Dr. Andrew Root’s Response to Me

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last week I published a post encouraging us to read Dr. Andrew Root with a bit more theological care. Before I posted it, however, I sent it to Dr. Root, and he very graciously responded.

Tim,

Thanks for this email and thanks for engaging the work.  I think this is fine and mostly fair, but there are parts I’m not sure about.

First, the reduction of evangelicalism is a fair critique but this must be read next to my support, affirmation, and commitment to an evangelical perspective in Christopraxis.  As a matter of fact, to truly understand what I’m up to, you’d have to look there.  The other works, as you mention, are trying to balance idea construction with the practice of ministry.

Second, no doubt, I’m bound to Bonhoeffer as a theological dialogue partner, and seem to understand the atonement different than you.  But to understand this all you’d have to engage the conceptions of Luther and the passivity of human action.  My point is that your critique is not so much with Bonhoeffer as it is with Luther.  Looking at work from Christopraxis on will show a deeper engagement with orthodox and Pauline conceptions, which don’t show up in your review.  You mainly just stick with 2007, 2009, and 2011 work.  I hope I’ve developed since then.  So putting your critiques in dialogue with Christopraxis, Faith Formation, and Exploding Stars would be important, I think.  I’d imagine some of your concerns will remain.

Third, the burnout thing is most troubling.  I’ve mentioned in multiple places that you can only be a place-sharer to about 5 young people.  The push of the perspective is to change the youth worker’s conception from being the one doing all the relational ministry to ordaining other adults into ministry, to take responsibility for their young people.  I’ve also discussed a lot about open/closedness and claimed that place-sharing provides starker boundaries than other forms of ministry.  And this is based in a certain anthropology.  You may rightly disagree, but it isn’t right to assume that my perspective doesn’t see or deal with boundaries.  Also, you mention Blair and Christy’s review, but don’t offer how I responded to their critiques.  You’re welcome to critique my responses to them and call it inadequate…but I did have responses to their critiques you don’t mention.

Finally, and this is probably where we differ, my whole project revolves around conceptions of revelation.  I’m simply trying to explore where and how we encounter the living presence of God.  I think a legitimate critique is found in contrasting my views of revelation with those of others.  The first question really is, “Do you see ministry as centrally about revelation, or something else?”  So critiquing my conception that ministry bears the weight of revelation is fair, as is offering an opposing view of revelation.  At the end, stellvertretung (place-sharing) really isn’t the center of my thought (I mean, it’s close to the center) but the real core is ministry as the constituting reality of God’s act and being.  So yes, sin, salvation, etc. must be seen through the biblical narrative of God’s act to minister to Israel, to be a God who is found in historical acts.  Again, wrestling with Christopraxis will more clearly show this.

These are simply my reactions, since you kindly asked.  But again, thanks for writing something up.

Blessings to you,

A call for more careful reading of Dr. Andrew Root

/0 Comments/in /by

For Dr. Roots gracious reply to this, please click here.

This is just a gentle post asking for some care when reading Dr. Andrew Root. He is well worth the effort and he is invaluable to interact with. I am personally challenged by his experience working with so many hurting and broken young people throughout his career. I’m inspired by Root! I like him, and he has a lot of value to add to the conversation.

However, his densely written work is easily accepted as completely correct because it is written a head higher than most other youth work literature is. Many of us in the youth ministry world are simply not used to reading academics, and therefore we don’t bring the level of conversational critique required when engaging with the convincing and well-cited prose that academics, like Root, writes in.

Dr. Root brings us a massively useful set of perspectives that we should carefully consider in our work, but that doesn’t mean that he is completely, one-hundred-percent on the ball, or that his views should be appropriated in their entirety. Academia works by moving conversations forward in micro-increments, with hypotheses tested, and attempts made to falsify. That’s how iron sharpens iron in the academic world. However, as Root’s books tend to skirt the middle ground between academia and populous, that context can easily be lost through no fault of his own.

I’m sure Root himself, from an academic background, would fully support me by encouraging us to engage in these kinds of innovative conversations with critical thinking and great care. Nothing should be swallowed hook, line and sinker, without some real thought – especially when it is at this kind of level.

Before publishing this, I sent a copy to Dr. Root who very graciously replied. You can see his response in full here.

This short post isn’t written to target Dr. Root, but to use him as an example of taking care when reading literature that sits on the line between dense academic work, and popular practical materials. Root has become this example because of the number of blogs and groups currently reviewing him in complete agreement and with total support. It concerns me that reviewers and interviewers don’t ask critical questions of some of his more abstract or innovative ideas.

I recently wrote a paper analyzing the last few decades of ‘incarnational’ youth ministry theory (mainly looking at Pete Ward, Dean Borgman, and Andrew Root), and – after reading everything Root has published on the subject – I was left with a few concerns that I’d like to outline here:

 

First, Root’s own analysis of evangelical youth ministry is a little bit reductionist at times and comes with a tendency to erect a straw man in its place. He may, therefore, simply be fixing the wrong leak!

There is plenty to agree with in his survey of youth ministry. For instance, he says that there is a ‘dangerously high reading of cultural influence its blood stream’ (2007:23, 81) and it has settled into a pattern ‘that is more embedded in individualism’ (2013:110-111). Amen to that and let’s get on it!

He then, however, reduces evangelical youth ministry into a formulaic or purely functional approach, that makes ministry ‘goal-orientated rather than a companionship-orientated’ (2007:23). He, using this false dichotomy, writes as if any kind of potential influence is unhealthy, and thus any youth ministry that is trying to influence a young person to become a Christian is depersonalized and dishonest (2013:113-114). He sees this as manipulative leverage (2007:17; 2011:151).

There is very little nuance in Root’s critique. He doesn’t, for instance, differentiate been healthy and unhealthy influence. Talking someone down from the ledge before committing suicide would surely be an example of healthy influence? Many evangelicals would argue that this is exactly the type of influence they exercise by trying to help young people know the Gospel. Root, however, doesn’t consider these potential perspectives. Because of this, academic reviewers such as Dr. M. Dodrill (2013:12), Dr. B. Bertrand (2013:46), and Prof. R. Haitch (2013:38) believe that Root misunderstands evangelicals.

