An article in the Washington Post tells the story of a 15-year-old Maryland teenager who racked up over six thousand text messages in one month. She texts at home, at school, in the car, while walking her dog, while doing her homework--and she even takes her cell phone to bed with her at night, where she sometimes is awakened by the sound of a new text message. The young girl told the Post writer that she would die without her text life. She admits that she doesn't focus well on homework, and she texts with others while her parents are in the same room. They have no idea with whom she's communicating or what they are saying to each other. The article reports that some teens actually text their parents while they are together in the same house.
While the writer of the article pointed out certain advantages for teens with cell phones (being socially affirmed, being accessible to parents), experts have a growing concern that there are downsides, such as declines in spelling, word choice, and writing complexity. Some teens have difficulty staying on task, and some of the more horrific uses of texting are bullying and sexting, where teens text nude pictures of themselves and others.
I watch all of these growing communication technologies with great interest and concern--as a professional in the communications industry, as a mother, and as someone who loves God's gift of language and wants to be a good steward of it. While not inherently evil, the new tools of communication often seem to be leading us to a less intimate, less thought-ful discourse. They divide us from the very people we ought to be closest to. We can't seem to get enough communication-as-entertainment. Blogs have become the horses and buggies of online communication as Web users seek more instantaneous, more constant means of following others and being followed. So now we Twitter, and our tweets are reduced to no more than 140 characters at a time. Blogging and Facebooking take too long to read and write. We can't be bothered with the time consumption of correct spelling, and so we create our own texting language that allows us to shorten words to letters and avoid punctuation and capitalization.
The state of things leaves me with more questions than answers, like these:
1. Why is texting necessary? If you are unable to reach someone, there is usually the option of leaving a voice mail. And clearly if you are texting and get an immediate response, you could be talking verbally (GASP!) together.
2. Why do parents buy plans that include texting? We have simply opted for a plan that charges for texting, and we let our teen cell phone user know that if she sends/receives texts, she will pay for them out of her own pocket. It hasn't been a problem because she doesn't like to communicate by texting, and she knows we mean it when we tell her she will pay. Katie's school has had to establish a cell phone policy this year. Students were texting during class, cheating on tests, and being disruptive. I recently read of one blogger who spoke at a teen retreat. The youth leader challenged the teens to leave their cell phones behind, but few did. The phones were an obvious distraction to the teens who were supposed to be focusing on their relationship with God. Why, oh why, don't parents take control of their children's use of cell phones? Allowing our children to use a tool that we own does not mean they now get to call the shots about how that tool will be used.
3. I must confess that I have a concern about this need for constant, instant communication. It has become a god that we are willing to sacrifice privacy, intimacy, and quality relationship to all too quickly. What could teenagers possibly have to say to one another in the middle of the night that is so urgent that it can't wait till morning? I see this in my own children, as they enter the house and are instantly drawn to the computer in the basement, much like the airline passengers in the TV show Lost were inescapably pulled to the magnetic fields of the mysterious island. Why is Katie unable to do her homework unless she has her Facebook page pulled up to answer--instantaneously--any message that appears? What does it say about us, this craving for constant communication? How could it ever, always, be meaningful, purposeful, effective? And all of this constant superficial conversation leaves little time for the kind of conversation that should be happening in a family, between friends, and even husbands and wives.
It will be interesting--and a little scary--to see what all of this brings in years to come, as a generation that has always had cell phones and social networking comes of age. I wonder how people will do their jobs while they feed their need for entertainment--because work is often not very entertaining. I wonder how parents who have grown up not talking with their own parents will communicate faith, values, and life lessons to their own children. Will they even be able to pull themselves away from their computers and cell phones to procreate? Will children remember fondly the storybooks of their childhoods, as I do? As I hope my own children do? Time--and Twitter--will tell.
Postscript: This article discusses some of the harmful effects of social networking on children. The findings are interesting, but not surprising.
Showing posts with label Good Questions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Good Questions. Show all posts
2/23/09
9/10/08
Are We Feminists?
