Why I won’t be showing my youth group ‘The Passion of The Christ’ this Easter

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

This morning I accidently flicked toothpaste into my eye. It was stupidly painful and more than a little humiliating. That, however, was not the reason for the toothbrush or the toothpaste – I wanted to clean my teeth! The 2004 Mel Gibson film, The Passion of The Christ – in some odd way – is much like my unfortunate brush with the toothpaste. A significant emphasis on pain and humiliation that largely loses the reason behind the story.

I first watched The Passion of The Christ alone in my brother’s room when I was seventeen. I had a pretty mature Christian faith, and I was plugged into a good youth group. The initial post-movie shock lasted me about three hours. I remember guilt, fear, gratitude, and floods of tears. After that it took over my mental processing for weeks. There were just aspects of it that I couldn’t work out or square away.

On the whole, I believed it was generally a more helpful than unhelpful experience at the time. And that’s the thing – I wouldn’t say that The Passion of The Christ is a bad film, or even – on the whole – unhelpful for a lot of Christians. There are some very precious parts of the film that were handled with real grace and care. The question today, however, is whether we should show it at our youth clubs to groups of 11–18-year-olds? And linked to that question – does it honestly display what really happened to Jesus in those last days of His life?

A youth club staple?

I’m part of an online forum of youth workers who addressed this very question just last week: Should you show The Passion of The Christ at youth clubs? The debate drew very strong opinions from both sides. One person said the film was ‘manipulative and traumatizing’, to which someone else responded ‘you should try the source material sometime.’ Ouch! A parent raised concerns too, saying ‘absolutely not… I have a daughter that would be traumatized.’

Although this was just last week, it is an old debate. The argument usually goes back and forth between, yes show it, it’s important to see with accuracy the pain that Jesus went through; and no, don’t show it, it’s too violent, and it’s inappropriate for young people.

I have sympathy for both of these views. I think it is important to know how much tragic pain, violence, and humiliation the cross inflicted on Jesus, and for young people to be able fit that into their faith language. However, that should be done with 1) accuracy, 2) necessity, and 3) sensitivity as measures. Unfortunately, I think these are all found wanting in The Passion of The Christ.

Accuracy

The Passion of The Christ promotes a myth of accuracy though claiming loyalty to the Bible as its source material and historical meticulousness. There are, however, plenty of accuracy issues in The Passion of The Christ, from the clothes and beards to the languages and customs, to the off-kilter presentation of both the Jews and the Romans, to the reoccurring (and frankly creepy) anthropomorphised images of the devil. Sorry, I’ve got a soft spot for Christian mysticism, but 40 year old baby-Satan was just weird!

There are just far too many details that are inaccurate to take the film as solid history. However, it’s not just a case of ‘if you can’t get the small things right…’ There are also a few much more significant problems. For this post, I’ll focus on just one – and it’s a big one!

The film’s particular and extended image of ‘scourging’ – repeated lashes with something akin to a cat-o-nine tails embedded with pieces of bone or metal – does not come from either the Bible or historical authorities. As archaeologists Berlin and Magness comment ‘there are neither descriptions, pictorial representations, nor physical evidence for the brutal implement that is used at length and to such horrific effect in The Passion’s “scourging” scenes.’[1] In fact, the only implement the Gospels’ mention is a ‘reed’ (Matt. 27:30; Mk. 15:19), and the only example of a weapon anything like what’s displayed in the film is ‘the whip’ used by Jesus to drive people out of the temple (a ‘φραγέλλιον’ in Jn. 2:13 ). This, however, was a collection of leather chords, not a metal-encrusted torture device.

Although the image of a torture weapon with multiple chords and chains and with bone or metal hooks is widely shared in Bible studies and on the internet, in reality there is very little evidence of the Romans using anything like this in the time of Jesus. The closest thing we have from archaeology is a ceremonial instrument carried by pagan priests (which wasn’t used for torture) or a 4th Century ‘plumbate’ whip, which wasn’t around in 1st Century Palestine. It wasn’t really until the 15th or 16th Century that the Church began to speculate on this kind of torture weapon. Our understanding of the ‘cat-o-nine-tails’ scourge is, in reality, an invention of medieval art, not Roman antiquity.

In the film, however, Jesus is lashed, flogged, and scourged across several positions, with several embellished tools, around one-hundred times. If the film is correct, and Jesus was tortured in such an unprecedented and remarkable way – and one that diverges so much from Roman custom – you would have thought that one of the Gospels would have mentioned it?

Going back to the youth workers’ forum I mentioned earlier, one person said, ‘If anything [the film] doesn’t show half of what suffering our savior went through!’ and another, ‘[The] Passion of the Christ doesn’t hold a candle to what actually happened but is the closest thing to it.’ Sorry guys, I appreciate your passion, but if you’re using either the Bible or historical record, then the scourging scene was overdone, exaggerated, and largely fabricated.

This isn’t to make light of Jesus’ flogging. By no means! But it is a matter of focus. Whereas the Gospels focus on the teaching and person of Christ without overly concentrating on his physical pain, The Passion of The Christ completely reverses this emphasis. It dials up the torture to a degree that is indefensible from either historical or biblical evidence – and loses the purpose or person of Jesus behind it. There is accuracy in some of the drama presented, but much of it is heavily embellished.

Necessity

My second issue is contextual balance. Theologically, the film places so much emphasis on the physical, human-flesh suffering, that it loses the eternal battle for souls almost entirely. It’s mostly important that we know that Jesus died for us, and then it’s definitely meaningful to remember that that was an intense and unfair death. But the pain experienced is not the point! When we super-over-hyper focus on any single aspect of the gospel to this extent, we throw the perfect balance of the story out of whack, and we lose the narrative power of the whole.

If you put rocket fuel in Ford Mondeo, you’re not left with a faster, cooler car. What you actually have is a very messy explosion! Even if The Passion of The Christ was mostly an accurate depiction, the severe overemphasis on Jesus’ torture and death without any explanation or context loses the wider story of His incarnation, crucifixion, atonement, resurrection and ascension.

The most glaring issue throughout the two-hour violent depiction of Jesus’ torture and death then, is that at no point does the film address the question why? For what reason did Jesus die? If you’re going to use The Passion of The Christ as an evangelistic tool, then that’s a really significant hole. And considering the intensive emotional state that your young people are going to be in after watching it, are you going to be able to then explain what’s missing? You might get a positive-looking immediate result (“they were speechless!”), but you also might be unpicking it for years to come.

Put another way, if you’re going to justify over-emphasising  gratuitous violence for theological reasons, you’d better make sure your theology is on point. This is especially true if you’re working with vulnerable young people.

Sensitivity

Entertainment Weekly ranked The Passion of The Christ as ‘the most controversial film of all time.’ I’ve heard Christians say this is because the gospel is offensive and divisive, but that’s not the reason the magazine gave. It was ranked this highly because of its extreme depictions of torture and violence. For context, they ranked this ahead of Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, a film for which the phrase ‘ultra-violent’ was invented.

The question that comes to focus here then is why do you want to show it to your young people in the first place? Because of the extreme violence and gore, it’s an 18-Rated (R in America) film that has been deemed unsuitable for younger audiences. This means you would need a very good reason to show it to them. If that reason isn’t accuracy or necessity, then what do you have left? My fear is that it stylises Jesus in such a way that invokes a response – and if we were really honest, that’s why we show it.

Even in a teenage world of ‘Call of Duty’, ‘The Hunger Games’, and ‘Game of Thrones’ our responsibility to safeguard the development of our children should not be dialled down. Even if they are exposed to violence in the media, it is not an excuse for us to jump on the same bandwagon and attempt to disciple them pastorally by exaggerating the violence of our own tradition. While a wide range of gruesome violence exists in the Bible, taking in a movie laden with visual effects and featuring real actors is an entirely different experience.

Coming back to the true cross

We must teach Jesus and we must teach the cross. There is nothing more essential for us to do! But let’s begin and end with the real Jesus and draw them to the cross of the Bible. It’s there where true power is found, and a lifetime of passion is fuelled.

The cross was a violent, gruesome, humiliating, and unfair treatment of our saviour. It was an incredible amount of suffering! However, we do not need to embellish the details, bypass the facts, ignore the theology, or neglect context to tell this story. It’s important that we share the fullness of who Jesus truly is.

Good youth work doesn’t rely on easy wins. Rather than depending on these intensive (and insensitive) ‘jumpstart’ moments, let’s instead do the real work of building relationships with young people that will draw them close to Jesus with integrity, love, and longevity – rather than guilt, fear, and confusion.

It’s not a terrible film, and some of it I really value, but I won’t be showing it to my teenagers this Easter.

 

[1] A. Berlin & J. Magness (2004), Two Archaeologists Comment on The Passion of the Christ. The Archaeological Institute of America. Available at: https://www.archaeological.org/pdfs/papers/Comments_on_The_Passion.pdf

 

Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

I know you’re a church leader, but do you truly know the gospel?

/3 Comments/in , , /by

We love to be black-and-white don’t we? We love to be super clear on where we stand on complex issues. We know exactly what the Bible says about… [fill in the gap.]

We can talk intelligently, with rehearsed answers and memorised verses about all manner of social, ethical, and philosophical ideas. We know how to reduce complexity to a snappy soundbite.

We think this boldness on issues and our uniqueness in a relativistic world comes from the gospel’s influence in our lives.

