Sorry

Photograph: Alexandra Bone. From guardian.co.uk

I was talking with some friends recently about helping our kids to learn to apologise.

How do you teach kids how to say sorry so that they mean it (especially when they're very small)? Do you insist on them saying the words (even if they are just going through the motions, and still don't see that they've done anything wrong)? Or do you wait until feelings of sorrow arise, and then teach them how to express themselves? 

The problem with the first approach is that saying sorry becomes a magic formula that gets kids out of trouble:

Hit your sister? No worries! Just say this short spell, and you're transported out of time out and back to the playroom: "I'm sorry"

There's no change in the child's heart. There's no relational change. There's no repentance and no intent to reform. What this approach teaches will end up with children who do a mini version of the "caught-out-celebrity shuffle" - confess to wrongdoing in an appropriate forum (like Oprah or Dr Phil), make a (sometimes tearful) apology, go back to business as usual. The bible refers to this as "worldly grief", which leads to death. It is the very opposite of godly grief, which produces repentance (that change of heart and direction that we crave for our kids) and leads to salvation without regret.

The problem with the second approach is that you can very well end up waiting until your darling child is well into middle age, as President Clinton's parents may well have discovered.

So what to do?

I read or heard recently (and to my shame, I cannot remember the source!) of a suggestion that we try to adopt in our household with our 3-year-old: Speak on his behalf.

As parents, we often have to speak on behalf of our children, and while they are still young, we bear responsibility for their behaviour (as any parent in a home wares or souvenir shop knows!) So now when our son should apologise, but is resistant or lacks understanding, I will take him in my arms, and apologise on his behalf:

"E, I'm very sorry that F hit you. He did the wrong thing, and I'm sure that he's very sorry too. Will you please forgive him?"

How do you encourage your small children to learn to apologise and repent?

Overly coy?

Sasha and Beck choose some beads for him to wear 
From Cambridge News

I stumbled across this article from Cambridge the other day - about a couple in the UK who concealed the gender of their child for some years after his birth. The boy, Sasha, is now 5 and attending school. The "experiment" is about to get a whole lot more complicated.

Why do it? The mother, Beck Laxton, said that her motivation was:

“Because I wanted to avoid all that stereotyping,” she shrugs. “Stereotypes seem fundamentally stupid. Why would you want to slot people into boxes? It’s like horoscopes: what could be stupider than thinking there are 12 types of personality that depend on when you were born? It’s so idiotic.” 

But for Beck, slotting a child into a ‘male’ or ‘female’ box isn’t just idiotic, it’s potentially damaging. “It affects what they wear and what they can play with, and that shapes the kind of person that they become.” And if that’s skewing their potential, she believes, then it is wrong. 

“That’s when I start to get cross about it: it’s not just a harmless bit of silliness, like horoscopes, it’s actually harmful.”

I'm willing to concede at the outset that we should, generally, avoid stereotyping - slotting people into boxes. Stereotyping practically denies that a person is "fearfully and wonderfully made" by God (Ps 139:14) - a unique individual. A stereotype diminishes a person's humanity. It diminishes the person Jesus died to save.

There are still some big questions about Ms Laxton's actions and motives. Can't you avoid stereotyping, and still identify with your gender? What is the cost of Ms Laxton's decision? Who bears that cost? Is that cost worth paying to make a point?

To her, the cost of her decision is nothing - her decision frees Sasha to become whatever sort of person he would like to be.

But I think that her reasoning falls into two significant errors. Firstly, she has swallowed the idea that ones biological gender is irrelevant; that it forms no significant part of ones identity. This is a position that is impossible to maintain biblically. The Bible speaks clearly about mankind being made "male and female" (Gen 1:27). It emphasises further the different purposes for which man and woman were created (eg 2:15,18), the different roles they were to play in God's perfect creation, and consequently the different effects on each of the decision to rebel against God (eg 3:16, 17-19). This theme is carried throughout Scripture - that men and women are different in fundamental ways, and that biological gender is an important factor in ones identity.

Even without the biblical witness, this conclusion is inescapable.  In just about every society on earth, and in every system of thought, the distinction between men and women has been recognised and respected. The detail differs between cultures and times, but the fact of the distinction does not. The distinction is real, unlike the imagined differences in horoscopes!

So in refusing to acknowledge her son's maleness and masculinity, she is denying him, from the earliest age, a significant part of his own identity. Who can say how that will affect him as he grows?

Secondly, she seems to believe that one can make a neutral decision about child rearing, one that leaves the child free to become whatever he or she wants. But why would this be so? Why would a decision to dress a little boy in boy's clothes affect (skew?) the man he grows to be, while a decision to dress him in "girl's clothes" leaves him unaffected? Why would playing with "gender-neutral toys, as well as plenty of dolls" have no effect on his emerging personality, where playing with cars or guns or robots or barbie dolls might limit his full potential?