Root provides an important cautionary tale about manipulating young people through inauthentic relationships. However, he would do well to read other evangelical youth work theorists less as strawmen. Further, his sweepingly negative comments about influence cannot stand under scrutiny. Relationships are by their nature influential and contain a variety of moving goals.

 

Second, Root’s view of ‘place-sharing’ is dangerous if improperly applied. As much as I love Root’s compassion-driven model which focuses on empathy with the pain of young people, I’m troubled about what that could look like in practice.

For Root, we most deeply encounter the nearness of Jesus in His crucifixion, so Jesus empathised with our pain deeply that we – using the crucifixion as our base line – should likewise share in the pain of young people. Place-sharing requires us to indwell or inhabit another’s pain so completely that it becomes our own (2007:129-130; see Smith, 2009:113). This is not about getting young people to ‘accept… the gospel message’ it is about ‘sharing in suffering and joy, about persons meeting with persons with no pretence of secret motives’ (2007:15). One begins to wonder what the distinctive of the ‘Gospel message’ are under Root’s theology (a point we’ll return to in objection four)?

Root’s approach puts the youth minister into very vulnerable positions. In his impassioned plea to place-share in the pain of young people, Root has encouraged muggy boundaries (Hickford, 2003:111). An immersed relationship cannot extend to twenty-some young people, twenty-four hours a day. This is a recipe for burnout — and sets a precedent for young people to allow themselves into unsafe situations.

This reveals another significant problem in Root’s writing. His relational examples are only between equal partners (marriage and friendship). This ‘leads to an overly simplistic and gendered divide between instrumental and expressive relationships’ (Betrand and Hearlson, 2013:49). Frankly, expecting a teenager to be an ‘equal partner’ and carry the baggage of a much older youth minster is a recipe for relational abuse – if not actually abusive in itself.

Place-sharing, if clearer boundaries were applied, could be a helpful way to talk about the value of interested adults in the lives of young people. However, Root’s presentation of it as the Incarnation’s continuous form is unsound, and as a practical approach it is a recipe for burnout and abuse.

 

Third, Root uses Dietrich Bonhoeffer as his de facto foundational thinker, but he also sees Bonhoeffer through rose tinted lens. As much as I would agree that we have a plethora of helpful things to learn from Bonhoeffer, it is also worth noting that there are problems and nuances in Bonhoeffer’s theology which are heavily influenced by his context.

Bonhoeffer’s Christology was born out of a very turbulent life experience. He emphasised the this-world focus and concrete nature of Jesus becoming flesh (words used by Root) which was heavily outworked in a strongly social gospel. Abstract or internal knowledge of God was almost entirely dismissed by Bonhoeffer. He intended that ‘all Christian doctrines be reinterpreted in “this world” terms… The only way to find God, then, is to live fully in the midst of this world. Christians must participate in Jesus’ living for others’ (Godsey, 1991). Bonhoeffer, during the later period of his life, discontinued his daily Bible meditation, denying that Scripture contained any timeless principles. He said, ‘we may no longer seek after universal, eternal truths’ reading the Bible (Bonhoeffer and Krauss 2010:71). Further, as someone who leaned towards universalism, Bonhoeffer lacked a strong theology of atonement or soteriology (Weikart, 2015).

In many ways, Root’s understanding of the Incarnation is not his own. The ghost of Dietrich Bonhoeffer walks each and every page. Haitch sees Root’s work as little more than a ‘cut and paste’ approach (2013:13-14). Even the phrase place-sharer is Bonhoeffer’s (Stellvertreter) (2007:83). Root said that Bonhoeffer’s part in the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler was driven by the belief ‘that it was the only way that he could truly (truly = in the imitation of Christ) share the place of those crushed by the wheels of the Nazi political machine’ (2007:85). This would have been the ideal place for Root to have added some words of caution about using Bonhoeffer as a de facto position on Christology, however we are left wanting.

It’s not that Root using Bonhoeffer is a problem. Bonhoeffer is a legend with much to teach us! However, Root uses him uncritically, and that is what causes issues. This is the same difficulty that I’m having with popular reviews of Root. There is much for value, but it must be read carefully and in balance.

 

Fourth, Root’s theology seems to miss key creedal components. He seems to go out of his way, for instance, to avoid talking about the atonement in any distinctive form, which makes me wonder what Root’s theology of salvation really is? He writes as if he is trying to unstick the incarnation from any kind of soteriology (2013: 132-133, 148-149; 2007:91-94), and avoids it being the way in which God’s wrath is appeased (2013:128).

From my reading of Root, salvation is reclassified as ‘finding your person bound to God’ (2013:70; see Bertrand and Hearlson, 2013:47); sin is re-understood as ‘antihumanity’ (2007:90-91); and new-creation is deemphasized in favour of individual, world-bound empathy (2013:99, 149). He does not cogently discuss victory, God’s glory, heaven, obedience, or proclamation in mission. He, I believe, marginalises the Father and subtly remoulds the classical understanding of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (2013:147). Finally, Root neglects to properly unpack essential views that emphasise the historically understood divine aspects of the Incarnation (such as Athanasius or the Nicene Creed) – and favours writers like Barth, Torrance, and Bonhoeffer, all of whom lean towards the Incarnation being something in itself salvific.

I find it difficult, in how Root has written, to see much effectual reason for Jesus to have died for sins apart from fulfilling some kind of ultimate act of place-sharing in our death. Root frequently moves the ‘goal’ of incarnation from a divine action to a participative human action (2007:89-94).

 

Summary

Do I think these objections result in an insurmountable problem with the work of Dr. Root? Certainly not – and in many ways I don’t like nit-picking someone whom I respect so deeply. It’s easy to find problems in anyone, and I’m sure Root could answer or clarify his approach to all of the above. Many of these are probably just misunderstandings, or rabbit holes that needed a little more clarification and nuance at the time of writing.

The problem is I – as a reasonably well-informed, theologically-educated, and experienced youth leader – after reading all of Root’s work, came away with these issues. It worries me greatly, therefore, that in the youth work populous, little, if any, critique is being offered. Why is it that the only real critical questioning has been relegated to the academic realm?

Let’s please read innovative work carefully, and appropriate it into our contexts with great attention to the young people that God has placed in our lives.

