Building Better Relationships

Anything-goes sex on campus

________________________________

Posted: December 13, 2007

1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Rebecca Hagelin

________________________________

© 2007

If you think political correctness on our college campuses is a threat to free speech, I have a news flash for you. It’s even worse than that. It’s actually putting the lives of our young people at risk.

Sound a bit over the top? Only if you haven’t read a riveting account by a campus psychiatrist who knows the price our children are paying – mentally, emotionally and physically – for the attitudes that allow the “sexual revolution” to rage unchecked in the halls of “higher learning.” That psychiatrist, Dr. Miriam Grossman <http://www.miriamgrossmanmd.com/> , took a bold step last year when she first published “Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student <http://www.miriamgrossmanmd.com/unprotected.php> .” So bold, in fact, that the original hardcover edition (now out in paperback) listed the author as “Anonymous, M.D.” The potential for backlash, personally and professionally, was all too real. Backlash for what, you ask? Oh, writing sentences like this: “Casual sex is a health hazard for young women.” Believe it or not, such expressions

– the embodiment of common sense to just about every parent on earth – represent rank heresy in Dr. Grossman’s profession. You’re expected to hand out condoms and push “safe sex” (or “safer sex”) on students at every turn, but never, ever “pass judgment” on any behavior. One should encourage “experimentation” and downplay any moral and religious concerns as the undesirable traits of a “patriarchal” society. Abstinence is an unattainable ideal, and “tradition” is another word for “repression.” If only more psychiatrists were like Dr. Grossman:

I see it differently. The young people I know are neither stupid nor enslaved to their urges. They are capable and motivated; many will respond to an ennobling message, reject the prurient messages of our culture and learn new behaviors. Isn’t that what youth is about – questioning, idealism, change? But for this to happen, we must tell the whole story, warts and all. Tell them we’re waging a war against [sexually transmitted diseases]. … Tell them this contributes to skyrocketing health insurance. Tell them their behavior, and their friends’, can make a difference. Tell them the truth!What do students get instead of the truth? They get websites such as Columbia University’s GoAskAlice.com. It claims to provide “reliable, accurate, accessible, culturally competent information and a range of thoughtful perspectives so that [students] can make responsible decisions concerning their health and well-being.” What it actually provides is X-rated advice that isn’t remotely “responsible” – explicit tips on just about every sexual behavior, no matter how bizarre. To one question about a “threesome,” for example, “Alice” replies: “There’s nothing wrong with giving it a try, as long as you’re all practicing safer sex.” Nothing wrong, eh? Tell that to the heartbroken young women who come to Dr. Grossman for counseling.

Ask Heather, who despite having “nothing to complain about,” was racked by intense self-hatred. Her feelings were so bad, they were interfering with many activities and making her life difficult. Dr. Grossman found out why: Heather had a “friend with benefits.” In plain language, that means that she had a boyfriend who used her for sex but didn’t want any “relationship” to rain on his good time. Heather agreed to this arrangement, but she couldn’t deny her attraction to this boy and the fact that his rejection of anything other than sex was hurting her deeply.

Sadly, Heather isn’t alone. Yet the PC counselors on today’s campuses have nothing to offer young women like her – other than condoms and recommendations that they considering taking anti-depressant drugs. But as Olivia, another of Dr. Grossman’s patients, says: “Why do they tell you how to protect your body – from herpes and pregnancy – but they don’t tell you how to protect your heart?” I recently had lunch with a gentleman whose son is a freshman at Columbia. When dad asked him over Thanksgiving the most challenging part of his first months at college, the son replied, “The pressure to declare myself homosexual.” Sadly, such pressure is not unusual. On many campuses, in order to prove that you’re not “homophobic” or have some sexual “hang-up,” you must be willing not just to accept the lifestyles of others, but to be counted among them. Is there no longer a place for truth on college campuses?

Small wonder that Dr. Grossman <http://www.miriamgrossmanmd.com/> was moved to write her book. “My profession has been hijacked,” she says. “I cannot do my job; my patients are suffering, and I am fed up.” That’s exactly what parents should say – that we’re fed up with having our children fed a stream of lies about sex. When we have millions of new cases of sexually transmitted diseases cropping up every year, it’s the height of irresponsibility to tell students, as Columbia University’s “Alice” does, that they just need to “have fun and BE SAFE!” Most parents are either unaware of the “sex with anyone, at anytime, in any fashion, for any reason” culture pervading today’s campuses, or they just don’t want to know. Don’t be one of those parents. For the sake of our children and our grandchildren, it’s time to get involved and make a difference.

The other side is gunning for your values and your way of life. Don’t let them win.

________________________________

Related special offers:

“Raising Maidens of Virtue” <http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=99&ITEM_ID=948> “Fish Out of Water: Surviving and Thriving as a Christian on a Secular Campus” <http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=15&ITEM_ID=460> ________________________________Rebecca Hagelin, a vice president at The Heritage Foundation <http://www.heritage.org/> , is the author of “Home Invasion: Protecting Your Family in a Culture that’s Gone Stark Raving Mad <http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1682> ” and runs the website HomeInvasion.org <http://www.homeinvasion.org/> .

TEACHING MARRIAGE TO ECONOMICS UNDERGRADS

Lowering the cost increases demand

Father Raymond J. De Souza

National Post (Ontario, Canada)

December 08, 2007

In the fourth-year economics seminar I teach at Queen’s University, we cover a range of topics, from globalized trade to the nature of rationality. But one topic seems to attract more interest from the students than others — economics and marriage. Perhaps it is because the senior students are at an age when they are beginning to think about marriage and family questions themselves, or perhaps because it is a topic in which the real-world applications are easy to see.