But the world doesn’t need to hear ‘gospel-influenced’ answers if they don’t first hear – with the same levels of clarity, passion, conviction, and purpose – what the gospel itself is.

Does the gospel play second-fiddle to our pet hot topics?

A question surfaces then: If the gospel feels more like background, and doesn’t come up with the same passion or clarity as other topics, then are we truly crystal clear on what the gospel itself really is?

The gospel:

  • Jesus came,
  • He lived,
  • He died,
  • He rose,
  • He ascended,
  • and He is coming back.

It’s too easy to frame the gospel in ‘us’ terms, but the gospel is the celebration and proclamation of Jesus. This is His world, we are His people, and His name is the name above all names. It’s all about Him.

The gospel is all about Him.

Good Friday is all about Him.

Easter is all about Him.

We do feature and we’re scuppered without it, but it’s His story, and we are involved – wonderfully and graciously – in the radiance of that. It’s like this:

  • Jesus came – God Incarnate – revealing the fullness of God to a broken world and ushering in a New Creation
  • Jesus lived – a perfect and sinless life – fully keeping God’s law where we simply can’t
  • Jesus died – the Sacrificial Lamb – a just human sacrifice for a human problem, and an eternal divine sacrifice to reach every human across space and time
  • Jesus rose – resurrected not resuscitated – defeating death itself, revealing His victory and power, leading the way and carving the path for us to follow
  • Jesus ascended – into Heaven to sit at God’s right hand – he is the ultimate King and Lord of the universe right now
  • Jesus is coming back – He will return – to wipe every tear, defeat every injustice, and to establish the ultimate Creation world when Heaven and Earth finally meet, and the Spiritual and the Physical truly mix.

If you want to share the gospel, try and talk more about who Jesus is and what He has done, than you do about who we are and what we get from it. Believe me the world is inspired by Jesus, and they’ve seen too many self-help schemes to be interested without Him.

Those six things Jesus did represent the different movements or acts in the gospel story. We need to hold them together – as one narrative – carefully balancing each piece in tension as a whole. This is the story that moves mountains, heals the sick, and raises the dead. It’s the story at the centre of history and the foundation for every molecule of the universe. This story is the gravity of the ages. It’s powerful and rich and full because it’s truly His story.

I believe that you can trace every issue in a church, every difference in denomination, and certainly every ‘heresy’ to a misbalance in this story. Heavily leaning on one piece, while casually downplaying others, will inevitably create issues.

Heavily legalistic churches, for instance, often overemphasise the ‘Jesus lived’ bit, focusing on His behaviour and thus the requirement for ours. Prosperity churches will often focus heavily on the ‘victory’ aspects of the resurrection and ascension, subtly downplaying Jesus’ death. Closer to home (and maybe close to the bone) classically evangelical churches tend to focus in on the death and miss out on the fullness of the resurrection. Think about it – can you articulate why Jesus rose from the dead for you, just as well as you can why Jesus died on the cross for you?

This is not the right time to be fuzzy on who Jesus is. The gospel is the heartbeat of our lives and the cornerstone of our ministry. Are we fuzzy on the gospel as youth workers?

[The rest below is a fitting extract from Rebooted]

The Gospel and Youth Work

Have you ever heard someone who cannot tell a joke try desperately to put the moving parts together? They cram the punchline somewhere into the setup and end lamely with “but it’s funny! Why aren’t you laughing…” My favourite is when a friend of mine tried her hand at a classic:

“Hey Tim, a horse walked into the bar, and he had a long face. And the barman said… … … darn it!”

The gospel is a little like that! It is the good news, yet so many Christians cannot articulate the basic moving parts of it. That Jesus came, lived, died, rose, ascended is the most incredible event in all of history. Why does the question ‘what is the gospel’ get met with so many abstractions and so much fuzziness?

I often hear youth leaders at events telling young people that Jesus died for them. Brilliant! Please keep telling your young people that. However, the obvious question that arises from such a radical idea is why? Why did Jesus die for me?

The answer I often hear is because He loves you. And then they leave it there. Yes, but no, but yes, but no, but — ! Yes, it’s absolutely true that Jesus loves us, and loves us unconditionally, fully and completely! Yes, it’s true that His love drew Him to the cross, but love, in isolation, was not the reason He died. The punchline has been swallowed in the setup.

Let me put it this way: I love my wife, but killing myself is not really a very constructive expression of that love. There needs to be a reason that my love would express itself in that way… like pushing her out of the way of a car; or more heroically, diving in front of a speeding bullet. The reason my love would express itself in death would be to save her from it.

Fine, Jesus loved us so He died to save us. Is that enough? Well no. Save us from what? Why? When? Who? How does dying save us from anything anyway? And if he’s dead, how does it really matter to me? And did he stay dead? What did the resurrection actually accomplish other than proving he was God?

Jesus paid a substitutionary price for our sin and separation from God, being both the eternal sacrifice as divine and the just penalty as human. He died in our place, paying our debt. Then He rose again, defeating the powers and chains of death itself, unlocking the doors of eternity. This is the gospel.

Consider that,

The greatest sin ever committed was humanity nailing Jesus to the cross.

The greatest pain ever experienced was for Jesus to die in the absence of His father.

The greatest injustice ever was Jesus becoming the guilty one in our place. An injustice God transformed into the supreme act of righteousness.

The greatest act of love, mercy, grace, and beauty was Jesus surrendering himself to death for our sake.

The greatest victory ever achieved was the Holy Spirit raising Jesus up to life and promising to do the same for us.

This should be the greatest part of our lives, touching everything in it, and therefore the greatest portion of our teaching.

The cross bought our forgiveness, our justification, and our assurance of salvation. It cleared our record, disarmed Satan, and gave us permission to sit on God’s knee on the throne for eternity! How is this not all we talk about?

We need to live and breathe the Gospel in our saturation teaching; it should be at the absolute heart of all we teach. In fact, I’m going to challenge you that every passage in the Bible, properly understood in context, will tell you something of that gospel. It is the central action of all history, the most pivotal part of creation.

Our young people need this message of hope, love and beauty more than anything else. It is naturally relevant, it sits at the heart of everything the disciples did, and it is thoroughly expressed in how Jesus lived.

 

Photo by Sean Mungur on Unsplash

Advocating for Women in Youth Ministry – we really must do better!

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

A couple of years ago I received a bit of pushback to my 11 essential youth ministry books because none of them were written by women.

My response was that this, unfortunately, is the reality of the market. For every youth work book written by a woman there are dozens written by men. There is an enormous problem with the body language of youth ministry towards women.

Women and Youth Ministry

I’m always nervous writing on topics like this because I don’t want to come across as a yet another entitled, white, middle-class man, swooping in like a hero-ninja-knight trying to rescue women. Women don’t need rescuing by men who think they’ve got all the answers. But it’s time that the wisdom, experience and voice of women is promoted, listened to, valued and learned from. And this will mean that men like me must be willing to advocate for women.

Women have been immensely mistreated across leadership in the Church, and – even though there have always been more female youth ministers than female ministers generally – they are still seen as second-rate workers for the Gospel.

This is just wrong.

A few years back I collected stories from 40 women in youth ministry. These were shocking to the core. They included lines like:

“For about a year, I had people tell me I needed to hurry up and find a man because, being a woman, I couldn’t relate to boys. Two years later, they told me to be more ladylike so I could relate to the girls, because I’m only good at relating to the boys (I’ve always been a tomboy). Also, there are some concerns that me wearing men’s clothing may make my girls lesbian?”

and

“Do you know how many job descriptions have the words he/him/his? And then I have gotten responses back with one question: “Are you a man?” I have two degrees in student ministry and have volunteered for nearly 15 years in various capacities but rarely get any response.”

also

“I am the children’s minister at our church, note I am paid staff. I was told last week I wasn’t allowed to go on the staff retreat bc I was a woman…. my husband could go and “represent” me.”

This doesn’t just come from the culture of youth work, but from the Church as a whole, and even from churches hiring women as youth workers. Although there is a growing openness, there still seems to be a generational plague of views that see a woman in ministry as somehow less than a man.

I know that I’m less traditional on women in church leadership than many of my evangelical brothers and sisters. I believe that women in leadership is supported by the Bible and should be practiced in the Church today. This is not that post, however, so for now I’ll just point towards an excellent exposition of this from Bishop Tom Wright.

Where would youth ministry be without women?

Some of the most amazing youth workers I’ve ever met have been women. My own teams have always had incredibly wise and able women in them – and my ministry suffers without them. My own experiences aside, however, the shape of youth ministry today owes a lot to female influence.

There are, of course some important youth ministry books written by women, including ‘God-bearing Life’ by Kenda Creasy Dean and ‘Youthwork’ by Sally Nash. There are women heading up a huge amount of the accredited youth ministry training across the UK including Alice Smith at St. Mellitus, Alia Pike at Nazarene, Mel Lacey at Oak Hill, Dr. Sally Nash at CYM, and – until very recently – Dr. Carolyn Edwards at Cliff College, and now York Diocese. The editors of Premier Youth and Children’s Work Magazine are women (Ruth Jackson, Jess Lester and previously Emily Howarth). There’s also Naomi Allen heading up Open Doors Youth, and Chioma Fanawopo leading Release Potential. About 60% of National Youth for Christ staff are women, about 70% of Youthscape’s, and almost half of Scripture Union’s.

