Click here to read our Lucky One movie review.

Logan:  “You know, the smallest thing can change your life.”

Logan:  “Sometimes finding the light means you must pass through the deepest darkness.  At least, that’s how it was for me.”

Logan:  “Why did I make it out when so many guys didn’t?  I feel like there’s this debt I have to pay.” 

Logan:  “I guess I’m still trying to figure out where I belong.  I know there are now easy answers.  Maybe all I need is time to figure it out.”

Beth to her grandmother, Ellie, about Logan:  “You don’t know anything about him.”

                Ellie:  “Neither do you.”

Beth to Ellie:  “Does he have an off switch?”

                Ellie: “I hope not.”

Ellie:  “You live long enough, you learn to appreciate the memories you have and stop begrudging the ones you never got to make.”

Logan:  “I’m sorry Beth.  I didn’t come here to make things harder for you.”

                Beth:  “You don’t know what I’m dealing with.”

                Logan:  “I do know that you deserve better than this.”

Logan to Keith:  “I’ve known guys like you all my life.  You think a gun and a badge make you something because you carry them.”

Ben to Logan about playing violin in church:  “What if I screw up?”

                Logan:  “That’s the best part about playing in a church:  a forgiving audience.”

Logan to Ben:  “You’ll be the guy next to me.  That’s how marines work.  You don’t worry about yourself.  You worry about the guy standing next to you.”

Logan to Beth about finding that picture of her:  “Finding something like that in a war was like finding an angel in hell.  So I kept it with me.  And I survived a lot of things I had no right to.  I promised myself if I got out I’d find that girl and thank her.”

Logan:  “How do you explain something you can’t understand yourself?”

Beth to Ellie about the picture:  “It was Drake’s.  It was supposed to keep him alive.”

Ben to Logan:  “I thought I was the guy next to you.”

                Logan:  “You’re my best buddy.  I’ll always be next to you.”

Beth to Ellie:  “Of course it’s all down to fate.  None of us have any choice….So you’re saying Drake died so Logan could live?”

                Ellie:  “No honey.  It’s not Logan’s fault that he survived.”

Logan:  “Everyone has their own destiny.  Not everyone makes the choice to follow it.  I’m lucky I did.”

-Compiled by Stacey Tuttle-

Logan to Ben:  “You’ll be the guy next to me.  That’s how marines work.  You don’t worry about yourself.  You worry about the guy standing next to you.”

There is this brilliant moment in The Lucky One when the newcomer in town, Logan, asks his new young friend, Ben, to play an instrument with him in church. 

Ben is just a boy.  His parents are divorced.  His father is hard to please and has very set (and narrow) ideas about what being a man is all about.  Playing the violin isn’t quite his father’s idea of manly coolness, so Ben hides his talent and his love for the violin. 

Logan barely survived the war and is trying to put the pieces of his life back together.  He has seen enough death, destruction and hate to last a lifetime.  He has learned to value stillness, peace, beauty, and music.  Music and beauty aren’t a threat to his manhood; they are a part of it—he’s a musician himself. 

In his intuitive way, Logan sees Ben’s love of music and his natural giftedness.  He also sees Ben’s fear and insecurity about it.  So when Ben is naturally resistant to the idea of playing a duet with Logan in church, Logan compares playing a duet with being a marine.  (Note the subtle genius of that comparison—he made playing music as manly as being a marine.)  He explains that Marines don’t focus on themselves; they focus on the person next to them.  This is how they face danger; it’s how they handle their fear—they don’t think about themselves, they think about the guys standing next to them. 

This is actually very Biblical.  Jesus says that when you lose your life, you find it.  “Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.”[1]  In other words, when you focus on yourself, you lose.  It’s when you choose to serve others, to put their needs above your own that you find yourself.  This is what happened with Ben.  He chose to put aside his fears and play alongside Logan, because Logan “needed him” for the duet…and in so doing, his confidence blossomed.  e He He cho

It’s this very sacrificial lifestyle that makes Logan such an attractive character.  He consistently chose to focus on the needs of others, even when it was costly to himself, like when he chose to serve Beth by fixing her Dad’s boat (without her knowing), even after she had rejected him.  Perhaps even more costly, he graciously walked away from Beth though he loved her… dare I say, because he loved her… when she asked him to.  What a contrast to her ex-husband who had his own needs always present and center.  Logan never claimed his rights, never talked about what he needed, he simply chose to give of himself, to serve others and put their needs before his own.  In a divine sort of paradox, this laying down of his needs and rights became the very means by which he found them.  He found love when he let it go.  He found healing when he sought the healing of others.  He found joy when he gave it away. 

