“Adults may feel that praising children for their inherent qualities helps combat low self-esteem, but it might convey to children that they are valued as a person only when they succeed. When children subsequently fail, they may infer they are unworthy.” – Eddie Brummelman

I recently listened to an episode of Homebrewed Christianity in which my friend Tripp talks with some of his former undergrad professors, mainly about his new book on Jesus (which has an awesome cover design, btw). At one point (around the 28:10 minute mark or so), while discussing Tripp’s book, Dr. Adam English pushes back on a point Tripp was trying to make regarding soteriology and the unconditional love/grace of God, ala Luther. English asked Tripp if there might be a danger in the touchy-feely message of God loving people unconditionally for who they are that Tripp was espousing because there may be a potential for it to feed into the “millennial need for a participation trophy” and, ultimately, reinforce the millennial sense of entitlement.

I wasn’t really sure exactly what Dr. English was trying to get at with the whole participation trophy analogy. Tripp’s response was funny and he cleverly pointed out that it wasn’t millennial’s who invented participation trophies but was probably their boomer parents. However, it still felt like in the end Tripp played into Dr. English’s trap because they both seemed to dismiss participation trophies as being “stupid” and/or detrimental in some way or another.

Now, I get why participation trophies are criticized. Serious jocky-sports-ball athlete types believe that trophies should be presented to the best of the best, i.e. the winners only; after all, it’s the best of the best, the strongest, toughest, meanest winners who have earned them. Why should losers get anything? And that’s what trophies have traditionally been about, right? Trophies represent the meritocratic philosophy that everything in life should be earned and that effort alone is not a cause for recognition. This is why participation trophies are “stupid” in the eyes of some people.

But winning isn’t everything, and we all know this. In fact, no one wins all of the time. Failure and disappointment are inevitable parts of life; these things are just going to happen. Giving someone a trophy for winning is actually the stupid thing, in my opinion, because it is essentially giving praise for something  that is self-evident, and it merely sets the person(s) up to crash harder when the next inevitable fail comes their way. People don’t need to be praised for “doing a good job,” they need to be told why they did well so they can replicate that behavior in the future to get the same positive outcome. This is essentially what psychologists have been telling parents for many years now when it comes to praising their children: increasingly, research published by the American Psychological Association has indicated that praising children “for their personal qualities rather than their efforts may make them feel more ashamed when they fail.”

Giving trophies only to winners does not emphasize enough of the values that are important in life, and this is why, I assume, participation trophies were probably invented. From my understanding, participation trophies are usually given to very young children who are just beginning to engage in sporting activities. My son is involved in tee ball right now, and the kids on his team are four and five years old. At this stage the kids don’t even know how to hold a bat or catch a ball, so the goal I would say from ages 0 to at least 12, is to help kids enjoy sports, help them appreciate being outdoors, and hopefully encourage them to work on their skills on their own time and ultimately come back and play again next season. Participation trophies, then, acknowledge teamwork and recognize kids’ efforts like dedication, which is exemplified in showing up to practice after practice, being diligent and learning to contribute to a team, persistence in not giving up and honoring their commitments, and concentrating to learn the rules of game.

Again, praising effort over idealistic, abstract personal qualities (“You’re a winner!” or “You’re a good girl!”) seems to be in line with what the APA recommends:

“…children who are praised for their efforts may not associate their self-worth with success, so failure is viewed as a temporary setback or a lack of effort rather than a flaw in their character…[these] results may apply generally to children from most Western countries, including the United States, but the results may be less applicable to Eastern countries, such as China, where adults may use different approaches for praising children.”

To bring all of this back around to theology, soteriology and the episode of Homebrewed I mentioned above, if the Western proclivity is to value/praise individual, competitive, idealistic, static, substantial qualities and outcomes, then I am all for moving toward a more Eastern, pragmatic, processual, collaborative and communal/socially-oriented model; the West desperately needs this worldview shift. Honestly, to me, Dr. English’s push-back on Tripp’s inclusive/universal soteriology and his definition of faith as ‘trusting that we are God’s unconditionally beloved,’ came off as just plain weird. I mean, isn’t the opposite of Tripp’s soteriological view a pious sort of exclusivism where only the “winners” are saved? No thanks. If you asked me, yes WE ARE ENTITLED to be loved and taken care of merely because we are who we are; I’m with Luther and the Millennials on this one. We do not need our self-worth associated with sin or failure any longer. This type of theology too easily produces shame, trauma, dis-ease, and destruction, and I’m glad it has been, and will continue to be, challenged and amended.

Tags:Adam Englishmillenialsparticipation trophiespraisesoteriologytripp fuller