This represents a significant amount of influence in shaping the development of future practitioners. Youth ministry would look immensely different without women’s significant influence in shaping it.

So what can we do?

Balance for balance sake is surely not the answer. We should hire and support those with a clear calling and measurable gifting without taking sex into the equation. My concern, however, is that a lot of the standards we measure gifting and calling against have been inherently masculine for quite some time. We often have this bias at play, even when it’s not explicitly stated. We might believe we’re trying to hire ‘the right person for the job, regardless’ yet still have subliminally pictured a man in the role and so measured candidates against that image.

Levelling the playing field must start, therefore, at the heart level, looking inwards at our attitudes, not just outwards at our hiring and management practices. It’s important to remove the bias from our rules and structures, but on its own, that is just not enough. We should first address our biases in our own minds and attitudes. This is where the change has to come from. There’s lots of dark areas that might need lighting up, and impertinent questions that need to be asked.

At very least, can we love our co-workers in Christ, and see them first as professionals? We are partners in the Gospel, seeking the same goals, and shooting at the same targets – together.

I’m really proud that over half of the contributors to YouthWorkHacks are women and my own book includes two amazing sidebars written by women: Dr. Sam Richards and Rachel Turner. In fact, the YouthWorkHacks audience in 2019 was 58% female. I don’t mention this to make me look balanced, but because these women have contributed massively to the message that I care so much about. They have written with grace, wisdom and power, and they have taken my work to levels it just couldn’t have gone without them.

There’s so much more to do

A few days ago, my wife and I celebrated 12 years of marriage together. Sharing life together has been an unmatched privilege and the greatest adventure of my life. I, however, am not the cutting edge of our partnership; Jesus is. Our life together has been built by mutual submission and sacrifice to one another (Eph. 5:21) – letting Jesus be the final leader of our growth together. If I was to strip Katie of any authority in our marriage, I would certainly be worse off for it. I need her, she needs me, and we both need Jesus – together.

The way the church has treated women in youth ministry (and across all ministry) is shocking. We need to do all that we can to remedy, restore, and reconcile this litany of subversive abuse. Men shouldn’t just try to be heroes, but they can be advocates. Let’s be more aware, more open, more professional, more bold, and far more humble towards (and on behalf of) our fellow co-workers in Christ.

There’s much more to say, and much has already been said by people far more qualified than I am. This is neither a last word nor a first, but to my brothers, let’s just try harder for the sake our sisters, the sake of our ministries, the sake our young people, and the sake of the Gospel. There’s a lot to put right, so let’s be advocates, so we truly can be partners.

 

Ps. Some writers to check out…

There are some truly amazing female writers, pastors, and thinkers out there. Take some time to check out:

  • Rachel Tuner
  • Sally Nash
  • Kendra Creasy-Dean
  • Rachel Gardner
  • Kate Coleman
  • Bethany Jenkins
  • Melissa Kruger
  • Trillia Newbell
  • Katherine Sondergger
  • Amy Orr-Ewing
  • Kristen Deede Johnson
  • Bethany Hanke Hoang
  • Elaine Padilla
  • Kara Powell
  • Frances Young
  • Gloria Furman
  • Nancy Guthrie
  • Kathleen Nielson
  • Jen Wilkin

Photo by Priscilla Du Preez on Unsplash

A 1hr a day reading list to make 2020 a year of theology

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

Did you ever wish you knew more about theology or wanted to brush up on the basics? Maybe you’ve been a youth worker for years, but you skipped training and now you feel like you’re playing catchup? If you start the year right, then you can work in some new reading habits that – with a little commitment – should help you exit 2020 with a firmer grasp on Theology, the Bible, and Youth Ministry.

There’s so much you can read, and the internet is a maze of muddled advice and opinion-heavy black holes.  The aim of this post is to cut through some of that and give you a good place to start.

This is by no means a ‘definitive’ list, but it does include a fair few books that many Bible Colleges and Seminaries have on their first year list. It’s not meant to be a final word, but a helpful dotted line to follow.

The hope is to give you a roughly 1hr a day, 5 days a week reading list that will last you the whole year (with 2-4 weeks off somewhere depending on your reading speed).

This list is made up of four areas – starting with the Bible. Beyond that I’ve added three other types of book: Classical, Theory and Practice. The books are not listed in any particular order, however there is a ‘ * ‘ against those that I think are the more essential reads.

You can buy many of these books used on Amazon, but you might find the easier thing to do is take out a Library subscription somewhere and get them to order books for you. If you’re close to a University, then finding a College Library that uses the Heritage system will be your easiest bet.

Remember to check out what’s available as Audiobooks too.

The Bible

If you want to grasp any kind of theology better, then you really do need to start with the Bible. It takes about an hour a day to read the Bible in three months, so I’m going to suggest that half your daily reading allocation for the entire year is the Bible itself – meaning you’ll read all 66 books of the Scriptures twice through in the year.

My instinct is to begin with 20 minutes in the Old Testament, and 10 minutes in the New Testament. That could be three 10-minute sittings a day. Remember too, that the whole Bible is in Audiobook form for free online.

I’d recommend the first time through that you start to read a long-hand translation that you’re familiar with (NIV, CEV, NLT, ERV, GNB, etc.) followed by a slightly more structural translation (ESV, NRSV, NET, ASV, etc.). If you find the time then I’d suggest re-reading proverbs in the MSG version at some point too.

As you go through – reference the introductory page of each biblical book in How to Read the Bible Book by Book by Gordon Fee.

Old Testament

Start with the Pentateuch (Gen. – Deut.), then the first part of the History Books (Jos. – 2 Kngs.), then read through the Psalms & Wisdom Literature (Job, Prov. Eccl. Songs.). Finally go back to the History Books (1 Chron. – Est.), before finishing with the Prophets (Is. – Mal.).

New Testament

Go through it mostly in order, however perhaps read Jn. Before Lk. So, you can read Lk. and Acts together as they were designed to be.

Classical

So much contemporary theology is built upon these stones, and they tend to say more per line than modern books do in a few pages. So, take these slow. This is the small list, but if you were limited to just a few things to read – this is where I’d start.

*Book 1 of Calvin’s Institutes (Free online)

On the Incarnation – St. Athanaisius (Free online – quick read)

The Reformed Pastor – Richard Baxter (Free online)

The Mortification of Sin – John Owen

The Bruised Reed – Richard Sibbes

Books 1-5 of On The Trinity – St. Augustine (Free online)

Books 11 and 22 of City of God – St. Augustine (Free online).

*Parts 1-2 of The Religious Affections – Jonathan Edwards (0.49p on Kindle)

The Republic – Plato (easy to listen to in 3-4hrs it at 1.25 speed on YouTube)

The Nicomachean Ethics – Aristotle (6 hours at 1.25 speed on YouTube)

 

Theory

These books give you a bit more applicable insight to big questions about theology, philosophy, mission, and history.

*The Cross of Christ – John Stott

Part 1 of Systematic Theology v.1 – Katherine Sonderegger

*Knowing God – Jim Packer

*Know the Truth – Bruce Milne

Chs. 8, 10 and 11 of Doctrine – Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears

Part 3 of Doctrine of The Knowledge of God – John Frame

The Pleasures of God – John Piper

The Doctrine of God – Gerald Bray

*The Passion of Jesus Christ – John Piper (you can use this as a daily meditation for a while – or get your home group to go through it).

Listening to The Spirit In The Text – Gordon Fee

*Dig Deeper – Andrew Sach & Nigel Beynon

Holiness – J.C. Ryle

Part 2 and 3 of The Gagging of God – Don Carson

Mere Christianity – C.S. Lewis

The Universe Next Door – James Sire

The Difficult Doctrine of The Love Of God – Don Carson

Think – Simon Blackburn

*Gospel and Kingdom – Graeme Goldsworthy

*Turning Points – Mark Noll

History of Theology – Bengt Hägglund

 

Practice

These are mostly youth work books, and none of them should take more than 6hrs to read. Many of these are also available through audio book.

*Death By Love – Mark Driscoll

The Wounded Healer – Henri Nouman

No Perfect People Allowed – John Burke

*Christian Youth Work – Ashton & Moon

*The Contemplative Pastor – Eugene Peterson

Apologetics to The Glory of God – John Frame

Sustainable Youth Ministry – Mark DeVries

*Rebooted: Reclaiming youth ministry for the long haul – a biblical framework – Tim Gough

Models for Youth Ministry – Steve Griffiths

*Contemplative Youth Ministry – Mark Yaconelli

Parenting Children for a life of Confidence – Rachel Turner

5 Things to Pray for Your Kids – Melissa Kruger

Trained in the Fear of God – Randy Stinson & Timothy Paul Jones

The Justice Calling – Kristen Deede Johnson & Bethany Hanke Hoang

 

Photo by Jonny Swales on Unsplash

Discussing Incarnational Youthwork – the reader’s digest version

/1 Comment/in , /by

Back in June I wrote a 5-part series on Incarnational Youth Work. This was, in itself, a reader’s digest version of a forthcoming journal that’s being published later in the year by Brill.

It strikes me, however, that 6926 words over five posts still wasn’t that digestible or ‘blog friendly.’ So here is a reader’s digest version of that reader’s digest version!

