Keep an eye on Kidology's CM Blog Watch. Better than reading the newspaper -lots to think about! They've been on-line longer than I have.
Here's an interesting article on self-control from this blog
I wanted to take it a step farther.
How do we grow self-control? In it's simplist form you reward the wait. You apply it to lots of situations. The reward should be better than the reward for not waiting - lots better! It may feel "controling" but the goal isn't parental control or adult control. The goal is self-control even when only God is watching. More than teaching - training.
Understand that a reward worth waiting for will be different for different children. If I don't care about candy, it's not a reward worth waiting for for me. If I don't like to be touched, don't hug me. If I don't care what anyone things, your approval means nothing.
Some will argue that self-control is a fruit of the Spirit. It grows from the inside out. Scripture. It's true. But 2 Peter 1:3-8 is also scripture. Also true and it talks about growing it from the outside in. How do we do that?
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
interesting baby resource
Really interesting baby resources.
Worth reading and useful but very scientific. "Very scientific" surprised me because I thought I was hearing more whole health, whole person, yearning for more intuitive living from the next generations. Maybe as Americans we can't help it - the need to support everything we do with reasons and science and research.
Or maybe we just want the best of both.
It's just interesting. People used to babysit to get to get experience with kids - college aged, single adults, young marrieds used to babysit for friends, family, neighbors. Gave the friends time out. Gave the babysitters experience with kids and grew some multi-generational relationships. People trusted each other and were trustworthy. Just an alternative approach. Of course, people were around kids more. There were more babies and kids to be around. Most people expected to be parents someday.
Different time. Different place. Different people.
Different.
Worth reading and useful but very scientific. "Very scientific" surprised me because I thought I was hearing more whole health, whole person, yearning for more intuitive living from the next generations. Maybe as Americans we can't help it - the need to support everything we do with reasons and science and research.
Or maybe we just want the best of both.
It's just interesting. People used to babysit to get to get experience with kids - college aged, single adults, young marrieds used to babysit for friends, family, neighbors. Gave the friends time out. Gave the babysitters experience with kids and grew some multi-generational relationships. People trusted each other and were trustworthy. Just an alternative approach. Of course, people were around kids more. There were more babies and kids to be around. Most people expected to be parents someday.
Different time. Different place. Different people.
Different.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Place
I thought it was just my generation who was disillusioned with church but I'm reading more and more from 20's and 30's who feel the same way. I was surprised because I thought all the changes were appealing to this generation - a driving force for change (in lots of good ways, I'm not being sarcastic). We caught the tail end of the Jesus Movement. Another driving force for change 30-40 years ago. Seems God sends such forces every 40 years or so.
I miss worship most. Fellowship, sometimes. But we don't have young kids anymore. Ours our 19-27 and they'd be finding their way anyway, even if we were still actively involved with a non-virtual faith community. I think I would still want non-virtual faith community for my kids - despite it's imperfections. But we did that and I find my kids feeling the same way about church right now as we do, even though we thought we were pretty careful about our conversations. Our personal wrestlings have less to do with people (nothing to do with specific people) and more to do with ideas and institutions. We gave our kids opportunities immersed in their faith community and opportunities out in the world in equal parts. Some of my kids still have a couple of those relationships. Although I see some of them growing in their personal faith and one recently discovering pastors she enjoys listening to, most of them aren't interested in church right now.
Why do kids need a faith community? To see a diverse group of adults individually and as a community modeling faith. Peers with similar values and experiences. A history together. Opportunity to learn about the history of faith they won't get anywhere else. Traditional history and experiential history. There is no perfect place. There are no perfect people. There are wonderful people and people who drive your crazy no matter where you go. And God is God. God is the same. He doesn't change. Although giving is important I don't even think you can decide based on what you have to give and leave because you think you don't have anything to give but I don't know.
Why do our kids also need to be engaged in the world beyond the faith community? Because the longer you isolate yourself, the harder it is to step outside the door. If you didn't learn to love the world like Jesus does as a child - do you think it gets easier? Somehow, I think not.
Virtual is nice but the hard knocks of real life is what socialization, building confidence and self-esteem is all about. And that's where the scriptures come from and what scripture is for - real life. Hebrew identity wasn't me and mine. Hebrew identity included spouse, family, extended family, community. Even God is three and we are His children. Even God was the God of Abraham, the God of Jacob...and different tribes had different places. You're welcome to explore any of this in scripture and see what God will show you.