Questions for Discussion:

• Have you ever been in a position where, like a Marine, you had to forget yourself and simply focus on the guy standing next to you?  Describe.
• Have you had times where you tried to cling to something, but lost it? 
• What examples in your life can you think of where you found your life (or some piece of it) by giving it away?
• When have you done something that cost you greatly, but found that in the end you were the one that was received the most? 
• How can you apply this paradox to some particular part of your life today?  Luke 17:33, “Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.”

Click here for quotes from the movie.

-By Stacey Tuttle-

Click here for our Mirror Mirror movie review!

Queen:  “If the Queen was to remain the most beautiful in all the land, Snow would have to do what Snow did best…  Snow would have to fall.”

Queen (repeated by Snow at the end):  “It’s important to know when you’ve been beaten.”

Baker Margaret to Snow:  “The Queen has the whole kingdom convinced you are nothing but a pathetic shut it.  The worst is, she has you believing it too.”

The Mirror:  “Everyone has undiscovered magic inside them, but very few discover it and learn to spend it wisely.”

Queen’s edict:  “Banish the uglies.”

Dwarves:  “When the queen banished us, none of the townspeople stood up for us.”

Dwarves to Snow:  “A weakness is only a weakness if you think of it that way.”

Dwarves:  “Never give up the high ground.”

Dwarves:  “People think of you as sweet.  Use that to your advantage.  …Deception on the battlefield isn’t just an option.”

The Mirror:  “There’s a price to using magic.”

Snow White:  “I read so many stories where the prince saves the princess.  I think it’s time for a new ending.”

 King:  “Prince Alcott, you found this kingdom ensnared in the clutches of greed and vanity but you didn’t retreat.”

-Compiled by Stacey Tuttle-

Whenever a story is retold I’m curious as to what changes the story tellers will make, and why they make those changes.  When a change is made, even a subtle one, it is bound to have implications.  That change may be something benign, like a clarification or an explanation.  Usually its impact is a little more pronounced though, like a change of focus, or of the intent or motive of a character.  Often it has an effect on the overall message of a movie.

In the case of Mirror, Mirror, the remake of the classic Snow White story, the writers basically use a cinematic highlighter to let the audience know what the change is.  Snow herself suggests a change to the basic story.  “I read so many stories where the prince saves the princess.  I think it’s time for a new ending,” she says with a smirk.  The dwarf[1] cautions her though, “No, no Snow!  It’s tried and true story telling.”   No matter.  Snow ignores his caution and rewrites the classic story, making herself the hero (or heroine, to be exact) instead of the traditional damsel in distress who is rescued by the hero-prince.

The question that I think ultimately needs to be discussed is who is right: the dwarf in his caution against this change, or Snow in her stubbornness to stick with it.  I think we can throw out the question of “Who cares?” or “Does it really matter at all?” from the start simply because if it didn’t matter, at least to the story tellers, the change wouldn’t have been made.  So, at least in terms of the powers that be behind this story, they cared; they felt that it mattered. 

Let’s look a little deeper at what they changed in this version.  The overall ending, as Snow pointed out, is changed.  The prince doesn’t rescue the princess; she rescues herself.  This means that there is some change to Snow herself.  She starts out as an oppressed step-daughter (which sounds familiar), but she ends up being an empowered, confident young woman who acts in the authority of her identity.  What changes her?  She sees the oppression, degradation, and bondage of the people in her kingdom.  She is moved by compassion and empowered by the realization that she has the ability (because of her identity as daughter of the King) to do something, to help. 

I think, as Christians, there is a lot of truth for us in this.  Our enemy does his best to keep us in bondage.  Sometimes we, like Snow, believe what our enemy says about us.  We stay hidden away from the world, enslaved by lies, beat down and discouraged.  Snow was told her father was dead, and she believed it.  We are told God is dead, or at least He isn’t good, and we believe it.  But then, someone whispers to us a reminder of who we are, daughters (or sons) of the King of Kings, and challenges us to go outside of our little bubble and get a good look at the oppression and bondage the enemy has been causing in our Father’s Kingdom (just like the Baker did for Snow).  Our hearts break for the things that break His and, like Snow, we become empowered by the realization that God has called us and equipped us to do something about it. 

This isn’t a bad change in the story—actually, I think it’s great, but let’s keep going.  The writers didn’t only change Snow, they changed the Prince as well.  The Prince still wanted to help, but he was silly and buffoonish, almost to the point of being cartoon-y.  He was not a capable, noble, strong, manly prince whom Snow could truly rely on.  He was a joke. 

