term results. Who wants to be with a desperate person? We want to be with someone because we want to be with them. So why do we use desperate behaviors on people? My theory is that:

1. It's learned by watching others. If others do it, shouldn't we?
2. It often works - but only in the short term. It never puts off the inevitable.
3. We don't know what else to do. We panic!

We see desperate acting people all the time (and I fully admit that in general I have been there). . What desperate spouses don't realize is that their desperation often is the final nail in the coffin - it turns off the other spouse completely and reinforces their negative views of the other. Often it is also felt as manipulation (crying, begging, moping, seeking reassurances, being clingy) - and I don't know anyone who wants to be manipulated. We all have a desire to rebel against manipulation - we either do it externally or internally. Sometimes we think that the more desperate we appear to our spouse the more inclined they'll be to take us back but an angry or withdrawn spouse doesn't want that pressure and will often rebel against it.

People want the freedom to make choices; whether it is with having another go at a marriage, teaching Sunday school, or supporting a child in Africa. Are there cases where some sort of desperate reaction is acceptable and understandable? Absolutely. But when we try to use desperation to get what we want with something that is not a total emergency we lose respect with those we are trying to impress. As a camp director, the best advice on recruitment I ever got was to "stop sounding desperate" (Thanks Tim Reimer). If you use this strategy on people, ask yourself - are you long term getting the results you crave? My guess is you aren't. Maybe its time to switch strategies?

May Light increase!

P.S. The image is The Desperate Man, by Gustave Courbet.

Valentine's Approacheth

Well, now that Valentine's is coming up, I thought I'd post a little bit on some of my thoughts (in progress), opinions (still forming), and musings on the subject.

Do most married women look forward to Valentine's Day? Probably. Do most men? I'm not so sure. For instance, have you ever been in a mixed group of married people and one of the women starts talking about what her romantic husband did for her last Valentine's? The places he took her to, the surprises, the romantic things he did, the gifts, etc? I have. If you watch the guys in the room, many of them begin to get uncomfortable. Some look they want to bolt! And almost all of them are not feeling happy thoughts towards the man who did these things! For myself I know I often think something like "Uh, oh, I hope Jobina isn't listening to this . . . Doh, she is . . . well, maybe she won't get any new expectations . . . Oh man, now I have to come up with something really good!" For married men it seems there's pressure on Valentine's day - perform! Be romantic! Plan something! Buy something good! And of course we have to do it because it's Valentine's Day.

When men are in the dating days, the affection and zeal shown on Valentine's is natural and not usually forced. Yet after marriage many men feel resistance to it. I know tons of guys who either don't like or even hate Valentine's day. Why is that? It's certainly not because they don't love their wives. Is it the pressure? Maybe, perhaps it is because it the decision to be romantic feels forced and not something spontaneous and sincere. That would be a good hypothesis except for the fact that the same expectations were there in their dating years and then it wasn't much (if at all) of a problem. Maybe then it's insecurity? Maybe deep down they feel that their affection showing is lacking. Maybe Valentine's Day convicts men? Hmmm . . . I'm not sure.

One thing is for sure; you can't just ignore the holiday. I have heard many men explain why they refuse to celebrate Valentine's day (the commercialism, the forced romance, the fact that they "aren't the Valentine's type," etc). But behind 90% of these men are women who are hurt by their spouse's rejection of the holiday (whether they admit it or not) and take the rejection personally. I used to belong to this group. I wanted to rebel but eventually realized that it was just too painful on my wife. It wasn't worth it. I decided to embrace the holiday (even though my instinct is to loathe it) because I know my wife loves it. And I want to please her.

Another reason why I think that Valentine's is not always comfortable for men is because in many ways it seems that the genders see the holiday differently. Women often see it as mostly a time to meet their emotional need for affection while men tend to see it as a time to meet their emotional need for sex. Thus if you get two groups together; one of women and one of men and talk about Valentine's day the conversations will be quite different! Since the advertising and cultural expectations lean more towards romantic displays of affection - my theory is that many married men find it difficult to relate to. Many men don't naturally find it exciting to think about displaying affection without the potential for present or future possibilities of. Is this evil? I don't think so. I think we need to think of Valentine's (for marrieds) in a way that balances the needs of displaying heartfelt affection and the passion/romance and sexual fulfillment - if we want the holiday to appeal equally to both sexes.

Is there such a model? I think so. It's called The Song of Solomon, a book in the Bible that has excessive amounts of affectionate poetry mixed with tasteful but exciting expressions of desire and sexual intimacy. In my humble opinion the best marriages are the ones that are high in affection and passion. Should we not approach Valentine's (at least for married couples) the same way - exalting both aspects of romantic love? The application of this to me is this: both spouses should expect and contribute to a Valentine's day that has lots of displayed affection and lots of sexual fulfillment. What do you think?

P.S. Please note that I'm not trying to gender stereotype here, and I realize I make some generalizations that won't fit all people. For all of you men who desire more affection and you women who desire more passionate sex, I know you are out there!

Fate

Once upon a time, there was a general who was leading his army into battle against an enemy ten times the size of his own.

Along the way to the battle field, the troops stopped by a small temple to pray for victory.

The general held up a coin and told his troops, "I am going to implore the gods to help us crush our enemy. If this coin lands with the heads on top, we'll win. If it's tails, we'll lose. Our fate is in the hands of the gods. Let's pray wholeheartedly."

After a short prayer, the general tossed the coin. It landed with the heads on top. The troops were overjoyed and went into the battle with high spirit.

Just as predicted, the smaller army won the battle.

The soldiers were exalted, "It's good to have the gods on our side! No one can change what they have determined."

"Really?" The general showed them the coin--both sides of it were heads.


This is an old Chinese story about fate which basically says this: Fate is in your own hands. The smaller army was able to beat the older army because they believed they would - and they took action accordingly. As a Christian I still believe the story has something useful for me, that is that I need to believe that not everything is determined ahead of time and that I am not just a powerless man, tossed helplessly upon the crashing waves of fate and destiny. It is true that God is working powerfully in my life, but it does not mean that I have no responsibility to take action and choose to think positively (and in faith) as well.

Change

I really liked this when I saw this on postsecret today:


We all want to change something. We want to be thin, smart, ethical, happy, sober, spiritual, talented, forgiving, etc. But often we don't want it enough to do the work necessary. We think we really want it, but we don't. We want something else more - usually the comfort of not working hard, of not sacrificing something, or not losing the thing or things that aren't making us long-term happy but help us to cope in the short term.

We try to convince everyone around us how hard life is and how we so much want to change but alas, we cannot. I have an idea to try something different: be honest with yourself. If you can't find the motivation to change realize that you just aren't ready or motivated enough yet! Don't tell people you want to change. What you really want is to be wanting to change on a level that will actually produce action in you. Once you are sufficiently motivated, you can change (if you choose to). Do you just wait around for it to happen to you? No, you must find your motivation. Or let it go. Either way, torturing yourself isn't going to help you. As Libby said on Lost a few seasons ago: "If you want to change . . . then change."