People used to keep the call to "not forsake the gathering together of the saints" by gathering with those within walking distance and sharing that life of faith and worshipping together and that was enough. And yes, a rift was eternal (not really but you understand.) You had your neighborhood in common - whoever lived there, whatever happened there during the week and maybe for generations. Today we drive and drive and drive into other towns and neighborhoods to fellowship with people hoping to find a place where we "fit." Some people move. Some people drive. Some people stop looking. That's all I can say because right now we're still among those who have stopped looking. It just surprised me to hear so many families with young children saying the same thing.
I understand the whys but hey....let's worry!
I miss worship most. Fellowship, sometimes. But we don't have young kids anymore. Ours our 19-27 and they'd be finding their way anyway, even if we were still actively involved with a non-virtual faith community. I think I would still want non-virtual faith community for my kids - despite it's imperfections. But we did that and I find my kids feeling the same way about church right now as we do, even though we thought we were pretty careful about our conversations. Our personal wrestlings have less to do with people (nothing to do with specific people) and more to do with ideas and institutions. We gave our kids opportunities immersed in their faith community and opportunities out in the world in equal parts. Some of my kids still have a couple of those relationships. Although I see some of them growing in their personal faith and one recently discovering pastors she enjoys listening to, most of them aren't interested in church right now.
Why do kids need a faith community? To see a diverse group of adults individually and as a community modeling faith. Peers with similar values and experiences. A history together. Opportunity to learn about the history of faith they won't get anywhere else. Traditional history and experiential history. There is no perfect place. There are no perfect people. There are wonderful people and people who drive your crazy no matter where you go. And God is God. God is the same. He doesn't change. Although giving is important I don't even think you can decide based on what you have to give and leave because you think you don't have anything to give but I don't know.
Why do our kids also need to be engaged in the world beyond the faith community? Because the longer you isolate yourself, the harder it is to step outside the door. If you didn't learn to love the world like Jesus does as a child - do you think it gets easier? Somehow, I think not.
Virtual is nice but the hard knocks of real life is what socialization, building confidence and self-esteem is all about. And that's where the scriptures come from and what scripture is for - real life. Hebrew identity wasn't me and mine. Hebrew identity included spouse, family, extended family, community. Even God is three and we are His children. Even God was the God of Abraham, the God of Jacob...and different tribes had different places. You're welcome to explore any of this in scripture and see what God will show you.
People used to keep the call to "not forsake the gathering together of the saints" by gathering with those within walking distance and sharing that life of faith and worshipping together and that was enough. And yes, a rift was eternal (not really but you understand.) You had your neighborhood in common - whoever lived there, whatever happened there during the week and maybe for generations. Today we drive and drive and drive into other towns and neighborhoods to fellowship with people hoping to find a place where we "fit." Some people move. Some people drive. Some people stop looking. That's all I can say because right now we're still among those who have stopped looking. It just surprised me to hear so many families with young children saying the same thing.
I understand the whys but hey....let's worry!
Friday, October 10, 2008
No answers
I was reading Kidology's Blog Watch the other day and found myself thinking most about the "Lap-sitting Policy" article - not even about the article but the policy.
I need to preface this by saying that I truly truly truly understand (as a once un-safe child, a very watchful parent, and a careful teacher) the very real worries, concerns, and legitimate need for "appropriate touching" policies to protect children. I believe it's absolutely the responsibility of anyone caring for children to protect them. I also understand that, although I prefer to give parents the benefit of the doubt, that sometimes people outside the family need to protect a child from members of their own families. I also imagine that for anyone who truly loves children to be falsely accused of inappropriate behavior it must be devastating. People have spent more hours than I want to count defining rules and boundaries for policies like this (hopefully) because they love kids.
Having said that, it still deeply grieves me that children left in the care of others have to be deprived of appropriate tactile caring in order to protect them from the inappropriate. It bothers me. Different generations and cultures define "appropriate" differently. And I don't think "common sense" - is a universal anymore. I had a lengthy discussion about this with my daughter. She's a 3rd year student currently majoring in psych and criminal justice and (not to put her in a box) she's been leaning heavily towards counseling. She would be a WONDERFUL counselor.
So patient with my banter and wise beyond her years, her recurring comment was that one of the primary reasons for setting policy is to take away the subjectivity - no question about what's appropriate and what isn't. No question about whether or not someone crossed the line. We tend to set the boundaries well within the boundaries so there isn't even a chance of someone mis-reading what's happening - observer, grown-up, or child. Understood.
I would never want someone to get away with mistreating a child nor be falsely accused of something they had no intention of doing. But part of me worries about the long term. Maybe I would feel differently if young children were only in an environment that requires such policies for 1-2 hours/wk, but most children are cared for under guardian policies like these during the better part of their waking hours. What I recall as educator, parent, and child is that developmentally, children need touch (appropriate and in adequate amounts) from their primary care-giver for healthy social, emotional, and mental development. The short range affect of our policies is safety. But what will the long range affect be if these policies are in operation in a child's life most of their waking hours?