My absolute best to Dr. Root, who I think is an invaluable thinker in our times. My hope for all of us, however, is that we can gracefully look deeper and more carefully at what we adopt.

 

References:

Bertrand, B, & Hearlson, C 2013, ‘Relationships, personalism, and Andrew Root’, The Journal of Youth Ministry, 12, 1, pp. 45-55

Billings, JT 2012, ‘The Problem with ‘Incarnational Ministry.”, Christianity Today, 56, 7, pp. 58-63

Bonhoeffer, D. and Krauss, R. (2010). Letters and papers from prison. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press.

Cutteridge, J. (2005), Relational youth ministry: In conversation with Dr. Andrew Root. Available at https://www.youthandchildrens.work/Youthwork-past-issues/2015/May-2015/Relational-Youth-Ministry

Dodrill, M. 2013, ‘A call for more critical thinking regarding the ‘theological turn’ in youth ministry’, The Journal Of Youth Ministry, 12, 1, pp. 7-20

Glassford, DK 2016, ‘Bonhoeffer as youth worker: a theological vision for discipleship and life together’, Christian Education Journal, 13, 2, pp. 435-437

Godsey, J. (1991), Bonhoeffer’s costly theology. Available at http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-32/bonhoeffers-costly-theology.html

Haitch, R 2013, ‘Response to ‘Incarnation and place-sharing’ by Andrew Root’, The Journal Of Youth Ministry, 12, 1, pp. 37-43

Hickford, A. (2003) Essential youth: Why your church needs young people. Eastbourne: Kingsway Publications

Root, A. (2014) Bonhoeffer as youth worker: a theological vision for discipleship and life together. Grand Rapids: Baker Books

Root. A. (2013), How we talk about sin in youth ministry. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7I4gHCKElw

Root, A 2011, ‘Participation and mediation: a practical theology for the liquid church’, International Journal of Practical Theology, 15, 1, pp. 137-139

Root, A. Relationality as the Objective of Incarnational Ministry: A Reexamination of the Theological Foundations of Adolescent Ministry in Griffiths, S. (ed.) and International Association for the study of Youth Ministry (2004) Journal of Youth and Theology Vol.3 No. 1 April 2004. pp.97-113

Root, A. (2007) Revisiting relational youth ministry: from a strategy of influence to a theology of incarnation. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Books

Root, A 2013, ‘The incarnation, place-sharing, and youth ministry: experiencing the transcendence of God’, The Journal of Youth Ministry, 12, 1, pp. 21-36

Root, A. (2013) The relational pastor: sharing in Christ by sharing ourselves. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP

Root, A. and Dean, K.C. (2011) The theological turn in youth ministry. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Books

Smith, FJ 2009, ‘Revisiting relational youth ministry: from a strategy of influence to a theology of incarnation’, Theology Today, 66, 1, p. 109

Weikart, R. (2015), The Troubling Truth About Bonhoeffer’s Theology. Available at http://www.equip.org/article/troubling-truth-bonhoeffers-theology/

White, D.F. 2008, ‘Toward an adequate sociology of youth ministry: a dialogue with Andrew Root and Anthony Giddens’, The Journal of Youth Ministry, 7, 1, pp. 91-100

Winstead, B. 2016, ‘Bonhoeffer as youth worker: a theological vision for discipleship and life together’, Wesleyan Theological Journal, 51, 1, pp. 230-233

Can you be a Christian and watch Game of Thrones? 5 Better Questions to Ask.

/0 Comments/in , /by

I’ve had a lot of these ‘can you be a Christian and…’ questions recently. Although they usually come less in the form of the genuine and curious, and more in the form of the judgemental and arrogant, thus ‘how can someone possibly be a Christian and…

So lets’ break this down. Can you be a Christian and…

Watch Game of Thrones
Watch Deadpool
Read Harry Potter
Read Twilight
Like Rob Bell
Listen to Iron Maiden
Smoke
Swear
Not go to church
Have ginger hair
Support Blackpool Football Club?

Yes. Yes you can. The only action that can actually and effectually make you ‘not a Christian’ is denying Christ. We are saved by grace through faith, not by any other peripheral actions that we  might or might not do.

Paul was a murderer who was saved by grace. David was a murder and a rapist, and saved by grace. I’m an ass – saved by grace.

So yes – it’s possible to ‘be’ a Christian and do all kinds of things. So let’s think about some other ways of considering the question:

1. Could it eventually steal your salvation?

Well, without getting into the ‘once-saved-always-saved’ debates, it’s worth noting that the Bible does distinguish salvation (coming into relationship with God) and sanctification (growing in that relationship with God).

In the same way that the wedding it not the marriage, and your partner might still marry you after knowing your darkest issues… she might reject you eventually if you make no effort to change them and grow once married.

Being addicted to pornography, for instance, can steadily pollute and corrupt a relationship, first   through secrecy, then by objectifying your partner, and finally through rejecting their comforts in favour of the internet abstract. Thus the intimacy and commitment of marriage breaks down.

Indulging in areas that pollute your relationship with God can do exactly the same thing; leading you to know Him less, and eventually either reimagining Him into something He is not, or just rejecting Him altogether.

Does Game of Thrones do that? After reading the parents guide on imdb, I decided it would not serve my personal relationship with God, so I decided not to watch it.

2. Is it helpful?

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)

Both of these appear in the context of honouring God and not giving over to idolatry – including sexual immorality (ch. 6).

In the first verse Paul hints at becoming mastered, or under compulsion, or even addicted to something. There’s a lot of stuff that we indulge in that places us under compulsion and easily leads to addiction. This list includes porn, drugs, and gratuitous violence to be sure, but it also includes simple and mostly innocent things like sugar, exercise, food, cartoons, and action films. Anything that gives us a isolating comfort or an unnatural spike of dopamine in our systems can become addictive – and needs to be held accountable to our worship of God. Does Game of Thrones do this for you? It might – it might not. But it’s a good question to ask.

Another way of putting it might be like this: if it seems that giving something up for a while (fasting) would be a really hard, then you might be under its compulsion and possibly might need to be without it for a while.

