Megan Basham, an Arizona writer, columnist, and TV talk show guest, wrote a lively piece in the Wall Street Journal, weekend edition dated June 13-14, 2009 (1).  Her title, “Bringing up Princess: Turning Girls into Narcissists,” caught my eye because I am grandfather to four wonder young ladies who range in age from 16 to 12.

After raising two sons with my wife Sandy, being grandfather to little girls was a new experience. I cherish my granddaughters and pray daily for them because I know that they live in a world vastly different from the one in which I grew up. Indeed, to me, my granddaughters all are princesses. So, the title of this op-ed piece truly captured my interest.

I can summarize my findings from a close reading of the piece:
• The idea of turning a little girl into a princess is not really about those cultural values that shape her into a young woman of character and integrity.
• “Big Box” marketing is definitely behind this effort to transform the self-image of little girls into the princess mode.
• The definition of princess has less to do with Cinderella and a lot more to do with Paris Hilton, Hannah Montana, et al.
• The values offered these little “princesses-in-training” focus more on narcissism, self-love, and egotism.
• Christian retailers are not exempt from this emphasis. One such retailer offers imprints like, “Yes, I am a Princess.” This is an allusion to the wearer’s relationship to Christ the King.

Basham cites a report offered by Jean Twenge, associate professor of psychology at San Diego State University that is very interesting. Twenge has dubbed the 18-35 year olds as “Generation Me.” (2) According to Basham, Twenge “has found that college-age women are developing narcissistic traits at four times the rate of college-age men. She attributes the startling discrepancy in part to parents who put their girls on a pedestal.” (3)

Meg Basham identifies characteristic behaviors of concern:
• Parents too often put their daughters on a pedestal.
• They lavish their daughters with unrealistic praise.
• They train them, “to see themselves as the center of their worlds through clothes and accessories.” (4)

Two powerful concerns are articulated that every parent of a young daughter should consider:
• “Girls immersed in the princess culture are embracing the notion of privilege that goes along with it.” (5)
• “Research shows that such girls later have trouble adjusting to professors, bosses and potential mates who don’t automatically treat them as royalty.” (6)

All that has been written notwithstanding, I know that my granddaughters truly are princesses! Realistically, I pray that they not be squeezed into the mold of this present age by the unrelenting forces of mass marketing with its ubiquitous presence.

[3] Megan Basham, “Bringing Up Princess: Turning Girls Into Narcissists,” Wall Street Journal, Saturday/Sunday, June 13-14, 2009

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

About David J. Felter
David J. Felter is general editor and Holiness Today editor in chief. As general editor, he oversees editorial content in books and publications for the Church of the Nazarene. In addition to his role as editor in chief of the denomination’s primary magazine, to which he was elected in 2004, Dr. Felter also is the senior editor of NCN News. He pastored for 21 years in Iowa, California, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Kansas. Since 1985, Dr. Felter has held assignments at Nazarene Headquarters, having served as education program manager, coordinator of Evangelism Ministries, executive editor of Adult Sunday School Curriculum, director of Adult Ministries/Lay Training, and director of Communications Services. He and his wife, Sandra, have two married sons, David and Jib, and five grandchildren.

I heard the other day that one of my favorite coffee shops had closed. It was one of those friendly places where, as an old theme song said, people knew you and were glad you came. I suppose it is inevitable that some good places go out of business. Maybe there were too many people like me who moved and had to find a new place. Maybe in tough economic times too many people had less money to spend on nonessentials like coffee and relaxed conversation.

Whatever the cause, the closing reminded me that several months ago I was in Colorado Springs and went back to the Starbucks where I met with friends when I lived there a decade ago. It is for me a place of good memories. I discovered that a decade later it still has about the same number of tables, seems to be doing about the same amount of business, and is offering more or less the same products and services. That Starbucks location appears to have been stable. The company strategy appears to have been to open new locations that would be more accessible to other neighborhoods; to multiply units rather than to expand existing ones.

In the church we tend to see stability as an indication of failure, but I wonder. Is that Starbucks a failure or a success?

In the mission to make Christlike disciples in the nations, is it sometimes legitimate and wise to choose to affirm stable congregations and multiply the number of churches?

