The First Day of School
February 5, 2007
Today is the first day of school for the spring semester. Sarah made our lunches for us, since both of us are going to be up on campus from 11am to 6pm on Mondays. As our class started, and the professor started taking Roll, I got all ready for my name to be called. And then it happened. He passed me. Went straight from the Ch-s to the Co-s. What happened to Cleaveland? And then I realized what had happened. I’m not a “C” anymore. I’m a “W.” I’m a Walker Cleaveland - not a Cleaveland. Now, obviously I knew that, but today was my first day of having my name called at the bottom of the list. Way down there. Oh well. I’m glad to be a Walker Cleaveland.
As for classes, I am hopeful that they will be much better than last semester. This semester I’m taking:
- Presbyterian History & Polity: Well, I’m not too excited about this course. Perhaps it will allow me to become a little more familiar with the Book of Order so that I know what I can get away with, but…not excited.
- Pastoral Care of Couples & Families: I’m really excited about this course, which is taught by my favorite Columbia Seminary professor, Bill Harkins. The readings look great and pastoral care is still something I’m very interested in.
- Youth & Young Adult Ministry: Taught by Rodger Nishioka, this should be a good overview of these ministries and another good chance to think about them theologically.
- Paradigms in the Practice of Evangelism: This course is taught by Steve Hayner, who used to be the President of InterVarsity. Emergent folks tend to get a bad rap when it comes to evangelism, and I think that’s unfair. I’m looking forward to being able to think about evangelism and what it might look like for the Emergent conversation.
Posted in General
Adam Walker Cleaveland: I am a 28 yr old 
February 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
nice new look..
if you get a chance, would love to see the reading list for youth and young adult class…
the presy polity list, on the other hand, feel free to keep to yourself….have fun in that one..
peace
mark
February 5th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
I think Rodger Nishioka used to have some office in my synod (of So Cal & Hawaii) and I have heard him speak at a couple of synod things and was generally impressed by him. Did not know he is now at Columbia! I think you can expect some good stuff in store in that class!
February 6th, 2007 at 5:37 am
ha! welcome to the end of the alphabet! :) i don’t think that many men ever have this experience adam. happy schooling - when the papers pile up and all of the reading sets in i hope you can both remember fondly those nights when you were trying to fill your time together!
February 6th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
I am sure your classes will be fun, but I am so glad that I am not in seminary anymore.
February 6th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
When your daughter, Anne Walker Cleaveland, meets Robert Smith Blanket, will they have to be come Anne and Robert Smith Blanket Walker Cleaveland? And when their kids marry…
Well, you can see why married names became easier with one (I don’t care which, just pick one…)
February 7th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Yeah, I don’t really get the whole taking two names thing. But, whatever floats your boat. My parents didn’t take each others names, and now I have to have two names in my last name, which I think is kind of silly. Hopefully classes go down smooth.
February 7th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
As someone with two last names, I find the what happens when your children get married, etc argument a little overplayed…I would like to hope that my daughter and my soon to be born son would be able to make their own informed decisions and be happy with it.
on a side note adam, it took troy over a year to adjust to being an “H” instead of a “B” in the alphabet…something about not getting first dibs on chocolate creme filled donuts in grade school if your name didn’t fall at the beginning of the alphabet ;-)
February 8th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Jessica, I think the point is that Dave was pointing out is the inconsistency and lack of the practicality of using all of these multiple names. I understand a woman having multiple names with a hyphen but not a man using the multiple names for the reason of the kids and how you name them. It doesn’t make sense to complicate the names of future kids unecessarily. There shouldn’t be a long drawn out discussion of names, how long it should be, how many, etc. The PC of this is similar to the Happy ChristaHanaKwanzamas when referring to its legitamate name which is Happy Christmas.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
DH…actually, the “PC” of names is quite distinct, it seems to me, from the the conjoining of holidays. In the case of the latter, there is an illegitimate conjunction of differentiated holidays, such that something is essentially lost when they all blur into one. That undermines the integrity of the difference inherent in each holiday, and thus seems less than advisable to me. However, the taking of each other’s last name, so as to have two last names, is an attempt to forge a new identity of oneness resulting from the sacred event of marriage, whereby two are made one. There is, in this case, a legitimate union that does not undermine the integrity of the union, but rather helps to establish it. I simply don’t see the similarity you point out.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
The similarity is the length of multiple names of things being combined into one big overly long name. You misunderstood why I used the example I used. THe ligitamcy of my example is that first AND the later are BOTH long beyond what they need be.