For example, applying economic principles to divorce law, one would expect that the lower the exit costs from marriage (no-fault divorce, for example), the lower the “entrance requirement” would be (commitment to the marriage).

Therefore, if the law makes it easier to get out, it also makes it correspondingly less important to consider the decision to get in. No great surprise there, as it is a basic economic axiom that if you lower the price of something (divorce) there will be an increase in the demand for it.

It is another set of figures, though, that spark the more intense discussion. For about 10 years now there have been many studies, both in Canada and the United States, which show a link between cohabitation before marriage with greater marital instability. That is, couples who live together before they marry are more likely to divorce than couples who do not. This year our seminar had the benefit of the latest Statistics Canada from the 2006 census, which reported again the same phenomenon.

Some students find this counter-intuitive. Their intuition is that if a couple were to live together first, they would learn more about each other, see each other with both strengths and weaknesses, and therefore be able to make a better decision about marriage. It is like a trial period for a new product, or a probationary period in a new job — a chance for the parties to see if it is a good match, with a less costly way to break off the agreement if it is not.

So why do the data show the opposite? Perhaps there might be a “selection”

issue, namely that cohabiting couples are less committed to

marriage initially than non-cohabiting couples. In that case, when cohabiting couples eventually get around to marrying, their lower level of commitment leads to a higher rate of divorce.

There could be another explanation though, which is that the decision to marry is not really like getting a new product or starting a new job, where functionality and compatibility are key factors. If marriage is something different, then the preparation too should be something different.

What helps marriages to endure is not the compatibility of the spouses or the delight they take in each other. After all, over time people do change, circumstances are different and the pressures of life are brought to bear.

Not all age equally gracefully. What enables marriages to endure, and thrive, is the commitment of the spouses to the marriage itself. Most married couples will tell you, quite unsurprisingly, that they could never have imagined beforehand the circumstances that they have faced over the years of the marriage. Keeping one’s promises and a willingness to sacrifice for the other are the foundations of marital and family stability.

The question then arises: Is cohabitation good preparation for keeping one’s promises and learning to sacrifice? Perhaps not. What distinguishes cohabitation from marriage is precisely the absence of the formal promise or solemn commitment. And it is more difficult to make significant sacrifices for the other if there is less confidence in the permanence of the arrangement.

Cohabitation is bad preparation for lasting marriages because it confuses what marriage is about. It mistakes the fruits of marriage–delight in each other, a shared project in life, the joy of children — with what constitutes the essence of marriage itself. The fruits, to mix the metaphor, are the result of the foundation — which is built by duty, commitment, sacrifice, loyalty, perseverance and fidelity. What is needed is not so much a trial period of preparation, but training in those virtues. It turns out, both intuitively and according to the data, that cohabitation is not good preparation for that.

#########################

- FOR RICHER: THE LINKS BETWEEN MARRIAGE AND AFFLUENCE

Here’s the December Top Ten from FamilyFacts.org - the wonderful service that rounds up and complies healthy marriage/healthy family data. Bookmark this site: http://familyfacts.org/

For Richer: The Link between Marriage and Affluence December 6, 2007

Married individuals in all age groups were more likely to become affluent than peers who were not married, and the marriage advantage increased with age, according to a 2001 study.

Among individuals aged 25 to 45, 33 percent of married individuals will experience at least one year of affluence compared to 16 percent of their peers who were not married.  Among individuals aged 45 to 65, 42 percent of married individuals will become affluent compared to 18 percent of their peers who were not married Read this finding and thousands of others at http://familyfacts.org/.

Look Who’s WatchingShould you feel guilty if your children spent a lot of time in front of the TV? Probably. 

BY MEGHAN COX GURDONThursday, December 13, 2007 12:01 a.m. 

Here is a book that seeks to answer the question that burns guiltily in the back of almost every modern parent’s mind: Am I a bad person for sticking my toddler in front of the TV so that I can get a little peace and quiet around here, already?Please note that this is a very different question from the one most parents would actually admit to asking, that one being the rather more high-minded: “Is screen time bad for little children?” 

With “Into the Minds of Babes,” author Lisa Guernsey manages in a balanced, lucid and practical way to address both of these questions, along with other screen-related concerns–whether about TV, or computer games, or video-game consoles, or hand-held devices–that lurk worryingly because of the way people live nowadays. 

We are, after all, in the era of Baby Einstein, when multimedia packages are sold to the parents of newborns with the idea that infants may get an edge on their peers if they begin building “cognitive skills” and absorbing the rudiments of bilingualism before they’ve begun eating solid food. It is an era in which millions of small children spend all day apart from their parents in facilities that feature screens and are staffed by “caregivers” for whom English is not necessarily the native tongue. We live, furthermore, in a time of rising juvenile obesity and inactivity, in a country where children seem sometimes to have fallen wholesale into an alphabet soup of scary initials such as ADD and ADHD, afflictions for which frenetic children’s TV shows and computer games have been partly blamed. 

Ms. Guernsey is not a purist, and she’s not on a campaign. She doesn’t ask us to consider what an Amish-style childhood free of screens might be like or how children raised in such an old-fashioned environment might compare with the legions of day-care kids goggling at “Dora the Explorer.” Instead, she starts with the sensible assumption that most American families routinely make television and other screens available to their young children. That being the case, well, what about it?Relying on dozens of scientific studies, Ms. Guernsey explores the intricacies of trying to unpick the complicated weave of what goes on inside the head of a 1- or 2 1/2-year-old child crouched before a glowing screen. Can a person yet to speak in full sentences understand flashbacks or rapid scene changes? What about vocabulary? Will that child be quicker to absorb new words–or, having been overwhelmed, slower? 

