Making Great Conversationalists - Chapter Four

By this point, "Making Great Conversationalists" has mostly focused on how CP/QF folk who follow the advice shared by Steven and Terri Maxwell can wow the rest of us unbelievers.  I am unimpressed with the conversations that I've read in this book so I doubt that others will be amazed at kids who ask intrusive questions.  Now, the Maxwells turn readers' attention to the massive failures of conversation in their own homes.  Personally, I'm fine with the conversations I have with my husband and son.   Sometimes we have deep, heart-to-heart talks; other times we're being goofy or working out the details of running a home.   That's fine for me - but the Maxwells seem to think we are missing out in a variety of ways.

The chapter starts with two sample conversations between a father and son.  In the years I've been researching CP/QF beliefs, I've learned that the standards and expectations of behaviors are lowest for the married fathers who lead homes.  The "bad" conversation example confirms that men get the easiest standards of behavior.

John walks into the living room where his dad is reading email on his phone.

"Dad?"

" What?" John's dad responds still looking at his phone.

"I've been having trouble with Cathy. Lots of times she is saying things that aren't nice to me, and that bothers me."

"Hmmm." Dad glances at his son then back of the phone.

" When I came out of the bathroom, she says I'm taking too much time. I only stay in as long as I need to, though. Yesterday she saw my jacket on the floor and told me I was a messy little kid. I dropped it there because mom had told me to hurry to dinner. I was planning to hang it up later."

" Well," Dad mutters, still reading on his phone.

" I guess this isn't a good time to talk," John says as he dejectedly walks away.

John's dad lost a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate his love for his son by meaningfully sharing in this conversation with him. (pgs. 55-56)

No...John's dad is a few miles away from demonstrating love for his son. 

John's dad is failing to demonstrate the most basic form of courtesy - showing some form of meaningful response when being spoken to.   Maybe this is a crappy time for John to talk to his dad.  If so, that problem can be solved in under 15 seconds by John's dad using his words like a big boy.  "John, I need to finish this email for work before I can talk.  Give me 5 minutes and then we can talk about the issues you are having with Cathy, slugger."  John's dad gives John the basic courtesy we extend to other human beings.

I have not included the "good" conversation because John, the far younger and less experienced member of the dyad, says the exact same thing.   The only difference is that his dad pays attention and gives verbal responses that imply he's really paying attention rather than grunting like a CP/QF Homer Simpson.

The hypocrisy of holding mature adult men to the lowest standard kills me.  The Maxwells have complained about a nervous 5-year-old girl who won't say her name in a store, the conversational failings of 16-year-olds of both genders, and the quirks of frazzled mothers during a move.  The 23-year old guy who calls about courting was raked over the coals while giving informative answers to his crush's father because he stammered and forgot to ram Jesus down the father's throat.   John's dad - who says the same number of syllables as five-year-old Cynthia in a far less stressful situation - gets a mild scolding about not paying enough attention to his kid.  That's ironic because Dad is paying no attention to his son. 

Since the most common theme for fathers in the Maxwell canon is that they are obsessed with their jobs and checked-out of raising their families, I wonder how much of this is a window into the action of the Maxwells themselves.

Next up: another idyllic conversation for young teenage girls to have:

Let's listen to a snippet of conversation between two 14 year olds whose families are having an evening of dinner and fellowship together.

" Susi, I am concerned about the way you treated your little sister by telling her she needed to go play somewhere else. The Bible says, 'And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake has forgiven you' (Ephesians 4: 32). I don't really think you were being kind or tender-hearted to her."

" You're right, Emily. I was being selfish. All day she has been messing up whatever I'm involved with and making a lot of noise. I didn't want that to happen again. It would be better, though, to let her be with us."

" Maybe, Susi, we could find something for her to do. Let's go to the toy closet to see what we can find and invite her back."

Emily's conversation is more powerful than most children's conversation because she has a Bible verse to share. It should be more effective than it would have been to just tell her friend that she was being mean to her little sister. Teaching our children to use the word, using it in our conversations with them, and encouraging them to use it in their conversations with others will enhance those conversations and relationships. (pgs. 60-61)

I suspect that Emily's parents wonder why they never receive a second invitation to anyone's home.  The parental units are also confused by Emily's total lack of friends outside of Susi...who suddenly cut her relationship with Emily after this evening of fun, food and nagging.