By Kenneth E. Crow

Kenneth E. Crow is a native of Nebraska. He graduated from SNU with a major in religion and later, while pastoring in Boulder, Colorado, earned M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in sociology at the University of Colorado. He has served as a Nazarene missionary in South Africa, as a pastor of  Nazarene churches in Minnesota and Colorado, as a professor and registrar at MidAmerica Nazarene University and Nazarene Bible College. He recently retired from serving as the manager of the Research Center at Nazarene Headquarters.

Have you ever stared at yourself in the mirror for any length of time? Most of us check the mirror to see if we’re dressed properly—if our appearance is in keeping with our reputation, and so on. Such visits to the mirror are fairly objective. Our hair is fixed, our teeth are brushed, and we’re assured that we’re good to go.

Have you ever just stood and looked deeply into the mirror, looking for the self that you know is hiding just under the external appearance? It’s the self that we talk to when we’re arranging and rearranging the details of our external appearance.

That is the self that silently communicates back to our queries and questions. It is the self that ignores what other people think or say about us. It seems to have an independence all its own. It may console our questioning glance into the mirror, or it may offer no reassurance, but rather, confirm our misgivings and our fears.

The self that hides beneath the surface may not be the true self at all. It may actually act like a magnet, attracting all the negative thoughts that swirl around us and hurling them at us like missiles, leaving us shaken and disturbed. On the other hand, it may flatter us with a range of superlatives that leave us certain and sure that we exceed the norm represented by vast majority of our fellow human beings.

For too many individuals, it seems as if this self is poised to purposefully shake our confidence. It seems to have the emotional intelligence of a spoiled child. Its undisciplined allegations cause us to lose faith or confidence by suggesting that others see our blemishes to the exclusion of our graces. The result of this can be an absorption or fixation on oneself, resulting in disappointing relationships with others. Our preoccupation with fixing our blemished self precludes self-giving action on behalf of others.

Emotional intelligence is a concept that has been around for a few years.

“In 1983, Howard Gardner’s Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences introduced the idea of Multiple Intelligences which included both Interpersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people) and Intrapersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one’s feelings, fears and motivations).”  1

If Gardner’s thesis is correct, those little conversations that we all have with the self that peeks out at us when we’re staring into the mirror may be quite important. In his book, Frames of Mind, Gardner writes:

“As I construe it, the central component in the moral realm or domain is a sense of personal agency and personal stake, a realization that one has an irreducible role with respect to other people and that one’s behavior towards others must reflect the results of contextualized analysis and the exercise of one’s will…. The fulfillment of key roles certainly requires a range of human intelligences - including personal, linguistic, logical and perhaps existential - but it is fundamentally a statement about the kind of person that has developed to be. It is not, in itself, an intelligence. ‘Morality’ is then properly a statement about personality, individuality, will, character - and, in the happiest cases, about the highest realization of human nature. “  2

Developing emotional intelligence may indeed mean attending to all the varied attributes of one’s existence. Gardner and others argue that humankind possesses at least seven varieties of intelligence, if not more. Research in this area is changing the face of education by recognizing the need for multiple strategies for educating students and learners. His assumption that morality is “properly a statement about personality, individuality, will, character,” opens the door for fruitful discussion in the Church.

By tying it to “the highest realization of human nature,” Gardner has tossed the ball squarely into the courtyard of the Church. Can the Church equip its members with the tools of transformation that defy the monstrous self that attempts to rule the castle of the heart through deceit, sleight-of-hand, and exaggeration? Can the people of God experience freedom from the imprisoning power of self-centeredness so that we can truly become citizens of morality’s domain? Can we be free to experience, “a sense of personal agency and personal stake, a realization that one has an irreducible role with respect to other people and that one’s behavior towards others must reflect the results of contextualized analysis and the exercise of one’s will?”

Perhaps to simplify this discussion, do we still believe that entire sanctification cleanses the soul, slays the dragon of self-absorption, and frees us from the dialogue of discouragement or the monologue of flattery’s exclusivity?

About David J. Felter
David J. Felter is general editor and Holiness Today editor in chief. As general editor, he oversees editorial content in books and publications for the Church of the Nazarene. In addition to his role as editor in chief of the denomination’s primary magazine, to which he was elected in 2004, Dr. Felter also is the senior editor of NCN News. He pastored for 21 years in Iowa, California, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Kansas. Since 1985, Dr. Felter has held assignments at Nazarene Headquarters, having served as education program manager, coordinator of Evangelism Ministries, executive editor of Adult Sunday School Curriculum, director of Adult Ministries/Lay Training, and director of Communications Services. He and his wife, Sandra, have two married sons, David and Jib, and five grandchildren.

