« Life and Learning in June | Main | Fertility Gap: 41 Percent »
May 24, 2007
Not Coming to a School Near You
From a children's encyclopedia (first printing, 1914), on a man whom the writer justly calls our most popular President, Teddy Roosevelt:
"While at college he taught a Sunday School class. One day one of his students came to class with a black eye. He owned up that he had got it in a fight and on a Sunday at that. He confessed to his teacher that during the morning service a boy, sitting next to his sister, had pricked her all through the hour, so after church he waited outside and they had a good 'stand-up fight,' and he 'punched him good,' although he got a black eye in exchange. 'You did exactly right,' said his teacher and gave the lad a dollar. To the class it was ideal justice, but when the church authorities heard of it they were scandalized. Young Roosevelt was dismissed and took himself and his ideals to another Sunday School.
"Many years later he gave this bit of advice to his Boy Scout friends: 'What we have a right to expect of the American boy is that he shall turn out to be a good American man. Now, the chances are strong that he won't turn out to be much of a man unless he is a good deal of a boy. He must not be a coward or a weakling, a bully, a shirk, or a prig. He must work hard and play hard. He must be clean-minded and clean-lived, and able to hold his own under all circumstances and against all comers. It is only on these conditions that he will grow into the kind of a man of whom America can be really proud. In life, as in a football game, the principle is: Hit the line hard; don't foul and don't shirk, but hit the line hard.'"
It's impossible to imagine these words written for a children's encyclopedia now. That's not only because of what is said, but also how it is said. The style is plain and direct, with a dash of the colloquial in just the right spots. But it is also subtle and intelligent, leaving many things unsaid -- the writer doesn't need to moralize about the first anecdote, but leaves the reader with a genial wink. I doubt whether one child in ten nowadays would understand that there's meant to be a connection between the two anecdotes, and that what Teddy says to the Boy Scouts codifies in a general rule what the lad at Sunday School exemplified in a particular and upstanding way. And a dollar was a lot of money in those days, too.
I see that even then, though, you could get in a little trouble with the churchly for encouraging an honest fight. It is as if Jesus commanded us not to turn our own cheeks, but to turn everybody else's, so that when your sister is pestered relentlessly all through the Sunday service, you say to her, bravely and nobly, "It's not a big deal, is it? Forgive him," when you can with greater effectiveness and real Christian charity deck the lout and ask her to forgive him afterwards.
The thing about Teddy's speech to the Boy Scouts that fascinates me, though, is not that Teddy would say such a thing (he was forever saying such things), nor that the writer of the encyclopedia article would see fit to report it for the edification of his young readers, especially the boys. After all, in those days there was a veritable cascade of reading material for boys, about heroes and explorers and inventors. It's that the boys would understand what he was talking about -- and would cheer him, too; I doubt they sat in incomprehending or sullen silence as he spoke to them so. When he said "clean-minded," they had at least a vague notion of what that meant. He said that they should not be cowards, shirkers, prigs, bullies, and weaklings, and they knew what he was getting at there, too. In other words, it's remarkable to me not just that there was somebody named Teddy Roosevelt who would say such things to boys, but that there were boys who would accept such words from somebody named Teddy Roosevelt.
None of the priggishness of political correctness here; no weakling celebration of having been a victim or a chump, or perhaps of claiming to have been a victim or a chump; no cowardly running away from the hard facts of life; no excuses to allow the shirker to slide through his youth devoting his mind and heart to nothing. Yes, we now do discourage bullying, certainly -- but now too a black eye is far away from the worst that can happen to your child in school. Not coincidental, that. And we still have the bullies anyway.
Posted by Anthony Esolen at 11:32 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d835481abc53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Not Coming to a School Near You:
» Duty, honour, country from feminine-genius
As usual, Anthony Esolen has found an excellent example of chivalry, and expanded with his own commentary. The piece he found concerned an encyclopedia entry on Teddy Roosevelt:While at college he taught a Sunday School class. One day one of his studen... [Read More]
Tracked on May 25, 2007 11:53:53 AM
» Bully good advice from Transforming Sermons
It seems ideas of manliness have changed substantially since my grandfather was a boy. [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 4, 2007 8:40:54 AM
Comments
Excellent post.