Lots of interesting discussions and even debates have emerged among Christians with Sarah Palin's nomination to the vice-presidency. It is difficult to not be engaged in the conversation, whether at church, the office, or my mom's birthday dinner celebration. But the tension that many conservative Christians are feeling over all of this was most clearly verbalized at a dinner party we attended Saturday evening with several couples from our church.
We had finished dinner, and our hostess asked if we would like to watch a Fox News special about Palin that was airing right then. We agreed that we would, and we gathered around the huge screen to see what new information we would learn about our heroine, Sarah. A little background on the couples: The hosts are two working professionals with no children; the wives of two of the couples are work-at-home, homeschooling moms with several children each whose husbands work outside the home; and us--with me holding down a full-time job outside our home, Henry expecting to do the same in the near future, and two teens.
Everyone in the party was expressing excitement and enthusiasm over Sarah, with her conservative, no-nonsense approach to politics. We watched the special, which gave background on Palin, her upbringing, her early experiences in politics, and her interactions with her family (the next installment Sunday night would cover everything up to the nomination). After the program was over, one of the work-at-home moms asked the big question: Have we become feminists? If the Democrats had nominated a mother of five with a special-needs child to be vice-president, would we be more critical?
And I'll answer as I did that night: I hope not. For me, a woman who works outside her home forty hours a week, it would be hypocritical to answer otherwise. And I suspect that the question really being asked is how can we be supportive--even enthusiastic--about a woman with young children at home, one of whom has special needs--who accepts such huge responsibilities that presumably take her out of the home for a number of hours of the day. Shouldn't women with children be working at home--regardless of circumstances? Isn't Palin's greatest responsibility--indeed, obligation--to be at home tending immediately to the needs of her husband and children?
These are the questions I had to deal with when I was, in a sense, forced out of my work-at-home role when, as a widow, I became the sole financial provider for our family. And I found a meaningful and, I believe, biblical answer to this problem when I read When Life and Beliefs Collide by Susan Custis James. Her understanding of roles for women is based on her study of the word used for helper in Genesis 2. The Hebrew word that is used, ezer, most frequently refers in the Old Testament to God, as the helper of his people. In some instances it refers specifically to women, and in some uses, it has a military connotation, which suggests that the type of helper here is extraordinarily strong, one who fights alongside.
James points out that the word used here is generic; it defies coming up with some kind of official list of specific responsilities for women. And while James acknowledges that tasks such as companion to a husband, childbearer, mother, homemaker, and supplementer of family income certainly are important responsibilities that fall under the idea of being a helper, the word actually refers to much more. If these were the only legitimate responsibilities for women, many women wouldn't be able to fulfill the calling of woman: single women, women who are unable to bear children, women who are disabled, women whose children have grown up and left the nest. The other thing that James observes about the Hebrew word for helper is that it is often associated with military might.
James comments, "Working [outside the home] women . . . are condemned for having skewed priorities, for having turned their backs on their home for selfishness and greed. Some have even blamed them for the moral decline of the country. Recently, an advertisement for a book on Christian parenting listed indicators that our culture has 'rejected biblical standards of morality.' It named 'working mothers' first on that list . . . Such statements devastate godly working mothers who . . . are pouring themselves out for the sake of their families. We forget that historically women have always worked alongside the men and that selfishness, greed, and poor parenting are pitfalls for either sex, no matter where we spend our time."
So I don't see myself as a feminist because I work outside my home and because I applaud Sarah Palin and hope that she will be this country's next vice-president. I would agree that in many instances, families are best served when mothers take seriously their tasks at home as wives and mothers and when their life circumstances allow them to serve in this way--but working at home doesn't guarantee a mother will do her job well any more than a mother working outside her home guarantees that she is neglecting her family. And even though the vast majority of this culture (even many Christians) would not understand this, I would not be supportive of Palin's (or any woman's) becoming an elder or deacon in her church. (That's a place where God has specifically spelled out roles and functions, and we must not play fast and free there.) But if Sarah Palin and her husband have agreed that they can together meet the needs of their children and she can serve her country in this way with the obviously extraordinary talents, abilities, and qualities that God has blessed her with, then who are we to question? We Christians must be on guard not to create moral tensions that don't exist. We can be wholeheartedly thankful that God is still calling people like Sarah Palin to serve her country with integrity and strength without feeling like we are compromising moral principle.