It’s not that I don’t have any sense of humor.  It was kind of funny that the Queen’s magic love potion back-fired because it was a “puppy love” potion.  It was a little funny, but don’t miss the fact that the writers made Prince Charming a dog.  Was it just to be funny, or did it have a subtle dig attached to it?  Perhaps more important than whether or not the writers intended a negative effect, the question remains, could there be a negative effect?  Does the portrayal of Prince Charming in this movie suggest or even reinforce negative ideas about men?  Does it suggest that Prince Charming can’t be counted on?  Does it possibly suggest that men are jokes or even dogs?  Does it suggest that they are weaker than women?  (Think about that one—every man in the movie is bested by his female counterpart…even the good King was turned into a dragon by the Queen.) 

So, while I see some real positives in the way the writers handled Snow, I am concerned about what they did to Prince Charming in the story.  

There’s one other thing which keeps kind of niggling at me.  I think it has to do with Snow’s comment about wanting a new ending to the story.  If she had said that she wanted to be able to do something herself to help others, that would be great.  But she didn’t.  What she said indicated that she wanted to rescue herself.  She didn’t want to have to lean on anyone else for help. 

I understand that dependency can be a problem—IF it’s directed at the wrong thing.   Dependency upon God however, and upon His divine order of things, glorifies Him.  Snow’s statement indicates a desire for self-sufficiency and independence.  God asks us to yield to His authority and sometimes that includes yielding to an authority He places over us, like a parent or a wife yielding to her husband.  God’s plan for His people isn’t for each of us to become self-sufficient.  Rather, it’s for each of us to work together, in love.  He says we are each parts of one body, and we are to work together as a body. 

I think the story would have been so much better and more powerful if the story tellers had chosen to edify both sexes.  What if Prince Charming hadn’t been such a cartoon?  What if he had been the one to encourage and empower Snow?  What if it hadn’t been about who rescued whom, but about how they partnered together to rescue the Kingdom from captivity?  

I wanted to draw attention to this because I think we often underestimate the impact our entertainment has on our minds and our culture.  It’s the idea of planting seeds—a little seed is planted, and nothing seems to happen.  No harm, no foul…right?  But then one day we see something come up out of the ground and we don’t know where it came from or how it got there…and it’s an ugly plant.  The problem is, the roots are deep and it’s really hard to root out now.  If we catch it when it’s planted, it’s easy to rid the ground of that little seed.  

At the beginning I said we needed to ask ourselves who was right: Snow for changing the story, or the Dwarf who said she should stick with tried and true story telling.  Maybe it’s not an either/or question, but a both/and.  Frankly, I’m inclined to think Snow should have listened to the Dwarf a little more.  I do think girls ultimately want to believe in, be fought for, and rescued by a real Prince Charming but I also think that they want to be part of the adventure of bringing freedom to the kingdom.  The problem comes when, instead of embracing both ideals, we drop one to grasp the other.

I’ve seen a plethora of jaded women, who really do believe that men are either jokes or dogs or both, who have given up on Prince Charming ever being either princely or charming.  (Please note:  I’m not saying that their experiences haven’t given them good cause to think that some men are jokes or dogs…the problem is when they assume therefore that all men are thus.)  They’ve learned out of necessity to fend for themselves, and when Prince Charming really does arrive, they don’t believe it and are unwilling to trust him.  What could be a beautiful partnership is ruined by their self-sufficiency.  I’ve also seen plenty of men who are trying hard to become Prince Charming, but eventually get so beat down by wounded, independent Princesses that they give up.  Oh, that we not be part of that cycle!   Let us be on guard and seek to build each other up…even (and especially) in our entertainment. 

“Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.”  1 Thess. 5:11

“But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called ‘today,’ that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.”  Hebrews 3:13

 “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”  Hebrews 10:24-25

“So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.” Romans 14:19

“Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.’” 1 Peter 5:5

Questions for Discussion:

• Mirror, Mirror is about Snow’s journey from oppressed step-daughter to empowered, confident young woman who acts in the authority of her identity to bring the people in her father’s kingdom out of oppression, degradation, and bondage.  Her journey mirrors the Christian life.  Where would you say that you are along that journey? 
• What do you think about the changes to Snow in Mirror, Mirror?  To Prince Charming?
• Do you think those changes are indicative of our society’s treatment of men and women, and/or of the feminist movement?  And do you think it’s possible that these changes could affect the way girls think about Prince Charming (the male sex at large)? 
• As you read the verses above, how might they affect your response to the movie and the way the characters are portrayed?
• How would you say you think of the opposite sex?  How well do you meet the standards God has laid for us in the Bible (see the verses above) when it comes to “upbuilding” each other? 
• Do you find it easier to upbuild people of your same sex, or people of the opposite sex?  Why?

“Kneel before me. I said… KNEEL! Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It’s the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. … You were made to be ruled.  In the end, you will always kneel.”

It sounds a little harsh, I’ll grant you, but there is actually truth in what he says.  Man was made to kneel.  It is our natural state.  We absolutely were made to be ruled and yes, in the end, we will always kneel.  It sounds weak and unappealing, especially from the mouth of some twisted,narcissistic, sadistic ruler who forces himself and the concept on you.  Loki was right about our nature.  He was wrong about who we will kneel to. 