As with any reader’s digest, please don’t take this as the final word. It’s a summary with less nuance; it’s a formula without showing the working; it’s fast food, not Michelin stars! If you want a bit more meat, check out the originals, and if you want a lot more meat then grab the Journal, and if you want my alternative, then buy my book! (Cheeky plug? Yup.)

What is Incarnational Youthwork?

The definition of incarnational youth ministry begins with the idea that we’re doing mission and ministry as Jesus did mission and ministry (W. Black, An Introduction to Youth Ministry, 1991:209).

The thought behind this is as God became human and immersed himself into a specific culture so the worker must immerse themselves – both contextually and relationally – in order to bring the gospel to young people in their own cultures today.

They must become something other than what they are to become like those they minister to. They must be ‘incarnate’ and become just like them. Young Life in the 1940s called this ‘earning the right to be heard’. In Jim Burn’s own words, ‘as the ministry of Jesus was incarnate in the Gospels, so our life must be incarnate in youth ministry’ (in Josh McDowell’s youth ministry handbook: making the connection, 2000:35).

Sometimes, when youth workers say they’re doing ‘incarnational’ youth ministry they are actually just doing relational ministry (focused on individuals), or contextualised ministry (focused on cultural context), or a mixture of both. The two main moving parts of Incarnational ministry are contextualisation and relationship building – but it technically goes much further.

The Semantic Problem

The Incarnation itself means something very specific. It has lots of moving parts, but incarnational ministry only focuses on one part: Revelation. God came into our culture to reveal himself to us so we can build relationship with Him, therefore go and do likewise.

I don’t want to downplay the importance of revelation, but it is far from the whole. With only a small part of the Incarnation at play, can we really say that we are being incarnational?

The Incarnation has been reduced to revelation that we can copy, rather than the one time, unique, and saving action of God that we worship. When meanings change this much semantics become very important. We don’t talk about Trinitarian or Atoning or Salvific youth ministry – why then would we let the Incarnation be fair game? Words and meanings are important! A tyre, after all, is not a car, an arm is not a body, and Posh is not The Spice Girls.

Reading the Incarnation through the tinted and very specific lens of incarnational theory has resulted in a generation of youth leaders who can’t articulate the main moving parts of the Incarnation itself.

When using any foundational doctrine as a basis for our work, we should always ask whether we are confusing or diminishing the doctrine. Incarnational theory uses one very small part, morphs it into a thing that we primarily do, rather than God, and then completely bypasses the other aspects of the doctrine.

My big problem here is that if we read more youth work books than theology books (or dare I say the Bible) we end up thinking of the Incarnation through the lens of incarnational theory and thus diluting who Jesus is and what He did. It’s no less than messing with the meaning of Jesus.

The Biblical Problem

Throughout the youth ministry books that teach the incarnational model, three Bible passages are used almost exclusively: Jn. 1; Phil. 2; and 1 Cor. 9. These are all used sparingly and, honestly, in some cases just very poorly.

There are many key Incarnation Bible verses that incarnational youth ministry theorists don’t use at all. Sorry about list, but Ex. 25:8; Is. 7:14; Mic. 5:2; Mal. 3:1-5; Matt. 1:18-23; 3:17; 17:5; Mk. 1:24; 10:17-18; Jn. 5:18; 6:29; Col. 1:15-20; Heb. 1:1-14; 20:28; Rev. 19:11-13 are all very important.

I don’t expect youth work books to use all relevant passages, but I think the selective way they have picked their verses is a little telling. It’s almost like they had a point ready to go, and then looked for verses that fit their point. This is the wrong way around.

Jn. 1:14

Almost every Incarnational writer uses The Message version of verse 14, which says Jesus ‘moved into the neighbourhood’. I’m a fan of the Message but this is misleading. At best, it is a partial interpretation of the whole.

It should be very difficult to come away from Jn. 1 without a clear sense of the uniqueness of Jesus as both eternal and creator. Incarnational youth ministry writings unfortunately pass over both of these aspects in their rush to make it about what we should do instead.

Making what Jesus does in Jn. 1 primarily about what we should do today is a little bit weird. We do feature in Jn. 1, but as His creation (v.2), needing His light (vv.4, 9), and made to be His children through faith (vv.11-13). Jesus is our way of knowing God (vv.1, 7, 14, 18) and our place in this story is to believe in God by accepting Jesus.

Phil 2:5-11

This teaches that Jesus, as divine, was born to die. It draws a straight line from the complete uniqueness of Jesus to the atonement won by His death. It is about ultimate humility that shows Jesus’ headship over all creation.

Incarnational youth ministry writers, however, don’t spend time on the salvation aspects of this passage, which is a significant oversight considering it’s the central part of the it. Instead it’s used as a blueprint for our own humility and work today.

1 Cor. 9:19-22

Incarnational writers often add a ‘likewise clause’ to the verse. ‘Our goal is to become all things to all adolescents so that we might reach them.’ (Gerali in Starting right: thinking theologically about youth ministry, 2001:286).

In the next chapter, however, Paul unpacks what this looks like, and it is largely about being full of grace and patience and communicating clearly. It is not about indiscriminately immersing ourselves into a culture or becoming just like a teenager to reach teenagers.

This could even be dangerous. What would we do if we needed to sin, or flaunt safeguarding to enter into a particular culture? At another level it’s just creepy – teenagers aren’t looking for adults who dress like kids and can quote box sets, they’re looking for authenticity.

The Theological Problem

The Incarnation has always been understood by theologians to be a one-time action of God. It has six essential moving parts:

Pre-existence – Jesus is God. He existed in eternity, in the Trinity before he was ‘enfleshed’ in Jesus. He ‘was’ before he was Jesus.

Hypostatic union – Jesus was both divine and human – at the very same time. He was both fully. Two complete, distinct persons, fully united as one.

Humility – Jesus, the pre-existent God, humbled himself to both human reality and ultimately death. It’s not just about eventual depth, but initial height.

Atonement – Jesus came to save us, and He needed to be both human and God for this to work. As human, Jesus was the required sacrifice for sin (2 Cor. 5:21). He was a human solution to a human problem. As God, Jesus was able to become both perfect sacrificial lamb (Lev. 16) and High Priest (Heb. 4:14-18). This made His sacrifice eternal! ‘For Athanasius… Jesus’ atoning death was the central purpose of the incarnation; the immortal Son of God needed to become man to die’ (Athanasius, 318, 1993:35, cf.:26; also check out Steve Jeffery, Ovey and Sach in Pierced for our Transgressions, 2007:172).

Eschatology – The Incarnation makes Jesus the undisputed King of the world. He is the new head of humanity being the first born of the new creation. Where Adam got it wrong, Jesus got it right (Rom. 5).

Revelation – The communication of God to His creation, first as the ultimate human to humanity, and secondarily as a 1st Century Aramaic-Jew living in that particular culture.

Incarnational youth ministry misses five out of six aspects of the doctrine of the Incarnation, and seriously dilutes the sixth. That’s like 85% of the doctrine!

The Incarnation is primarily a unique work of God. It is not one that we are actually directly instructed to imitate because realistically to do so would be idolatry. We can work with it and even learn from it, but we can’t dress up in it like a onesie or a superhero costume.

The Practical Problem

Incarnational youth ministry has an inherent mugginess of boundaries that creates a lot of potentially unsafe situations.

Unchecked openness

This model encourages an open door / phones always on policy. Forgetting for a second that we’re neither God nor parents, what is the realistic risk-reward of making ourselves potential targets of dependency while burning out in the process?

This is exactly the kind of openness that is cautioned against by person-centred therapists, precisely because of the boundaries it rejects and dependency it creates. Modern counsellors are trained to look for these signs, so they won’t be this unaccountably open. We might in fact be surprised that a lot of what is specifically suggested by incarnational youth ministry is flatly rejected in modern counselling theory.

Burnout

Renfro in Perspectives on family ministry says the reason youth workers burnout is ‘because our ministry models are fundamentally flawed’ (2009:10). Todd Billings draws a straight line between poor incarnational theology and practical complications. He says,

Yet because they take the Incarnation as their “model” of ministry, these evangelicals often assume that they—rather than the Holy Spirit—make Christ present in the world… “you and I may be the only Jesus that others will ever meet” …The burden of incarnation—and revelation—is on the shoulders of the individuals. Such a theology often leads to burnout (2012:60).

Dr. Andrew Root says we are to us to indwell or inhabit the pain of another so completely that it becomes our own (Revisiting relational youth ministry, 2007:129-130). This is a recipe for burnout for sure, but also quite close to a textbook definition of abuse: When two unequal parties share their own respective weights of experience and pain and needs, what will happen to the ‘weaker’ party?

Blurred lines between work and home

An ‘always on’ youth worker is a ‘sometimes off’ husband, or a ‘partially available mum’, or ‘too busy doing ministry’ dad. We really need another way.

You don’t want to argue with a family member at two in the morning, because you’ll both say things you don’t mean. Always being on is something parents do for a set number of years and they make a lot of mistakes, as we all know.

That close family relationship, all-warts exposed, cannot extend to twenty-some young people twenty-four hours a day. It’s a recipe for the happening of terrible things — and it also sets a precedent for those young people. We might be inadvertently teaching them to fall into unsafe behaviours and practices with other people in their lives who perhaps they shouldn’t trust.