How researchers go about forming conclusions is neither simple nor always satisfying, but a great deal of inquiry has been pursued in the past few years, and more is under way even as purveyors of dubious “educational” media are pushing electronic keypads into ever-younger plump little palms. 

It turns out that some children, particularly those in single-parent or low-income households, may benefit from some television programs (”

Sesame Street

,” “Blue’s Clues”) but not necessarily others (”Teletubbies,” “Veggie Tales”). What makes one show superior to another is almost chilling in its simplicity, given that TV commonly serves as a substitute babysitter. “The closer the product comes to simulating the way a good nursery school teacher or attentive parent talks to a young child, the better,” Ms. Guernsey writes. 

A stunning number of families with babies and young children–39%, in one study–keep the TV on constantly. And the effect on small children is appalling: “Always on” television has been shown to damage their ability to play imaginatively and to develop language, and it reduces the number of nurturing interactions between parents and children. One researcher told Ms. Guernsey that little children trying to learn words in the presence of constant noise are “devastatingly impaired.” 

Parents may not want to be told this–they can be prickly if they think you’re criticizing their child-rearing practices. Ms. Guernsey uses her experience as the mother of two girls to deflect any sense that she’s some sort of hard-eyed reporter-type coming to lecture weaker parents about their shortcomings. She knows how grueling it can be to spend hours with colicky infants and restless toddlers and to cast about for some way to distract them long enough for Mommy to take a shower. She is clearly hoping to smuggle in a few good parenting lessons by being nonjudgmental and more-culpable-than-thou. 

It’s probably a smart approach for selling a worthwhile book. But I can’t help wishing that Ms. Guernsey had been less understanding and more forceful, for what her extensive research turns up is hardly any recommendation for putting small children in front of screens, whether televisions, computers or electronic teaching gadgets. 

It is true that studies have found that toddlers show more recognition of numbers and letters when they’ve spent time watching “

Sesame Street

.” And young children who watched “Barney” were judged to be more polite and socially cooperative than their peers who watched turbulent superhero shows. That’s lovely, and good for them–though, again, we don’t get comparisons with children raised in TV-free households.But over and over, Ms. Guernsey’s findings point away from the beneficence of the screen and toward the irreplaceable value of loving and engaged contact between parents and children–and between children and their own imaginations. “It is play, plain and simple play, that affords many of the most essential intellectual and social advantages for children,” Ms. Guernsey says, quoting from a book called “Einstein Never Used Flashcards.” At another point she writes: “Video exposure is no match for the stimulation children experience in real life. Scientists have so far come up with nothing to suggest that babies are better off watching a baby video than, say, watching Dad fold laundry.” 

Ms. Guernsey is tolerant and circumspect about what she has found. I don’t have to be. If you have small children at home, please turn off that wretched TV. 

Mrs. Gurdon writes about children’s books for The Wall Street Journal. You can buy “Into the Minds of Babes” from the OpinionJournal bookstore.  

 

Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Crimson in CloverWhy Harvard costs so much. 

Thursday, December 13, 2007 12:01 a.m. 

Harvard University got some nice press this week by announcing it will reduce tuition for middle-class families. It already allows students whose parents earn less than $60,000 a year to attend Harvard free. Now it promises that families making up to $180,000 will pay no more than 10% of their annual income to finance the $45,600 that a year in

Cambridge now costs. Drew Gilpin Faust, the school’s new president, said the policy is designed to help families facing “increasing pressures as middle-class lives have become more stressed.” Before applauding Harvard’s altruism too loudly, however, readers should know that the school also had its back against a wall. In September, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley held hearings on whether colleges should be forced to spend a higher percentage of their endowments each year. 

While private foundations have been required for decades to shell out 5% of their total assets annually, universities decide for themselves and average close to 4%. The difference may seem small, but the money at stake is very large. Harvard’s endowment is $35 billion, and growing, with implications that Fay Vincent illuminates nearby. Mr. Grassley wants to know why rich schools don’t spend more of their money to reduce ballooning tuition.  

When the hearings began, Kevin Casey, the senior director of federal and state relations at Harvard, told the Crimson student newspaper that “it may not be the best thing for Congress to dictate the formulas by which financial aid and endowment spend-out should be connected.” Mr. Casey is right. But given the hundreds of millions of dollars that the university receives from the government each year, Senators inevitably start to think that Harvard’s business is their business.  

 

 

 

 

Ironically, these government handouts are creating the tuition problem. Tuition has risen about three percentage points faster than inflation every year for the past quarter-century. At the same time, the feds have put more and more money behind student loans and other financial aid. The government is slowly becoming a third-party tuition payer, with all the price distortions one would expect. Every time tuition rises, the government makes up the difference; colleges thus cheerfully raise tuition (and budgets), knowing the government will step in.As a result, “colleges have little incentive to cut costs,” says economist Richard Vedder, the author of “Going Broke by Degree: Why College Costs Too Much.” Mr. Vedder explains that there are now twice as many university administrators per student as there were in the 1970s. Faculty members are paid more to teach fewer hours, and colleges have turned their campuses into “country clubs.” Princeton’s new $136 million dorm, according to BusinessWeek, has “triple-glazed mahogany casement windows made of leaded glass” and “the dining hall boasts a 35-foot ceiling gabled in oak and a ’state of the art servery,’ ” whatever a servery is. 