Recently I was at a youth camp and in one of the workshops I talked about the history and beliefs of the Church of the Nazarene. I was talking about how the church evolved out of several holiness movements within the U.S. and how these movements served many drug and alcohol addicts. I mentioned the words of John Wesley: “There is no holiness but social holiness.”

I was interrupted by a teenager who asked, “Are we still doing that today? Are we still working with drug and alcohol addicts? Are we still socially living out holiness?”

Good question don’t you think?

In the workshop, people were present from almost every church within the district. They all shared a little about what they do in their church. Some said they are not really busy amongst the poor and one teenager was shocked by the fact that her church didn’t do anything in this area.

We were continuing to talk about how the internal change of sanctification results in external action, and not vice versa. All of them started thinking about how much of that kind of holiness is really present in their church environment.

Fact is that we see more and more evidence of a simulated holiness that is mainly based on keeping the forms, traditions, and customs right. A kind of holiness that tries to work from the external to the internal.
The question we all should ask is whether there is any evidence that true holiness—stimulating holiness—makes a difference in our church environment.

Maybe the question to begin with is this: To what extent am I dragged into a simulating holiness, which I perceive to be real? Lost in the maintenance of an institution, holding up the forms, traditions, and customs can gradually become number one on your priority list. Maintaining the institution is not wrong if the intention is that the church can fulfill its mission, but maintenance is not the mission.

Further, to what extent are you a person living a stimulating holiness? Are you stimulating others into a relationship with Jesus by serving them? Such holiness is stimulated by the Holy Spirit himself, who works the internal change that transfers to an outward reaction of serving others.

To be honest we all have a little of both—but what are your priorities? We all enjoy simulating holiness because that is what we are good at and it gives us the impression that we do something good. We also see the instant effect of our actions. Stimulating holiness can sometimes go unnoticed in our perception but God sees it. What a joy if we can do something with what the Holy Spirit does in us! I am sure that is why John Wesley found the most blessing in servanthood and linked it directly to sanctification.
“Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it.” Hebrews 13:2

By Dennis Mohn

Dennis was born and raised in Germany and is now living and ministering with his Dutch wife, Lara, in the Netherlands. Dennis graduated from EuNC and currently serves as associate pastor in Koog aan de Zaan as well as district youth pastor for the Netherlands.

The beginning of retirement and participation in homecoming at my alma mater (Southern Nazarene University) have prompted some reflection on the amazing ways God has led over the years. For most of those years my wife has been my partner in ministry. That early choice was vital. I would not have made it without her. Together, obedience to what we have understood to be God’s will has blessed our lives, although much of the journey has been unexpected and challenging. Unfortunately, my ministry roles in our partnership have been honored more than hers. In fact, the role of the person married to a pastor is more demanding and more important than the spouse’s role in most other professions.

In the May 1991 issue of the Herald of Holiness, I reported some results of a survey of people who are married to ministers conducted by the National Association of Evangelicals’ Task Force on the Family. In that article I began and ended with praise for these rarely recognized heroes. I still believe what I wrote then and think it is important to repeat it periodically.

“Many of the great heroes, or heroines, of the faith are rarely recognized. They carry out their roles faithfully without fanfare. As a group, the [spouses] of pastors tend to be among these unsung heroes. Many of our churches could not have been planted and could not afford to continue if these [individuals] were not willing to make heroic family sacrifices or accept employment to supplement meager pastors’ salaries.”

“Most of the [spouses] of our ministers are unsung heroes! Nazarenes do not believe in vicarious holiness in which a few special Christians would live lives of heroic sacrifice to make up for the mediocre commitment of the rest of us. But, many of our churches have survived because the individuals who married our pastors sacrificed so much and carried out their role so well.”

What might be appropriate ways for us to recognize the sacrificial commitment of pastor’s spouses?

Are there other roles in the church that we think should live lives of deeper commitment than other Christians?

What other “unsung heroes” should be recognized more than we usually do?

By Kenneth E. Crow

Kenneth E. Crow is a native of Nebraska. He graduated from SNU with a major in religion and later, while pastoring in Boulder, Colorado, earned M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in sociology at the University of Colorado. He has served as a Nazarene missionary in South Africa, as a pastor of Nazarene churches in Minnesota and Colorado, as a professor and registrar at MidAmerica Nazarene University and Nazarene Bible College. He recently retired from serving as the manager of the Research Center at Nazarene Headquarters.