Safeguarding

Being alone on the phone to a young person at all hours, having them come into the house alone, regularly meeting in quiet spaces, and prolonged private conversations can create unhealthy levels of dependency and exclusivity. Things are easily misconstrued in concealed spaces, especially with hurting and vulnerable young people.

Personal boundaries and healthy safeguarding practices are necessities for today’s youth worker to be in their post for years to come. Longevity demands healthy practice and accountability – things that are often neglected by incarnational models of youth ministry.

Conclusion

Incarnational ministry has become something of the prosthetic spine of youth work. It’s spinal, in that it runs right through the structural centre of many of our approaches, but it’s prosthetic because it’s a poor substitute for the real thing. To challenge this has been somewhat taboo. It’s the third rail of youth ministry. Step on it and you die.

That said I don’t think incarnational youth ministry is theologically grounded. I think it represents a serious misreading and selective reading of the Bible. It bypasses how that Incarnation has been classically understood and misappropriated – dare I say hijacked – a significant truth about God’s person for a cool sounding term.

I know ‘incarnational’ is unwritten into our methods. For some of us it feels part of our blood, it’s become a key part of our ministry identity. I don’t want – in any way – for this to pull the rug out from someone’s feet.

There’s goodness to retain. We might want to consider re-naming our approach as relational-contextual­ rather than incarnational, rediscover the importance of proclamation, and create a wider base of ministry that happens outside of our purview and inside our boundaries

 

Photo by Will O on Unsplash

A micro-theology of ‘being nice’

/1 Comment/in /by

Back in the day, when I was just a young ginger sprout in 6th form college, I remember having a full-on debate with my enigmatic psychology teacher about the virtues of being ‘nice.’ She took the approach that humans are competitive beings who – by their very nature – will only ever use ‘niceness’ as a way of clawing their way to the top. ‘Niceness’, she said, ‘is always driven by selfishness at some level’. I, however, took the side that she was clearly stupid – which was the continually repeated and highly sophisticated premise of my whole argument. That was probably why I, quite spectacularly, lost the debate in front of all my classmates.

Sixteen years later my position has matured just a tiny bit.

Aren’t we naturally selfish?

Although I still hold the same position that I so badly defended, there is an element of truth in what my psychology teacher was trying to tell me. Humans are, in fact, sinful. Jer. 17:9 says ‘the heart is deceitful above all things’; Rom. 3:10 tells us that ‘no one is good, not even one,’ and Rom. 7:21 says even when I try to do good ‘evil is right there with me’. The basic nature of sin is idolatry after all – putting ourselves before others and ultimately before God. Being kind, therefore, doesn’t come easily, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t come naturally.

The nature of humans is not the same as the nature of sin. Having sin does not mean being sin. Equating humanity with sin so totally and intrinsically that they become inescapably one is messing with some essential theology. It’s worth pulling this thread a little bit more before we go any further.

In the 16th Century, theologian and reformer John Calvin wrote several famous chapters on the nature of sinful humanity. He talked about our disposition to choose ourselves over God, and our literal inability to reverse that instinct. About a century after he wrote this, others coined a reader’s digest version of this which we know today as ‘total depravity’. This summary not only reordered some of what Calvin said, but glibly reduced it into being more about the nature of humanity, rather than the nature of sin. This went further and further until (at least in some camps) ‘the human’ and ‘the sin’ became virtually one and the same entity. To err is human, as the old missive says, and it’s this warped reading of total depravity that puts kindness beyond the scope of natural humanity.

Humans are sinful; however, this is not the same as saying humans are actually sin. This is a very important distinction. We were made in the image of God, and it’s that image – and that nature – which is redeemed at the cross (1 Jn. 2:1). Our sinful disposition might be inescapable by our own efforts, or irredeemable by our own merits, but it doesn’t fundamentally change the nature of what God made – or His power to transform it. I mean, how impotent do we think God is?

It is not impossible for us – in the power of God – to be selfless, therefore. If it was impossible then we are actually making a serious statement about God’s power – not about our rubbishness. When we focus on our corruption without the balance of God’s desire for us to grow and become more like Him, then we reject the transforming nature of what Jesus did. We effectively limit grace.

But wait, aren’t we naturally selfish? No. We are naturally made in the image of God. We were corrupted by sin to behave selfishly, but then transformed by Jesus to be gradually conformed to His likeness. Sin hinders us, sure, but it is not actually us. We are sinful, but not sin. The nature of humanity is God-made and in God’s image. It is therefore more natural for us to be selfless than selfish.

Humanity is not naturally sinful. Believing so misunderstands the fundamental nature of humanity as created by God. Human nature was corrupted by sin, but only in the same way the nature of a plant is corrupted by decay. The plant does not become the decay just because it’s starving. Our fundamental, image-of-God nature did not wholly change to become sin.

Jesus empowers us to be selfless, and to become the fullness of who we were initially designed to be – and that is the more natural way of humanity.

There is divine power in kindness

So, it is absolutely not impossible, or even unnatural, to be selfless. We’re not really fighting nature here. God’s transformation actually demands selflessness of us. 1 Cor. 10:24 says we should seek the ‘good of our neighbour’ above our own good; and Gal. 6:2 instructs us ‘bear one another’s burdens.’ The greatest commandment tells us to love God and to love others as ourselves, and – perhaps most potently – Phil. 2:3-4 tell us to ‘count others more significant than ourselves’, and not to look ‘only to our own interests, but also to the interests of others’. This also sits in a passage that instructs us to have the same cross-carrying mindset as Jesus himself (vv.5-11). Selflessness is instructed by God as part of our ongoing recalibration as redeemed creatures. Put more simply: It’s part of being like Jesus!

My mum used to say that kindness doesn’t cost us anything, and she’s right, but it cost Jesus everything. If simply being kind, nice, or selfless was easy, then it wouldn’t have required such an immense and eternal sacrifice. Selflessness is the highest form of love shown by Jesus on the cross.

Kindness is also a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). In Greek the word for kindness is χρηστότης and is only found in two other places. It’s used in both Rom. 11:22 and Tit. 3:4 to talk about the kindness, goodness and patience of God himself. It’s part of God’s very character and person. With that in mind, here in Galatians ‘be full of the fruit of the Spirit’ quite literally means ‘be clothed in the person of God.’ We are to put on his very being and character.

Kindness is a trait of God’s very being. There is, therefore, immense power, grace, and mercy in simply being kind to one another. Kindness is the fundamental, dense, and resonating generousness of God’s Spirit in us. It comes with maturity, peace, stability, and presence – and when we ‘give’ it to another, they leave with more than they came to us with. It’s a creating action, as well as a divine predisposition.

We have, however, become far too cavalier about kindness.

A famine of kindness

I’m writing this for two reasons: First, it’s become far too ordinary for Christians to be unkind. In the name of justice, theological correctness, denominational identity or doctrinal distinction, we have justified being unkind to the world and unkind to other Christians. It’s frankly become too easy for us to be jerks!

Second, we have drawn a straight line between kindness and compromise. Listening actively and dialoguing openly to those we disagree with and seeking love and friendship with people who have opposing worldviews are seen as spiritual weakness and thus, compromise. To be kind is now readily labelled as surrender. Once again, it’s become too easy – and even too ‘holy’ – for us to be jerks!

Mean spirited memes, satirical ‘heresy shelves’, public gossip, naming-and-shaming, and outright slander have become too commonplace among Christians, especially with the spread of social media. This is an immensely tragic and backwards projection of our faith to a broken world.

I recently had a conversation with a Christian man who shunned real fellowship with a fellow believer because they let a swear word slip into one of their prayers. Since he heard that prayer, the man would only speak of this person in overly-simplified, and harshly judgemental terms. He became rude and aloof – and you can bet your boots the other person felt it! Where was the divine spark of kindness in this relational decision?

We are told to act in a selfless, loving, compassionate, and kind way far more than we are told to correct false teaching, or call out heresy – and the latter is always done full of the former[link]. This is mercy, and it’s another trait of God Himself. I wonder how the world would see us – and indeed Jesus through us – differently if we led with mercy, love and kindness over meanness, arrogance and correctness.

Kindness doesn’t mean ignoring sin – but it convicts with compassion, not arrogance. Kindness also doesn’t mean glossing over false teaching – but it approaches with mercy, not petulance. Doing kindness right, then – as God designed it by nature – is a reflection of his own character. So it’s actually not a simple thing.

Kindness is hard!

Walking in the image of God and trying day by day to be more clothed in His very being is counter cultural and downright radical. This is no less than reaching for the deepest levels of true sanctification found in pursuing the likeness of God’s own character.

I wonder if our modern Western Christianity is just a little bit too immature to be calling out false teaching at the rate it does at the moment. My social media feeds are full of angry Christians calling out a broken world by holding them to a standard that they just don’t recognise and aren’t seeing modelled.

As the visible body of Christ on Earth, our job is to look and act like Jesus by being clothed in the fruit of the Spirit. We are to move in compassion first, and then overflow with good choices and helpful challenges. If we can’t move in compassion first, however, then we are misrepresenting the nature of God to a God-needy world.

Do we think that God would rather we be merciful and compassionate, or right and outspoken? We need to be both at times – but I’m pretty sure that any ‘rightness’ we think we have is infantile at best unless founded on genuine compassion shown through kindness. We’re apt to just become yet another chorus of clanging gongs (1 Cor. 13:1). To once again quote my mum, if you can’t say anything nice then don’t say anything at all!