Could you provide us with details as to which Encyclopedia this was from?
Keep writing and posting please!
Matt
Posted by: Matt | May 25, 2007 2:59:12 AM
"The credit belongs to the man who actually is in the arena, who strives violently, who errs and comes up short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause, who if he wins knows the triumph of high achievement; but who if he fails, fails while daring greatly, so his place will never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
"I despise a man who surrenders his conscience to a multitude as much as I do one who surrenders it to one man."
"Do not hit at all if it can be avoided, but never hit softly."
"The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with the man who loves other women as much as his own wife."
Courtesy of Theodore Roosevelt
Posted by: David Gray | May 25, 2007 6:02:58 AM
A conversation with the German ambassador prior to our entry into WWI:
Ambassador: America will never enter the war against Germany.
Roosevelt: Why is that?
Ambassador: Because there are a million Germans in America who would rise up to defend the Fatherland.
Roosevelt: That is all right, we have a million and one lampposts from which to hang them.
Posted by: David Gray | May 25, 2007 6:05:58 AM
Tony,
You are a most generous man to share your eloquence with the rest of us. As always, thanks for another excellent post.
David,
"Do not hit at all if it can be avoided, but never hit softly."
A lesson with much current application. If only those who need to hear it most were listening.
Posted by: GL | May 25, 2007 6:38:37 AM
Yesterday, while waiting for my wife at the mall, I chanced upon a scuffle played out on the asphalt, under the facade of Barnes and Nobles.
But this was no honorable duel, rewarded by the better Roosevelt. This scuffle was a tête-à-tête between mall security (an oxymoron if there ever was one) and two shirtless pubescents, stomping on their skateboards.
The partners couldn't believe they were being asked, politely, to curtail their thrill quest (and, perhaps, prurient peacock dance). They were even more offended that they were required to amend their shirtless attire, by -- I suppose -- shirtting on themselves.
Up to this point, Teddy might not have found much to disavow. Skateboarding is distantly related to sport, in the sense that the Huns and Greeks both could be described as societies. And TR may not have found shirtlessness offensive. He probably swam naked, but there were no women around the pool. Waist-up nakedness was still naked when the nicer, softer gender were about -- and there were some perambulators of this sort in the parking lot.
No, where the Big Stick would have bristled was at the moment the boys engaged in that peculiar modernist habit of "hostile wailing." They actually wept -- hot salt water streaking dirt tracks down their pockmarked, jejeune-bristled cheeks. They stuttered, inarticulate, their grievances at being charged to cease and clothe.
At the same time, oddly, they grimaced in rage, clenching fists, planning even at the moment to wage revenge, that night, when it was safe, of course. After all, the clenched fists and the rhetoric were impotent, unfortunately unlike the more biological appurtenances that had seen too much service.
But tonight was different: a little time jumping the curbs, certainly, then to work on scattering trash from the dumpsters, slashing a few tires, breaking a little glass. "We'll show them who rules the night."
All under the facade of Barnes and Nobles, where the biographies of TR are for sale, but not his stories of Sunday School, or the Boy Scouts.
Posted by: Postman | May 25, 2007 7:36:26 AM
I discussed this anecdote with my wife Sunday; you see, I begin teaching a Sunday School class in September and as T.R. has always been one of my heroes, it will be wonderful to lose the same position he lost, for a similar reason!
Among T.R.'s many overlooked accomplishments, he was largely responsible for the importation and popularization of the Japanese martial arts in this country - I got my M.A. thesis out of that, actually: "The Gentle Art and the Strenuous Life".
T.R. was Dutch Reformed, and his picture and Stonewall Jackson's are going up on my Presbyterian classroom wall. (I'm not actually trying to lose this assignment, but I do intend to find our quickly whether doing it right will be tolerated or not.)
