Two dads are better than one – talk

A short Father’s Day talk from 2017 on God being our dad.

 

The Gospel and Jurassic Park – talk

A talk I gave a couple of years ago in a church series called ‘God at the Movies’. This is mine on Jurassic Park. This was first published on a church website which is now closed, so I’m re-posting here.

 

Transforming the Church through Transforming Youth Ministry – talk

A talk I gave a couple of years ago on young people and the church. The church website has now closed, so I’m re-posting the messages I gave here.

(Note: The last 5mins is about local work of Youth for Christ in North Wales).

Photo by Jason Wong on Unsplash

Is preaching the most effective method to teach teenagers?

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!

 

The Bible in a 20minute Nutshell (audio)

Audio of a talk I gave at i61 church a year or so ago. Their webpage has now been closed, so I’m reposting the audio here.

Is our language becoming idiographic again? Communicating with emoticon culture.

I’m currently sat in a little café just outside of Mullsjö in Sweden, trying to send a text message to a local. Try as I might, however, my indoctrinated little British phone just can’t do it! The message icon keeps flashing up with a little “!”. Clearly this means ‘something is wrong, and this hasn’t worked’. When I click that icon, another pops up, an unfinished circle with an arrowhead which clearly tells me, ‘click here to retry.’

It strikes me that this must part of my phone’s latest update, because when this happened to me last year in Norway (name dropping the Nordic countries!), it said ‘message failed’, rather than “!” and ‘retry to send’, rather than the little circle arrow.

I know instinctively, however, what these little phone icons mean. They appear everywhere in my everyday digital world. Sometimes, when cooking I look for that same ‘retry’ button in real life… usually shortly after realising my stove doesn’t have an ‘undo’ button.

In a Western world of emoticons, glyphs, and symbols, icons are becoming a far more regular part of everyday life.

It’s not like we didn’t use symbols before. The well-dressed silhouetted people on doors tell us where to pee, and £, € and $ signs tell us that we’re about to spend money. These, however, represent top-down imposed and generationally broad ideas that have been widely used for quite a while. This new generation of icons which we communicate with, however, are growing right out of the beating heart of youth culture – driven by the consumer habits of the populous. Vox populi vox dei!

A youth language revolution

Is it possible that our young people are actually shaping the biggest change in our language since the beginning of the last century?

It’s as if young people (by whom I’m talking about late millennials and the digital natives of Gen Z) are leading a somewhat natural evolution of language right before our very eyes.

Idiographic vs. alphabetic languages

When I lived in London I decided to try and learn ancient Assyrian. Why? Kicks and giggles, I guess. Needless to say, I didn’t get very far.

Assyrians used a system called cuneiform to write words. Cuneiform is a nifty system of pressing wedge-shaped lines into soft clay before it hardens. In the earliest forms of cuneiform, the lines actually made recognisable pictures to represent a clear idea of what was happening. So, a picture of a face could mean ‘speak’ or ‘eat’. A picture of fire could mean ‘hot’ or ‘cook’. The picture gave you an idea to interpret into meaning, which is what’s known as idiographic language. Eventually these pictures became simpler, and finally just the most basic outlines of the picture remained as the beginnings of an alphabet. Basically, what they had were emoticons; ideas that – correctly interpreted in context – conveyed meaning.

What cuneiform and other idiographic languages did was to create simple ways of recording and communicating. In contrast, our later alphabetic languages are far more complex and can groan under the weight of their own convolutions. In ideographic languages, not a lot of detail or embellishment was given or was even needed. It would just have taken too long as the clay would have dried out before we got through a sentence!

Because of the simplicity, context was always really important and without knowing the people who were writing, it would have been easy to misunderstand what was being said. You needed a greater personal connection between the reader and the writer, and the readers had to be interpreters first.

Sound familiar?

The rise of the emoticon from youth culture

Last week Archbishop Justin Welby tweeted the entire Lord’s Prayer using nothing but emoticons. Hacker Noon wrote a post on exactly how to communicate using nothing but emoticons, and Psychologist World recently published on the emotional benefits of communicating with emoticons.