At the most basic level, Emily is working at teaching Susi to be a victim. There are important peer-to-peer social skills that kids learn among their siblings and among other families.  Before Emily staged her intervention, Susi was enforcing a boundary that when her unnamed younger sister behaved disruptively during the day, the younger sister would be excluded from playing with Susi and Emily later on.   This is a normal and healthy situation.  Along with "if you are a jerk, you get excluded", families are a great place to learn "sometimes someone I want to play with doesn't want to play with me and the world doesn't end", and "I am allowed to have positive and negative feelings.  Other people have the right to do moral things even if I have negative feelings about their moral choice." 

Emily's intervention, however, is in essence the infamous Jana-Jessa Duggar interaction played out again. For those who don't know the story, Jessa was kicking Jana's bunk bed keeping her awake at night when the girls were early elementary school age.  Rather than enforcing any kind of consequence for Jessa, the senior Duggars in their wisdom decided that Jana should give her treasured jewelry box to Jessa.  The rationale - although I hesitate to call it rational - was that Jessa would be so touched by Jana giving Jessa her prized possession that Jessa would stop kicking the bed.  In a broader context, England tried to avoid the start of World War II by not objecting to Hitler's invasion of countries...and that process of appeasement failed just like appeasing Jessa failed over the long run.

Emily is encouraging Susi to overlook bad behavior and teaching Unnamed Sister that bad behavior has no consequences.  That's a bad plan.

On a related topic, why is CP/QF so invested in the idea that kids of the same gender need to run around in packs that do not self-segregate by age or maturity?   I have a twin sister and a brother who is 4.5 years younger.  My best friend has a 3 year younger sister.   When my best friend would come over, having my twin around was fine.  Jess figured out how to lip-read enough to talk with my sister and we were all the same age.  My younger brother was rarely involved with our activities; he was enough younger that the maturity/skills gap made a lot of our activities not fun for him.  When I was over at Jess' house, we'd sometimes include her younger sister if we were doing something she could participate in.  But most of the time, the activities we were doing were not that interesting to her. 

A four year age gap is nothing in adult life - but huge among children and teens....

This next quote cracks me up:

" Good morning, Mom," Ryan greets Mom as he walks into the dining room for breakfast. " I am very hungry, and breakfast smells great. I am excited to tell you about what I read in my Bible this morning."

" Good morning, Ryan. I sure love you. Tell me what you are excited about."

" I was reading in 1 Corinthians 10 today, and I was very convicted. It was talking about the Israelites murmuring in the desert, and then some of them were destroyed. Then it says how that was an example for us. That made me think about murmuring and how easy it is for me to be a murmurer. I realize that not only does God not like murmuring, but I don't think you or Dad or anyone else in our family likes it either. I really want to stop murmuring."

" You know, Ryan, that is convicting to me too. I was standing here murmuring in my heart about my frustration over the toaster not working very well. I think that the Lord would rather have me thank him for our breakfast and the tools he has provided to help me prepare it," Mom responds. (pg. 63)

I don't know many people who speak in complete Standard English sentences, thankfully, and none of them are children or teenagers.  In my home we use the informal English dialect referred to as "Valley Girl" - and suspect that most people use one informal dialect or another among their loved ones.

My deeply loving response to Ryan would be, "Dude, it's too early for this.  Let Mom wake up, then we'll talk."   Thankfully, all of my immediate family members share a requirement of 15-30 minutes of "wake-up warm-up" time before expecting anything deeper than "Breakfast smells great. Thanks for making it."

I don't think I'd be as nonchalant about the fact that my kid wants to stop murmuring after reading about how the Israelites were killed because they murmured against God.  I want my kid to stop whining, sure, but not because they're afraid that God will smite them if they don't.

I dislike how CP/QF theological practice requires lying during prayer.  God's the Creator of the Universe.  I suspect God can handle the fact that a person is frustrated that their toaster doesn't work.  That's more honest and true than thanking God for a toaster that isn't working very well.