While we were made to kneel, we weren’t made to kneel to just anyone.  We were made to kneel to the Lord of Lord and King of Kings, the God of all creation—and to Him alone.  When we kneel to anything or anyone else, it’s called idolatry and it angers God and it goes badly for us. 

It’s the first of the Ten Commandments, that we worship God and God alone.  In Exodus 20 He says, “You shall have no other gods before me. …You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God.”  He warns that “the sorrows of those who run after another god shall multiply,”[1]  and that other gods “cannot save [anyone] in the time of their trouble.”[2] 

The problem is that, Loki is right, we were made to worship.  We will always worship something. In a perfect world, we worship the Lord as we were intended to do.  However, it’s not a perfect world and so man is easily drawn away and tempted to bow down to other things.  Those who do not know God are “enslaved to those that by nature are not gods.”[3]  Did you catch that?  Those who don’t know God are enslaved.  They are kneeling to either people or things that aren’t gods, whether or not they even know it.  They have to.  They are a slave.  For those who do know God, it’s still a daily (momentary even) choice to ensure that nothing usurps God in our hearts, minds and souls; that nothing and/or no one gets our worship but God alone.

Whether we worship God or something else (including ourselves), whether we realize we worship anything at all, Loki got it right that we were made to be ruled.  He also got it right when he foretold, “In the end, you will always kneel.”  The Bible says the same thing…and the Bible goes a step further and says who we will kneel to in the end!  

For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.  It is written:

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’”

So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.[4]

In the end, we will all kneel before God.  When we do—when we are before the Lord of Lord, King of Kings, the God of all creation—at that moment (if not before) we will realize with startling clarity and shame just how utterly inconsequential and pathetic all the other things we worshiped really were.

If you’ve seen The Avengers, you will probably agree that one of the best scenes of the movie (if not the best) was when the Hulk in all his hugeness positively thrashed Loki around like a rag doll.  Loki had just been spouting off how superior he was, how he should be worshipped like a god.  Hulk looked at Loki like one who had tired of an ant and after he mercilessly (and hilariously) flung him about, Hulk just kind of shrugs and snorts out with contempt, “Puny god” and walks away, as if to say Loki is so far beneath him as to be laughable.

Don’t miss the parallels!  We have an enemy who is doing all he can to get us to kneel to him.  He wants our worship; he’ll settle for our subjugation.  Anytime we kneel to anything other than God, our enemy takes it for himself.  He may seem big, he may speak of power…but in the end, he’s going to get a thrashing.  In the end, we will look at him (and all of his many disguises…all the things we were tempted to worship) and we will say, “Puny god.”  Let us not wait till then to kneel before the Lord, our God, our Maker.  Give him today the praise and honor that is due Him, lest you be found serving a puny god with the end comes.

Questions for Discussion:

• How did you respond to (or feel about) Loki’s speech?  Does it ring true or does it make you angry to hear that you were made to be ruled?
• If you are honest with yourself, what are the things you are tempted to worship (or put your trust, hope and/or joy in?  (If you aren’t sure, a great indicator is to check your schedule and your wallet—you’ll spend your time and your money on your idols.)
• Have you ever been disappointed when your false god failed to save you?
• The Psalmist writes that “the sorrows of those who run after another god shall multiply,”[5]—has that ever happened in your life?  Have you ever put someone or something on a pedestal that shouldn’t have been on one…and been sorry for it?
• Have you chosen to kneel now to the One you will surely kneel before in the end?

-By Stacey Tuttle-

Click here for a compilation of funny and/or meaningful quotes from The Avengers.

Check out our Avengers Movie Review here!

Loki:  “Freedom is life’s great lie.  Once you accept that, you will know peace.”

Fury about the Avengers:  “These people may be isolate, unbalanced even, but I believe, with the right push, they can be just what we need.”

Iron Man regarding his invitation to be part of the Avengers:  “I thought I didn’t qualify. I was considered, what was it… volatile, self-centred, and I don’t play well with others.”

Captain America:  “I went under, we were at war.  I wake up, they say we won.  They didn’t way what we lost.”

Captain America:  “The uniform?  Stars and stripes?  Isn’t that a little old fashioned?”

                Fury:  “With all that’s happening…people might just need a little old fashioned.”

Loki to a crowd:  “Kneel before me. I said… KNEEL! Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It’s the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life’s joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled.  In the end, you will always kneel.”

                Old man:  “Not to men like you.”

                Loki:  “There are no men like me.”

                Old man: “There are always men like you.”

Captain America:  “You know, the last time I was in Germany and saw a man standing above everybody else, we ended up disagreeing.”