Life in Christ is rooted in change. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” (2 Corinthians 5:17) We marvel at Saul’s life, changed on the Damascus Road, and his boldness in leading the early church as newly-named Paul. Yet, within today’s church, change can be one of the greatest challenges for laity and pastors alike. New ministries and modes of worship are seen as threats, often serving as points of conflict between generations. Seemingly, the litmus test of spirituality is preservation of past practices and traditions. Sadly, we haven’t sorted out ways to agreeably disagree in the church. Stories of church conflicts (or even splits) over carpet color, building projects, and choir or worship team platform attire don’t model good behavior for a watching world. Sometimes they don’t “know we are Christians by our love” because we have a hard time being agreeable when we disagree.

Interestingly, we readily accept change when it benefits our life away from the church. Few want to earn the same salary as we did 30 years ago, drive the same car, wear the same clothes (even if we could fit in them), or live without present-day technology– cell phones, big screen TVs, text messages, Google, E-mail, Amber Alerts, iPods, digital cameras, satellite dishes, and the list goes on. We seemingly enjoy change when it benefits our personal comforts but hold it at a distance in the life of the church.

Yet, change has been at the heart of our church history.

If Wesley’s wonderful repertoire of hymns used music from bar tunes, why do we worry about music change today? Some folks shudder about worshipping with drums and keyboards instead of organs and robed choirs.

And, suppose we really followed in Wesley’s steps and filled our churches with those who are hurting and in need. Sadly, too many church boards of recent years have spent time protecting locked buildings instead of allowing facilities to be used for community needs like Head Start, Alcoholics Anonymous, or divorce recovery groups.

Jesus spent time at the Samaritan well with a scandalous woman, met after hours with a scorned public official, and chose ragtag folks for his band of disciples. Yet, we worry about the influence their present-day counterparts could have on our worship services, people, and buildings.

Why is openness to change for the sake of advancing the Kingdom such a threat? Is it a fear that we might “miss the mark”? Or is it that change is uncomfortable and we preserve what we know best? Or is it something else?
 

Anita Fitzgerald Henck lives with her husband, Bill, in Azusa, California. She is a faculty member and director of the M.A. in Organizational Leadership Program at Azusa Pacific University (APU), in addition to teaching in APU’s doctoral program in higher education leadership. She is fascinated by leadership transitions and organizational change and feels blessed to be able to study and teach in these fields. Anita and Bill are the parents of Alayna (Ben) Effinger of Waldorf, Maryland, and Andrew, a senior at Point Loma Nazarene University. They are members of Pasadena First Church of the Nazarene.

One of the well-known characteristics of an indigenous postmodern person is the absence of an understanding of absolute truth. This is nothing new to us. As a church we are presently learning how to deal with it and consequently still have an influence on someone’s spiritual development. Maybe one of the most common excuses when someone is faced with critique or exhortation for their actions is: “I can take responsibility for it before God.” Many times we don’t know what to say in return and leave the conversation unfinished, because it seems right to us if someone can take responsibility.

The question I had when I recently heard this line was: What are we actually saying? First of all, we say nothing that really justifies our actions. We can take responsibility before God but that doesn’t influence God’s response. We can take much responsibility but God is still the same and therefore still just. We can’t take God’s justice into our own hands by being responsible.

Secondly, we are actually saying that we take full responsibility for the consequences still to come. Imagine that God would decide what you did is sin. Then you actually told Him beforehand that you take full responsibility. By doing so, you disregard the offer Jesus made for you.

Finally, using this phrase says something about us. It says that we know that it was wrong. In order to get out of an awkward and confronting conversation we claim to accept responsibility. We don’t want to leave it up to God to decide, because we may already feel that we did something wrong. The Spirit already started convicting us and we feel uncomfortable.

This is the responsibility dilemma—we want to take responsibility for our actions, but we also need to accept responsibility for the consequences. Our actions are either good or bad and we can’t decide for ourselves which one. But we can actually choose to engage in good or bad actions. That requires surrendering to God’s will. We need Him to lead us. When Jesus walks before us and makes us conscious of sin through His Spirit, we are more likely to avoid those situations where we have to take responsibility for the consequences.