Posted by: Joe Long | May 25, 2007 7:46:25 AM
I just came across a book from England, The Dangerous Book for Boys. I don't know what the danger is, unless it be the danger of prescribing anything for boys instead of generic children, but it is full of wonderful old-fashioned things like how to make the perfect paper airplane, the knots you need to know how to tie, how to make a bow and arrows, and the seven wonders of the ancient world -- practical knowledge and knowledge of the world. I will give it to my grandson in the hope that it will pry him away from his gameboy and his nintendo for a brief moment.
Posted by: Judy Warner | May 25, 2007 8:00:46 AM
>I just came across a book from England, The Dangerous Book for Boys.
Al Mohler was just writing about that book...
Posted by: David Gray | May 25, 2007 8:02:42 AM
Judy,
That looks great. Maybe one day I will have some grandson's I can use it with. In the mean time, I am very happy with my girls.
In my day, those things were just a part of growing up. We made a weapon for which there is no politically correct name our of the fork of a tree and cut up inner tube. We made tin can cannons and blew up potatoes with fire crackers. We caught crawdads with bacon and string. Life was good.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | May 25, 2007 8:11:09 AM
Here's part of an interview with one of the authors, from Amazon:
Amazon.com: It's difficult to describe what a phenomenon The Dangerous Book for Boys was in the UK last year. When I would check the bestseller list on our sister site, Amazon.co.uk, there would be, along with your book, which spent much of the year at the top of the list, a half-dozen apparent knockoff books of similar boy knowledge. Clearly, you tapped into something big. What do you think it was?Iggulden: In a word, fathers. I am one myself and I think we've become aware that the whole "health and safety" overprotective culture isn't doing our sons any favors. Boys need to learn about risk. They need to fall off things occasionally, or--and this is the important bit--they'll take worse risks on their own. If we do away with challenging playgrounds and cancel school trips for fear of being sued, we don't end up with safer boys--we end up with them walking on train tracks. In the long run, it's not safe at all to keep our boys in the house with a Playstation. It's not good for their health or their safety.
You only have to push a boy on a swing to see how much enjoys the thrill of danger. It's hard-wired. Remove any opportunity to test his courage and they'll find ways to test themselves that will be seriously dangerous for everyone around them. I think of it like playing the lottery--someone has to say "Look, you won't win--and your children won't be hurt. Relax. It won't be you."
I think that's the core of the book's success. It isn't just a collection of things to do. The heroic stories alone are something we haven't had for too long. It isn't about climbing Everest, but it is an attitude, a philosophy for fathers and sons. Our institutions are too wrapped up in terror over being sued--so we have to do things with them ourselves. This book isn't a bad place to start.
As for knockoff books--great. They'll give my son something to read that doesn't involve him learning a dull moral lesson of some kind--just enjoying an adventure or learning skills and crafts so that he has a feeling of competence and confidence--just as we have.
Posted by: Judy Warner | May 25, 2007 8:11:20 AM
"Backyard Ballistics" is another dangerous book for boys...lots of great stuff there. Um...best to be pretty sure they're the sort of healthy boys Roosevelt was talking to, actually, before you let 'em get hold of it.
Posted by: Joe Long | May 25, 2007 8:28:03 AM
Dr. Esolen:
I have noticed that over the last few months (perhaps it is a long time interest?) you have posted several comments about boys and "manliness." I appreciate all of these very much, and think we are necessarily at a point of reclaiming what it means to be a man, in a more traditional sense. The wild popularity of the "The Dangerous Book for Boys" is I think a sign of a deep hunger.
You write wonderfully about these things. Would you consider writing a book to look at these issues for a broader audience? James Bowman at the EPPC (http://www.eppc.org/publications/bookID.60/book_detail.asp) has written a book entitled "Honor" that is written I think with a similar concern. Anyway, here's hoping. Thanks.
Posted by: Tim | May 25, 2007 9:51:04 AM
Judy,
Thanks for the reference to The Dangerous Book for Boys. I had never heard of it, but as a father of a soon-to-be six-year-old, I am definitely planning on buying it. The video brought back some memories. If viewed by a feminizer, it may induce a heart attack or stroke. One can hope.