In the second verse, Paul opens the net wider, pulling in the community in which we live and serve. Our passion, he said, should be to love and serve the world around us and support our neighbours. If watching or reading something subtly shifts our priorities consistently away from serving others to serving ourselves then it needs to be pulled back on.

I think you can add this to serving your partner too. Does my wife want me to be entertained by another woman simulating passionate sex acts? Is she served by me spending time enjoying the intimacy of private relationships with someone that is not her? Does this serve her or serve our marriage in any legitimate way? For us – I don’t think it would.

3. Can you honour and worship God with it?

Staying in 1 Cor. 10, Paul says that everything we decide to do should honour God as an act of worship:  ‘So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God’ (v.31, ESV). This idea is again repeated in Colossians; ‘And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him’ (Col. 3:17, ESV).

So, crux time should be asking yourself whether or not you are able to engage with God at the levels of honour, worship, and self-sacrifice, for the building up of His glory, as you engage with something.

Again, I decided that I wasn’t able to do this by watching Game of Thrones. However, I also decided that it was doable for me reading Harry Potter. What do you think?

4. What if I’m just a ‘stronger brother’?

This comes from 1 Cor. 8, which is one of the more woefully mismanaged and misapplied verses in the Bible.

Paul is saying that those of you who have accepted grace enough to understand what food will and won’t effect your salvation should eat away – but not if it causes others still working through that process to struggle. The focus is not on you, but on your ability to love, serve, and help those who are working through different issues than you.

Frankly, its not for us to decide what we can get away with based on how ‘strong’ we think we are in comparison to others. The focus of that passage is on serving others. Deciding how much your faith can ‘tolerate’ before it corrupts is just a spiritual car crash waiting to happen.

5. What is I’m just trying to be relevant?

There’ll be a longer post on what actually makes us relevant coming soon, so watch this space. For now I’ll just say that the peripheral things that we think make us relevant actually give our relevancy a shelf life. Things that make us genuinely relevant don’t require us to expose ourselves to corruption, but more to the Holy Spirit.

So what?

We shouldn’t ever chose to do something because we can ‘get away with it’ – we should choose it because it draws us closer to God, builds up others, and helps us honour Him.

This, honestly, might include Game of Thrones for you. I, personally, cannot imagine how it could; but I know myself and not you.

Sometimes sacrificing something we enjoy is just the right thing to do if it means giving God that extra devotion, love, worship, and time. The question should never be ‘can I watch/do/read…’ but should always be ‘will this help me worship Him…’

Food for thought.

The Latest in Academic Youth Work Part 1: Fatherlessness and Discipleship

/0 Comments/in , /by

This week is a study week for me. I’m in my old Bible College Library for 5 days working through Youth Ministry and Theology issues. Hopefully at some point I’ll get to grill some of my ol’ lecturers too!

Oak Hill has simply the best Bible-driven, theological education Britain can offer – so I’m starting off by working through the last couple of years worth of the the Youth Ministry Course’s top scoring Dissertations. One from 2013 on Fatherlessness and Discipleship stood out for me today:

“An Approach to the Discipleship of Children and Young People with Absent Fathers, Particularly Considering Their Understanding of and Interaction with God as Father” by Mellissa Christine Tuthill.

This is a brilliant, grounded and fantastically helpful approach to nurturing and growing young people who have grown up without a father.

Mellissa starts with devastating statistics which show that 50% of young people no longer live with both parents by age 15. The result, particularly for those who grow up without dad (whether he is physically or emotionally removed), is a fundamental underdevelopment of spiritual, emotional and psychological well being.

She then goes on to paint a picture of the Biblical picture of dad in the Jewish home as teacher, provider and protector and shows how each of these find their source and fulfillment in the person of God the Father.

To move us towards application Mellissa outlines a three-pronged model for discipleship that would be particularly effective for the Fatherless:

  1. Teaching and applying doctrine
    Correcting the distorted image of the Father from Scripture – particularity passages that speak to adoption, unconditional love, the trinity, perfection and God as Father.

Further to support this, working through important relational theology such as sin and idolatry and the nature of Grace.

  1. Biblical counselling
    Allowing the young person to work through and discuss the issues they face as a result of fatherlessness and work to a place of acceptance and forgiveness.

Mellissa takes us through Kübler-Ross’ classic stages of grief, denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance, and encourages us as counsellor to help young people through this process.

Some key phrases stood out to me here, specifically the importance of validating emotions and being as specific as possible in the healing process.

  1. Mentoring
    What Mellissa says is arguably the most significant and most effective method of discipleship for fatherless young people. The key to this is sharing life with young people, being something like a Father to them and following the practices of Jesus and Paul.

Much of mentoring comes from being a loving role model, not just from a mentor but from exposure to a whole, loving family unit. This latter point is what is often missed in conversations about mentoring. This can happen though intentional time together, but often happens through just ‘going shopping’, ‘washing the car’ or ‘going for a bike ride.’

 

The Latest in Academic Youth Work Part 2: Emerging Church and Youth Work

/0 Comments/in , /by

Still happily embedded in my study week, enjoying dissertations from the best young academic-theological minds in the youth work world in Britain – moving on to my highlights from and thoughts on another Youth Ministry Thesis:

“Can Some Aspects of Emerging Church Culture Result in De-Emphasising The Bible In Contemporary Youth And Children’s Work?” by Philippa Ruth Wehrle. 2013.

Emerging Church? A preliminary thought.

It’s worth saying that this massively helpful critique of the ripples of the emerging church in youth work is really only based on the Brian McLaren aspect of the emerging movement. Although in many ways McLaren is the figure head of much of the emerging church and specifically emergent village, he is certainly not representative of all of it.

Philippa says “Whist emerging church proponents will slightly differ on their scriptural stance…” however my experience is emerging church proponents differ massively and wildly in their approach to scripture. Worth keeping in mind methinks.

The Reclassification of The Bible

Philippa begins by walking us through the reclassification of Scripture by McLaren as a Library rather than a Constitution. Another way of putting this might be useful and informative, but not authoritative and instructional. McLaren therefore treats scripture as an ongoing conversation which we are invited into but doesn’t hold the weight of sola scripture evangelicals classically have with it.