The truth is that this is nonsense. Every decision concerning the raising of a child communicates some value judgement to that child. Every decision draws lines: this conduct is acceptable, that is not. More fundamentally, the potential of a child is not something that will grow and flower beautifully if left to its own devices; rather, a child must be carefully tended, nurtured and trained so that he or she can blossom into a mature man or woman. 

As the proverb goes: "Start children off on the way they should go, and even when they are old they will not turn from it." (Pr 22:6) This is not an optional instruction, along the lines of "if you want to be sure how your kids will turn out, then start early".  Rather, it is a truism: "the way that a person is trained as a child is the way that person will turn out as an adult."

The final, alarming thought that struck me about this article is Ms Laxton's attitude toward parenting:

But she also admits to an ulterior motive: to make mums who choose overtly ‘girly’ garb for their daughters think about what they’re doing. 

“These women dress them up like dolls, but they’re not dressed like that, so why are they doing it to their children? ... 

So is she hoping that dressing Sasha in pink will change anything? “Yes. If it just made one person think: ‘No, I won’t put that frilly dress on her because it’s a bit silly’ or: ‘Yeah, if he really likes that doll, then that’s OK,’ then that would be really brilliant. 

“All I want to do is make people think a bit.”

Did I read that right? Is she seriously using her son as a means to change the behaviour of other parents with their children?

As a Christian dad, my whole attitude toward my children must be markedly different.  They are individually created by God, loved by Him, saved by Jesus.  They are beings who will live eternally with Jesus (or separated from Him, if they choose wrongly). I get to love and nurture and protect them to the best of my ability, and have the joy and burden to train them up for maturity and independence. I must not treat them as tools to be used for my own ends, but help them to see their true identity - as sons and daughters of God.

more than words ...

Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.  1 John 3:18

Did you see Apollo 13?  If so, you will remember that gripping 4+ minutes towards the end.  After days (was it only days) of things going consistently wrong in space, the 3-man team aboard are re-entering the atmosphere.  Houston knows that they will lose contact with the ship for the 3 minutes it takes to get from stratosphere to splash-down.  Mission control is tense, but not panicked.  But then the 3 minutes pass, and there is still no contact.


In my memory, the film makers slow the pace of the movie to real-life speed.  4 minutes is such a long time.  


"Apollo 13, do you copy?"
Silence.
"Apollo 13?"
Silence.


Radio crackle.  Heartbeats.


And then Tom Hanks' voice: "Houston? ..."


I'm sure that at every screening, every audience member unclenched his fists, sat back in her seat, breathed out long and slow.


The message was being broadcast - it wasn't being received.

Which is a long-winded introduction to the scene at the Oakley house this evening, in which Number Two bounded up to my lovely wife Sally with her hands peaked on top of her head.  "Goodnight Mummy.  That means 'I love you' in Squiffy language" she says.


After the "aww"-moment passed, I started thinking.  We tell our children often enough that we love them - we're broadcasting the message - but are we being received?  


My Eldest understands love through gifts.  I first realised this when she was raging about someone touching "her things".  Aha!  Now some of her other behaviour makes sense!  She loves to give little presents to me and Sally.  She's always at me to buy Sally flowers (I really should listen to her more.)  She always sneaks little things she's been given to school to show her friends.  


Suddenly a lot of the fights between her and Number Two made more sense.  Suddenly I wondered: has she been on a starvation diet for these last few years?  Not receiving the message of love I've been broadcasting?  As she grows she'll see my love for her in the day-to-day things, but for now, I'm trying to speak her language.  I'm praying that, in recent months, that message has been getting through.


And Number Two?  I think she's a cuddler, which is quite alright by me.


I found Gary Chapman's Five Love Languages a really helpful book to understand that Sally expresses and receives love differently from me.  He's also written versions specifically for kids and teenagers.

Where do babies come from?

My baby girl starts sex education tomorrow.  She's 6 (well, 6 and three-quarters).

Of course, I went to the parent information session.  I was a little concerned about what they would be teaching, having heard some of the odd PC-things going on in exotic places like Quebec, Holland and the UK.  Were they going to tell my delicate little flower that I was oppressing her mum?  Would they outline some of the detail of some weird fringe practices?  Would she be finding out about contraception?

Imagine, if you will, my relief when I walked into the staff room and saw where the presenters were from: Centacare.  If a Catholic agency can't tell them to save it for marriage, who can?  (It turns out that they can't tell them that.  Apparently it's values-free sex education - isn't that a contradiction in terms!)  As the presentation continued, my relief turned to support.