Relationships are so subjective but so necessary. Trust is important. Safety is important. Appropriate physical affection is important for children. Is the only way to grow trust and protect those we love to keep adding policies, rules, and regulations? Are institutions so much a part of our children's lives that we have to worry that appropriate touch at home might be falsely labeled as inappropriate? If my 1st or 2nd grader climbs into my lap for stories and tells his teacher - is that a problem? What of my pre-adolescent - a time when kids keep jumping back and forth between wanting to be a child and wanting to grow up - girls who need a timely appropriate hug or kiss from a responsible dad or uncle or grandfather? Will I have a social worker at my door? Will that be misconstrued by people who have never known lots of appropriate physical love?
We set policies carefully restricting our physical contact with children, at the same time media images equating love and care with sex constantly bombard pre-adolescents, teens, and adults - families. So we enforce a very strict touch policy with children only to launch them into a world that equates caring and loving with something sexual. What alternatives can we offer? Are we launching pre-adolescents hungry for appropriate physical attention into this environment? Can we legally model something different? Maybe we can now. How about 20 years from now?
My fear is that we keep trying to put bandaids on bigger deeper issues that we can never solve or resolve with band-aids but I don't know what the answer is. Something is breaking and we can't let it break.
I need to preface this by saying that I truly truly truly understand (as a once un-safe child, a very watchful parent, and a careful teacher) the very real worries, concerns, and legitimate need for "appropriate touching" policies to protect children. I believe it's absolutely the responsibility of anyone caring for children to protect them. I also understand that, although I prefer to give parents the benefit of the doubt, that sometimes people outside the family need to protect a child from members of their own families. I also imagine that for anyone who truly loves children to be falsely accused of inappropriate behavior it must be devastating. People have spent more hours than I want to count defining rules and boundaries for policies like this (hopefully) because they love kids.
Having said that, it still deeply grieves me that children left in the care of others have to be deprived of appropriate tactile caring in order to protect them from the inappropriate. It bothers me. Different generations and cultures define "appropriate" differently. And I don't think "common sense" - is a universal anymore. I had a lengthy discussion about this with my daughter. She's a 3rd year student currently majoring in psych and criminal justice and (not to put her in a box) she's been leaning heavily towards counseling. She would be a WONDERFUL counselor.
So patient with my banter and wise beyond her years, her recurring comment was that one of the primary reasons for setting policy is to take away the subjectivity - no question about what's appropriate and what isn't. No question about whether or not someone crossed the line. We tend to set the boundaries well within the boundaries so there isn't even a chance of someone mis-reading what's happening - observer, grown-up, or child. Understood.
I would never want someone to get away with mistreating a child nor be falsely accused of something they had no intention of doing. But part of me worries about the long term. Maybe I would feel differently if young children were only in an environment that requires such policies for 1-2 hours/wk, but most children are cared for under guardian policies like these during the better part of their waking hours. What I recall as educator, parent, and child is that developmentally, children need touch (appropriate and in adequate amounts) from their primary care-giver for healthy social, emotional, and mental development. The short range affect of our policies is safety. But what will the long range affect be if these policies are in operation in a child's life most of their waking hours?
Relationships are so subjective but so necessary. Trust is important. Safety is important. Appropriate physical affection is important for children. Is the only way to grow trust and protect those we love to keep adding policies, rules, and regulations? Are institutions so much a part of our children's lives that we have to worry that appropriate touch at home might be falsely labeled as inappropriate? If my 1st or 2nd grader climbs into my lap for stories and tells his teacher - is that a problem? What of my pre-adolescent - a time when kids keep jumping back and forth between wanting to be a child and wanting to grow up - girls who need a timely appropriate hug or kiss from a responsible dad or uncle or grandfather? Will I have a social worker at my door? Will that be misconstrued by people who have never known lots of appropriate physical love?
We set policies carefully restricting our physical contact with children, at the same time media images equating love and care with sex constantly bombard pre-adolescents, teens, and adults - families. So we enforce a very strict touch policy with children only to launch them into a world that equates caring and loving with something sexual. What alternatives can we offer? Are we launching pre-adolescents hungry for appropriate physical attention into this environment? Can we legally model something different? Maybe we can now. How about 20 years from now?
My fear is that we keep trying to put bandaids on bigger deeper issues that we can never solve or resolve with band-aids but I don't know what the answer is. Something is breaking and we can't let it break.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)