Black Widow:  “These guys are from legends .  They’re practically gods. “

                Captain America:  “Ma’am, there’s only one God and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t dress like that.”

Loki to Thor:  “I remember a shadow, living in the shade of your greatness.”

Thor to Loki:  “You think yourself above them?  Oh yes…then you miss the point of ruling. You would be ill-suited to rule.”

Loki:  “How desperate are you that you summon such lost, weak creatures to help you.”

David Banner:  “I don’t get a coat of armor.  I’m exposed, like a nerve.”

“Loki is a prisoner.”

“Then why do I feel that he’s the only person on this boat that wants to be here?”

Black Widow to Loki about Hawk:  “Love is for children.  I owe him a debt.”

Loki:  “Your world is in the balance, and you bargain over one man?”

                Black Widow:  “I’ve got red in my ledger.  I’d like to wipe it out.”

                Loki:  “Can you wipe out that much red.?”

Iron Man:  “Dr. Banner, your work is unparalleled. And I’m a huge fan of the way you lose control and turn into an enormous green rage monster.”

Thor:  “You people are so petty… and tiny.”

Iron Man to Captain America:  “You might have missed a couple things, you know, doing time as a Capsicle.”

Captain America to Iron Man:  “Big man in a suit of armor…take that off and what are you?”

Iron Man: “Genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist.”

World Security Council:  “Director Fury, the council has made a decision.

Fury:  “I recognize the council has made a decision, but given that it’s a stupid-*** decision, I’ve elected to ignore it.”

Iron Man:  “An intelligence agency that fears intelligence? Historically—not awesome.”

“You lie and kill in the service of liars and killers.”

“A nuclear deterrent…because that always calms stuff down.”

David Banner:  “What are we, a team?  No, no.  We are a chemical mixture, a time bomb.”

“You may not be a threat, but you ought to stop pretending to be a hero.”

Phil:  “You’re gonna lose…  It’s in your nature.”

                Loki:  “Your heroes are scattered, your [airship] is falling…  Where do I have the disadvantage?  I can’t see where.”

                Phil:  “You lack conviction.”

Fury regarding the goal for the Avengers initiative:  “Bring a group of remarkable people together, see if they could become something more, if they could work together when we needed them to.”

“You’ve got the glow-stick of destiny.”

Iron Man:  “If we can’t protect the earth, we’ll be **** sure to avenge it.”

-Compiled by Stacey Tuttle-

It’s graduation time.  Kids are going off to college.  Others are graduating from college and moving on to jobs and homes of their own while parents around the nation are adjusting to their new lives as empty nesters…  At least they used to be.

These days it seems there is a growing trend that leaves empty nesters looking to find an empty nest because when their little birdies learn to fly, they are coming back home to roost.

A 2010 article in the New York Times called “What Is It about 20-Somethings” stated that,

We’re in the thick of what one sociologist calls “the changing timetable for adulthood.” Sociologists traditionally define the “transition to adulthood” as marked by five milestones: completing school, leaving home, becoming financially independent, marrying and having a child. In 1960, 77 percent of women and 65 percent of men had, by the time they reached 30, passed all five milestones. Among 30-year-olds in 2000, according to data from the United States Census Bureau, fewer than half of the women and one-third of the men had done so.[1]

We have asked Dr. Betsy Nesbitt, PhD, NCC, who is an Assistant Professor of Counseling at Denver Seminary, to weigh in on this issue with us.  As a speaker and consultant, Dr. Nesbitt focuses on generational differences in management and in ministry, working in both the secular and Christian spheres.

What factors are contributing to this new trend?  Why are kids coming home to live rather than getting places of their own?

My first instinct is actually to say that it’s the economy.  Starting salaries haven’t necessarily risen a lot in the last ten years, but the cost of living has.  Additionally, students are incurring far more debt than they had in the past.  Some of that debt is consumer debt, and some is from college loans.  In regards to consumer (credit card) debt, this is a huge generational change.  This generation assumes that debt is a part of reality whereas previous generations assumed that if they worked hard enough, they wouldn’t have any debt.  When debt is assumed, it is easily accrued.

In regards to the debt many incur from the cost of education, the fact is that federal subsidies for higher public education are being cut.  With the decrease in government funding for public higher education, the costs are then incurred by the students.  The end result of which is that the cost of college education increases by about 8% on average annually (significantly higher than the rate of inflation).[2]

The bottom line is that, whether through poor financial management, rising costs of living or rising costs of education… graduating students are burdened by a significantly higher level of debt than in generations past.  In Fact, in 2011, the average student loan debt for all borrowers was $23,300. Ten percent owe more than $54,000, and three percent owe more than $100,000. That amounts to more than one million people owing six figures for their education.[3]

Along with the rising financial burdens, there are other contributing factors as well.  The millennial generation (or some call them Gen Y, but they prefer to be called millennial generation), which consists of anyone under 30, refers to their parents as being friends.  Past generations tended to see parents as authority figures, parents…people that they wanted to separate from for one reason or another.  This generation however sees their parents as friends and therefore hasn’t the same desire to establish that separation, to “differentiate” as it’s called in more technical terms.