We had finished dinner, and our hostess asked if we would like to watch a Fox News special about Palin that was airing right then. We agreed that we would, and we gathered around the huge screen to see what new information we would learn about our heroine, Sarah. A little background on the couples: The hosts are two working professionals with no children; the wives of two of the couples are work-at-home, homeschooling moms with several children each whose husbands work outside the home; and us--with me holding down a full-time job outside our home, Henry expecting to do the same in the near future, and two teens.
Everyone in the party was expressing excitement and enthusiasm over Sarah, with her conservative, no-nonsense approach to politics. We watched the special, which gave background on Palin, her upbringing, her early experiences in politics, and her interactions with her family (the next installment Sunday night would cover everything up to the nomination). After the program was over, one of the work-at-home moms asked the big question: Have we become feminists? If the Democrats had nominated a mother of five with a special-needs child to be vice-president, would we be more critical?
And I'll answer as I did that night: I hope not. For me, a woman who works outside her home forty hours a week, it would be hypocritical to answer otherwise. And I suspect that the question really being asked is how can we be supportive--even enthusiastic--about a woman with young children at home, one of whom has special needs--who accepts such huge responsibilities that presumably take her out of the home for a number of hours of the day. Shouldn't women with children be working at home--regardless of circumstances? Isn't Palin's greatest responsibility--indeed, obligation--to be at home tending immediately to the needs of her husband and children?
These are the questions I had to deal with when I was, in a sense, forced out of my work-at-home role when, as a widow, I became the sole financial provider for our family. And I found a meaningful and, I believe, biblical answer to this problem when I read When Life and Beliefs Collide by Susan Custis James. Her understanding of roles for women is based on her study of the word used for helper in Genesis 2. The Hebrew word that is used, ezer, most frequently refers in the Old Testament to God, as the helper of his people. In some instances it refers specifically to women, and in some uses, it has a military connotation, which suggests that the type of helper here is extraordinarily strong, one who fights alongside.
James points out that the word used here is generic; it defies coming up with some kind of official list of specific responsilities for women. And while James acknowledges that tasks such as companion to a husband, childbearer, mother, homemaker, and supplementer of family income certainly are important responsibilities that fall under the idea of being a helper, the word actually refers to much more. If these were the only legitimate responsibilities for women, many women wouldn't be able to fulfill the calling of woman: single women, women who are unable to bear children, women who are disabled, women whose children have grown up and left the nest. The other thing that James observes about the Hebrew word for helper is that it is often associated with military might.
James comments, "Working [outside the home] women . . . are condemned for having skewed priorities, for having turned their backs on their home for selfishness and greed. Some have even blamed them for the moral decline of the country. Recently, an advertisement for a book on Christian parenting listed indicators that our culture has 'rejected biblical standards of morality.' It named 'working mothers' first on that list . . . Such statements devastate godly working mothers who . . . are pouring themselves out for the sake of their families. We forget that historically women have always worked alongside the men and that selfishness, greed, and poor parenting are pitfalls for either sex, no matter where we spend our time."
So I don't see myself as a feminist because I work outside my home and because I applaud Sarah Palin and hope that she will be this country's next vice-president. I would agree that in many instances, families are best served when mothers take seriously their tasks at home as wives and mothers and when their life circumstances allow them to serve in this way--but working at home doesn't guarantee a mother will do her job well any more than a mother working outside her home guarantees that she is neglecting her family. And even though the vast majority of this culture (even many Christians) would not understand this, I would not be supportive of Palin's (or any woman's) becoming an elder or deacon in her church. (That's a place where God has specifically spelled out roles and functions, and we must not play fast and free there.) But if Sarah Palin and her husband have agreed that they can together meet the needs of their children and she can serve her country in this way with the obviously extraordinary talents, abilities, and qualities that God has blessed her with, then who are we to question? We Christians must be on guard not to create moral tensions that don't exist. We can be wholeheartedly thankful that God is still calling people like Sarah Palin to serve her country with integrity and strength without feeling like we are compromising moral principle.