(Did that sound like Ann Coulter? ;-) -- I still don't like her even if I sometimes act like her.)
Posted by: GL | May 25, 2007 11:09:14 AM
GL, it is remarkable how this post reflects upon the one dealing with Coulter. If she were a man would she get half as much scorn as she does? She certainly "hits the line hard". So did Thatcher, the Iron Lady, when most of her male counterparts were weak in the knees.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | May 25, 2007 11:17:07 AM
I should have said "soon-to-be six-year-old boy."
Posted by: GL | May 25, 2007 11:17:38 AM
One of the commenters on Amazon.com regarding The Dangerous Book for Boys noted this from Chesterton:
A child's instinct is almost perfect in the matter of fighting; a child always stands for the good militarism as against the bad. The child's hero is always the man or boy who defends himself suddenly and splendidly against aggression. The child's hero is never the man or boy who attempts by his mere personal force to extend his mere personal influence. In all boys' books, in all boys' conversation, the hero is one person and the bully the other. That combination of the hero and bully in one, which people now call the Strong Man or the Superman, would be simply unintelligible to any schoolboy....But really to talk of this small human creature, who never picks up an umbrella without trying to use it as a sword, who will hardly read a book in which there is no fighting, who out of the Bible itself generally remembers the "bluggy" [bloody] parts, who never walks down the garden without imagining himself to be stuck all over with swords and daggers--to take this human creature and talk about the wickedness of teaching him to be military, seems rather a wild piece of humour. He has already not only the tradition of fighting, but a far manlier and more genial tradition of fighting than our own. No; I am not in favour of the child being taught militarism. I am in favour of the child teaching it.
Amen.
Posted by: Michael | May 25, 2007 11:29:05 AM
I was going to bring up the 'maleness,' of Ann on that thread, but couldn't think of an inoffensive way to suggest that part of the problem maybe that it is coming from a lady. As I wasn't sure of the thesis I didn't say any, but I couldn’t help thinking if Chesterton was against female suffrage because he felt it beneath the dignity of the fairer sex, then what would he have thought about political commentary the likes of which Ann is accustom to?
Posted by: Bob Gardner | May 25, 2007 11:37:49 AM
Re: "Not coming..."
What's Sunday School? Even the context would be mysterious for most young people nowadays. I just last evening attended the Spring Celebration presentation at my daughters' school. The various acts were interspersed with sermonettes about how much garbage we were collectively making (I could make a snide remark here regarding the pageant's content itself, but forbear). The whole evening concluded with the song, "We've got the whole world in our hands", to the tune familiar to us from Sunday School. Had the producers of the event been acquainted with that particular institution, as the subject Encyclopedia's readers would have been, they would have realised that to replace God with men as those responsible for the world (one which, according to the song, didn't appear to include "you and me, brother," but only assorted flora and fauna) is idolatry. I'm thankful my daughters seemed to realise as much, when my wife and I discussed it with them before bed.
Posted by: Gordon L Belyea | May 25, 2007 11:52:05 AM
"GL, it is remarkable how this post reflects upon the one dealing with Coulter. If she were a man would she get half as much scorn as she does? She certainly "hits the line hard". So did Thatcher, the Iron Lady, when most of her male counterparts were weak in the knees." - Christopher Hathaway.
In addition to Thatcher, I was also thinking of Golda Meir, Deborah in the Bible, and Joan of Arc. All of those women were courageous and endured criticism. Same as Ann Coulter.
[of course the Liberals could name their own courageous "heroines" which would make me blanch, but hey, can't win 'em all.]
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | May 25, 2007 11:57:22 AM
Just to clarify that isn't my problem with Ann, but I wonder if some of her harsher critics (not those here) think it unseemly.
Posted by: Bob Gardner | May 25, 2007 11:58:46 AM
I did not mean to reopen the Coulter Conflict on this thread. See my replies on Coulter on Falwell.