Before you both stop reading and start following "Conservative Christian Dad" in the blog next door, let me tell you why - for my daughter at this stage - I support what her school is doing.

The program is tailored for the age of the children.  It covers things like:

• the value of families;
• where babies come from (my daughter will be told that an egg from mummy and a sperm from daddy combine to make a baby, which grows in mummy's uterus.  How the egg and sperm get together is covered briefly for older grades);
• the proper names for all the bits;
• inappropriate touching, private parts, the importance of telling someone.

Most of these things she knows already.  (She has some experience of different family constellations from friends at school and church, and we've always been honest with her when she's asked questions about where babies come from.)  But the two big factors that lead me to support an appropriate level of sex education at her age are: the emphasis on the parent as the main educator; and the frighteningly high incidence of sexual abuse in our community.

One thing that the Centacare program stresses is that Mum or Dad should be the main source of information about the biology and morality of sex.  It is really important to start early, so that kids know that they can come to Mum or Dad to talk about these things.  How early is too early?  Well, when you consider that the average boy will first be exposed to internet pornography aged 11, that schoolyard conversations about sex will likely happen well before that age, and that some girls can start menstruating before they are 10, we parents don't have a lot of time to spare.  Most kids will ask questions to satisfy their curiosity, and will stop asking when they have enough information to be going on with.  The birds and the bees talk is no one-off event; it is a conversation that should span years, off and on.

The second factor that weighs heavily in the balance is the prevalence of sexual abuse in our community.  1 in 4 girls, and 1 in 7 boys will be sexually abused during the course of their childhood.  Such abuse is made easier when a child does not know whether what is happening is OK or not.  In many cases, the abuse is successfully concealed (for a time at least) because a child feels shame, or thinks he will not be believed, or does not know who she can talk to.  Sensitively dispelling these attitudes (without unnecessary specifics) is surely a helpful step in protecting all our kids.  Even something as simple as ensuring that children know the right names for their private parts can be helpful.  As a criminal lawyer in my former career, I have seen prosecutions fail or charges being downgraded because a child's evidence is too vague or general.

So I support the program - but I won't leave things in the hands of the Education Department or of Centacare.  I do not believe it is possible to deliver "values-free" sex education: what we leave unsaid communicates our values as much as what we say.  I'll be getting involved in the conversation so that I can show her the truth about families, marriage and sex - that God made them good, and as a good gift for us; that he made them for a purpose, and that when we misuse these gifts, we suffer as a consequence.

Connecting you now ... (or are they?)

I recently read this blog post by Pete Wilson, laying down the gauntlet to all us WiFi Dads: disconnect to reconnect.


The basic premise:

Mobile devices, computers and social media are wonderful things, indeed. They’ve transformed our lives and our world in countless positive ways. But make no mistake, while we’re more connected than ever (and maybe because we’re more “connected” than ever), we’re more disconnected than ever from our families.

Providentially, I am also listening to Tim Challies' book The Next Story, which is about living as a Christian in the digital world.  (You can buy a paper copy here.)  One of the big ideas there is that technological advance impacts on biology and behaviour - that we serve our gadgets as much as they serve us.  (Ponder that, next time to you reach for your phone in response to a notification!)


These ideas become real (or surreal?) for me some evenings when I'm sitting around with extended family.  We play on our iPhone / iPod / laptops.  Occasionally we'll exchange words - to explain what we've just been laughing at, or the great move we just made in our game.  When the evening is over, I invariably have a sense of having missed out - another opportunity for real connection has been lost.  (To be fair, this is also the case when we're all glued to the tv, book or guitar chord chart!)


It is hard to set aside the gadgets.  I get fidgety without something for my hands to do.  It takes effort to chat, even with people I know well and love.  My conversation runs in the same worn pathways until I find that I'm even boring myself!  (I suppose this comes from not taking the trouble to practise more.)


It is one thing to see my adult social skills atrophying - but it is something altogether else to ponder the impact on my children.  What message does my compulsive connectedness have on them?  Do they see the priority order as iPhone, laptop, wife, children?  Fast-forward 10 years, will I have raised kids who do as I do, and barely look up from whatever has replaced the iPhone by then?


I don't want to get rid of the technology altogether, but I want it as my servant, not my master.  And I want to give my kids the strength of character to harness the technology of their time, rather than being harnessed by it!