10/3/07
The War
There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven . . . A time for war, and a time for peace.
Last night Jonathan and I watched the final episode of Ken Burns's new series for PBS, entitled The War. As a nearly fourteen-year-old male, Jonathan finds the subject of warfare, guns, trenches, and bombs fascinating, and his interest in history made this great television for him. As usual, Burns took an intriguing approach, telling the story of World War II through the eyes of the everyday, ordinary person who was there, with a few well-known personalities adding their commentary as well.
While I didn't watch as faithfully or as attentively as Jonathan, I couldn't help but make some interesting observations, especially given the fact that our own nation is embroiled in a controversial war.
While none of the men Burns featured who fought in the war relished the fact that they were required to kill--there was no glamorization in this piece--they all believed that what they did was necessary, that the world faced a tremendous threat that had to be addressed. One woman from Alabama, whose brother and other friends fought in the war, commented about the end of the war that no one would ever convince any member of her generation that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a bad thing. They brought an end to the war, an end to bloodshed, and finally all of the boys could come home.
All of the men in particular that Burns interviewed throughout the hours of footage had been profoundly affected by the war. Some still broke down in tears as they discussed memories that several of them confessed they really didn't like to talk about. One man said that he had returned from the war, gotten married, had a family--had had a good life. And yet there was still the war. But it was a worthy cause--something that had to be done.
It seems like in hindsight, the threat was obvious. This was a cause worth fighting for, and freedom was definitely at stake. But there were many at the time who just wanted it all to end, wanted the boys to come home, and if it had been up to them, the war would have ended when Germany surrendered--never mind the Japanese. A co-worker and I were talking about all of this today, and she wondered if this generation has the stamina, the strength, the sense of commitment that it took to fight--and triumph--back then. It's a good question.
One of the profound statistics revealed last night was that two out of three European Jews were killed during World War II. Would even a third have survived if Hitler and the Nazis had not been stopped? Probably not.
So what if, fifty or sixty years from now, we look back on our current war and recognize that Islam was, in fact, a real threat. That it was a threat that we underestimated at one time. That some farsighted people acknowledged the threat at the time and tried to do something about it, but that those farsighted people were ridiculed, slandered, and their actions undermined and eventually overturned because more people didn't think there was a real threat. That we should have listened. What kind of a world will the world of fifty or sixty years from now be like?
Last night Jonathan and I watched the final episode of Ken Burns's new series for PBS, entitled The War. As a nearly fourteen-year-old male, Jonathan finds the subject of warfare, guns, trenches, and bombs fascinating, and his interest in history made this great television for him. As usual, Burns took an intriguing approach, telling the story of World War II through the eyes of the everyday, ordinary person who was there, with a few well-known personalities adding their commentary as well.
While I didn't watch as faithfully or as attentively as Jonathan, I couldn't help but make some interesting observations, especially given the fact that our own nation is embroiled in a controversial war.
While none of the men Burns featured who fought in the war relished the fact that they were required to kill--there was no glamorization in this piece--they all believed that what they did was necessary, that the world faced a tremendous threat that had to be addressed. One woman from Alabama, whose brother and other friends fought in the war, commented about the end of the war that no one would ever convince any member of her generation that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a bad thing. They brought an end to the war, an end to bloodshed, and finally all of the boys could come home.
All of the men in particular that Burns interviewed throughout the hours of footage had been profoundly affected by the war. Some still broke down in tears as they discussed memories that several of them confessed they really didn't like to talk about. One man said that he had returned from the war, gotten married, had a family--had had a good life. And yet there was still the war. But it was a worthy cause--something that had to be done.