I believe the hardest thing that a Christian leader can truly do is love; love God and love others.  This is exactly why it’s the commandment that’s placed above all others (Matt. 22:36-4). On the flip side, I believe that the easiest thing a Christian can do is call out stuff that we don’t agree with. I know that for me, if I spent more time on the former then the latter would have much greater effect. And frankly I’d feel better too!

Food for thought.

 

Photo by Matt Collamer on Unsplash

The Harry Potter debate – a readers digest version

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Back in April I wrote ‘The best arguments against reading Harry Potter, with some critical responses – a faux debate.’ It was over three and a half thousand words long with twenty-two headings, and thirteen discussed Bible verses. It was long!

It seems to me, therefore, that a ‘readers digest’ version might be called for – which is this post. Please, however, don’t make the mistake of thinking that this is the whole story. If you want the nitty gritty rather than the pretty pithy, then click here and dig deeper.

So here are the simplified best arguments not to read Harry Potter, with my slightly longer, but still abridged responses.

Reasons not to read Harry Potter

Reason 1

It glorifies witchcraft which the Bible forbids (Deut. 18).

Reason 2

It’s too dark and passively promotes paganism.

Reason 3

It was researched using real rituals and references real spells.

Reason 4

There is no under-girding biblical worldview (which exists in other fantasy stories such as the Chronicles of Narnia).

Reason 5

It doesn’t add anything to our faith journeys – and it won’t be in Heaven.

Reason 6

A Christian’s limited reading time should be spent on more obviously helpful books.

My Responses

Response 1

This misunderstands the ‘forbidden sorcery’ specified in the Bible which is very different to what’s in Harry Potter.

By confusing the two together, we nuance what the Bible is actually forbidding and dilute its real teaching. If anything, Harry Potter condemns the same specific practices the Bible does (child sacrifice, talking to evil spirits, deceiving people out of their money through trickery etc.).

There is also no small a difference between reading about something and practicing something. If there wasn’t any distinction then we would be limiting what we consume far more widely and strictly. This would include getting rid of some Christian classics.

Response 2

The worldview of Harry Potter does not condone ritualistic worship or false religion. Even when the author borrowed from pagan rituals, they are heavily adapted, and mashed together randomly. Wiccans themselves reject Harry Potter as based on their own practices

Although there are some very dark moments in Harry Potter, they are no darker than some in Lewis’s Narnia or Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. High School texts (such as Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye or Shakespeare’s Macbeth) also present dark or sinful behaviour.

There is nothing specific or particular to Harry Potter therefore. Distinguishing for this reason is randomly cracking the whip. Censorship is not the answer, careful reading with young people is.

Response 3

Rowling researched alchemy, religious history, spell-craft, medieval remedies, Shaman culture, and witch trials. This research has been fully documented and exhibited.

The Inklings (most famously Lewis, Tolkien and Williams) researched and studied the same materials that Rowling did, and they were a Christian group. This research led to the invention, for instance, of the Necromancer in Tolkien and the witch Jadis in Lewis.

The research of a topic does not equal the practice of what is researched. Assuming a subversive plot to encourage children into actual witchcraft is just not what is going on. Rowling herself quoted in a CNN interview:

‘I absolutely did not start writing these books to encourage any child into witchcraft. I’m laughing slightly because to me, the idea is absurd.’

Response 4

(Spoilers)
Rowling calls herself a practicing Christian and attends church. The explicit amount of Christian theology throughout the series shows evidence of real Gospel knowledge.

Love in Harry Potter is presented as the most powerful force in the universe which was ultimately shown in self-sacrifice: First, Harry’s mum sacrifices herself for the sake of her son, and then eventually, Harry sacrifices himself for the good of the whole world. His sacrificial death also ends in resurrection which provides a powerful protection of love over all he had died for. This is, quite simply, the clearest fictional presentation of the Gospel in metaphoric form that I have ever read.

Morally, there is no underage sex, nor are there unhealthy relationships with narcotics or alcohol. Even lying is shown to have serious consequences. Harry Potter actually contains a rich tapestry of discussion topics, almost all of which are resolved in ways fully compatible with a biblical worldview.

Response 5 & 6

I have found much in the Harry Potter series that has encouraged, edified, and supported my faith. The artistic celebration of self-sacrificing love over evil, the power of resurrection, the need for a humble saviour, and the power of authentic community demonstrated in the books have often caused me to turn to worship.

The strong Christian themes, the Christian moralistic worldview, and the description Rowling gives of her own faith should lead us to assume that the simple presence of witchcraft in the Harry Potter series is not enough to reject it out of hand. Using that same measure, we would also have to reject many other fabulous books that also claim an explicit Christian basis.

Does this mean every Christian should read it? No, it doesn’t. It does, however, mean that we should evaluate how healthy we think it would be for us and our children with the same critical standards we should apply to everything else.

Want more?

Do read the full article here for a deeper discussion and a bit more meat.

Photo by Artem Maltsev on Unsplash

 

 

“Everything is permissible…” helping young people understand the balance between grace and holiness

/2 Comments/in , /by

When working with young people we need to teach them about grace. We need to help them know, love, and swim around in the depths of God’s riches given to them at Christ’s expense. We also, however, need to help them wrestle with holiness and obedience – what does it mean to live righteous and follow Jesus in how they act every day.

This can be a knife-edge balancing act and can swing from side to side depending on which topic we’re looking at from week to week. For me, I tend to swing to ‘grace’ whenever I’m teaching on God’s character, but swing to ‘law’ when I focus on our responses. We’ve got to cut through this disconnect and show young people the real harmony between the sides.

Living in obedience is the joyful overflow of inhabiting God’s grace. We’re saved by grace alone, but there is something about obedience that keeps us continually receiving that salvation. In the same way, I buy flowers for my wife out of love and not out of duty. My marriage is not contingent on buying her flowers – but it’s a great way of kindling our relationship. On the flip side, if I spent my entire marriage ignoring my wife and never doing anything for her – or even speaking to her – then I can’t guarantee that our relationship is going to last.

“We need to help young people take real, solid responsibility over their own faith – this isn’t about making it easy, it’s about making it real.”

How a young person chooses to live every day is important. Their media diet is important. Their ability to say no is important. Their resilience is important. Their friendship choices are important. We need to help young people grow as obedient followers of Jesus, without all the silly cumbersome legalism that we too readily dump on them. We need to help young people take real, solid responsibility over their own faith – this isn’t about making it easy, it’s about making it real.

This is going to take a couple of posts, but I thought we should begin by talking about one of the most misquoted and misunderstood verses in the New Testament.

‘Everything is Permissible’

Twice in 1 Corinthians Paul says that all things are permissible (saved by grace right?), but not all things are helpful.

‘“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything.’ (1 Cor. 6:12, ESV)

‘“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up.’ (1 Cor. 10:23, ESV)

I recently read an article on Game of Thrones where 1 Cor. 6 was misquoted as saying ‘everything is permissible, but not everything is helpful.’ We can’t get at the author too much, however, because almost everyone misquotes Paul here! What’s missing is the quote marks, but oh boy do they make a difference.

Paul is playing devil’s advocate by slightly sarcastically pseudo-quoting his Corinthian reader saying ‘hey, but I’m saved by grace, so I can do whatev, right? Who are you to tell me no?’

The examples Paul gives for this are cheating someone (v.7, 10), wrongdoing (9), sexual immorality and promiscuity (9, 18-20), stealing, getting drunk, and mocking (10). Because of these things church members were taking legal action against each other (1-6) and the terrible result was increasing division (vv.1-6, 7, 14-16).

Paul was speaking into a ludicrously messy situation where church members were dragging each other off to court, completely bypassing how they were supposed to treat each other as newly formed brothers and sisters in Christ.

On one side of the division there was a misapplication of grace and on the other side a misapplication of law. Paul was directly addressing the issues on the first side in the beginning of his pseudo-quote saying, ‘everything is permissible’. It might just as well read, ‘Hey, I can steal, get drunk, and mock people, right? Who are you to tell me no?’

The author of the post I mentioned above said ‘is watching Game of Thrones permissible? Yes! Is it helpful? That is for you to figure out’. Is that a legitimate way of using this passage? Well only as much as saying something like ‘is murder permissible? Yes! Is it helpful? That is for you to figure out’ A murderer isn’t barred from the Kingdom of God, but that doesn’t mean crack on.

What does ‘helpful’ really mean?

Using a devil’s advocate quote of Paul as a propositional way for us to measure our consumption choices is altogether the opposite of what Paul was trying to do.

Yes, it’s about grace, but it’s about holiness too. The word ‘helpful’ here (συμφέρει) is the same word used by Jesus in Matt. 5:29 when he tells us that it’s better (more helpful) to pluck out our eyes and cut off our hands if they could possibly cause us to sin. It’s also the same word used in Matt. 18:6, when Jesus said it would be better (more helpful) for us to be drowned than cause a ‘little one’ to sin.

And there’s the point. What standard do we set for holiness, and what things will we sacrifice for it? Is it permissible? Sure – in the broadest possible way in that it won’t block the initial open gate to Heaven. But does it ultimately bring glory to God, unity to His church, and provide a consistent standard to His children? Could it eventually steal our salvation? Do our actions – including what we watch on TV – bring the waveforms of our hearts more in line with God’s, or do they clash? Do our habits resonate with or detract from the strength and clarity of our full-throated pursuit of worship? This is the truer reading of 1 Cor. 6.

