No, this is not about Katy Perry and the Sesame Street thing. It's not about Katy Perry at all, really. She's just the catalyst. The catalyst for what?
CBS News did a story on Katy Perry recently. For those of you who don't follow pop music stars, she is the singer who made it big time with her single ... oh, how did CBS put it? ... her "anthem to bisexual curiosity", I Kissed A Girl ("and I liked it"). And maybe, while you were not following pop music, you also missed the recent news item where parents complained about a piece for Sesame Street which included Katy Perry and Elmo. Too much cleavage, apparently. It was cut from the show. So what else did the story have to say?
I was fascinated to learn that Katy Hudson (her actual name) was born and raised in Santa Barbara, California, where she first started singing at the age of nine -- gospel songs. Yeah! Who knew? Turns out her parents are ... what was the line? ... "born-again evangelical pastors." How about that? Perry first started singing Christian stuff. Her goal was to be the next Amy Grant. It fell flat. She said that her life originally had no "outside influences", which limited her perspective. "My friends all had the same life. They all went to church with me, went to church school, you know, we went to church camp." It wasn't until she started singing and getting contracts and all that "influences started trickling in", and now we have this new Katy Perry. No longer the nine-year-old gospel singer, she puts on shows wearing whip cream bras, appears nude in her videos, and is known for pushing the envelope. How did her parents react? You know, the "born-again evangelical pastors"? According to the news article, "Perry's parents signaled their approval of their daughter's career change by making a cameo appearance in the video for her next hit, 'Hot 'n' Cold.'" Well, there ya go! Her parents applaud her! "Good job, Katy! We're proud of you!"
Like I said, it's not about Katy Perry. She has done what many -- most -- have come to expect. She's tossed aside that silly "born-again evangelical" influence and flaunted what she's got. I mean, seriously, why be a Christian if you can be famous? No, it's about raising Christian children. You see, it looks as if her parents did everything right. They're "born again". They're "evangelical". They're even "pastors". ("Pastors" plural? Hmmm.) They kept their daughter from all that worldly influence. They encouraged her to use her talents for God. (The church she went to bought Perry her first guitar.) Everything right ... right? Or did they? Is that what it takes? When her parents self-identify as "born-again evangelicals" and encourage an "anthem to bisexual curiosity", there seems to be something wrong. More to the point, when outside influences simply eliminate anything Christian, what does that say about the Christian influences?
Christian parents who think that they can shelter their children into lifelong Christian values are horribly mistaken. Blocking outside influences is not the answer. If your approach is to remove negative influences, it won't likely work. "Yeah, that's your opinion," some might suggest. So how about this person's view? "And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful." Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
In terms of the standard "bringing up children", it will typically work in a manner similar to training a cocker spaniel. You can teach that dog how to behave using consequences and rewards. A swat to show that action was bad. A treat to show this action was good. Feed them from the table and they will become a nuisance at dinner time. And so it goes. As long as you maintain an system of rewards and consequences, your cocker spaniel will learn to operate within that system. And so with children. The difference, of course, is that children grow up and move out. They go to college, to work, get married, move on. And when they do, the system of rewards and consequences change. Now a different set of acceptable actions is applied with different motivational factors. And if a parent hasn't prepared his or her child for that environment, then all their careful work at bringing them up is null and void.
So, what's the answer? Well, from a purely functional approach, parents need to prepare their children, not shelter them. They need to train them, not block them. They need to get them ready in advance for what will be on their plate later on. You may think that sheltering them is protecting them, and, I suppose, it is for a time, but to protect them beyond your influence takes more work and less shelter. Of course, the real answer beyond the purely functional one is something else. If your kids are to hold their ground when influences shift and environments change, they are going to need something that the standard kid doesn't have. They are going to need the work of the Holy Spirit in them. And that's far more important than any training you can provide.
4 comments:
There's a lot to consider in this Katy Perry history. First, the obvious, the parents' applauding her direction is ludicrous. Something like "gaining the world" while "forfeiting your soul" comes to mind.
Second, Katy Hudson faced a dilemma that a lot of Christian-raised artists face: Do you play to thousands for Christ or millions for money? Of course, you could try to combine the two. However, aside from Carrie Underwood there aren't too many examples, and she was discovered by American Idol. Country music is the only popular venue where overt Christian themes are prevalent and, apparently, permissible.