It seems like in hindsight, the threat was obvious. This was a cause worth fighting for, and freedom was definitely at stake. But there were many at the time who just wanted it all to end, wanted the boys to come home, and if it had been up to them, the war would have ended when Germany surrendered--never mind the Japanese. A co-worker and I were talking about all of this today, and she wondered if this generation has the stamina, the strength, the sense of commitment that it took to fight--and triumph--back then. It's a good question.
One of the profound statistics revealed last night was that two out of three European Jews were killed during World War II. Would even a third have survived if Hitler and the Nazis had not been stopped? Probably not.
So what if, fifty or sixty years from now, we look back on our current war and recognize that Islam was, in fact, a real threat. That it was a threat that we underestimated at one time. That some farsighted people acknowledged the threat at the time and tried to do something about it, but that those farsighted people were ridiculed, slandered, and their actions undermined and eventually overturned because more people didn't think there was a real threat. That we should have listened. What kind of a world will the world of fifty or sixty years from now be like?
5/8/07
Equating Actions with Religion
An interesting and scary news story from Mount Laurel, New Jersey, where an alert store clerk saw some incriminating video footage, contacted the local police, who contacted the FBI, who brought down six men from Yugoslavia and the Middle East who were plotting to slaughter scores of American soldiers at Fort Dix and perhaps other military installments in the Northeast. Certainly this clerk is a hero, and thankfully his bravery has resulted in the arrest of these alleged conspirators, who have reportedly said that they were willing to die "in the name of Allah."
But of course there are objections now coming from New Jersey's Muslim community, who dislike the use of the phrase "Islamic militants" to describe these murderous terrorists. Sohail Mohammed, a Muslim lawyer, thinks that the use of this phrase sends the message to the public that Islam and militancy are synonymous. "Don't equate actions with religion," he told the writer of this Associated Press news story.
My first objection to Mr. Mohammed's objection to the phrase "Islamic militants" because it makes the two words synonymous comes from my own study and knowledge of the English language. "Islamic" is simply an adjective describing the noun "militants," and it certainly doesn't make the two words synonyms any more than the phrase "black cat" makes the words "black" and "cat" synonyms. In fact, the adjective functions to set the noun apart from other types of the same noun. If I tell you I'm going to take the black cat home from the animal shelter, you know that I'm not going to bring the tabby or the white cat home. So when we use the phrase "Islamic militants," we're setting these particular militants apart from other types of militants, whether they are Lutheran militants, United Reformed militants, or Amish militants (which would actually be an oxymoron--but more on that in another language lesson). Mr. Mohammed's objection here would simply suggest that he perhaps needs to review basic grammar or the definition of the word "synonym." What else would be an appropriate way to describe six men who, in their own words, said this: "In the end, when it comes to defending your religion [which is Islam], when someone . . . attacks your religion [Islam], your way of life, then you go jihad." "Islamic militants" would seem to be an accurate description here.
The other interesting piece here is Mr. Mohammed's advice to not "equate actions with religion." How different is that from our own Christian understanding of faith and action. And how typical of someone in this culture to separate what one believes from what one does, which is why in America we can have a married president who claims to believe in Christ while behaving sexually promiscuously with White House interns and then lying about it. But I digress.
Both the Scriptures and the Catechism teach us something different. For those who believe in God and confess this undoubted, catholic Christian faith, actions (what we do) most certainly flow from our religion (what we believe). James tells us, "I will show you my faith by my works . . . Faith without works is dead . . . Faith was working together with [Abraham's] works, and by works faith was made perfect" (2:17, 18, 22).
And our beloved Heidelberg Catechism's third part, "Our Thankfulness," teaches us this:
Q. Since we have been delivered from our misery by grace alone through Christ, without any merit of our own, why must we yet do good works?
A. Because Christ, having redeemed us by His blood, also renews us by His Holy Spirit to be His image, so that with our whole life we may show ourselves thankful to God for His benefits, and He may be praised by us. Further, that we ourselves may be assured of our faith by its fruits, and that by our godly walk of life we may win our neighbors for Christ (emphasis mine).