“We need to teach grace as the overwhelming reality of their situation, and from that, call them to walk with us on a genuine journey of holiness.”

Our job as youth leaders is not to help young people feel comfortable – it’s to help them feel loved by God. Our job is also not to make the Christian life easy or palatable – our job is to make worshippers who run the race marked out before them right up until the end. We need to equip young people for the long haul. We need to teach grace as the overwhelming reality of their situation, and from that, call them to walk with us on a genuine journey of holiness.

There’s really a lot to being a youth worker. Do we take this seriously enough? Food for thought!

 

Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

Is preaching the most effective method to teach teenagers?

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

Most of what I remember of my youth pastor from being a teenager his him giving talks. He and his small team would take it in turns to deliver the message each Sunday night. Some of these we would look forward to more than others because they would be funny or moving or poignant. Others, however, would just be boring or self-serving – thirty minutes to just get through before music and games.

The concept, however, was clear: teaching and authority is delivered from the front of the room.

Today I’m in a similar position. I deliver talks to my young people. I also give assemblies in schools, and a lot of my projects have that upfront teaching aspect to them. I have however, dialled back on upfront speaking as my main teaching style, and I’ve embraced more conversation, mentoring, group discussion, active service, briefing and briefing, Q&A, and try-and-see methods.

I’m going to briefly discuss some of the reasons I have come to that decision.

The de facto approach

I recently read a poll on a youth ministry Facebook page comparing the most effective methods of teaching teenagers. Of the 100+ full-time youth pastors that responded, well over half said that up front preaching is still the most effective method of teaching young people today. I was pretty surprised.

In the comments I suggested that the reason we think it is the most effective is that it tends to be the teaching method that we’re best at delivering, and the one we have the most experience with. We might be, therefore, measuring it’s effectiveness by how good we are at it, rather than how much our young people retain and apply.

Like me, many youth pastors grew up watching their own youth pastors preach and speak from the front. They possibly even graduated into volunteer youth ministry by doing some talks. At Bible College they started to learn how to public speak better, and they began finding their favourite YouTube preachers. Upfront speaking is what we know.

This de facto approach is highly practical, in that we don’t have to respond to the unknown and the spontaneous. It’s constructive, in that we can plan it meticulously and feed it into the context of teaching throughout a term. It’s safe, in that it is tidy and keeps surprises to a minimum. It’s also ego-stroking, in that it gives us the opportunity to make teenagers like us.

Does it work?

This might be the $1 million question. We can probably all think back to talks that had a big impact on our Christian walks. We can remember talks when great swaths of young people stood up to follow Jesus at the end. This might be why talks are still the main – if not the only – teaching method used at youth events and conferences.

But here’s another question: How many talks can you actually remember?

By remember I mean can you piece together the main point of a talk with all the moving parts it took to get there? Can you remember the three points and the applications? Can you remember the unpacked exegesis and the contexts they sat in? How many talks can you remember like that from probably the hundreds, if not thousands, that you have heard? What’s your retention and application percentage? Does that ratio feel like good stewardship?

If you’re a note taker then retention and application might be easier, or – if like me – you tend to plagarise other speakers anecdotes, then you might remember more – but even then some work has to be done in other teaching/learning styles before you get there.

American educational theorist, Edgar Dale, famously published what’s called the Cone of Learning, where he placed retention percentages alongside different learning methods.

Dale said, for instance, that the best way to learn something is actually to teach it to others, and if we can’t do that then we should emphasise discussion and practice over simply reading and listening. What was most shocking, however, was he said that the ‘lecture style’ or upfront speaking was by far the least effective method of teaching. He said humans tend to only retain 5% of a talk 24 hours later.

Dale’s ideas are certainly not watertight, and educational theory has come a long way since. But even if it’s just half true, we need to consider how effective our upfront speaking-heavy teaching methods truly are.

Is it biblical?

Now this is interesting because at first glance public speaking seems to be the main teaching method in the Bible. However, a deeper examination will reveal that this is just not correct.

The Patriarchs, Judges and Kings sometimes spoke to large groups, but more often we see them speaking to individuals or other leaders. Prophets spoke to crowds sometimes, but more often spoke to rulers, councils or individuals. There are other times when Kings and Prophets spoke to the whole nation of Israel, however, this tended to be to lead them in worship or prayer rather than teaching.

Some version of upfront speaking happened in smaller circumstances, like the head of a household telling an ancient story to his family, but that happened over a worship feast that they all joined in as part of the ritual.

In the New Testament Jesus is frequently mis-described as a crowd teacher and preacher. But this is actually a very rare occurrence. He does speak in the synagogues, but when He does this from the front it is almost exclusively limited to the reading of the Torah (with a cheeky sentence of personal commentary thrown in), and when in the outer courts, He tends to be answering questions and discussing with small groups of people in turn (like most Rabbis would).

Even classics like the Sermon on the Mount, or the Sermon on a Plain were focused times of teaching the disciples with a crowd ‘listening in’ rather than taught directly. In fact, almost all of Jesus’ recorded teaching happens in small groups and with individuals. The biblical Jesus is just not a crowd teacher or public speaker.

The book of Acts is probably the most interesting because proclamation was almost exclusively reserved for groups of unbelievers, whereas teaching through conversation and discussion were most commonly practiced with groups of already confessing believers. This is clearer in the Greek, but still we do this backwards don’t we?

Proclamation and preaching are certainly biblical practices, but they are by no means the exclusive, de facto, most effective, or even most usual method of teaching employed throughout the Scriptures. Upfront speaking was mostly reserved for the pubic reading of scripture or the corporate leading of worship.

Preaching as we know it today is largely a remnant of Christendom, rescued somewhat by the Reformation, helped along by the Edwardian era, but stunted by the Victorian Church, and then intellectualised by the Enlightenment. We need to look deeper and further to teach better.

So what else is there?

Allowing the Bible to speak with room for the Holy Spirit to interpret and apply should be the most important aspect of our teaching. The Bible historically been a conversant book, one read in community not just alone in isolation.

I favour facilitated Bible discussion, where a leader knows the passage well and has maturity to teach, but the content is discussed and then applied by the wider group. Truth is facilitated, and the discovery of the ‘true path’ is led by figures with the experience of mountain guides. They don’t do the hiking for them!

Having an experienced, mature, and trained pastor figure in the room safeguards against discussions dissolving into relativistic chaos, and they draws threads together helpfully without superimposing an unnecessary or tightly constricting agenda upon God’s Word in the gathering. This also keeps teacher-accountability on the table with the Bible.

This approach also opens up the importance of student participation in teaching, of mentoring, actual practice, abstract thinking, conversation, Q&A, try-and-see, briefing and debriefing, and open-ended discussion.

Proclamation is great! Public speaking is one of the key parts of my vocation and one of the things I’m best at. This does not mean, however, that it is the only, or even the best way that God can use me, or that speaking is the most effective way of teaching the people that God has put under my care.

We need to widen the net, broaden our skills, and embrace a bigger field of teaching methods, and we can do this without losing our biblical compass. The plans, character, heart, and purposes of God in our communities is big enough to warrant stepping out of our teaching-style comfort zones. Let’s get on it!

 

Photo by Nycholas Benaia on Unsplash

Responding to The Game of Thrones Debate

/2 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by

Game of Thrones. Is it the gloves off, gruesome, grim and gristly opiate for the masses – or the fantastical story that grapples with the true complexities of human experience? Is it right for a Christian to watch it for entertainment, or perhaps missional research – or should they steer clear of it all-together?

Could this be a random cracking of the whip? Like Sabrina prompted last year, Deadpool three years ago, or Harry Potter ten plus years ago? It’s topics like these which become convergence points of fixation from both the heavy-grace (everything is permissible!) and heavy-law (not everything is beneficial!) extremes of the evangelical wings.

These debates create new heroes and villains, they scratch some deep itches, and they rehash the prohibition controversies from our protestant histories. They can also be quite sad.

We do love a good ‘what should we eat, drink, wear, watch, play, read, listen-to’ dispute, don’t we? I wonder if we would just get bored without them – what would we do without a pointy wedge issue on what we should consume? Paul said, ‘do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink’ (Col. 2:16), and Jesus said, ‘do not be anxious… is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes?’ (Mt. 6:25). It’s almost as if they knew, go figure.

Without these debates, we might have to actually talk about Jesus more directly, which oddly makes us squirm just a little more than is entirely decent.

The gauntlet

A few weeks ago, British Youth for Christ National Director Neil O’Boyle wrote a post on relativism and our media consumption titled ‘why youth workers shouldn’t be watching Game of Thrones’ (GoT). The big take away was to respect the enormous amount of responsibility that comes when leading young people. It’s all too easy for them to take our actions as their permissions.

That’s a hard-hitting challenge that needs to be grappled with at every level of leadership. That’s the responsibility that any parent or leading adult has for the development of young people. Neil said:

‘I’m sure by now I have jarred you. I didn’t mean to. I guess all I’m asking as influencers and culture setters is: Are we inconsistent? And are our inconsistencies unhelpful to a younger person’s walk with Jesus?’

Even if we’re someone who likes to binge-watch Baywatch while chain-smoking – tell me we heard that? We want to fiercely pursue holiness and invite young people to join us on that journey, even if it means giving up something that we like. What Christian among us really wants to challenge this idea – isn’t sacrifice and humility at the very centre of our faith after all?