Pete Wilson's suggestions seem to be a good place to start:

This Sunday, disconnect from all your electronic devices and plan a day dedicated to your family and loved ones. If you choose to get crazier or more creative with this, definitely let us know. But it starts with one day. A little over a year ago I decided to start making each Saturday (Sunday’s a work day for me so it doesn’t work) a computer/email/cell phone/twitter/facebook free zone and I’ve never regretted in one day. Those close to me know how to get a hold of me if there’s an emergency. I can’t tell you how much I long for my technology fast each weekend.

What do you think?

what does Mum want with my tooth?

"The tooth fairy isn't made up.  She really exists!  I mean, it's not like your parents take your tooth."

The wisdom and logic of one of my daughter's seven-year-old friends.  Little blonde and brunette heads all nodded sagely along.  I mean, there really is only two ways to explain the missing teeth and miraculous money: parents or tooth fairy.  And we can't see any reason why the parents would want the teeth, can we ...?

I overheard this conversation without joining it.  There are all sorts of awkward ramifications in shattering the childhood illusions of children outside ones jurisdiction.  But it did get me thinking - what is my position on the tooth fairy or santa claus?  If I encourage my kids to believe in them, am I lying?  Will that jeopardise their later belief in Jesus?  Or is it all an innocent childhood stage that my kids will pass through unscathed, happy to have had some childhood magic to look back upon?

So, of course, I consulted the blogosphere.  What a variety of opinions!  There was an atheist blogger who worried that the tooth fairy and santa claus stories were somehow a trojan horse that would make it more likely that kids would believe in God.  There were Christian bloggers and commenters who worried that telling their kids about santa would cause them later to discard belief in God.  (Surely both can't be right!).  One mother is content to go along with her sons' imaginations (as she does for fictitious super heroes etc), and to use the result as raw material in the cut and thrust of raising kids.  And a number of atheist sites (here, here and here) airily proclaimed that the tooth fairy, santa claus, god and the easter bunny are all the same - inventions for which there is no rational evidence.

To my mind, there are two big issues that I need to sort out:

1. Truth-telling, and modelling truth-telling.
2. Giving my kids a reason for the hope that I have (see 1 Peter 3:15)

First: truth-telling.  I want to tell the truth, because only telling the truth will honour God.  I also want my children to be people of integrity and truth as they grow up.  This will have to inform how I approach the issue with my kids - I don't think I can tell them that the tooth fairy will turn up and give them money for their teeth. Is it different if they want to put a tooth under the pillow for the tooth fairy, and I replace the tooth with money: playing along?  What if the whole tooth fairy conversation is understood as imagination and make-believe, in the same manner that we play pirates or princesses?  I guess this is an issue that each parent (and each couple) must grapple with, focusing on the underlying principles of telling the truth and honouring God.  It will depend as much on the culture in my family as on the character of my children.

Secondly: the evidence.  I think that the atheist blogs have the solution to the problem half-right.  That is, they demand that a belief have a basis in evidence for it to be rational, and will discard the belief if not satisfied with the evidence.  In my opinion, they go wrong in claiming that there is no evidence for a belief in God.  There is ample evidence all around that God exists, and significant evidence in the historical record that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God and is one with God.  That he died and rose again to life.  This is material for another post, and many people have already dealt with this subject far better than I ever will (for example, Lee Strobel with his "Case for" series; Dr John Dickson's "The Christ Files"; the Centre for Public Christianity).

So I suppose, over the coming 9+ years of teeth loss in my family, I have the dual challenge of maintaining childhood magic for my children without lying to them; and giving them the evidential basis and critical thinking capacity to distinguish between the fairytales and the truth of the gospel.

Grandfather prays in Hebrew ...

I was reading Judges 2:10-15 recently, and was struck by how quickly the Israelites turned away from God.  I mean, their grandfathers had seen the 10 plagues in Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea.  Their fathers had wandered in the desert, been fed miraculously by manna from heaven, and had seen the miraculous conquest of the promised land.  Yet this generation "knew neither the LORD, nor what he had done for Israel" and "did evil in the eyes of the LORD and served the Baals."  And that incurred God's wrath.


It put me in mind of a comment attributed to Rabbi Jonathan Sachs:  "Grandfather prays in Hebrew, Father prays in English, Son no longer prays and Grandson is no longer Jewish".  (Gotta love the internet!)


I guess the pressure to be just like everyone else is pretty strong wherever and whenever you live.


What's the solution?  Please let me know - my own kids are too young yet for me to know if they will keep the infant faith they are showing now.  I pray they will!


One man (with kids now in their early 20s) told me that he and his wife tried to show that their faith in Christ was real and living - it made a difference to how they lived.  So these parents would read their bibles in the common parts of the house, where the kids would see.  They prayed with and for their kids.  I guess, as time went by, they explained decisions based on their faith in Jesus.


What has your experience been?