Additionally, Jean Twenge, author of Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled—And More Miserable Than Ever Before, has compared the psychological traits of generations of the past 50+ years.  She found that this generation has the highest anxiety levels out of all of them.  This generation is more fearful and less comfortable with taking risks.  This means they are more likely to play it safe and move back home.

Dr. Nesbitt says that in her research, millennials stated essentially, “We have been told our whole lives that we can do or be anything we want to, but no one has taught us how.”  It seems that this vote of confidence has actually had the reverse effect and become more paralyzing than anything.  From their perspective they are saying, “Well, why would I do it if it won’t be right?  I’m waiting for my time, for the opportunity to do or be what I’m supposed to do or be.”  They are waiting on it to happen to them or for them, compared to previous generations who expected rather that they would have to go out and make things happen, fully expecting that nothing was going to just happen for them.

Another component of this is simply that it is now more socially acceptable to move home than it used to be.

Historically and culturally, (if you look beyond the American culture), it seems this isn’t such a new thing and is actually rather common.  Do you think our cultural expectations that young adults leave and find a home of their own (especially, but not exclusively, if that person is single) is healthy?  Does the culture make a difference (outside of basic expectations) to the discussion?

Is there something inherently wrong with young adults moving back home after college?  No.  But it’s not the way our culture has been the past 100 years or so in America, so it still doesn’t feel comfortable to us.  The counselor in me says it’s more a matter of WHY they are moving home than IF they are moving home.  In other words, I think the bigger question is to ask if they are doing this to escape responsibility or if they are doing this because it’s truly a wise decision – this makes a big difference to me.  Are they moving back into their parent’s home as an adult (i.e., embracing responsibility) or are they moving back in as a child (i.e., running from responsibility)?

The New York Times wrote this article in which the author indicated that a “failure to launch” from the home is a sign that young adults are taking longer to truly become adults?  Do you agree?  Can we also clarify how you would define “adult”?

I would agree that acceptance of this concept of emerging adulthood does postpone adulthood (see article link above for more information).  We are one of the few cultures that recognizes adolescence as a unique stage of life.  We are also one of the few cultures that fails to consistently mark transitions to new stages in life.  We don’t have a single “tribal event” to designate or formally recognize someone moving from a child to an adult like other cultures do.  We say at eighteen that you are legally an adult, but there is no real rite of passage—the kind that other cultures deem so critical.  We really don’t even have a clear definition in our culture of adulthood.  We have some general markers, things that adults do, but, what if you don’t marry, what if you don’t have a family (things which adults do)…are you then an adult or not?  At what point are you seen as an adult?

In cultures which have a clear rite of passage into adulthood (or any stage of life), there are almost always responsibilities that come with that passage into adulthood (or stage), not just privileges.  In America however, we tend to confer privileges instead of responsibilities with adulthood.  You get to vote, you get to drink, etc., but you aren’t necessarily responsible to.

What is your response to this statement from the NYT article, and do you think this issue of young adults returning home is the chicken or the egg?  Is it causal or is it just a natural response to something else?  Or a combination of both?

“The traditional cycle seems to have gone off course, as young people remain un­tethered to romantic partners or to permanent homes, going back to school for lack of better options, traveling, avoiding commitments, competing ferociously for unpaid internships or temporary (and often grueling) Teach for America jobs, forestalling the beginning of adult life.”

One of the things that I will say often when I speak of generational differences is that, each generation takes for granted the good of the past, reacts against the bad, and responds within their current historical context.  And so one of the things that I think the younger generation is reacting against, is that they watched their parents invest wholeheartedly into a job that promised them a pension, retirement and lifetime employment, but then, twenty years in, they were downsized.  That all happened in middle/high school for the millennial generation.  At a critical time in their lives, they saw mom and dad’s investment into something backfire.  So, why would they make that same investment or commitment?

What pros and cons do you see to young adults returning home? 

I think the pros I see would be that, there can be a financial benefit in order to minimize debt or cut back on debt (which can be a move toward responsibility, not away from it…if they are intentional about that time).  There is also a potential benefit that they have additional time (kind of a grace period) to grow up and catch up to where previous generations would have been at an earlier age.

I think the downside to that, though, is that it also has the potential to stall the developmental process because they aren’t forced to take ownership and risk, and maybe fail and learn from that.

I think the other downside for mom and dad is that, mom and dad miss out on the next stage of their development—to get to be empty nesters, to figure out how to be adults without children in the home.