If you hear someone say that they can take responsibility for it before God, don’t tell them that they are wrong and that they will be judged. This kind of conversation will only lead to more rejection. I believe that the best thing you can do is to help them understand why they are saying what they are saying. Help them understand the warning signals the Spirit is giving. Help them understand that God doesn’t want them to take responsibility. Gods wants them to follow, and through being sensitive to the leading of the Spirit they will do so.

By Dennis Mohn

Dennis was born and raised in Germany and is now living and ministering with his Dutch wife, Lara, in the Netherlands. Dennis graduated from EuNC and currently serves as associate pastor in Koog aan de Zaan as well as district youth pastor for the Netherlands.

Recently, I was speaking at a youth service and as always, was well prepared. I was convinced that I had a good message that would help our youth grow in their faith and gain more insights about the issues of today’s society. 

As I was preaching, I started to sense that what I was saying was not being  received as I had imagined. Obviously there was something obstructing the communication between my mouth and their ears that was hindering my message, and that frustrated me. After the service I talked with some people and I realized a couple of things.

First, I realized that my implicit intention when speaking to the youth today is to change the way they learn and grow. I regret to see that our youth are so emotion-driven and consumer-like in their faith development. So I try not to play with their emotions. Instead, I try to keep the message plain and simple, and not use too many experiential methods. But somehow it hit me that teaching youth anything in a way different from a postmodern way has little effect, because they are the very personification of postmodernism.

Second, I realized that we tend to be hesitant when it comes to trying new things or further developing the things which we do well. We discover good gifts and spend little time in developing them into great gifts.
  We stick with the communicative and rhetorical tools we are used to, and unfortunately a whole generation loses their focus because we lost track of how they want to hear the message. We stick to the safety of the familiar, and thereby we miss out, and so do they.

Our youth are postmodern and teaching them in a way that does not match this background tends to be ineffective. We, on the other hand, see the dangers of the postmodern attitude, and we tend to stick to familiar methods. But if we choose to act on that, we will keep failing to grab their attention. Fact is, they are consumers. They are used to visuals and quick changes—that is how their brain functions. They are a postmodern generation, and we don’t change that by speaking to them in a way that does not fit who they are.

So I wonder if I should more often be using the visuals, stories, interaction, and jokes that do grab their attention, even though I am afraid that this will stimulate the emotion-driven, consumer-like attitude of our youth even in church, where I believe it is supposed to be different. But do I have a choice to teach them in way different from a postmodern way if I want their hearts to open in order to receive our timeless message?

What happens to the church if we do not use methods familiar to this generation?

Do we feel that we are compromising Truth if we make radical changes?

What can the church and we as individuals learn from today’s youth? What do they bring to the faith community that might be lacking?

Do you not want to be influenced by this generation or do you want to be an influence to this generation?

Dennis Mohn grew up in a pastor’s family in Germany. He accepted Christ and experienced a call to ministry at a youth camp. After finishing studies to be an auto mechanic, Dennis went on to study theology at European Nazarene College. In 2006, he married Lara. Dennis began serving as youth and associate pastor at the Church of the Nazarene, Koog aan de Zaan, Netherlands, in 2007. Since January 2008 he has also served as district youth pastor, coaching and mentoring local youth leaders.

Lara Mohn spent a year at European Nazarene College after high school, graduating with a certificate of spiritual formation. During this year she met Dennis, her husband. Lara then graduated from Erasmus University in Rotterdam with a master of science in clinical psychology and currently works in the psychiatry department of the local hospital. She also serves as a leader of the local youth group at the Church of the Nazarene in Koog aan de Zaan, Netherlands.

While the value of large congregations is generally accepted among Nazarenes, the value of small ones is more likely to be questioned. In fact, it is very difficult for many Nazarenes to accept the possibility that effective evangelism might result in smaller congregations in some circumstances and larger congregations in others—a multiplication of units as well as an expansion of existing ones.

A tendency exists for people and pastors in small churches to see their congregations as inferior, deficient, plagued with problems to be solved, and especially inadequate in comparison with mega churches. Since discouraged people are not likely to invite the people about whom they care most to participate in the organizations that are a source of their discouragement, it is important to the mission of the church that the value of these churches be recognized. Unfortunately, we are more accustomed to thinking and talking about their disadvantages than about their advantages.