Our financial-aid system also hurts middle-class applicants. Parents who have saved money for their child’s tuition quickly find that, by the strange calculus of financial aid, they are charged more for college tuition than if they had blown their savings on a bigger house. Mr. Vedder wonders why universities should get to ask the income of their students before telling them how much they’ll be charged. That sounds like price discrimination: If a car dealer tried to make you fill out the form students have to fill out for financial aid, he notes, “you’d run to a consumer protection agency.” 

So is college still worth it? Though academic standards have certainly fallen, college graduates still, on average, make about twice as much over the course of their lifetimes as people with only a high school diploma. So if the government got out of the higher education business, a lot of families might decide to make the sacrifice anyway, even without the tuition aid. But they might also decide that they can live without the mahogany windows.  

 

Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Harvard for FreeHigher education is about to change as elite universities decide what to do with their huge endowments. 

BY FAY VINCENTThursday, December 13, 2007 12:01 a.m. 

On Monday Harvard said that next year it will substantially increase its financial aid to middle-class students, bringing its actual tuition costs down to or even below that of some state universities. This is possible because of Harvard’s–and other universities’–growing financial success, and it is a signal of far-reaching changes that will ripple throughout higher education.Superb investment returns have been generated by managers of the endowments of some of the elite private universities, including Harvard, Yale, and even of small liberal arts colleges like Amherst and Williams. The endowments of these four institutions range from $1.7 billion at

Amherst to $35 billion at Harvard, and the investment managers are getting annual returns well in excess of 20%. This is more than the alumni of any of those institutions could possibly contribute, and by an enormous margin.  

In 1970, when I became a trustee of Williams, the endowment stood at about $35 million. Even using constant dollars, the growth in the endowment since then has been astonishing. At June 30, 2007 it had reached approximately $1.9 billion.  

Much (but not all) of this growth is due to the major diversification in the investment mixture adopted by trustees of these schools, who realized some 30 years ago that sticking with the ancient formulae of stocks and bonds was no longer prudent. The change came about because the Sage of Omaha, Warren Buffett, persuaded

Grinnell College in 1976 to invest some $13 million in a local TV station that he had identified as a golden opportunity.  

Before then, boards at such places worried that nontraditional investments might raise legal issues, or subject them to criticism from alumni. But when the Buffett suggestion turned into a significant windfall of some $36 million for Grinnell in about five years, the rest of the endowment world got the point. I once asked

Warren if he had planned to cause such a major switch in strategy. He assured me he had not. “I just saw it as a good buy,” he said. 

Now, however, these enormous endowments are beginning to raise some fascinating issues for all of higher education. The most obvious issue is whether these schools can seriously claim to have any further need for donations from alumni and friends.And if, as seems likely, there is much less need for additional giving, does that not mean the administrations of these institutions can operate without the traditional checks and balances of informed alumni? The boards and administrations of the well-endowed schools can safely and proudly proclaim their independence.  

In the past, it would have been impossible to ignore alumni. Perhaps an early indication of what I am raising is the recent tussle at

Dartmouth over the number of trustees the alumni will be permitted to elect. There the administration has instituted a by-law change that will result in an increase in the number of trustees to be elected by the board, thereby decreasing the power of the alumni.  

In the present circumstances, the administration and boards of these schools now control the money because the endowment is managed by internally controlled entities. Accordingly, the most important voice at Yale would have to be the estimable and much-respected David Swenson, who has managed the Yale endowment to astonishing annual returns of over 20% for 10 years. Yale’s endowment is about $22.5 billion. What does this mean for the future of governance at Yale? I wonder.  

Similarly, these powerful investment returns will change tuition pricing and financial aid–and not just at Harvard. A scholar who follows these matters closely recently told me that he anticipates that the elite private colleges and universities will, in the not-too-distant future, stop charging tuition to any student whose annual family income is below the top 5% of all American families–currently around $200,000.  

We already have seen a competition among these schools as of late, with “Free to $30,000″ replaced by “Free to $40,000″ and now “Free to $60,000.” In fact, a recent announcement at

Phillips Exeter Academy, that they are offering a free boarding school education to admitted students whose families earn $75,000 or less, raised the stakes for higher education.  

If a “Free to $200,000″ policy were to be enacted at my alma mater,

Williams College, it would cost them only something like $15 million in net tuition revenue out of an operating budget of $200 million. At Harvard, the percentage contribution would be even less. Given the endowment performance at places like Williams and Harvard, they could easily adjust to the loss in tuition revenue. But what about all the lesser-endowed schools that are much more heavily dependant on tuition to maintain their financial stability? How can

Fairfield University–where I have served as a trustee–possibly forego tuition to that extent?  

What this means is that the cost of the educational Mercedes will be less than the educational Ford. And when Harvard is cheaper than Fairfield, how can

Fairfield increase tuition each year, when it will no longer have the umbrella of similar tuition increases being announced by places like Williams and Yale?  

I suspect many of us have viewed a four-year college education as a commodity that is priced within a reasonably narrow range. In the past, the

Fairfield cost was close to that at Williams. If, as is likely, the big guys drop tuition for all but the richest students, all this will change. 

There is another aspect of the financial aid universe that will be affected by these changes in pricing. Currently, there are universities and colleges granting what are known as “merit scholarships.” These are financial grants to students who have no demonstrated need.  

The Ivies, and many well-endowed institutions, profess only to grant aid based on need. But in the present circumstances, merit grants are being used to tempt talented students away from the Ivies. Some students accept these grants, and decline admission offers at the very elite schools in order to save money for graduate school costs. Thus, Harvard and Williams may be losing attractive students for largely financial reasons. In those cases, the merit offers make money a solid reason to go to a school down the food chain.  