Please, for the love of all that is holy,  remove the verb "to purpose" and the newer meaning of "to convict" as a lazy shorthand for "I have a deeply held conviction" from use.    A family that earns two convictions before breakfast generally is having a horrible day in court rather than a calm breakfast.

Now, imagine the following conversation actually happened instead of being a fever dream of Steven Maxwell:

Next we find that words are to be pure and lovely. That means our children are to be gracious and pleasant in their conversations. " The words of a wise man's mouth are gracious; but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself" (Ecclesiastes 10: 12).

Compare these two conversations:

" Jason and Jennifer, I thought you might enjoy playing a game while your mother and I talked."

" Okay."

On the other hand, this could have been the response:

"Thank you for the game you got out for us to play." (pg. 65)

Yes, Maxwell's ideal family is filled with Stepford Children who can spontaneously respond identically in standard English.   Keep that tidbit in mind in all Maxwell writings. 

The phrase the Stepford Kids use is odd in terms of the emphasis.  The kids are thanking the parents for the game primarily with the action of getting the game out as the subsidiary action.    I think the sentence would make more sense if the mind-melded kids thanked their parents for getting the game out.  Of course, since part of each of the kids' brains are now locked to their siblings, that might mess with their control of word placement in sentences.

I just realized something!  Maybe the CP/QF obsession with massed single gender groups is because of the mind-melding!  Many small groups of kids playing with close-in-age friends would get so confusing so fast if the kids were receiving telepathic transmissions from their siblings in other places.  This means that what I viewed as a weird obsession is actually an act of kindness.

Oh, they aren't budding telepaths?  Well, that shot down that idea.  Still a crazy idea, then.

Finally, we learn how to teach your children to narc on each other the right way:

Here's another verse that shows the importance of helping her children towards good reports rather than tattling: "Where no wood is, there the fire go without: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth" (Proverbs 26: 20). Good reports stop children from speaking negative or critical words. With a good report, virtue, and praise comes the encouragement of another.

Jimmy runs to Mommy and reports, "Sandra is playing with the guinea pigs. She's not doing her chores."

Think about how much better this conversation would be.

" Sandra, I know Mommy wants you to finish your chores before you play with the guinea pigs. My chores are done. I will help you with yours." After Jimmy and Sandra complete her chores, Jimmy runs to Mommy and reports, " Sandra finished her chores. Now she is playing with the guinea pigs."

Of course, there may be times when one child should let you know what a sibling is doing or isn't doing, particularly when sin is involved. However, even in that process, a child can learn to have a humble spirit that is more concerned for his sibling spiritually than he is for getting that sibling in trouble. In this case, even though it isn't positive news he is telling, is actually a good report because the information is shared only with the parent and will be for the benefit of the sibling.(pgs 66-67)

Jimmy's first tattling conversation makes sense.   Tattling is super annoying and his mom is well within her rights to squash that habit - but at least Jimmy's action of tattling makes sense.

Having Jimmy run up to his mother - who wasn't present when Sandra and Jimmy worked together on their chores - and report that Sandra's done now and playing with the guinea pigs must be slightly disconcerting to Jimmy's mom.  She's got eyes and could have figured that piece of information out on her own exactly like she would have figured out that Sandra skipped chores to play with the guinea pigs - but either outcome is preempted by Jimmy's random announcement.    It reminds  me of the "Arrested Development" episode where Michael thinks his son George Michael has developed OCD because George Michael keeps checking to see if the stove was turned off and throwing out food.   George Michael's behavior makes a lot of sense when the viewers learn that his aunt Lindsey is trying to be a good homemaker - but keeps accidently endangering everyone in the house by leaving the gas range on and not actually cooking meat.  Michael missed Lindsey's mistakes, however, so George Michael looks crazy. 

The last paragraph is a sad attempt to justify using your children as an in-house KGB force ratting each other out as long as the kids have the right level of humility.   That's a terrible idea.   My family had a far more sensible rule: you were not tattling if and only if your sibling was doing something that was dangerous to themselves, dangerous to someone else or highly destructive of property.  Outside of that, we were instructed to mind our own business. 

It's a good piece of advice - especially for the Emily's of the world.