There are many beautiful things to learn from such an approach – mainly not allowing ourselves to read our own presuppositions into it. However as Philippa points out, taking this approach can also mean that the bottom drops out of the Word and our anchors and foundations start to disappear. The Word no longer has authority over believers and we need no longer to place ourselves under its instruction.

 “The authority Word of God is inseparable from the authority of the Person of God.”

I might find myself being more open to and favorable of much of McLaren’s approach than perhaps Philippa is, especially the conversational reading of God’s Word as timeless and relational. However I share her thoughts on the danger of ambiguity and downplaying of the authority present in the Word of God.

In a later section, Philippa shows how the authority Word of God is inseparable from the authority of the Person of God – to reject one is to reject the other. My suspicion though is if we find place for living authority in McLaren’s conversational approach to scripture we would learn boat loads!

Straw Men and False Antitheses

Very importantly Philippia critiques McLaren’s ethically questionable approach to argument and discussion. She lists off some of his false conclusions drawn from questionable arguments and identifies straw men opponents made in much the same way.

This is absolutely vital as McLaren’s foundational belief is in conversational theology, but his own approach to conversation and discussion is far more manipulative and dogmatic than can comfortably sit with this.

Much of his opponents are people or positions that he has either misunderstood or unfairly represented, but in his characteristically playful style he judges and demonizes whole schools of thought without proper discussion.

The result?

Having downplayed the authority of the Bible, and downplayed further intelligent defense of this authority we are led “into an ambiguous Christianity that tends to be idolatrous and autonomous.”

The Effect on Youth and Children’s Work

McLaren’s approach to scripture, says Philippa “means [young people’s] lives needn’t be challenged by biblical propositions which are often countercultural in today’s society; when the world and the Bible disagree, they needn’t choose between them, because the emerging church approach appears to offer both.”

She raises two important questions:

1st. “Is the emerging church approach and it’s de-emphasis of the Bible going to attract young people to Christianity?”

2nd. “Is it going to transform young people’s lives so that they become committed and mature followers of the true God who seek to serve him with their whole lives?”

“Personal faith in Christ, for it to be genuine and saving must have propositional content.”

To answer these Philippa points out the obvious important point which is that the world already offers them this form of ‘Christianity’; warm, simple, and compromising communities. Further she points out that ambiguity and uncertainty are not helpful for young people in this culture – they need structure, guidance and authority, especially now when the rest of the world is giving them less and less of this.

“Young people cannot be genuine believers simply because they are involved in social action, or have a vague notion of who God is: “personal faith in Christ, for it to be genuine and saving must have propositional content” says Philippa (quoting also DeYoung and Kluck, Why we’re not emergent, 74).

Philippa’s Conclusions

Young people need both ‘heart’ and ‘brain’ religion concludes Philippa. The Bible must be understood as the “true self-revelation of God to his people, though which the essential gospel truths are revealed, and by which Christians are authoritatively taught and corrected.”

The Bible is our way to understand Jesus and how we have salvation – so it must be protected as authoritative and taught as such.

My Final Thoughts

There is lots to admire about Philippa’s thesis. The Bible is certainly God’s own revelation; beautiful, true and authoritative. It is creative and life giving and communicates to us the very heart of God.

Further, her passion to teach the Bible wholly and counter-culturally to young people is excellent and needs to be mimicked across the youth work spectrum if we are to see young people be fully cross-carrying, God-exalting Christians.

However, there is some agitation I have at lack of engagement with the Bible as an organic book with relational, timeless, conversational aspects that are new and newly creative every morning. The Bible without the Holy Spirit is a book – simple as and no more. Dead and molting. But when the Spirit of God shines through the pages and meets with us then theology and Christianity comes to life.

In short the Bible is big enough to be subject to our humanity and God is big enough to protect His words through the grandest of scrutiny and the softest of liberal engagement.

The Bible does not save – God does. And He has a whole tool-belt to do that with. God has spoken yes – but God also speaks. The Bible is received, yes – but God is organic and takes all the time and space he wants to open and not close our perceptions of him. The more we nail down, the less we know God.

A Biblical Mandate For Youth Ministry

/0 Comments/in , /by

If you’ve seen parts 1 & 2 you’ll know that I’m on a study week looking through the most resent, top scoring dissertations from probably the most academic, Bible-driven Bible College in the UK. Today I’m highlighting and summarizing the important argument in favour of Youth Ministry from the Bible in:

‘A Biblical Mandate For Youth Ministry’, by Andrew Cook.

This short thesis is broken into three parts:

1st – an opening discussion of adolescence
2nd – an outline of the argument against doing Youth Ministry
3rd – a Biblical defense of and model for Youth Ministry

I will go through each.

 

Adolescence

Andrew looks at both the sociological and Biblical approaches the adolescence question.

Sociologically Andrew points out, adolescence as a transition from childhood to adulthood has always existed in some form and is often referred to as ‘storm and stress.’ This term, coined by the largely discredited work of G. Stanley Hall has nevertheless been a useful term to describe this often tumultuous time of transition. The massive changes both socially and biologically during adolescence makes this transitional age group a very distinct people.

Although their is much disagreement, Andrew suggests a broad age group surrounding (just before, during and just after) puberty to be our focus.

Biblically, we find few places speaking directly to this transitional time, however historically they do exist. The Jewish education system celebrates times of transition for instance. Further, in passages such as 1 Chronicles 23 and Leviticus 27 we find that the age of 20 is a significant time for adult value and responsibility.

A category of ‘young men’ or ‘young adults’ also exist in places like Deuteronomy 32 and Jeremiah 6 – where such a group is seen as a sub-category of Children. In 1 John 2:12-14, categories include ‘children’, ‘young men’ and ‘fathers.’ ‘Youths’ is another term found many places such as Job 31 and 1 Timothy 4.

The adolescent ‘youth’ or ‘young adult’ stages of development Biblically are seen as time to grow away from youthful sin and temptations (1 Cor. 6; Prov. 5:3, 8; 1 Tim. 5:11; Prov. 1:10-19) and grow into wisdom and maturity (Prov. 1-9; 1 Kings 12:8; 14:30; 1 Pet. 5:5; 1 Tim. 5:1-2).

 

The Argument Against Youth Ministry

Instead of segregated youth ministry some say that we should look to integrated and inclusive whole family ministry.