If, as is likely, the big guys drop tuition, all this will change, too. And who can blame the elites for using what they have the most of–money and huge endowments. Because there are so few of these super-rich schools, the effects of their changes in policies will be felt slowly. But like the change in investment strategy Warren Buffett innocently suggested some 30 years ago, the size and growth of their endowments will have significant and not easily anticipated consequences. The ripples of moves made in Cambridge and

New Haven will be widely felt. 

Mr. Vincent, a former commissioner of Major League Baseball, is the author of “The Only Game in Town: Baseball Stars of the 1930s and 1940s Talk About the Game They Loved” (Simon & Schuster, 2006), the first in a multivolume oral-history project.  

 

Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Holiday Expectations
The Rev.

Christopher Hershman, MA, STM, DMin
Licensed Psychologist, Allentown, Pennsylvania

A woman once wrote to me that,
“The holidays are fast approaching, and I find myself dreading them. There is
so much to do. I can’t get it all done. Then there are also pressures from
both of our families to spend Christmas day with them. I feel like we spend
most of the day in our car traveling . The kids hate this. They get cranky
and want to play with their gifts. I get so stressed and feel guilty because
I take my frustrations out on them.” Unfortunately, she is not alone. In the weeks before Christmas I hear all kinds of horror
stories about family expectations, preparations that are expected to be perfect, and traveling that leaves people worn out, cranky and exhausted.

One man told me that he would have to drive hundreds of miles on Christmas Day to please his parents, his wife, his ex-wife, and his children. His trek would begin with opening presents with his wife and kids in Allentown, then off to visit his parents near Philadelphia. Then he would take the kids from his first marriage to Harrisburg to be with their mother in

Harrisburg. Then it was off to the Poconos to spend Christmas with his wife’s family. Finally he would return to

Allentown on Christmas night! I’m sure he was exhausted!

One couple told me that the holidays were absolutely horrible because the wife’s mother expected that all seven of her children, their spouses, and their children, and pets, had to stay in her tiny row home for at least five days over the holidays. Most everyone sleeps on the floor, and conditions are crowded, but if anyone protests or offers to stay in a motel, Mom goes into a manipulative fit of anger saying nobody loves her! Then there are all the thoughts about perfection, perfect gifts, perfect meals, perfect decorations, etc. Of these there are seemingly no end.

When we hear all those old songs such as, “There’s no place like home for the holidays” or “White Christmas” we tend to get caught up in projections and expectations that are just unrealistic. And so, is there any wonder why many people become really disappointed and stressed?

Despite all the hype about the holidays, we need to remember that Christmas is a religious holiday. Christmas is a time for peace and good will–not a time to pull your hair out or scream at your kids because of stress!

HOLIDAY EXPECTATIONS are a major problem. So why do we become their slaves? You
need to ask yourself what you really want the holidays to mean for you and your family. And then place your efforts into these things.

Everybody seems to want to shop, eat and drink, and go to parties–but what about worship? What if Jesus Christ–the real reason fro the season–was really the center of your celebrating?

Maybe we would be more reasonable about what we expect of ourselves and others.

This year, don’t drive yourself crazy trying to meet unrealistic and conflicting expectations, or by trying to have the “perfect” holiday. There certainly isn’t a perfect holiday except in your mind.

How many gifts do loved ones really need? How much decorating and food are really necessary?

You may need to set boundaries regarding the expectations of others. It is perfectly acceptable to spread out holiday visits and to even CREATE NEW FAMILY TRADITIONS.

Children and adults have a hard time with extensive holiday traveling and exhausting schedules. Try to do only what is reasonable in light of the present circumstances.

Mom and Dad may have always had all the family over on Christmas, but now that the kids are grown, live all over the country, have small children themselves, and have in-laws that are also spread out, its probably unreasonable and unrealistic to expect that this “old family tradition”? can be maintained indefinitely.

There are numerous possibilities and opportunities that could be explored: maybe Mom and Dad can take turns visiting, etc. Be firm and don’t get manipulated by guilt and shame.

Maybe we could learn something from Mary, the Mother of Jesus. It is not the Queen of Heaven that we meet in Luke’s nativity story, but a flesh and blood member of the peasantry in Israel.

I have personally visited and seen her house in Nazareth. The angel visited her in a poor and tiny, one room, mud brick house, no bigger that a small log cabin. And what happened certainly caused that first
Christmas to be far different from anyone, including her family, ever expected.

In the rest of Luke and Acts we get only brief glimpses of Mary. Blue has traditionally been the
color associated with Mary, and in a number of churches today blue paraments and stoles have replaced the traditional violet for Advent as a symbol of hope.

As we think of Mary, Mary is a practical model for our own discipleship and growth. She was willing to believe that the impossible was possible with God, and that it could be even accomplished through her!

And most importantly, she was humble. Her words, particularly her words from the Magnificat, are devoid of the pretenses that we often use to puff ourselves up, and which seem to cause us so much stress.  Luke 1: 46 And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord 47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed,     49for the Mighty One has done great things for me–holy is his name. 50 His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation. 51 He has performed mighty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.  52 He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. 53 He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty. 54 He has helped his servant Israel, remembering to be merciful  55 to Abraham and his descendants forever,       even as he said to our fathers.” The focus of Mary during that first Christmas was the coming of Jesus. As is expected of a new mother, she could think about nothing else. But her focus was not only on Jesus, but upon God’s never-ending blessings.

So what about the rest of us? Can we also be so single minded in faith to focus on the love of God this Christmas?