Icon-driven, or idiographic language is freshly becoming part of our everyday communication again, and this neat change is being driven by the chief digital consumer: young people.

Almost all of our work with young people relies on communication. From advertising events, forming communities, establishing order, sharing Jesus through the Bible, talks, videos and creativity. Communication is at the core of what we do.

Communication that assumes interpretation

I wouldn’t suggest for one moment that we switch to an emoticon-driven language, but I’d implore us to be more aware of the internal processes of young people when receiving our communications.

Young people are not just being lazy or simplicitic; there are layers of interpretation going on in how they communicate through icons. Just like an hour glass, large ideas are being funnelled thorough deceptively simple iconography, then opened out again though individual processing.

This makes young people incredibly interpretive of ideas that come out from communication – more so than in other recent generations. It would be a mistake, therefore, to assume that simplified methods of communication – such as emoticons or icons – means simplified translation, reception, or interpretation of language.

Interpretation of a simple idea to a complex one is now native to our young people’s everyday language. This means it’s potentially easier for them to misunderstand because most of our communication goes the other way: We translate complex ideas into simplified ones.

Much of our teaching is making Gospel stories and big ideas digestible, but the simplified end point might then be read, deconstructed, then reconstructed by a young person naturally and immediately into something totally different, leaving us confused: But we were so clear and simple – how did they get that out of what I said?

Starting to move with the evolution of language

When you read a list of emoticons, you have to understand the person speaking, the context it applies to, and then make some quick interpretive choices as to what’s being said. Young people do that at an alarmingly natural pace. It’s as if their brains are actually changing shape around their everyday language habits. If we keep on communicating without this awareness we are going to be left behind.

There are sometimes, therefore, when we will need to say what we mean without embellishment, metaphor, or story. We might need to be let our teaching and discussions to become much more complex, allowing for the interaction of more complex themes.

There are other times where we’re better probably communicating through questions, rather than just making propositional teaching points. We also shouldn’t assume that our classic talk structures – including three stories, two metaphors, one video, and two application points – will necessarily connect into one big idea for the young people without an overtly clear lead for that.

I think this also gives us amazing new opportunities to have much more complex conversations after the initial round of communication. Now that young people are more naturally making interpretative links, we can have longer and deeper discussions as an overflow of their own immediate internal cognitive processing of language. Internal critical thinking may be the surprising but very welcome manifestation of this change.

Finally, adding the pictorial element to modern language engages different parts of many young people’s brains than traditional prose might do on its own. This could create easier ways to be creative with young people, and should provide for much more effective ways of moving head knowledge to heart knowledge.

Language really is everything. Side-line it at our peril, yet exploring its evolutions with our young people can yield amazing fruit.

I’d love to hear about how you are engaging the natural, daily heart languages of young people to share the message of Jesus with them. Comment, or drop me a line! Thanks 😀

Capturing God’s Heart For Young People

Capturing God’s Heart For Young People. A talk I gave at Antioch Church in Colwyn Bay, North Wales. This is a version of a relatively standard talk that I give regularly on young people across North Wales.

Two passages:

Luke 18:1-17

Acts 20:7-12

http://www.antioch.co.uk/wa_files/CapturingGodsHeartForTheYoung_20141109.mp3

Talk: ‘Who Is The Greatest?’ Mark 9:33-

Hi folks.

Here’s a wee talk I gave a few weeks ago on Mark 9 at Prince’s Drive Baptist Church. As always I hope it’s useful and I’m open to helpful, constructive, love-driven feedback. 🙂  Cheers!

http://pdbc.churchinsight.com/Media/Player.aspx?media_id=130703&file_id=141384

Young People Are Not The Church Of Tomorrow

Talk given to Penrallt Baptist Church in Bangor, North Wales. Bless them for letting me do it!

http://www.penrallt.org/sermons/rec/20140622am.mp3

Young People Are Not The Church Of Tomorrow