I’m also just getting into the problems of making these incredibly long names that 1) confuse other people 2) fear of other people being “corrected all of the time” by the people with the long names 3) Confusion for those who are multiple generations removed from the person with the incredibly long name.
Lets assume for argument you are right (I don’t agree but we will so I can make this point) Okay so in your example if I want to have this “new identity” that you “advocate” taking into account my great-grandmothers and great grandfathers names I would be called (for simplistity I end with my actual last name): Doug Tuck-Bennett-McCarthy-Kreji-Hensley now add my wifes names from her greatgrandparents (following your logic for the multiple names) and you got one big mess of a name. I can understand a wife using a hyphen in that the children would have the husbands name without the hyphen but I do not understand husbands using the hyphen for the problems I mentioned in the previous sentences written previously.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
OH I was wrong it actually I forgot Barnhardt. Here are all of the names to the great grandparents the suggestion of combining all of these (if one is being consistent) is ridiculous (Tuck-Barnhardt-Bennett-Beckner-McCarthy-Kreji-Gregg Hensley)
February 13th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Actually no, you misunderstood the intent of my argument (probably due to the brevity of my response). My point is not that the hypothetical couple *must* include any and every name. Rather, my point was that in choosing *together* to keep both names they are intentionally adopting a new unified identity as one in marriage. My point was not about names per se, rather about identity. I think Jessica in her post makes this same point, that she would hope her children and whoever they marry will make an informed decision about how they choose to understand their new identity in marriage. I think to focus on the practicality of this as if the names were the only thing at issue is a different train of thought, at least from the one I raised. Perhaps then I missed your original intent in your initial post, and then we are simply talking past one another. Furthermore, if you read my initial post carefully, I did not advocate taking one’s great-grandmother’s or grand-father’s names (though I’m not as opposed to it as you seem to be — it works quite well in Hispanic cultures for instance). What I argued for was that in marriage, a couple sets out to forge a new identity together, and if some couples do so by hyphenating their last names, I don’t see why practical issues are so powerful as to preclude a couple from doing so. If the couple is willing to deal with the practicalities of a longer name, or a hyphenated name, perhaps that’s their perogative?
February 15th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Erik, I was focusing only on the length of the name and the problems associated with future generations with these super long names. I was also pointing out from the “new identity thing” you brought up as to “where do we draw the line” and more importantly “what is the logic of the line dranw”. To me it is illogical to say “don’t include grandparents but still have these hyphens”. There is no logic to that. It is logical to have the grandparents names included and when one does this it brings to light how even absurd that is as well. Therefore my understanding on this and the “why” of my understanding of names point to a clearer understanding for the couple and future generations. Just because the couple is willing to deal with the practicalities of the long name doesn’t mean it is right. To me it seems selfish to let future generations determine what name they should have and have the added burden and confusion of what name to have. While it might benefit the current couple it won’t benefit future generations with this added burden and inefficiat discussion of something that is really simple as I have explained it before.
How about looking out for future generations over one owns self as a couple and the burden these long names create for their children? It seems rather selfish. If I had two parents with hyphen I would probably be upset with them for giving me this added burden unecessarily. The new identity is the COUPLE taking husbands name or the woman adding to with the husbands name as part of that with a hyphen. When one has BOTH with the hyphen it creates problems unfairly for future generations.