Those supporting this argument (Andrew notes particularly the online film, ‘Divided’ by Philip Leclerc) say the crisis of young people leaving the church is largely the fault of what they call the ‘godless, pagan, Darwinian’ invention that is age segregated youth ministry. They note that only age-integrated worship is seen in Scripture where the youth-specific ministry and discipleship is given through parents alone.

They see age segregated youth ministry as undermining corporate worship and undermining parental ministry.

It’s worth saying, that even though the Biblical arguments presented by advocates of this argument are pretty weak they do raise some important challenges about integration and parenting.

 

The Biblical Basis For Youth Ministry

Andrew starts this section by helpfully saying:

“The argument against youth ministry cannot be supported biblically, but this does not in itself ratify all approaches to adolescent discipleship.

The spiritual poverty of some approaches is obvious: the gospel is not proclaimed, the Bible is not taught, young people are not included in the community of faith, there is little if any spiritual growth, and the only legacy seems likely to be some very high scores at Mario Kart and a few broken church windows.”

Andrew outlines (very basically) three of the most frequently used youth work models in the UK and their drawbacks:

– Incarnational model – prefers sharing stories to preaching the gospel.
– Worship model – encourages faith based on subjective, emotional experience not propositional truth.
– Funnel model – prefers entertainment to Bible study and content.

This is a useful set of thoughts to have in the backs of our minds as we continue.

Andrew finds Biblical examples of ministry happening with adolescents outside the nuclear family but within the church family. For instance in Deuteronomy 29 there is a communal approach to sharing responsibility for each other – specifically the elders for the young people in the whole community. Also, in Nehemiah, Ezra groups people according to their ages in order to teach God’s word (Neh. 8). Further, in Proverbs there is a communal nature to teach wisdom to youths outside the nuclear family unit. Finally, in the New Testament there is a big push towards shared community life and specifically Andrew gives us Titus 2 as an example of the young being taught communally and Luke 2:41-52 where the 12 year old Jesus is sitting with the elders – away from his parents – discussing God’s word.

All this said, there is a prominent push in Andrew’s model to integrate young people into the church and support parents as much as possible – not exclusively (like the proponents against Youth Ministry might say), but heavily.

Andrew therefore goes on to find a prime but not sole responsibility on the parents to disciple young people (Deut. 6; Prov. 1-9; Eph. 6) and some age-specific applications of Biblical truth outside the sole parental structure (Eph. 6; Col. 3). Finally Andrew demonstrates how Church is family just as important as the nuclear family (Mark 3:31-35; Luke 14:26; 1 Tim. 5:1-2) and shows how special space is given to ‘youths’ (1 Cor. 12:21-26).

 

Concluding Thoughts

All this goes to show that youth ministry within a inclusive church family structure is a Biblical model for Youth Ministry. Youth Ministry should never be solely segregated, divided or exclusive – and the parents should not be undermined. However the growth of adolescence is the responsibility of the whole community with a Bible-driven passion for youth discipleship. This vital for the health of the whole church – and vital to the health of successful youth ministries.

Thank you Andrew! Lots of helpful things in here and a wonderful grasp of the Bible’s role in defining what youth ministry actually is.

I would love to see a longer thesis with room given for models of general discipleship, spiritual healing, sanctification and growth and how they would apply to this model – and I’d really value a look at culture differences and how these application might look in today’s unique world. Finally I’d also like to see what role Bible-drive, but culturally specific young people’s mission looks like in this church-integration model. My suspicion is it would struggle somewhat without some more cultural wiggle-room.

Well worth the time in the Word! Cheers.

Teaching The Trinity in Youth Groups

/0 Comments/in , /by

“It seems that Jesus is popular by reason of being anchored in history, rather than floating in metaphysics.”

Such is the drive behind ‘The Trinity, the historical Jesus and youth ministry’ by Angus McLeay in ‘Towards a Theology of Youth Ministry‘ from The Ridley College Youth Conference Papers, 1998.

The Trinity by its very nature is taught as metaphysical and abstract with little or no tangible relationship to our experiences in reality. Trying to teach the Trinity as a knowable and relevant entity within youth groups is therefore incredibly difficult!

The Trinity on one hand is often communicated with metaphor, image, object lessons and concepts, and on the other hand with mystery and difficulty. This paradox is at best confusing. The analogies themselves (water, ice, steam; plant, root, flower… etc.) are always found wanting in its wake.

Rather than using the Trinity as a conceptual idea of God, McLeay says that ‘The Trinity is a statement about the relations that form the essence of God’s being.’ The Trinity is a statement of relations and relationship. This makes the doctrine far more teachable and applicable to young people.

The key to teaching the Trinity therefore is relationship. God is a relationship God – absolutely, necessarily, essentially and in eternally. He is many and one in community. We must teach Trinity by teaching the relationships between the members, and specifically how they play out in the Kingdom of God.

McLeay points out several of these Trinity-Kingdom relationship dynamics that are worth unpacking in a youth ministry setting (which I have fleshed out somewhat). These are all tangible and applicable and as such make the Trinity much more teachable rather than abstract:

Kingdom – God’s rule through Jesus over us His people and the world. Jesus has God the Father’s own authority for us to know Him through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. We work with Jesus, through the conviction and strength of the Spirit to be a steward of the world the Father created. The Father gave this Kingdom to His Son, Jesus – secured through the raising of Him to life by the Spirit.

Allegiance – Jesus calls us to know the Father though Him – to commit to Him through the power of the Spirit and live with ‘radical, personal allegiance’ to God.

Father/Son – The relationship spelled out in the Old Testament as the King and Son of the King – the God and Son of the God (Psalm 2:2-9). Jesus’ identity is caught up in the identity of the Father. His confidence is in the surety of the loving, protective bond between them and His activities are the fulfillment (through the Spirit’s power) of the Father’s wishes.

Crucifixion & Resurrection – The Kingdom of God is secured through the powerful act of substitution on the cross. Jesus the Son, absorbing the wrath of God the Father in eternity though the eternal nature of their relationships, then brought back to life by the creational breath of God through the Holy Spirit. The resurrection also secures the Kingdom rule of the Son, as death itself (the biggest enemy) is placed beneath his feet.

McLeay ends with a whole bunch of practical steps to teach the Trinity which I’ll simplify here:

– Start with a Gospel story that picks up on Kingdom-Trinity relationships (something that shows how Father, Son and Holy Spirit relate).
– Refer to the oneness of these three beings in the course of other Bible Studies constantly asking the question, ‘what does this tell us about God?’
– Link any relational teaching and concepts back to the Trinity, and particularly examples in the Gospels.
– Look for Trinity links when teaching Kingdom concepts like identity, authority, independence, identity, individuality and outreach.

 

The Bible And Young People, Stephen Hale

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Bible And Young People, Stephen Hale

Quote from ‘A Theological Model Of Youth Ministry’ from Stephan Hale in ‘Towards a Theology of Youth Ministry‘ from The Ridley College Youth Conference Papers, 1998.

Jesus was himself an adolescent and had to develop and grow into adulthood (Luke 2:52). Jesus encouraged the Children to come to him (Luke 18:15-17) and had to discourage the disciples from keeping them away from him. In the apostolic ministry in Acts, whole households were converted (Acts 16:30-34). Paul’s letters were addressed to household churches that included children. It was assumed they were present for the reading of the Scriptures and Paul’s letters, because he specifically addresses them in the household tables found in Ephesus and Colossians. Paul addresses younger leaders in his letters (1 Timothy 4:12-16) and young men and women as groups (Titus 2:4-8).

…

The Bible records the successes of many young people – David, Samuel, Esther, Josiah and Daniel to name but a few. The time of youth is one when great achievements and spiritual leadership are possible. God uses young people just as much as he does adults. We need to honour young people, nurture their faith, character and gifts and give them openings and opportunities.

The Gospel, Now With Added Freshness

/0 Comments/in /by

I’m a sucker for big brands on a budget, so when I saw ‘Toni & Guy Deep Cleansing Shampoo’ for a third off in my local Boots, I snagged it up!

It was when I was in the queue that I finally read the tagline, ‘guaranteed added freshness!’ After a pointed cough behind me I’d noticed I’d been staring at this exclamation on the bottle for quite a few uncomfortable minutes without moving.

Guaranteed added freshness? What is that supposed to mean? How can you guarantee ‘added’ freshness. Is freshness an ingredient you can add after the mixing of the bottle? Would I miss it so much with another brand that forgets to add the freshness at the end?What was it that made the nice people at Toni & Guy feel that they needed to reassure me: ‘don’t worry Tim, we didn’t forget to add the freshness!’

Isn’t freshness a state of an ingredient, rather than a piece you can independently add to a mix? How fresh something is is how recently it was picked. Adding freshness would be like adding arrogance to someone – it’s just something they are, permeating through all their bits! Or, “this car comes with free ‘piece of mind!’” Really? What does piece of mind look like? What other products feature that ingredient?

I sent a tweet to Toni & Guy asking them to elaborate, but they – probably wisely – didn’t take the bait.

Selling the intangible

We’ve really mastered the art of selling the intangible and the immeasurable haven’t we? We market everything from our guaranteed extra care to the added vitality of flavoured water.

I remember someone once trying to ebay their undying love and affection. I don’t think they got a lot for it before ebay said it broke the rules somehow and took down the listing.

That begs the question though; If ebay can notice when we’re selling a load of tosh, what makes us think young people don’t notice when we do the same to the Gospel.

I see this all the time at youth events. The speaker will invariably try and sell an intangible as a tagline to the Gospel. “Come to Jesus and get peace!” “Give your life to Christ and know life to the full!”

This generation of young people know when they’re being advertised to. They recognise the sales pitch – but you just missed the mark because they can smell the rat.

Jesus is tangible!

We don’t need to be intangible about the Gospel. We don’t have to be fluffy. We don’t have to colour in a sales pitch. We have evidence, experience and specifics that we can give people.

We need to get into the habit as youth leaders of teaching the tangible Gospel:

“Come to Jesus and get peace…. that is the presence of an all powerful God with a proven track record giving you wisdom, guidance and spiritual comfort when you go through the storms of life… Here’s how he did it for me.”

 “Give your life to Christ and know life to the full…. as you discover the purpose for which you exist and live in satisfaction as you make choices with God guided aims…. Here’s how it looked for Paul”

The Gospel affects life, we don’t need to sell pretend intangibles like shampoo. I’m not sure that drinking certain water brands will add to my vitality over other brands – but I know and have real evidence that Jesus offers us tangible change for our lives.

If Jesus doesn’t work in real like then He doesn’t work. Period. If we need to sell him with intangible tag lines we haven’t seen Him work yet and no one will be buying!

‘What Soul Survivor Got Wrong’… a missed opportunity

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

(First written in 2012, edited 2014

(more recent post: ‘The Christology of Soul Survivor)

Last year at Soul Survivor a very young (like 15 yo) member of the prayer or ‘enabling’ team kept showing up whenever anyone in my group was being prayed for and he had a couple of bad habits. First, he pushed! He would stand in front of the person he was praying for and give them a little nudge in the chest or just apply continuous pressure until they went down. As soon as they hit the deck he moved on to ‘get’ somebody else.

The other thing he did – which I found even more annoying – is he’d tell you that you were praying wrong. So he would physically move your hand to ‘more powerful praying positions.’ I was praying for one of my young people one evening and he came, moved my hand from the young person’s shoulder to their chest, but assured me that ‘everything else you’re doing is great!’ I wanted to ask whether or not the Holy Spirit has a better line of fire now my hand was out of the way?

I thought the enabling team was there to make sure groups we’re looking after each other and blessing what God was doing – not interrupting experienced group leaders to choreograph hand positions and push people over who looked a wee bit wobbly?

Why The Crit?… Hater!

I don’t want to come off as overly critical (too late right?). Soul Survivor is great! It has an amazing legacy and done some incredible ministry. I’ve been taking youth groups for years and we always get a lot out of it. We meet God there and are blessed by powerful, Spirit-led ministry. I respect the people running it and it forms an effective part of my annual youth work discipleship and mission strategy. But there is stuff that Soul Survivor has done (and does do) that has caused issues for young people that I’ve worked with over the years.

Soul Survivor wields an enormous amount of influence in the youth work world and has developed a large proportion of youth leaders in my generation. Big influence means big responsibility, and even though I know they get lots of unhelpful criticism – they need to set the example for how to properly evaluate themselves in humility and be clear about their mistakes, as well as their many successes.

The Opportunity Andy Was Given

I was thrilled therefore when in 2011, Andy Croft was given a huge opportunity to talk at the Youth Work Summit on ‘What Soul Survivor got Wrong.’ This was an opportunity to cut through all the crazy criticism they get and say, ‘here’s how we see it and how we’re trying to grow as a movement and serve your youth groups better – we know we haven’t always gotten it right and we’re aware of specific areas to develop and here’s how we’ve been doing it.’

Unfortunately, this is not the talk Andy gave. The ten minute message took on a tone that straddled the lines between subversively defensive and so broad that you couldn’t really blame them for anything. I’ve got mounds of respect for Crofty, but this really was a missed opportunity to set an example of how to engage critique well. The only real conclusion I was able to draw was that Soul Survivor does not effectively evaluate its ministry, doesn’t have a language developed to talk about its issues in public, and is not aware of specific areas that they need to grow in.

What Andy said

Andy talked about the initial phone call where he was given this opportunity, which he seemed a bit upset by. He moved on to say he realized the importance of evaluating ministry and so would give it a shot.

1. Evaluate ministries against their aims

He explained that ministries should be evaluated against what they are trying to achieve – which is right as long as that the aims are specific enough to be valuable. The aim Andy gave for Soul Survivor was “to reach young people and to equip them to live the whole of their lives for Jesus.”

This is a good aim – but is practically the same broad aim of every other youth ministry in the Christian world. How can we effectively evaluate against that? I guess we can in a very broad way, but such as a single aim, it’s very difficult to come up with specifics.

A better way of saying it might be “to reach young people and to equip them to live the whole of their lives for Jesus – by developing an event that works alongside churches to provide a worship and teaching experience that motivates, inspires, encourages direction change and sets trends for Christian youth culture.” That would have been more of a  benchmark to measure.

As it is, using such a broad aim means we have no effective tool to measure Soul Survivor’s success, or of course its issues.

2. What we can’t do

Andy continued by saying there are lots of things that Soul Survivor cannot do and shouldn’t be held responsible for. Again he’s right! Understanding the resource scope of what you’re doing is simply a smart thing to do!

He said that ‘As an event, we cannot do discipleship or effective followup.’ And fair enough – that’s true too. But if a key, pivotal part of Soul Survivor’s aim is to ‘equip young people to live their whole lives for Jesus’, isn’t that the heartbeat of discipleship? If we measure Soul Survivor against it’s given aim, then is it perhaps missing out something significant here?

More importantly though, Andy just took Soul Survivor off the hook. With a hugely broad aim, a tip of the hat to ‘well we can’t do everything’ and no specifics of what they can and should do we’re left with nothing but straw men and meanies like me saying ‘hang on a minute?!?’

3. No history to measure by

Andy said that as Soul Survivor is only ’19 years young’ it’s harder to evaluate how successful it’s been. Under that logic though the vast majority of the UK’s youth ministry to can’t be clearly evaluated or held to account either. Nor can – as my wife pointed out – most of our marriages.

Because of Soul Survivor operating over the last two decades, Andy says that the group to look at are the 20s and 30s of today’s church and culture. Andy makes some insightful and important observations here: 20s and 30s are missing from our churches and sexual ethics in that age group is confused at best.

Because of these two points Andy says Soul Survivor could have done better; particularly showing more clearly the cost of following Jesus and teaching better about relationships. And good on him – yes Soul Survivor can take a measure of responsibility here and should work on those two areas. However, so can just about everything else in society – and again, are these not primarily discipleship areas?

These are not Soul Survivor specific points. All of us – education, church, politics, the leadership of previous generations – have had a hand to play in today’s 20s and 30s culture. Even though I share Andy’s passion to teach the cost of following Jesus and be clear on sexual ethics – if that’s the only thing Soul Survivor takes away from two decades of youth event ministry we’re going to be found seriously wanting.

So what did Soul Survivor get wrong?

This is harsh, but it’s hard to take away anything of significance, or at least specificity, from what Andy shared. Andy ended with a short ‘what we’ve got right’ section. If I’m honest, it sounded like practiced criticism-rebuffing rather than effective evaluation or humble honesty.

I’ve not yet read or heard anything from Soul Survivor that demonstrates a language for evaluation and improvement. It must be there because Soul Survivor has developed and has got better every year. From this message four years ago though, however, it looks like Soul Survivor still thinks of itself as the underdog trying to get a seat at the big boys table.

What we need from you Soul Survivor

Soul Survivor please, you need to set the example and lead the way. Help us on the ground know that even you get it wrong and show us how to effectively evaluate, own up to, and change our own shortcomings. We need you to set the example!

Where do I think Soul Survivor may have got it wrong

I think Soul Survivor has got some specifics to answer for. I’m sure they have answers to some of these, different opinions on others, and have better insight for some I’ve missed.

– It’s part in the increased commercialization of Christian media
– The consumerist approach to the events that only nominally (or awkwardly) create space for genuine community participation
– The events effectively replace many youth groups short term mission trips that always used to be the first weeks of summer
– Copycat events all over the UK trying to replicate the Soul Survivor feeling, splitting churches and keeping young people in youth groups rather than growing into full Church life – not to mention draining resources and people
– Assuming everyone wants to be the happy, sweaty extrovert for the week
– Not always explaining the Gospel before asking people to respond to it by becoming a Christian
– Creating a generation (my generation) of youth leaders who think the Soul Survivor formula is the way to run week-in-week-out youth work
– An odd approach to the distinct parts of lament and joy
– An energy sapping approach to spirituality that doesn’t take physical health seriously enough in emotional encounters
– Although getting better, a poor respect historically for Bible Teaching
– Inspiring people to be on stage rather than on the front lines (made better with Soul Action’s work)
– Perhaps not properly training or supervising their enabling team.

I want to end by saying I have masses of respect for Soul Survivor – but I want them to lead too. They are not a reactionary group any more – they are mainstream and need to be taking their place as servant-hearted, wise and humble leaders in the UK Youth Ministry scene.