Posted by: GL | May 25, 2007 12:16:02 PM
Let's leave Ann be. Could be that, like Deborah, she stands partly as a reproach to men who fail to relish righteous combat. It's perhaps significant that a discussion of the cultivation of masculine virtues should quickly veer off in that direction, though...like a "Cheers" episode I vaguely remember, where a couple of the guys are looking for inspiration for masculinity and cite "Thelma and Louise".
Posted by: Joe Long | May 25, 2007 12:20:52 PM
>>The whole evening concluded with the song, "We've got the whole world in our hands", to the tune familiar to us from Sunday School. Had the producers of the event been acquainted with that particular institution, as the subject Encyclopedia's readers would have been, they would have realised that to replace God with men as those responsible for the world (one which, according to the song, didn't appear to include "you and me, brother," but only assorted flora and fauna) is idolatry. I'm thankful my daughters seemed to realise as much, when my wife and I discussed it with them before bed.<<
Whatever happened to Raffi? I learned that song from him, along with "Baby Beluga," that made abundantly clear that "Heaven's above." Return, Children's Troubador!
Posted by: Michael | May 25, 2007 12:28:29 PM
A slightly longer version of the quote from Chesterton re: boys and "militarism" is posted on The Hebdomadal Chesterton blog. I post one long-ish excerpt from his writings each week. If you like Chesterton, feel free to stop by once in a while.
Posted by: cnb | May 25, 2007 12:49:04 PM
By all means, let's keep Ann to her own thread.
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | May 25, 2007 1:05:07 PM
Well, I brought this thread onto the Ann thread, so I suppose some are returning the compliment.
Posted by: Judy Warner | May 25, 2007 1:14:18 PM
As much as I desire to raise daughters (after, Lord willing, I find a wife), I would relish the opportunity to teach sons how to swordfight and build forts.
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | May 25, 2007 1:22:16 PM
If we're going to discuss strong, polarizing leaders who had hard-hitting things to say and who held staunch convictions, why not bring up Ann Coulter, Teddy Roosevelt, and our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ?
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | May 25, 2007 1:24:55 PM
Ethan, may you marry someone like Ann Coulter. Someone with her own mind, has the courage of her convictions, and is the epitome of a Proverbs 31 woman. (you like the last part, eh? ;-)
Then she can teach your sons how to swordfight and build forts.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | May 25, 2007 1:27:44 PM
>>As much as I desire to raise daughters (after, Lord willing, I find a wife), I would relish the opportunity to teach sons how to swordfight and build forts.<<
I am of the same persuasion: may the Lord bless me how he sees fit, but from my human perspective, how I would love girls. I'm a blackbelt in TaeKwonDo and spent two years learning kendo and six months in fencing, so I would absolutely relish the chance to teach a son the fun stuff.
Posted by: Michael | May 25, 2007 1:34:34 PM
"I'm a blackbelt in TaeKwonDo and spent two years learning kendo and six months in fencing,..." - Michael
Do you know firearms too?
Love being on your side in your debates with Stuart, Coco, et al. ;-)
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | May 25, 2007 1:42:09 PM
>>Do you know firearms too?
Love being on your side in your debates with Stuart, Coco, et al. ;-)<<
I doubt I know firearms as well as Stuart, but I know how to operate them, and can do so rather proficiently. I took up a leadership position in my home church's youth group, and upon noticing the lack of manly values in the culture at large, and the loss of participation after Confirmation (we're Lutheran), it was decided that it was time to launch a sort of Christian finishing school that taught strong values so our boys may become men and that our girls may become women. Accordingly, the boys follow a military model and frequent team-buidling exercises, including war games.
Posted by: Michael | May 25, 2007 1:44:40 PM
My oldest two recently underwent their first aikido rank test, at ten and eight (son and daughter). I want my daughter to be able to handle herself as well, and she's making a fine start - good little marksman, as well, I'm happy to say.
