For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men - Titus 2:11

Tag Archive 'significance'

Mar 25 2008

Reality Parenting

Published by kmcc under love ethics

Ed.Note: In “Raising Infantiles” we surveyed the development of an “Infantile” mind-set in the Millenial generation, and the fundamental flaws of this mind-set. In this article we examine what parents can specifically do to avoid further aggrevating it among their own children.

The Simplicity of Maturity

Modern parenting is a best-guess scenario.

Our world is deeply confused about parenting, and it shouldn’t be any surprise that kids are deeply confused about growing up. For millennia the proven path to maturity required children to learn sacrifice for others, but new and unproven theories are redefining parenting and the family itself in the twenty-first century. Often seeded with humanistic assumptions, modern approaches have now shipwrecked a few generations of children, beginning with Baby-boomers, and now secular research and even the popular press are documenting how widespread this failure is.1

It means modern parenting is a best-guess scenario. Little social consensus remains, and even the self-proclaimed leaders among academics and social scientists are deeply divided.2 Far more tragic, parents often cannot (and sometimes should not) look to their own parents for guidance. The confusion and failures of parents now spans generations, and the proven model of maturity is fading from modern memory.

Fortunately God provides us with a clear and simple path to maturity. It is a process:

  1. To move away from immature demands that others meet our needs.
  2. To become capable of providing for our own needs.
  3. Finally, developing a surplus to give in sacrificial love.

Paul captures this process of growth in one verse:

He who steals must steal no longer; but rather he must labor, performing with his own hands what is good, so that he will have something to share with one who has need. Ephesians 4:28 (NASB)

“He who steals” accurately describes demanding Infantiles. The solution? “Steal no longer!” Infantiles may not feel their demands are thievery, but that is what God calls it, pure and simple. (Read “Steal No Longer” which is someone’s blog about employing this principle, and how to win.)

It means the demands must stop! This is not optional. It is a timeless, culturally-agnostic fact of human genetics that until “he will have something to share with one who has need,” the Infantile lives in a cauldron of seething emotional turmoil. Demands will not satisfy long-term emotional needs.

The Furnace of Present Love Feelings

The modern child-centered home and the influence of the “Self Esteem” movement is producing a new social phenomenon where childhood extends far beyond the age of 18.3 It means a population of “adult kids” is forming. It is a subculture with a consensus that further perpetrates Infantile demands. Their propaganda is seeded in the media, movies and TV sitcoms.

This new Infantile subculture is a furnace of super-heated emotional needs. As Infantile meets Infantile, expectations crash against demands, and when relationships crumble they fall back to one conviction: I was betrayed! The furnace intensifies with loneliness and heartbreak, but the Infantile is oblivious to the obvious problem: the problem is me!

Often our response is not repentance. Many move into self-protection. “I can’t be wrong. It is the world that is wrong!” ::bibtex(Ankenman-Approach2,Ankenman - Biblical Approach part 2)::

Parents were the first to stoke the furnace of Infantile demands. In a safe and loving home, kids were provided Present Love Feelings that met their emotional needs. Growing up in the center of the universe, the child charges into the world with confidence, feeling loved, supported, and completely ungrateful.

The goal for parenting is not to make kids feel loved. Nowhere in scripture can we find such an injunction. We don’t mean to say that parents shouldn’t make their kids feel loved, but we are saying this isn’t the goal of parenting. Many parents would agree, yet because it’s the easiest way to make someone feel loved, pumping out the Present Love Feelings ends up becoming a parent’s default effort. “Soccer Moms” and minivan families lavish such a wealth of Present Love Feelings on the kids, but these are all modern behaviors and part of the modern confusion about maturity.

Leaving home, these kids thrive on a reservoir of Present Love Feelings which fuel their spirited dreams of conquest. But a latent emotional bomb lies beneath the surface: unable to create healthy relationships, these young adults suffer painfully in their quest to refill Present Love Feelings. Usually the bomb explodes after the collapse of a few random romances.

Without emotional fuel people cannot function for long. The hidden bomb explodes in a cloud of emotional instability which can deal crippling blows to the body’s chemistry, its immune system and large array of crippling maladies, as research has demonstrated (see Loneliness). These young adults become new patients at Dr. Ankenman’s clinic, crippled with emotional distress:

Every emotionally unhappy person in the world works from the perspective that says, “love has to come to me.” The final cure of the emotionally-upset person is learning to give love. ::bibtex(Ankenman-Approach2,Ankenman - Biblical Approach part 2)::

The problem for parents is one of investment.