Maybe you know a little girl or boy who is positive that the gift they want the most will be under the Christmas tree. Nothing can shake that child’s confidence. No matter how often they hear words like, “That might not be possible. You know you don’t get everything you want for Christmas” their faith remains firm. The impossible will happen.

Mary had that kind of faith. She believed that the impossible was possible. She believed that the Lord’s words would come to pass.

May we also be open to believing the impossible; That God can come to us this Christmas! May we also be lifted up to know that “Tomorrow comes!”

Enjoy the holidays. Don’t drive yourself and your kids crazy and need a long vacation to recover from them. May we all have a calm, peaceful Christmas, focused on the coming of Jesus Christ as our Lord.

Characteristics of a Healthy Family 

Communication - clear, open, direct (verbal & non-verbal), feelings and emotions freely expressed, anger seen as a need for change, each hears and responds to others

 

Autonomy - family consists of separate individuals, each takes responsibility for personal actions and behavior

 

Acceptance - respect for the unique experience of others

 

Structure - clear, flexible roles, the family script, consistent rules help resolve conflict

 

Leadership - power shared appropriately by parents, fair without domination, humiliation or scapegoating, no one told what to think or feel; even the youngest is considered able to contribute

 

Partnership - strong bonding and coalition of parents

 

Flexibility - give and take, adapt to individual needs & changing circumstances, change not seen as threatening

 

Appreciation - encouragement & praise create self-esteem, loving acceptance without judgmental attitudes

 

Support Networks - inside and outside the family, provide strength & stability for coping with problems & stresses

 

Family Time - attention is paid to doing things together

 

Growth - warm, nurturing, fulfilling atmosphere

 

Need for Intimacy - tenderness not seen as weakness, sexual interest considered a generally positive force

 

Religion, Philosophy and Reality - positive values and beliefs, world-view is realistic but extends beyond the present

 

ReferenceNo Single Thread: Psychological Health in Family Systems, JM Lewis et al, 1976, Brunner/Mazel, New York (Study by the Timberlawn Foundation,

Dallas, Texas).

 I wish to dedicate this article on trust to Mary, a young woman living in the UK, who recently asked me some very good questions on trust and inspired me to write this.

I have been involved with addictions counseling for almost 30 years. One fact about addicts is that addicts lie. Rarely do addicts tell the truth to their spouses, girlfriends or boyfriends, their children, their families, their bosses or coworkers, to the world, to God, or even to themselves. After a while, addicts have told so many lies and mistruths that they don’t themselves even know what the truth is anymore.

 Just about every addict I have met over the years has likely said something like, “Just trust me, I’m telling the truth. Please just give me another chance,”

The problem is that every addict has already been given 1001 chances by just about everyone who has ever trusted them. And those folks have all likely been left down, ripped off or abused in one way or another.

Part of the problem is that we don’t call the addicts in our lives to any sense of responsibility. Most addicts gravitate to an over-functioning codependent who enables the very worst of the worst behavior of the addict, and by over functioning and being overly responsible that codependent is unknowingly doing everything possible to keep that addict on the road to denial and self-destruction.

Unfortunately, because addiction is just one manifestation of human sin, and since every person who lives on this earth is a sinner (cf. 1John 1), the lies and dishonesty engaged in by addicts are not much different than the lies and dishonesty engaged in by just about everybody else as well.

And so, the truth is that most people I meet have trust problems of some sort with somebody. And sometimes those trust issues are pretty big ones, like an extra-marital affair.

Now why is it that I tend to hear the same kind of thing in these cases that I hear from addicts: “Just trust me, I’m telling the truth. Please just give me another chance.”

Sometimes, people who have gone out of their way to violate trust–or even complete strangers–have the audacity to act like they are insulted if someone doesn’t just GIVE THEM their trust. Now THAT is really arrogant. And anyone who would trust someone who has proven themselves to be untrustworthy, or who would be willing to trust a complete stranger in this sometimes very dangerous world is not only being really silly and naive–that person is also being downright irresponsible.

I have joked on occasion that I’ve come to the conclusion that Samson was the stupidest man in the Bible (Judges 14-16). You see, Samson had a recurrent relational problem which drew him to be attracted to women whom he could not trust. He was a very strong guy, but this was his “fatal flaw” so to speak.

In the end, the same woman lied to Samson and betrayed him a number of times the exact same way. And yet did Samson ever learn his lesson? Nope, he always fell for her phony lies, deceptions and tears.  She would say, “Samson, if you really loved me you would tell me the truth about how a big strong guy like you can be effectively weakened, bound and subdued by his enemies.”

Well, against his better judgment, Samson eventually told his lovely Delilah the truth and he was captured by his enemies and they gouged his eyes out and made him a slave.

Not a pretty thought! Unfortunately, Samson was no more stupid than the rest of us. Many of us get into these same kinds of relational patterns too.

We meet someone, they seem nice, we don’t hold to our own relational boundaries very well, and we have wishful thinking that things will somehow work out better this time than they did the previous 1001 times.  

You know, it is said that “You fool me once, shame on you; you fool me twice, shame on me.” There is a lot of truth in that statement. And there is no reason that Christians have to be as naive and “stupid” when dealing with potentially dangerous situations and untrustworthy people.

Before I went to seminary I used to work as an addictions counselor with lots of “street people” type alcoholics and drug addicts. Listening to the their discussions with each other and the jokes they made, it was clear that just as circus owner P.T. Barnum once said, “There is a sucker born every minute” most addicts apparently think there is a pastor born every minute. I used to hear these guys laugh and joke about what really stupid stories they could tell Christian people, especially the clergy, and get all kinds of money from them to buy drugs and alcohol.