For the Christian, religion can't help but be equated with our works. So then, how do Muslims show their thankfulness if actions and religion are two different things?
But of course there are objections now coming from New Jersey's Muslim community, who dislike the use of the phrase "Islamic militants" to describe these murderous terrorists. Sohail Mohammed, a Muslim lawyer, thinks that the use of this phrase sends the message to the public that Islam and militancy are synonymous. "Don't equate actions with religion," he told the writer of this Associated Press news story.
My first objection to Mr. Mohammed's objection to the phrase "Islamic militants" because it makes the two words synonymous comes from my own study and knowledge of the English language. "Islamic" is simply an adjective describing the noun "militants," and it certainly doesn't make the two words synonyms any more than the phrase "black cat" makes the words "black" and "cat" synonyms. In fact, the adjective functions to set the noun apart from other types of the same noun. If I tell you I'm going to take the black cat home from the animal shelter, you know that I'm not going to bring the tabby or the white cat home. So when we use the phrase "Islamic militants," we're setting these particular militants apart from other types of militants, whether they are Lutheran militants, United Reformed militants, or Amish militants (which would actually be an oxymoron--but more on that in another language lesson). Mr. Mohammed's objection here would simply suggest that he perhaps needs to review basic grammar or the definition of the word "synonym." What else would be an appropriate way to describe six men who, in their own words, said this: "In the end, when it comes to defending your religion [which is Islam], when someone . . . attacks your religion [Islam], your way of life, then you go jihad." "Islamic militants" would seem to be an accurate description here.
The other interesting piece here is Mr. Mohammed's advice to not "equate actions with religion." How different is that from our own Christian understanding of faith and action. And how typical of someone in this culture to separate what one believes from what one does, which is why in America we can have a married president who claims to believe in Christ while behaving sexually promiscuously with White House interns and then lying about it. But I digress.
Both the Scriptures and the Catechism teach us something different. For those who believe in God and confess this undoubted, catholic Christian faith, actions (what we do) most certainly flow from our religion (what we believe). James tells us, "I will show you my faith by my works . . . Faith without works is dead . . . Faith was working together with [Abraham's] works, and by works faith was made perfect" (2:17, 18, 22).
And our beloved Heidelberg Catechism's third part, "Our Thankfulness," teaches us this:
Q. Since we have been delivered from our misery by grace alone through Christ, without any merit of our own, why must we yet do good works?
A. Because Christ, having redeemed us by His blood, also renews us by His Holy Spirit to be His image, so that with our whole life we may show ourselves thankful to God for His benefits, and He may be praised by us. Further, that we ourselves may be assured of our faith by its fruits, and that by our godly walk of life we may win our neighbors for Christ (emphasis mine).
For the Christian, religion can't help but be equated with our works. So then, how do Muslims show their thankfulness if actions and religion are two different things?
3/20/07
How Do I Teach My Sons?
An interesting conversation at the lunch table at work today. Three women co-workers and I were (again) bemoaning the fact that clothes just are not being made for women who want to be modest, are no longer teenagers, and have given birth at some point. Then the conversation evolved into the difficulty those of us with teenage girls have finding decent clothes for them to wear. For those who genuinely desire to dress modestly, it is discouraging. Low-rise jeans; midriff-baring, skin-tight t-shirts; bikinis; and shorts that are way too short are the Christian mother and teen girl's nightmare--if they want to be modest.
Our conversation then turned to our speculations about the mothers and daughters who don't seem to be at all concerned about modesty, especially among those claiming to be Christian. We observed that often mothers themselves don't dress modestly, so it only follows that their daughters wouldn't.
I've always been surprised at the excuses Christian parents, especially, make for allowing their daughters to dress provocatively. When confronted, some seem surprised, as though much is being made of nothing. One mother actually told me that the immodest bikini her thirteen-year-old daughter was wearing made her feel more grown-up since she hadn't been as quick to develop physically as her friends.