What effects do you think this will have on future generations and/or our culture/society?

Well, I think we are already seeing that people are postponing marriage and parenthood.  So, it’s not just that people are moving home but still getting married at 23, so they’re only home for 6 months or so.  Instead, they are delaying marriage till late 20s (and beyond), so marriage and parenthood “norms” are changing.

I mentioned that each generation takes for granted the good of the past, reacts against the bad, and responds within their current historical context.  The reality is that the children of the millennials will also take the good for granted and react against the bad, but we don’t know what that good and bad will be.  We also don’t know what the historical context is that they will find themselves in.  Therefore it’s very difficult to accurately predict the effect this will have on future generations, culture, etc.  The pendulum could swing the other way in response, but it could also keep on spinning this direction.  I just don’t know that we have enough information to accurately predict that.

Certainly this is a broad generalization, but do you think that when young adults move back home they feel a lack of ownership in their lives, future, the house they live in, etc.?  And if so, do you think this also affects their sense of ownership in work, church, community, etc. as well?

As a broad generalization, YES!  Because I think that, yes, it’s not just moving home—it’s what moving home represents.  And with moving home rather than into their own place, there is often a lack of feeling grounded or connected; a lack of having ownership in their life.

There are exceptions, of course.  Sometimes parents and child make a wise and responsible decision for a child to move back home (for a time and for a reason) in order to accomplish goals in their life and take ownership.  If this is the case, if it’s a well thought out, and communicated and temporary situation, it can be in everyone’s best interest and actually be the result of responsibility and maturity, rather than an indication that someone is running from it.

How do you distinguish between the young adult who comes home because he/she is avoiding responsibility (or some aspect of life) and the young adult who does so because they are responsible (i.e., it enables them to save money faster so they can buy a home)? 

I think the biggest piece is having an open conversation about why.  Why are you moving home, and for what purpose, and for how long?  When those things have been more thoroughly discussed, you get a better sense of motivation.  As a parent, you will know if it’s something you want to encourage.

On the flip side, we often blame the child, but the truth is mom and dad often get a kick out of it when the kid still needs them.  They don’t always want the kid to launch because they don’t know who they are without the child needing them.  Is the parent letting go appropriately?  If not, why not?  What need are they trying to meet by having their child stay home and not letting or even forcing their child to take risks and leave?

How would you encourage parents in light of this discussion? 

• If they have younger children: i.e., Are there things they should do to instill a sense of responsibility and/or expectations, etc. before the situation arises? 
• I think the biggest thing is to have the right view of parenting.  The goal of parenting is to launch successful adults; it’s not to raise children.  It’s a semantics difference, but I think it’s a significant one.  If my job is to take this two-year-old and make them a twenty-year-old who can function on their own, that’s different than how do I parent a two-year-old?  Everything becomes, then, a teaching moment and a life skill; everything is seen in light of the future.  So if you are raising a child, you protect that child from any harm.  You don’t want them to fall or scrape a knee.  But if you are raising a future adult, then you realize that they need to learn how to fall and get back up again.  They need to learn how to face hardships and keep on going.  Of course all of this is done within reason and appropriate to their stage of development, but the point is that it’s also done with the perspective of a future objective…that child isn’t going to stay a two-year-old forever!
• As a family, it’s important to create rites of passage where kids gain responsibility and privilege at different mile markers.  So, “Great!—you get your driver’s license, but you are also now responsible for grocery shopping once a month since you have a car and can help.”  This helps them see stages in life as not just privilege, but also that they come with responsibility.
• If they currently have a young adult who came back home: i.e., Should parents manage their expectations?  Should they set “boundaries” and/or timelines for the child/children who came home?  Is there any reason to fear “enabling” and how can it be avoided?
• Parents have a responsibility to initiate the conversation of how the roles are going to change.  Discuss just how that child is going to come back home as an adult, not as a child.  It should be different now than it was when they were there as a kid.  Adults have responsibility for the space in which they live.  It may be paying some rent, or helping with chores.  Whatever it may be, the responsibilities need to be defined and situation appropriate.  Again, this all comes back to you your job as a successful parent—it’s to raise an adult, not house or parent a child.
• Along with those responsibilities, set some consequences and boundaries—things to help ensure they meet their new responsibilities.  Those consequences should be realistic, viable and personal.  (For example, it may not be realistic or fair to charge a child rent who doesn’t have a job—unless, he/she won’t get a job without that pressure!  Or if a kid just loves to mow the lawn, that may not be a good consequence.)  Be specific and clear and have a definite timeline…and be willing to follow through if the child doesn’t meet the agreed upon responsibilities (back to making sure the consequences are realistic—they have to be something you are willing to follow through on).  If possible, let the child weigh in on the consequences.  Often they’ll choose a better one than you ever would, and then they have buy-in—they picked it!  Your child isn’t living there as your child anymore, they are living there as an adult.  That may mean that you need to adjust your thinking and view them more as a boarder in your house.
• If their friends have children who have “failed to launch” in some way or another: i.e. How should they respond and/or be supportive?  What should they avoid saying or doing (especially if they haven’t been in those shoes)?
  • I think you avoid telling other people how they should raise their children.  (Of course, it’s another thing if they are coming to you and asking for help/advice.)  Remember, you don’t know the back story.  Is this child unique in some way?  Your child may have been ready to launch at 18, but their child may need till he/she is 30.  Your kid, their kid…may not be normal.  It’s important to extend grace and support (but not judgment) to the journey other parents and their children are on.  You don’t know the historical context they are uniquely living in.
  • Additionally, friendships can play a really huge role in being supportive.  If you’re both trying to launch a child, that mutual support can be very helpful!  Support and encouragement are great.  Assumptions and/or judgments are explosive materials.