It is often said, “What would Jesus do?” Unfortunately, even though it may feel good at the time, enabling an addict to die in his or her addiction is NOT exactly what Jesus would do. This is also true about the lies of other untrustworthy people too.

In the scriptures we are presented with a very clear picture of Jesus who understood when he was “being tested” and Jesus always responded so wisely to his opponents that they were either amazed by or angered by the craftiness of Jesus’ ways of dealing with dishonesty. Jesus was obviously well aware of the social and political dynamics around him, knew very well when and where he was going to be arrested as well as the fact that he would be betrayed, denied and abandoned by the very people who claimed to love him. Jesus made a conscious choice to suffer and die on the cross not because he was a naive “chump” or “stupid.” Rather, he chose to die on the cross because he wanted to free everyone who believes in him from our sins!

As Christians living in a sinful world we need not be naive about that people are sinners and will lie, distort the truth and mislead us much of the time. Jesus does not expect his followers to be naive “chumps” or “stupid.”

Instead, in his parables be commends even somewhat dishonest servants because of their wisdom (Luke 16:1-8) and others because of their wise investments and use of their talents (Matthew 25:14-30), and instructs us directly, “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves (Matthew 10:16).

For this reason there are a number of key points that need to be considered about trust: Trust is a rational as well as an emotional act. When we trust someone we emotionally expose our vulnerabilities to other people, believing they will not take advantage of our openness and vulnerability.

When we trust someone, we need to rationally assess the probabilities of gain and loss, calculating expected utility based on hard performance and historical data. On the basis of this data, we must be able to conclude that the person in question will behave in a predictable manner.

In practice, trust is a bit of both. I trust you because I have experienced your trustworthiness and because we are willing to take a calculated risk on the basis of faith, hope and love.

We typically feel trust in some relationships. Emotions associated with trust include companionship, friendship, love, agreement, relaxation, comfort. At other times, we also have fearful misgivings in our hearts about someone because we just have that dreadful feeling that we can’t trust that person. We need to listen to these emotional signals when we receive clear indications that something just doesn’t seem right.

There are a number of different ways in which we define trust.

A. Trust means being able to predict what other people will do and what situations will occur. If we can surround ourselves with people we trust, then we can create a safe present environment and an even better future.

People normally make forecasts about their future. We develop internal models about how to make rational decisions in particular situations. These worldviews are based both on our experiences and what others tell us, and then we use these parameters to make an informed guess about what will happen next. This allows us to spot and prepare for threats and also make plans to achieve our longer-term goals.

The greatest unpredictability is at 50%; a reliable enemy can be preferable to an unpredictable friend, as at least we know where we are with them. It really hurts, for example when our spouse, a family member or good friend betrays us or lets us down regarding something really important to us.

B. Trust means making an exchange with someone when you do not have full knowledge about them, their intent and the things they are offering to you.

Most of what we do with other people is based around some level of exchange. This is the basis for all business as well as personal relationships. In its simplest form it involves the exchange of goods: I will swap you two sheep for one cow. It is relatively easy to calculate the value in such material bargaining. Things get more complicated when less tangible forces come into play. A parent exchanges attention for love. A company exchanges not only pay but good working conditions for the intellectual and manual efforts of its workforce. A man and a woman fall in love.

Value exchange works because we each value different things differently. If I have a whole flock of sheep but no milk, then I can do business with a person who has a herd of cows but no clothes. This principle of reciprocity is what binds societies together. When we buy a car, don’t want to be sold a lemon which the salesman knows to be ready for the hunk yard. When we get advice in business, we want it to be based on facts, not wild opinions.

Rellational reciprocity breaks down, however, when one party in the relationship becomes much more committed to or dependent on the relationship that the other. The overt inequality in level of commitment gives the less committed party tremendous power in being able to control and manipulate the relationship. For example, if a patron at an antique “flea market” accidentially to a companion that she “must have” a particuliar antique chair for her livingroom within earshot of the seller just before inquiring about the price of the item, she would likely find a much higher price than if she feined relative indifference about the item. One typically can get a better price at a flea market if the seller truly wants to move the item and the potential buyer is willing to walk away if the item is over-priced. It is likely that one will pay far more for the same item if the seller is indifferent about the sale and the potential buyer is willing to pay far more than the item is really worth. Value exchange works in such a situation because it is likely that the seller is willing to sell the item at a fair price and a potential buyer is willing to purchase the item at a fair price. Consequently, there is an implied balance to the relationship which likely results in a similiar level of cost and reward for both parties to the relationship.

It is not inappropriate to take these same commercial principles into the realm of interpersonal human relationships. Clifford Sager was a marriage and family therapist who wrote a number of very helpful books on the subject of overt and covert marital contracts. Sager pointed out that every interpersonal relationship involves and implied cotract. A marital contract may look something like the undersstanding that, “When we get married I promise to love you and our children, remain sexually faithful, and work hard to provide the financial resources necessary for us to purchase a home, several automobiles, vacation yearly, save for the future and raise our children; Meanwhile, you will also love me and the children, likewise remain sexually faithful, work part-time, but take a more active role at home and with the children.”

However, family therapists have also noted inequalities in relational commitments which significantly impact the overall dynamics of the relationship. When two people form a relationship or marry, they begin to move towards one another with the expectation of closeness. The emotionality or intensity that accompanies this process, however, may result in fusion followed by a desperate need for space or distance. This has been termed the pursuer-distancer interaction,

C. Trust means giving something now with an expectation that it will be repaid, possibly in some unspecified way at some unspecified time in the future.