Cards on the table – I know Neil. I’m one of the 50-80 youth workers he mentioned in that article that benefits directly from his rich experience and considered example. Full disclosure: I think Neil is a ledge.

Sure, Neil’s article didn’t solidly settle in too many places. It was, after all, a gentle challenge on a hugely sticky topic. I’m suspicious that the title was actually an editorial addition, rather than Neil’s original? (Correct me if I’m wrong, Emily!). I think this is really unfortunate as that title colours the whole post, and it changes the way it reads – especially if you already have a strong opinion on the show.

The reaction

In response, Youth and Student Pastor, Alan Gault essentially wrote what is known in journalism as ‘a takedown piece’ in order to counter Neil’s view. It was a little blunt. If all I had got to go on was the tone of the two pieces, then I’d warm to Neil’s and recoil from Alan’s. The real issue though is that Alan’s article didn’t grapple with that central gut-hitting challenge from Neil about our inconsistency.

Instead, Alan reached around Neil, and clung to the title ‘why a Christian shouldn’t…’ Alan said, ‘I find the majority of reasons given by Neil to have their own problems and I find his blanket ban unnecessary.’ Which reasons and what ban? Other than the title, GoT is only mentioned once in Neil’s article, and just as an example of a much wider issue.

Alan battled a monstrous, legislative ‘They’, and caricatured Neil (as representing this force) as putting down a ‘blanket ban’ rather than carefully considering what he really wrote.

Relativism is a cultural phenomenon which goes far beyond simple moral subjectivity. Neil was calling us to consider our example to those we lead in the middle of such a vulnerable and uncertain culture. This wasn’t legislative, it was, however, a deliberate challenge.

I believe that Alan wrote a reaction to a strawman, rather than a response to an idea. It may have galvanised the GoT-loving side of the fence, and rattled those who abstain, but I don’t think it promoted any real dialogue outside the respective echo chambers.

As Christians we need to talk and listen to each other with generosity. Without this there’s no edification or building one another up in Christ happening at all. Before we get to the content then, let’s start with respecting that we’ll know each other in heaven, and disagreements should come with brotherly affection.

The thing behind the thing

What’s a shame about this is that I think Alan was on to something. Once you concede he wasn’t really responding to Neil, there were some real nuggets of gold in his post.

Alan was trying to make us think about grace. We can’t legislate people into the Kingdom, nor can we set strict universal boundaries over our growth – especially when triggers may be very different for different people. Alan reminded us about the wildly varied contexts that are involved in individual walks, the complexities of messy lives, and the primacy of the promptings of the Holy Spirit in the changing of those lives. He encouraged us to think upon the Jesus who hung out with the dregs of society. Fab! This too deserves to be grappled with, and I imagine Neil would heartily nod along with all of these things.

If Alan focused on these pieces and wrote that post convincingly, I think it might have added to the conversation here – and iron would have had a chance to sharpen iron. He didn’t, however, and it hasn’t.

What was the problem?

For me, the main issue is I think Alan’s post accidentally cheapened the Bible in favour of entertainment. I’m sure he’d be horrified that I thought that but let me explain.

Alan identified passages in the Bible that contain explicit and graphic sex and violence. He said we shouldn’t, therefore, use sex and violence alone as a reason not to watch similar content in GoT. Some of these passages were implied rather than graphic (Noah and his son from Gen. 9:18-27), and others were metaphoric rather than explicit (Song of Songs throughout). None of them were qualified or discussed and all of them needed to be given in context.

If I was marking Alan’s post as an undergrad theology paper (which it wasn’t), then I would push him quite hard on proof-texting. He selected a group of somewhat random passages that contain what he said was gratuitous sex and violence and then presented them together with false cohesion.

Ek. 23:20, for instance, needs to be read in light of Ek. 14-23: The storyline is the adulterous woman (Israel) and the lover (God) against adulterous lovers (other nations), the issue being idolatry and worship (23:49). Song of Solomon is a dramatic and intimate exploration of the love of God and the worship of His people. The Conquering of Canaan sits in a context of God’s promises to Moses and Abraham, against idol-worshipping pagan nations. The David and Bathsheba story needs to be approached in tension with Ps. 51 and 2 Sam. 12. All of these passages need to be read while keeping the Bible’s full perspective of heaven and redemption in mind. This is the unique worldview of the Bible lived out in the person of Jesus who we aspire to in all our choices today. This is not the general worldview of TV.

You can’t, therefore, just pluck stories out of the Bible for containing similar ideas, ignore the original contexts, group them together indiscriminately, and then present them as a whole to justify today’s consumption choices. That’s hermeneutically naughty! *Slaps wrist.*

Then there’s the logical issue with the argument.

Even if we grant the premise (the Bible is full of [unqualified] stories of gratuitous sex and violence), the conclusion doesn’t then follow.

I once had a young person use exactly this same argument including some of the very same Bible references to explain why it was ok for him to watch pornography. This is unfortunately what happens when you draw too straight a line between two very different things like the Bible and TV. Philosophers call this the fallacy of false equivalence.

For the argument to work as presented, we would need to assume that reading and viewing are the same thing and that both would affect people in the same way. We would need to assume the acts of sex and violence are treated in the same way in both the Bible and GoT and then assume that Paul’s call to purity (Eph. 5:3) along with Jesus’ call to holiness (Mt. 5:28) doesn’t directly apply to those racy and brutal Bible stories. Putting that another way, we would need to isolate those verses from the wider voice of the Bible. We would probably need to assume that there’s no real distinction between art and history as well. Mostly though, I think we would need to assume that both the Bible and GoT were made by the same type of creator with the same kind of purpose.

The issue here is not elevating GoT to the same place as the Bible, but rather depreciating the Bible to be comparable with GoT. This is the Word of God – it’s not just another piece of media. They are simply not comparable.

Sex and violence in the Bible are not enough to warrant viewing sex and violence for entertainment today.

Isn’t everything permissible?

Alan misquoted 1 Cor. 6 as saying ‘everything is permissible, but not everything is helpful.’ We can’t get at him too much, however, because almost everyone misquotes Paul here! What’s missing is the quote marks, but oh boy do they make a difference.

Paul is playing devil’s advocate by slightly sarcastically pseudo-quoting his Corinthian reader saying ‘hey, but I’m saved by grace, so I can do whatev, right? Who are you to tell me no?’

The examples Paul gives for this are cheating someone (v.7, 10), wrongdoing (9), sexual immorality and promiscuity (9, 18-20), stealing, getting drunk, and mocking (10). Because of these things church members were taking legal action against each other (1-6) and the terrible result was increasing division (vv.1-6, 7, 14-16).

On one side of the division there was a misapplication of grace and on the other a misapplication of law. Paul was directly addressing the issues on the first side in the beginning of his pseudo-quote, ‘everything is permissible’. It might just as well read, ‘Hey, I can steal, get drunk, and mock people, right? Who are you to tell me no?’

Alan said ‘is watching Game of Thrones permissible? Yes! Is it helpful? That is for you to figure out’. Is that a legitimate way of using this passage? Only as much as saying something like ‘is murder permissible? Yes! Is it helpful?’ A murderer isn’t barred from the Kingdom of God, but that doesn’t mean crack on.

Using a devil’s advocate quote of Paul as a propositional way for us to measure our consumption choices is altogether the opposite of what Paul was trying to do.

Yes, it’s about grace, but it’s about holiness too. The word ‘helpful’ here (συμφέρει) is exactly the same word used by Jesus in Matt. 5:29 when he tells us that it’s better (more helpful) to pluck out our eyes and cut off our hands if they could possibly cause us to sin. Thinking about Neil’s original post, it’s also the same word used in Matt. 18:6, when Jesus said it would be better (more helpful) for us to be drowned than cause a ‘little one’ to sin.

And there’s the point. What standard do we set for holiness, and what things will we sacrifice for it? Is it permissible? Sure – in the broadest possible way in that it won’t block the gate to heaven. But does it ultimately bring glory to God, unity to His church, and provide a consistent standard to His children? Do our actions – including what we watch on TV – bring the waveforms of our hearts more in line with God’s, or do they clash? Do our habits resonate with or detract from the strength and clarity of our full-throated pursuit of worship? This is the truer reading of 1 Cor. 6.

So…. can a Christian watch GoT?

I wouldn’t and I don’t. I know my issues and my temptations and by spending two minutes on IMDB Parent’s Guide I decided that it wouldn’t be good for me. I love fantastical fiction, but I decided to take a pass on this. My wife, however, is a whole other person and – although she doesn’t watch it either – her own set of triggers and values would be different to mine and these would inform her differently too. I don’t want to be overly prescriptive, therefore, although I would take some convincing that watching GoT would be actively helpful for a Christian’s walk with God. I certainly wouldn’t recommend it to anyone legally too young to watch it, which would be most of my young people.

I don’t imagine it’s an easy watch for a Christian, or a helpful watch for pursuing purity, although I concede it’s probably entertaining and interesting. I think it’s always worth asking the question: can I worship God with this? I think, in fact, that there are a few much better questions to ask than ‘should you’? (You can read an old article of mine on ChurchLeaders about this here), and we could converse together over this and other topics much better than we do.

As British Telecom famously said: It’s good to talk.

 

Photo by mauRÍCIO santos on Unsplash