We are influenced in this thinking by culture. In many places “Mom and Pop” stores are not as popular or viable as they once were. Small establishments have been replaced by huge firms with many attractions and nearly limitless products and services. This is an era of mega stores. Still, with a different strategy and value on small establishments, during about the last twenty years Starbucks has increased their outlets in the U.S. by about 9,000 and greatly increased the number of people they serve.

I am reminded of a denominational leader who told me he was converted in a small Nazarene church. The church was in a small town where some of us might have argued that there was no need to try to establish a holiness church. Still, in the providence of God, that church was there when it was needed by a young man who later was used of God to make Christlike disciples globally.

Could it be that it is important for the Church of the Nazarene to be a network of interdependent, mutually supportive congregations engaged in mission?

Is it important to the mission of making Christlike disciples in the nations that we have churches in urban settings as well as in suburbs, small towns, or more rural areas?

To carry out our mission, do we need both large, regional churches with many attractions and services and intimate, neighborhood churches?

By Kenneth E. Crow

Kenneth E. Crow is a native of Nebraska. He graduated from SNU with a major in religion and later, while pastoring in Boulder, Colorado, earned M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in sociology at the University of Colorado. He has served as a Nazarene missionary in South Africa, as a pastor of Nazarene churches in Minnesota and Colorado, as a professor and registrar at MidAmerica Nazarene University and Nazarene Bible College. He recently retired from serving as the manager of the Research Center at Nazarene Headquarters.

One of the terms that is often used with respect to Dutch politics is “poldermodel.” It might be a little overused,  but it is a good illustration of how things sometimes work in the churches here in the Netherlands.

In 1982 at the Akkoord van Wassenaar employers, labor unions and the government agreed upon a decrease of salary in order to stabilize the economy. This agreement was made using the Dutch “poldermodel” (consensus model) where different parties discuss a certain topic to come to a consensus. From that day on the term “poldermodel’” was used, but the consensus model had been used long before that.

A “polder” is the piece of land created by building dikes around it and pumping out the water. This was needed because the water would rise from time to time and destroy everything accomplished by hard work. The only way to construct these polders was by working together, by finding consensus between the different parties involved in it. And through the years the “poldermodel” has become very popular in Dutch culture.

Being a child of this culture, it is difficult to define it and notice how it affects church life. Being married to a husband who is from a different culture and ministers in my culture, has opened my eyes to this. He gets frustrated from time to time because Dutch church members will hardly keep their criticism to themselves, and they often want to have a say in things and feel offended if they were not asked.

In the same way, every church will be affected by its culture somehow. Of course the influences of the “poldermodel” on the church can be fruitful as well as frustrating. But most of the time we are not even aware of the influence. Did you ever wonder what the culture of Christ looks like? How is our “normal” ridiculous or rude in the culture of His kingdom? And I do not mean the obvious sins of the Western culture. I mean our everyday customs, ways of thinking and interacting. Where does the influence of our culture facilitate our sanctification and where does it hinder it? These seem important questions to me.

Is our church shaped mainly by our own culture or by the culture of Christ?

by Lara Mohn

 About Lara Mohn:
Lara was born in a Dutch family in 1984. In the Netherlands she graduated from high school after which she decided to spend a year at EuNC for personal spiritual development. During this year she met Dennis, who was in his first year at EuNC as well. She graduated with a certificate of spiritual formation and left EuNC as planned. Lara moved to Rotterdam where she studied psychology at the Erasmus University. She recently graduated with a M.S.  in clinical psychology. Dennis and Lara moved to Zaanstad after Dennis started working there in the church. Now Lara is working at the psychiatry department of the local hospital. She is busy with psychodiagnostics and treatment of people with different psychiatric illnesses. Lara also serves as a youth leader at the local youth group.

Her husband, Dennis, grew up in a pastor’s family in Germany after being born in 1981. After graduating from high school he went on for an apprenticeship as a car mechanic. During these four years of education, he accepted Christ while attending a youth camp and he experienced a calling for pastoral ministry. His calling is to guide and help people get to the point where they will have a similar authentic experience with God as he did in 2001 at that camp in Germany. After finishing his mechanical studies, Dennis went on to study theology at EuNC with an aim to graduate with a B.A. in religion. In 2006 he left EuNC and married Lara. They moved to their first apartment in Rotterdam. In January 2007, Dennis started serving as youth and associate pastor in the Church of the Nazarene, Koog aan de Zaan. Since January 2008 he is also serving as district youth pastor, coaching and mentoring the local youth leaders.