February 15th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Erik, I appreciate you trying to interact with DH and have a conversation, but…
DH, are you serious? Are we really having this conversation? Furthermore, why is it such a huge deal to you what my wife and I decide to do with our super long last names? I don’t imagine our kids will have to go to counseling because of the “added burden” of what their last name might be.
I think our children will be able to be mature enough, and creative enough, to come up with whatever last name they hope to choose.
I think there are much more important ways we can be “looking out for future generations” than by worrying about what our choice of names is going to mean for them.
I think this conversation is done.
February 16th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Well, I too agree about the counseling thing, I hope you didn’t take what I said as “over-the-top” I was really pointing out how difficult and upseting (not to the point of counseling) to have to deal with names that our long if my parents chose your path. I am glad you admit that it is an “added burden”. The question remains with this is this “unecessary” and “unfair to the children”? I personally believe it is but everybody is entitled to their own opinion.
While I agree “I think there are much more important ways we can be “looking out for future generations” than by worrying about what our choice of names is going to mean for them.” That doesn’t change in a lower degree that we need to help in this way with names as well. I believe we can focus on ALL of these for the children.
You say “mature enough, and creative enough, to come up with whatever last name they hope to choose”. I think it is also mature and creative as a child to be upset (not angry maybe concerned is a better word (if they happened to be)) for having to deal with this burden. I’m mature and creative and I was just in this thread saying how I would react if my parents chose your path. This isn’t personal but only in reference to ones choice on this. I repect you and your wifes decision but was only voicing how I disagree and what are the implications I observe from them. That’s all.
February 16th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
DH, just to be clear. I don’t admit that it is an “added burden.” When I put it in comments in my above quote, it was meant to convey some sarcasm - I think it’s a little ridiculous to think that children will be so burdened by this…
…and anyway, our kids aren’t taking our two last names. They’re just going to be taking Cleaveland. So I guess it doesn’t really matter…but I still think the point is, whether they were taking Walker Cleaveland or Walker-Cleaveland, or whatever…they’ll be smart. They’ll figure it out. They’re not going to be running around with 4 or 6 or 8 last names…they’ll make decisions that reflect the best of their family history and the best of their hope for their future together with their partner…
February 16th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
I’m glad what you are doing for them with the names of your kids. I rather spend my and/or our (wife and I’s) time talking about how to have a successful marriage than having an overly long discussion of names. But that is just me.
You may think it is ridiculous but I don’t. For me, putting myself in their shoes, I would think of it as an added burden (however small and tiny it may be “burden” nonetheless). I’m sorry that you think I’m ridiculous (putting myself in others shoes by myself having this long name and my hypothetical reaction therein).
However, Adam, I’m glad we came full circle and there are no hard feelings on this. I hope you can see the rationale for my position as I do to you to some extent but disagree.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
(HUMOROUS) I was wondering what made you (not your wife because I have no problem with women having hyphens) choose “Walker-Cleaveland” over “Cleaveland-Walker”? It seems to me that the same rationale for the hyphen is the same determination of which name on either side of the hyphen is chosen first or last whichever. (If you get my drift). Can you see how overly long and drawn out it can be compared with just going with what 99.9% of all people in the world name their families? :)
February 20th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
I’m not sure if this thread is over but I did have one question for dh. I am curious to hear a further explanation as to why women can have hyphenated names but not men. Very interested to hear…
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:59 am
I explained it earlier and it is due to the names given to the children and the limit needed for these long names. This is my explaination but if you read my post from Feb 16th 5:11pm it has some additional questions that could be directed to you as well. The conclusion as stated as a retorical question is this: “Can you see how overly long and drawn out it can be compared with just going with what 99.9% of all people in the world name their families?”
I would be interested (since you have a hyphenated name) as how you determine which is before the hyphen and which is after the hyphen? I think the predispostion I observe contained in your previous question “why women can have hyphenated names but not men.” I suspect will be the answer to this question:
“I would be interested (since you have a hyphenated name) as how you determine which is before the hyphen and which is after the hyphen?”