But today, as we were finishing lunch, a married couple (parents of two teenage boys) joined our table and added their own concerns. The father asked a disturbing, but thoughtful, question: How do I teach my sons to show respect for these girls when they dress so immodestly?
That's a good question, and I do appreciate that there are men out there asking it (especially since I'm the mother of an almost-sixteen-year-old girl). In Designed by God, author Regina Franklin writes about the issues of modesty, beauty, and self-image for young women. She reminds them, "Our value is not determined by what we wear, but what we wear communicates what we think our value is." If we're wearing immodest clothing, she says, we're sending the message that our bodies aren't worth protecting and aren't very valuable. And this is the difficulty for my friend who is trying to teach his sons to respect young women who are not being taught to respect their own bodies and the godly principles that have been set in place for how they should be dressing.
Perhaps mothers need to take more seriously the young men who are receiving the message their daughters are being allowed to send. Franklin quotes from Every Young Man's Battle by Arterburn, et al., where a young man explains the challenge he faces: "Our eyes give us men the means to sin broadly and at will . . . We have a visual ignition switch when it comes to viewing the female anatomy. Women seldom understand this because they aren't sexually stimulated in the same way . . . Because women can't relate, they have little mercy on us and rarely choose to dress modestly."
So as summer approaches with the tendency to wear fewer clothes, perhaps the best lesson we can teach our children is respect--for God's Word, which teaches us to be modest; for our own bodies, which are the temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20); and for our brothers and sisters in Christ, so that we don't tempt them to sin. Ladies, especially, let's not make it such a difficult task for dads to teach their sons how to treat your daughters in a Christ-honoring way.
And I do recommend Regina Franklin's Designed by God (Discovery House Publishers) to moms and daughters as excellent pre-summer reading.
Our conversation then turned to our speculations about the mothers and daughters who don't seem to be at all concerned about modesty, especially among those claiming to be Christian. We observed that often mothers themselves don't dress modestly, so it only follows that their daughters wouldn't.
I've always been surprised at the excuses Christian parents, especially, make for allowing their daughters to dress provocatively. When confronted, some seem surprised, as though much is being made of nothing. One mother actually told me that the immodest bikini her thirteen-year-old daughter was wearing made her feel more grown-up since she hadn't been as quick to develop physically as her friends.
But today, as we were finishing lunch, a married couple (parents of two teenage boys) joined our table and added their own concerns. The father asked a disturbing, but thoughtful, question: How do I teach my sons to show respect for these girls when they dress so immodestly?
That's a good question, and I do appreciate that there are men out there asking it (especially since I'm the mother of an almost-sixteen-year-old girl). In Designed by God, author Regina Franklin writes about the issues of modesty, beauty, and self-image for young women. She reminds them, "Our value is not determined by what we wear, but what we wear communicates what we think our value is." If we're wearing immodest clothing, she says, we're sending the message that our bodies aren't worth protecting and aren't very valuable. And this is the difficulty for my friend who is trying to teach his sons to respect young women who are not being taught to respect their own bodies and the godly principles that have been set in place for how they should be dressing.
Perhaps mothers need to take more seriously the young men who are receiving the message their daughters are being allowed to send. Franklin quotes from Every Young Man's Battle by Arterburn, et al., where a young man explains the challenge he faces: "Our eyes give us men the means to sin broadly and at will . . . We have a visual ignition switch when it comes to viewing the female anatomy. Women seldom understand this because they aren't sexually stimulated in the same way . . . Because women can't relate, they have little mercy on us and rarely choose to dress modestly."
So as summer approaches with the tendency to wear fewer clothes, perhaps the best lesson we can teach our children is respect--for God's Word, which teaches us to be modest; for our own bodies, which are the temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20); and for our brothers and sisters in Christ, so that we don't tempt them to sin. Ladies, especially, let's not make it such a difficult task for dads to teach their sons how to treat your daughters in a Christ-honoring way.
And I do recommend Regina Franklin's Designed by God (Discovery House Publishers) to moms and daughters as excellent pre-summer reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)