Continue Reading »

  1. See Raising Infantiles for more about the Baby-boomer parenting phenomena and the sensational results in Millennials documented by 60 Minutes and others. []
  2. See ::bibtex(Seligman-Forum,Seligman)::. []
  3. See ::bibtex(Safer-Millenials,Safer-Millenials)::. []

7 responses so far

Nov 15 2007

A Significant Story

Published by kmcc under love ethics

Ed.Note: People need to feel significant. Somehow, some way, we all need it, else we grow morose and even suicidal. It is the life-long quest for significance which fills our “Love Banks” - the emotional fuel to get up and go.

The Flash

It happened in a remote desert in the American West. The vast desert was suffocated in nighttime silence and the darkness was blinding from rare clouds that smothered the stars like an evil presence. In the center of this wasteland stood a handful of men waiting silently but fidgeting or smoking. They were an elite group of scientists gathered from distant countries and gathered in this one spot in New Mexico. Years of theoretical calculations and engineering led to this moment of testing the world’s most expensive science. The budget surpassed the entire automobile industry, but it was still just a theory costing billions.

A gong shattered the silence from somewhere in the desert, and then silence fell again. Five more minutes. Dawn was an hour away, and they were exhausted but still tense and dreadful. Everyone knew this moment could split open a world inconceivable in human experience, but nobody could think of anything to say.

Then it happened: light filled the desert sky from horizon to horizon, far more brilliant than sunlight and it caramelized sand in 100-million-degree heat and the brightest light ever seen on earth. It would sear their eyes to the socket if not for thick welder glasses. Some girls in Hiroshima would soon be caught off-guard gazing with naked eyes at a silver dot gliding across the sky called the Enola Gay. That one American bomber unleashed more explosive power than a fleet of thousands.

The fuel of stars. They called it Trinity, where the first atomic bomb unleashed a dragon’s breath of heat bound inside the atom. The flash towered in a mushroom of purplish, dark radioactivity. The brilliance faded and a windstorm rolled across the desert and blasted the scientists, then passed. It was silent again, but not dark.

“I am death,” someone uttered, “the destroyer of worlds.” His name was Robert Oppenheimer, the chief scientist at Las Alamos where they built The Bomb in secrecy. Like many of the scientists he was a pacifist and a humanitarian never dreaming of unleashing atomic fire against men, women and children—but they did it at Hiroshima and again at Nagasaki.

A horrified Japanese emperor declared unconditional surrender, and then America faced the new world of atomic energy with ominous implications. This is when Dr. Oppenheimer and the other scientists suddenly grew fearful of the future:

Before we opened the door to this horrifying new world in which we live today, we should have knocked. But we have chosen to fall into the house together with the door. - J. Robert Oppenheimer, Atomic Energy Commission hearings^1^

The Quest

We knew the world would not be the same — J. Robert Oppenheimer. (The photo is an actual picture of the original Trinity explosion in July, 1945. See Wikipedia.)

The “Father of the Atomic Bomb” grew to despise his title, but while isolated in Los Alamos he energized the scientists to work feverishly on The Bomb. After the war the public gasped at the beast he created, and Oppenheimer reversed course: the rest of his life was devoted to stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, as if he could stuff the genie back into the bottle.

Why the inconsistency? As early as 1942 Oppenheimer was aware of the Hydrogen bomb and its near-infinite capacity for destruction, but he pressed forward and soothed squeamish scientists afraid of the implications. In the self-contained world of Las Alamos he thrived in his role as “Father of the Atomic Bomb.” It all made perfect sense.

Oppenheimer’s famous and confused life depicts The Quest: a lifetime struggling for significance. In Las Alamos he was The King, crowned with significance. Outside Las Alamos he fought for years against the misinterpretations and aspersions the public cast against him for The Bomb. He tried reaching for higher peaks of greatness, and became the first chairman of the new Atomic Energy Commission. From that platform he launched an effort to steer world powers and direct the future of mankind through international control of nuclear weapons. But from such lofty heights he also made political enemies, and they rallied and finally denounced him as a communist sympathizer during the “Red Scare” of the McCarthy era. The accusation was absurd, but reason and justice rarely prevail in such times.

Continue Reading »

12 responses so far