Third, that Holy Spirit thing. What parent knows how to make God's Spirit enter into their child? You teach them the Bible from infancy on up. Then they choose to listen to childish crap some sleazy rapper blurts out. I've always let my daughter make choices then, if she chooses something unacceptable, I intervene and tell her why it's unacceptable. Kids make bad choices and they are perfectly capable of dodging the Holy Spirit and dying without that connection with God that we have. While I can be a good teacher and try to be a good influence, it was God that made that connection with me and only God can make that connection with my daughter.
I remember that a key to my resistance to accepting Christ as my Savior was that I didn't want to think others could be damned. God answered that question with an assurance and a joy that I can only translate to "What about those other people?" The truth is God is more important to us than the salvation of our children which is why the Hudson "pastors" should not have endorsed their daughter's trashy image. I don't remember God the Father cheering on the Sodomites.
You hit on some important points there, Jim.
1. In the interview Katy mentioned that she realized she would not be the next Amy Grant. Interesting choice of heroes. Years ago Amy Grant was quoted as saying, "I'm a musician first and a Christian second." That is, "My music and fame first; my belief in Christ second." It's a simple term: idolatry. And the "Christ or money" dilemma is the same.
2. On that "Holy Spirit thing", you're absolutely right. No parent can make God's Spirit enter their children. The point exactly. The point of the post was that parents have a difficult job. We can't only "do the right things". We must anticipate more and prepare them. We must engage more and involve ourselves more and ... it's lots of work. In the final analysis, though, it is the work of God that is needed. So we "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." We preach the Gospel to them. We train them up in the way they should go. We model genuine Christianity. And -- this is the most important -- we bathe them in prayer starting from before their existence and on through life. It's a bigger job being a parent than most realize.
I'm not sure what, exactly, you would consider "sheltering" children. I knew some parents when I was growing up who tried to shelter their children (my friends). When they become too old for their parents to shelter they went wild; out of wedlock children and prison terms.
My wife and I have always understood that there are inherent problems with sheltering your children. On the other hand, we didn't want our children being exposed at a young age to things that children now seem to have easy access to on most any TV program. We have a saying, Insulate, don't isolate.
I love your dog analogy. It reminded me of a book called "Training Up The Heart Of A Child" which focused on the heart and warned against a system based only on reward and consequence. Yet it is easy to fall into that rut, it is good to be reminded.
I believe wholeheartedly that the worst thing a parent can do is to live a life before their children that is intrinsically hypocritical. Preachers, especially the new brand of emergent type preachers, which Perry's parents smack of, seem extra prone to destroying their children's future faith. My guess is that the true love of their lives was the corporation under which their church is filed and not their savior. I've seen a lot of that.
Great post, one that makes me think. My biggest fear for my children is not as much that they will be exposed to bad things, or even that their greatest exposure to the world will probably come through their own dad, but rather that he won't realize it.
Dan: "I'm not sure what, exactly, you would consider 'sheltering' children."
Actually, Dan, you were very much on my mind when I wrote this one. Your perspective of "poisoning the well" -- of teaching them in advance what to expect -- seems to be the right course. No parent can safely or morally fail to "shelter" children to some degree. Even in the world, you don't let a 4-year-old watch porn with dad. No one but the most debase thinks that's a good idea. Even apart from morality, everyone understands that children grow up, being ready for different inputs at different stages. You don't hit a first-grader with algebra. You "shelter" them from that. So I wasn't suggesting "no filtering" at all. I was thinking more along the lines of "poisoning the well".
A good friend of mine told me of how he worked with his teenage kids on the topic of music. They would ask if they could listen to "this" or "that". He would say, "I need to hear it first" and he would listen. Then he would let them hear it and they would discuss it. "What does it mean? What did they say? Is this of value to a Christian?" They got to the point (on that topic) where they could evaluate (and reject) bad music on their own. A good thing. He didn't do it by blocking the music. He did it by teaching them.
Dan: "My biggest fear for my children is not as much that they will be exposed to bad things, or even that their greatest exposure to the world will probably come through their own dad, but rather that he won't realize it."
So true, so very true. What we parents expose our kids to by our own lives can be perilous (thus the title, "Perrylous") at times and we need to be careful, especially since we ourselves can be so unaware of what we're exposing them to by our own lives.
Post a Comment