As Dr. Nesbitt and I talked, I couldn’t help but think that it might be beneficial to close with a quick thought about plants.  A cactus requires an entirely different amount of sun and water and time to become what it was created to be than a lily does.  The point isn’t how much water, sun or time is required for each individual plant to become as God intended, the point is that it does become as God intended.  I think the same principle applies for us.  The point is that we each earnestly strive to become what God created us to be, and, as we are able, to help others become what God created them to be…and to have grace and patience when they have different needs and take a longer time to bloom than others do.  Or, in the words of Paul:

“Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.  Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

All of us, then, who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.  Only let us live up to what we have already attained.”   Philippians 3:12-16

-Interview by Stacey Tuttle-

wordseminar(fullsize)

Hi Dr. Smith,

 I was intrigued by your comment today about the God of the Old Testament vs. the God of the New Testament & how so many people separate the two between a God of wrath & vengeance vs. a God of love & concern. I found this dialogue very timely, as my boyfriend & I just had a discussion last night regarding the godly characteristic of jealousy. We discussed the fact that jealousy is typically viewed with a negative connotation, yet the OT clearly describes God as a jealous god (Ex 20:4-6, Deut 4:23-25, Nah 1:1-3). However, we also discussed the fact that the NT never describes or refers to God as jealous… 

 What should we make of this? Did God change from the OT to the NT in regards to being jealous (like so many people believe) OR is it more so that just b/c the NT doesn’t mention it doesn’t mean God still isn’t jealous? I left the discussion last night perplexed, wanted to see if you had more insight…

Good question.  First, we should probably note that God’s jealousy is mentioned in the New Testament:  John 2:17 and 2Co. 11:2. That last one is speaking of Paul, but he does call it a “godly jealousy” which certainly implies that he understands this to be a characteristic of God.  However, these verses may not come up on a search depending on the translation because some English translations use the term “zeal” instead of “jealousy”.  That’s a perfectly understandable translation because the Greek term is zēlos, which means something like passion.    However, this term (or its counterpart zēlōtēs) is the same Greek term that was used in the LXX (Greek translation of the Old Testament) to translate the Hebrew qana in passages like Ex 20:5 (…for I the Lord your God am a jealous God…).  So this idea that God is jealous/zealous for His people is found in both the Old and New Testaments.

God’s “jealousy” is, however, less emphasized in the New Testament, as you’ve rightly noted.  Why is this?

Well, first, I think we shouldn’t overemphasize the difference of frequency between the Testaments.  Since the New Testament is about 1/3 the size of the Old Testament we would naturally expect any term to be used considerably less in the NT, even if it was being emphasized to the same extent.  But of course not all concepts are going to have equal emphasis in both Testaments, which brings us to the second reason why God’s jealousy is not mentioned very often in the NT:  the jealousy of God in the OT is always tied to God’s response to national Israel as a covenant people; that is, when  we see God being “jealous” in the OT it is usually linked to national Israel’s abandonment of the covenant.  In the New Testament, however, there is a dramatic shift of focus from national Israel to the Church which includes (and at the moment is predominantly composed of) Gentiles.  This shift of focus to include the Gentiles means that the covenant promises to national Israel – and the accompanying divine “jealousy” with which God pursued national Israel – are no longer the dominant focus and, consequently, the statements of God’s jealousy are fewer in number.

In other words, since the NT focus is not on His covenant with national Israel, mentions of the jealousy which He felt when national Israel abandoned their covenant with Him are fewer in number.  It doesn’t signify a change in God’s nature or behavior but a shift in focus on the part of the text.  God remains as He has always been, but the statements of His covenantal jealousy are fewer in the NT simply because that covenant is no longer the primary emphasis.

The 2012 Word Conference trailer is live: