Addressing a mistake in my journal…
Late last year I wrote a journal which evaluated the incarnational model of youth ministry. I stand by that evaluation as it’s an important and often missing voice from the youth work conversation.
However, upon reflection, I’d like to address a mistake I made in that journal.
In the cutting process I unwittingly oversimplified Prof. Pete Ward’s work to make him sound far too unaware of, or unconcerned with the gospel. This is simply not true of Pete or his work.
Even though I do believe there are important theological omissions, there is no excuse for fallaciously over-reducing anyone’s thinking to fit a tight word count. I needed far more nuance and much more care.
The journal was first written as an essay, then it was developed it into a training resource, then changed again to be a series of blogs, then redone as a few PowerPoint presentations, and then finally reconstructed as this journal. It was, in fact, my first journal that I didn’t expect to be published.
After going through all of these changes I started to feel very impersonal and quite abstract about it and I lost the big picture. It became words on a page and some of the tone suffered as a result. This was espeically true for the early part that I was trying to ‘get out of the way’ before I focused more on Dr. Root and the tradtional doctine of the Incarnation. I needed an objective re-read thinking about the real people behind the pages.
If you’ve read me before, I hope you’ll know that I really try to take immense care when disagreeing with someone publicly. Critiquing brothers and sisters is not something to be done cavalierly – ever. This journal in these places, however, lost a measure of grace that I would usually strive to bring.
In the cutting process, Pete unfairly suffered the whip of my brevity, and I genuinely apologise for this.
I say two things about Pete that oversimplify his position, and – knowing the footnotes and buffer sentences that were removed – now sound unjust and unfair.
First, I say,
‘Other than an undeveloped mention of the unity of God and human (Ward, 1995:17), there is no mention of any aspect of the doctrine of the Incarnation besides revelation.’
And second,
‘…Ward does not clarify what the gospel itself is, other than an abstract notion of ‘God’s expression of care for the world’ (1995”17).’
In isolation, this is just not correct and not fair. Although Pete doesn’t link the atonement specifically and functionally into the doctrine of the Incarnation itself, and treats them as separate pieces, he does clearly speak about the Cross and its importance (28ff.).
Pete’s focus is almost entirely relational and doesn’t talk about the effectual nature of Jesus dying for our sins, or the importance of Jesus being both human (just sacrifice) and divine (eternal sacrifice). This was what I was trying to say but cut too much to make this clear. He’s not shooting at the target that I would like him to, but that doens’t mean he isn’t aware of, or doesn’t care about that same target that I do.
Pete clearly loves Jesus, understands the gospel, and wants young people to know it.
I’m a big fan of Pete’s work, and he’s been an important part of our landscape for a long time. I want to hugely plug ‘Growing Up Evangelical’ and ‘Selling Worship.’ Really essential reads for mission-minded leaders in the UK. I don’t think ‘Youthwork and the mission of God’ is the most helpful book for youth ministry, sure, but that doesn’t change the fact that Pete is a wise, knowledgeable, and incredibly experienced practitioner and thinker, with a track record of helping young people meet with Jesus which far outstrips my own. I didn’t make this clear enough.
I wish him the best and deeply apologise that I oversimplified his understanding of, or passion for the gospel.