Fair exchange is not only about an immediate swapping of cows and sheep or hugs and kisses. What makes companies and societies really work is that something is given now, but the return is often paid back some time in the future. The advantage of this is that we can create a more flexible environment, where you can get what you need when you need it, rather than having to save up for it. Trust now becomes particularly important, because otherwise we are apparently giving something for nothing. The delay that has been added to the reciprocal arrangement adds a higher level of uncertainty which then needs to be mitigated through trust.

The “golden rule” is a simple formula for creating trust. Jesus taught, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Luke 6:31). This principle for living sets up the dynamic for our giving something now with the hope of getting something back at some specified or unspecified time in indeterminate future.

D. Trust in value exchange occurs when we do not know fully whether what we are going to receive is what we expect to receive.

When we trust other individuals, we may not only be giving them something in hope of getting something else back in the future, we may also be exposing ourselves in a way that they can take advantage of our vulnerabilities. If I buy a car from you and I do not know a good price, you can lie to me so you get a better bargain. If I tell you in confidence about the problems I am having with work, you could use this to further your own career at my expense.

Although the threat of retribution or projected feelings of guilt can counteract your temptation to abuse my exposed vulnerabilities, if you succumb I still get hurt and may still end up with the shorter stick. For our transaction to complete successfully, I must be able to trust that such agonies will not come to pass.

So it is expected that there will be some reasonable expectation that something will help insure our expected outcome. I have often had discussions with the codependent spouse of an addict who says that addict has now made the 1002nd promise to stop using drugs or alcohol. Far too often they express their naïve and forlorne hope that THIS TIME they can actually believe that their addict is finally telling the truth. In such situations I am often quick to do a reality check: Has your addicted spouse made a genuine commitment to go to an inpatient drug and alcohol rehabilitation center, enter outpatient counseling, attend Twelve-Step meetings (like Alcoholics Anonymous [AA] or Narcotics Anonymous [NA]), get more involved with church, make some non-addicted friends or even to stop going out to the bar every night after work? Well, unfortunately the answer is usually a clear and unequivocal “NO!” which means, of course, that absolutely nothing has changed. For the addict, it is business as usual, and this is just another lie.

Some time ago I ran out of gasoline simply because I was not paying attention to my gasoline gage and it was very low to begin with. I was in a rush to get somewhere and forgot to stop at the gasoline station for gas.

Well, I got my stalled car over to the side of the road, put the emergency flashers on, and set out on foot for the closest gasoline station I could think of. It was a not summer day and I had to walk several miles. When I finally arrived at the station I purchased a five gallon gas can and filled it up.

 Then I looked back at the way I came. It dreaded the thought of going on that long hot walk with that five gallon can of gas, so the thought then occured to me that maybe someone might be willing to give me a ride.

Immediately, I pulled out all my various forms of identification from my wallet as well as one of my business cards. I realized that, even in this day and age when people are worried about strangers, criminals, car jackings and all that, that I might be able to convince someone that I was someone who was worth it for them to take a risk.

The very first person I saw was a professionally dressed young man with a pick up truck. I explained to him that I was a psychologist and pastor and he immediately agreed to give me a ride. It turns out that he was from Iowa and was a medical doctor doing his residency at Lehigh Valley Hospital. I was so appreciative of his help.

What disturbs me is that the people I can’t trust typically have no interest in proving their character to me. Instead, they get defensive and act insulted that I asked for some verification about themselves, and then they attack and try to manipulate me with guilt and shame when I don’t immediately grant their request. That is a good indicator that they can’t be trusted.

Some of my favorite slogans are the following:

1. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again bur expecting results.

2. We teach people how to treat us.

3. There are no victims, only volunteers.

4. The word “NO” is a complete sentence.

5. Honest people can be “transparent” because they have nothing to hide.

6. Trust cannot be given; it must be earned.

From the latter comes a simple three step process for establishing or rebuilding trust:

1. You say what you are going to do.

2. You do what you said you were going to do.

3. You repeat steps one and two.

Typically, we put up with a whole lot of things from people that we should never have to put up with. Despite our rationalizations and intellectualizations about why we are willing to do this, it ultimately comes down to our own insecurities and lack of faith in God. We are willing to live with addicts and adulterers and just plain dishonest people because we are afraid to put our foot doen and say, “Enough is enough.”

What would Jesus do? Jesus knew how to set relational boundaries. What about you?

The Rev. Dr. Chrstopher Hershman
December 1, 2007

The Difference Between Truth and Honesty 

Truth is empirical, demonstrable fact. Your bank balance, today’s date, whether or not you’re married. 

Honesty is about feelings. If you’re honest, you are open and clear about how you feel. You can be truthful without being honest and you can be honest without being truthful (the latter a little more difficult). The best relationships, stating the painfully obvious, are both truthful and honest. Trust is built on both truth and honesty, tempered by the proof of predictability and reliability.

The Difference Between Secret And Private 

Private matters are those traits, truths, beliefs, and ideas about ourselves that we keep to ourselves. They might include our fantasies and daydreams, feelings about the way the world works, and spiritual beliefs. Private matters, when revealed either accidentally or purposefully, give another person some insight into the revealer. 

Secrets, on the other hand, consist of information that has potentially negative impact on someone else-emotionally, physically, or financially. Secrets, when revealed either accidentally or purposefully, cause great chaos or harm to the secret-keeper and those around him or her. 

Private: I’m a Christian but I sort of believe in reincarnation (a Hindu belief). 

Secret: I have a wife and a mistress and neither knows about the other. 

Private: I got terrible grades in high school. 

Secret: I forged my medical degree.