When the time comes - quite nice "singlesticks" can be made from dowels with insular foam tubes to fit; handguards cut from a cheap camping mattress give the basket-hilt effect, if you want that. I let my son's peers clobber one another in the yard with cut-up sections of "pool noodles"; they have not yet successfully damaged one another, and only a few of their parents are horrified.
Posted by: Joe Long | May 25, 2007 2:19:03 PM
My parents didn't teach us shooting -- a flaw I intend to rectify with all my progeny, sons and daughters.
Instead of imaginary guns my brother and I used to hunt imaginary wolves using non-imaginary rocks. I've got the scalp scar to prove it!
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | May 25, 2007 2:19:29 PM
"... a sort of Christian finishing school that taught strong values so our boys may become men and that our girls may become women." - Michael
This is heresy according to secular liberals! Gender neutralization and egalitarianism is the mantra of the cultured liberal elites!
But I heartily support you and your church. I believe God has a Divine Design for gender and role distinctions in the home and church, and the blurring of those roles has had negative consequences for society.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | May 25, 2007 2:20:48 PM
>>When the time comes - quite nice "singlesticks" can be made from dowels with insular foam tubes to fit; handguards cut from a cheap camping mattress give the basket-hilt effect, if you want that. I let my son's peers clobber one another in the yard with cut-up sections of "pool noodles"; they have not yet successfully damaged one another, and only a few of their parents are horrified.<<
My friends and I call these "boffing" sticks, and we made several of them during our junir high and high school careers out of 3/4-inch PVC tubes and insular pipe foam. By cutting the tubes and foam to whatever length we wanted, he had short swords, long swords, a full six-foot quarterstaff and everything in between. We were never seriously injured.
We also built a treefort (we are men, we do not build treehouses, we build forts) out of wood we stripped off of shipping pallets that were thrown out at The Boeing Co.'s surplus store not far from where we live. I suppose I lived the proper boy's childhood--baseball, scars, trees, the occasional fight.
But here is the wonderful thing about the proper childhood: I am still young, but I recognize now that I am blessed with incredible bonds of friendship and even brotherhood with my fellow young men whom I grew up with. Now we sit around fires and stare quietly into the flaming abyss, knowing full well that though we are individually strong, we are not alone.
Posted by: Michael | May 25, 2007 2:30:35 PM
"I am blessed with incredible bonds of friendship and even brotherhood with my fellow young men whom I grew up with. Now we sit around fires and stare quietly into the flaming abyss, knowing full well that though we are individually strong, we are not alone."
That's beautiful. That comment would be well placed on the Teddy Roosevelt thread.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | May 25, 2007 2:36:24 PM
Christian finishing school! I love it. We need lots and lots of those.
Posted by: Judy Warner | May 25, 2007 2:43:28 PM
>>Accordingly, the boys follow a military model and frequent team-buidling exercises, including war games.<<
Michael, I take it your youth group is sex-segregated, then?
Just about the only things I fondly remember from my youth group days were camping out, playing basketball, and playing paintball in the woods with slingshots. I was never the best at such things, being from early youth a wimpy intellectual type, but they were a lot more fun than sitting around listening to the leaders try to extract answers to religious questions from abunch of embarrassed teenaged boys.
I think once we finally got some girls in the group things went down hill...
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | May 25, 2007 3:05:41 PM
>>Michael, I take it your youth group is sex-segregated, then?
Just about the only things I fondly remember from my youth group days were camping out, playing basketball, and playing paintball in the woods with slingshots. I was never the best at such things, being from early youth a wimpy intellectual type, but they were a lot more fun than sitting around listening to the leaders try to extract answers to religious questions from abunch of embarrassed teenaged boys.
I think once we finally got some girls in the group things went down hill...<<
Yes and no. We have distinct programs for boys (Band of Brothers/BOB) and girls (Charis, Greek for "grace") in high school, but they operate semi-autonomously from the general youth program. On Wednesday nights, the entire youth group is together for some program--worship, baseball games, what have you--and on Sunday mornings there is a group Bible study prior to splitting into boy/girl programs. We share retreats, of course, but on many retreats, we treat them as conferences, where students can select individual courses they'd like to take during the weekend, and sometimes those courses are restricted by gender, age or both.
It is the plan for next year to start opearting differently in how we approach youth group, segregating Sunday mornings by age and by sex into distinct small groups for grades 7, 8 and 10-12 (ninth graders are in class as Confirmands), bringing the high schoolers together as a large Bible study group one Sunday per month. By addressing needs according to age and sex, we can suffuse the Biblical curriculum with the values and challenges faced with distinct ages and peer groups.
The boy/girl high school programs offer certain qualities that are unique to the sexes and how they operate in the world. Our young men are encouraged and taught, with focus on the life of David, to live lives of 1) strength, 2) honor, 3) wisdom, 4) passion and 5) service and due to the military model are taught active submission to both a head (Christ and our "officers") and to each other as a team. During a nine-month school year, we spend about 5 weeks on each quality, it's definition, how it lived out, where we see it Biblically, etc. with assignments weekly to be completed at school, at home--reading books, Bible studies, etc.
For the young ladies, I confess to being mostly ignorant of their program, because, frankly, I don't want to know much about it. I understand the need for women to be taught 1) beauty (not just physical) and 2) independence--there are more than these two, but I haven't taken the time to find out what they are. They are a gaggle of teenage girls who spend one weekend a month doing sleepovers, living in community with each other and appreciating their roles as hostesses, even occasionally surprising everyone, including our young men's program, with offers of prepared food, general accompaniment, etc.
Once per year, there is a co-weekend of B.O.B. and Charis. It is in this setting that we hope to teach our men how to treat the fairer sex with respect, dignity, restraint and to help them be comfortable, because the relationship between the two isn't always about sex. Two years ago, it was the duty of the young men to escort and serve the ladies a dinner prepared by a gourmet executive chef who attends the church as if they were at a high-class restaurant, to pamper them and identify that they were beautiful and special.
Posted by: Michael | May 25, 2007 3:21:19 PM
Good gravy, that's quite a program, Michael! During most of my years, we were half a dozen guys sitting around in a dad's basement. Our activies mostly consisted of pool, table tennis, basketball, and the occasional sledding and camping trip. We also got to shoot a potato cannon once...
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | May 25, 2007 3:28:57 PM
Michael,
That is very impressive. You have my admiration. How large a church do you attend? How many Jr. High/Sr. High age youth do you have?
Posted by: GL | May 25, 2007 3:47:33 PM
Ah, you folks on this thread give me hope! I'm not alone, crying out in the wilderness -- there are at least fifty others in camel's hair too!
I just heard this morning about that Dangerous Book for Boys, on the Glenn Beck radio show. I'll bet that the book teaches more hard thinking and science than 12 years of school manage to do -- I mean for the general student, not for the kids in honors programs. My impression of "science" museums for children these days is that they all have followed this devolution:
science becomes biology
biology becomes ecology
ecology becomes hectoring (or cuddles)
Tim,
Thanks for those kind words. I've been trying to figure out what my next book will be about. The main idea at the moment: Ten Ways to Destroy a Child's Imagination. My wife says that that ought to be the subtitle, and that I need a snazzier quip for the title. I don't know. But I am trying to organize and list what would be the ten principle ways of ensuring that your child never has a profound encounter with the world about him, and instead follows along tamely with whatever fad the consumer anti-culture has cooked up.
Possibilities:
Keep him indoors.
Organize all his activities.
Make him lonely -- without solitude.
Geld and spay 'em all -- in the heart.
Tear down all heroes.
No history; current events.
Violate the Sabbath: make everything a matter of work.
Give him a low ceiling: no God.
Suggestions?
Posted by: Tony Esolen | May 25, 2007 3:51:53 PM
GL,
Our church has a regular Sunday attendance of around 900 with about 2000 communicants on the books. The youth group is, without question, our most thriving ministry, pulling in around 300 students over the course of a year. This number includes the friends of youth members, guests and "seekers," so the realistic number for our group at large is about 200. As you can understand, not all attend every week--sickness, family vacations and what not--but we have a fairly consistent crowd of 40 high schoolers and 25 middle schoolers on Wednesday nights. Last Wednesday (e.g. the 15), we had over 80 people in attendance at a baseball game--we actually had to call and order extra tickets.
Note that these are small numbers, as we have seen a dip in commitment from post-Confirmation students over the last two years. Due to our investment, we can project rather confidently that these numbers are going to climb over the next few years. God has blessed us with an incredibly strong (both in spirit and in bond) Confirmation group this year.
But the gender-specific programs are unquestionably our "bread and butter" as it were. At our last war games team-building exercise, we had 50 people there--just young men, not including les femmes in any way, shape or form, and at the end-of-the-year ceremony for the ladies' group, they recorded 40 in attendance. And these are all high schoolers, no middle/junior high students.
What does that tell me? It tells me that the church should drop the charade that there is no qualitative difference between the genders and start teaching our boys how to be men and our girls how to be women.
Posted by: Michael | May 25, 2007 4:01:07 PM
Professor Esolen,
May I recommend for a snazzier title Of Dolls and Tonka Trunks?
As to another ways to destroy a boy's imagination:
--Offer him secular sex-ed, leave no mystery to the beauty of the girl he has a crush on
Posted by: Michael | May 25, 2007 4:06:27 PM
"It tells me that the church should drop the charade that there is no qualitative difference between the genders and start teaching our boys how to be men and our girls how to be women."
You must definitely not be an ELCA Lutheran, but an LCMS Lutheran, right?
Posted by: Truth Unites...and Divides | May 25, 2007 4:09:18 PM
Oh, Elijah, there are more than 50, there are undoubtedly thousands. Our pastor has been working with the men of our church to develop ideas to make men of our boys. As the father of three daughters (as well as three sons), he is greatly concerned about, shall we say, the manhood of the young men his oldest daughters have brought home. He is dedicated to our raising *men* in our church.
Posted by: GL | May 25, 2007 4:09:54 PM
>>You must definitely not be an ELCA Lutheran, but an LCMS Lutheran, right?<<
That would be correct. The ELCA isn't even a Lutheran body, no matter what they call themselves. Christian individual members they may be, but the church as a whole is fast on the way to joining the Episcopagans.
That said, however, one of my best friends--nay, brothers--in whose backyard rests our aforementioned treefort, is ELCA, and yet another (with whom I went to preschool and reconnected with in junior high) is WELS. We have fantastic inter-Lutheran debates on ecclesiastical social theory. What wonderful brethren they are! It is like being on Mere Comments with people who get my vague cultural references.
Posted by: Michael | May 25, 2007 4:12:21 PM
To Professor Esolen and GL,
I could e-mail you our young men's group program manual (we distribute handbooks upon joining). Moreover, there are divers speakers of whom I possess recordings who speak to this very issue, that is raising boys into men. I should have mentioned BOB's creed:
I am a Christian first and last,
created in the image of Almighty God
saved by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ
I am submitted to God's Word
And all those the Lord has put in authority over me
I do not boast in my abilities
But rely solely on the power of God
My attitude is above reproach
My conduct is above criticism
My body is a temple of God
My sweat is an offering to my Maker*
I give my all all the time:
I do not give up
I do not give in
I do not give out**
I am confident beyond reason
because my confidence is in Christ
I am the Lord's warrior
Let the battle begin
*or "Master," which I prefer since the first section of the creed deals with God as creator, hre we can see God as sovereign ruler
**to be understood as a double-entendre. We do not "put out" either, as we respect the sexual body we are granted.
Posted by: Michael | May 25, 2007 4:18:26 PM
"The ELCA isn't even a Lutheran body, no matter what they call themselves."
You're freakin' hilarious! I love it. Best man at my wedding is ELCA, and I fully agree with you. Of course, he was UCC prior to that and well, he's just about as liberal a Christian as you can find except that he does believe in a literal, historical Resurrection.
Posted by: Truth Unites...and Divides | May 25, 2007 4:23:14 PM








