Rethinking “biblical masculinity” in youth groups.

/0 Comments/in /by

Blessed are the barrel-chested
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who bench 220
For they will be comforted
Blessed are the grunters and the spitters
For they will inherit the earth
Blessed are those who hunger for angus burgers, and thirst for real ale
For they will be filled
Blessed are those who can shoot, fight, and hunt
For they will see God
Blessed are those who can chop wood
For they will be called the children of God
Blessed are the hairy, the sweaty, the musky, and the bearded
For theirs is the kingdom of God.

Not really.

There was a post on a popular Christian youth work forum earlier in the week asking for ‘manly activity’ ideas for his boys-only Bible study group. They were about to start looking at ‘biblical masculinity’ and wanted activities that supported the venture.

“Biblical masculinity.” I’d like to make war on that phrase.

The responses to this forum post were as you’d expect. A ready list came within minutes from multiple people that included fishing, shooting, camping, chopping wood, making fires, and even axe-throwing. There was also carpentry, ‘making stuff’, and life skills like how to change a tyre or grill a burger. Y’know… ‘things men do.’

My question is: from what part of the Bible do we derive at these object lessons for ‘biblical masculinity’? Why have we attached exactly these types of activities to a concept of biblical manhood?

Are we in reality propping up a cultural view of masculinity with a flighty idea of manhood that we think is in the Bible, but might not be?

Is it what the Bible says?

What we often think of as ‘biblical masculinity’ is simply not in the Bible. Instead, I believe we have arrived at a composite idea of a very particular type of manhood from various cultural perceptions throughout history. I’d even go as far to say that you can trace many of these ideas back to Homeric philosophy, and the Greek pursuit of challenging the Olympian gods through raw strength and power.

As odd as it might seem to some, many boys don’t want to be known by their aggressive prowess – and this shouldn’t be a reason for us to make them feel like any less of a man by how we program or teach on manliness.

Now, I have no problem with wood-chopping, fire-making, or even axe-throwing as youth group activities (post risk-assessment!). Sounds like fun! But I don’t see anything in the Bible to assume these should be limited just to ‘the lads.’ In fact, I’m pretty sure many of the girls in my group would enjoy these adventurous activities just as much, if not sometimes more, than the boys.

My issue is indiscriminately attaching these activities to ‘biblical masculinity.’ Frankly, I don’t believe the Bible says what we think it does about masculinity – and I think we’ve been guilty of some pretty simple interpretive mistakes in our haste to create this skewed version of manhood.

Let’s take a step back. If I asked you to go and find me the ‘biblical masculinity’ passages in the Bible – where would you go? What verses, passages, characters, or ideas come to mind? Now are they explicitly or exclusively about manhood?

Edwin Louis Cole in his best-selling ‘Maximized Manhood’ starts in 1 Cor. 10:6-9, a passage that applies to all of Israel, but Cole makes it exclusively about men. John Eldredge takes a similar approach in his successful book, ‘Wild at Heart’. He uses passages that apply to men and women equally, and then overlays them onto his particularised construct of manhood.

I’d accuse both of these authors (and others like them) of several Bible-reading errors, for instance:

  1. Putting the cart before the horse – having an idea, then wedging verses in later to prove it.
  2. Spring-boarding – starting with a verse, and then using a word or an idea within it to bounce off into a completely different point.

When you’ve been through books like this, however, the cumulative weight of these prooftexts, along with the ways the authors have connected them, can feel very convincing. That is until you stop yourself at each verse and ask the question: Is this actually talking about masculinity? In most of the cases, the answer is no.

Why does this matter?

Many of the traits that we assign to ‘biblical masculinity’ are simply not limited to men.

If I asked you to write down a list of traits that might be considered biblical masculine, what would it include? Have a go. I’m guessing your list, like mine, would include ideas like ‘strength’, ‘endurance’, ‘protection’ and ‘provision.’ These are important traits – but now try and find the Bible verses that tell us to pursue these virtues.

You will find verses; however, they won’t be speaking just about men.

Instead, you will find passages about parents, prophets, elders, devout followers, or those seeking holiness. You will find passages about developing childhood, engaging in worship, dealing with outsiders, or developing a healthy community.

That’s the issue with applying these traits just to men when they are linked to godliness within all of God’s people. Are we really not going to teach girls to be strong or protective? In fact, in the case of the four traits above, the only place you find them specifically linked to gender is in Prov. 31 – and that ain’t talking about men!

It’s about relationships

The problem is we have turned ‘biblical masculinity’ into what I call a ‘vacuum category’. That is something that you can build in isolation from other people. So, we become very inward focused, looking at traits like ‘healthy-strength’ or ‘self-control’ or ‘properly-directed aggression’ as if they just existed in us, regardless of whether we ever meet other people.

However, teaching on being a healthy man in the Bible is almost always (if not entirely) spoken about in relationship to another party. So, we learn about godly men because they are good husbands, or dads, or mentors, or followers of God.

This makes masculinity far less inward than we treat it. I believe we’re too concerned with ‘what a man is’ rather than ‘what a man does.’ Or, to use the language the Bible speaks in more often, ‘how a man treats others.’

Being any kind of person is importantly shown in how you treat those around you. We don’t learn about who we are in isolation and then drag-and-drop that identity into a community. Community and relationships are utterly essential to our formation. Learning about ‘biblical masculinity’ as a vacuum category of abstract traits simply doesn’t work.

This isn’t to say that the Bible doesn’t celebrate differences between men and women, I think it does. However, that sits way below a much more fundamental pursuit – and one that should colour any concept we have of masculinity. Let’s end with that.

So, is biblical masculinity dead?

No, but I think our concept of it is far too narrow and has bounced way off the court of truly being ‘biblical.’

As a rule, when the Bible doesn’t use our categories, we have to look for what categories the Bible does use and extrapolate from them. The Bible doesn’t have a cleartext theology of masculinity, but it does have a theology of leadership, of parenting, of worshipping, etc. all of which can play out differently for different types of people – men included.

These are the categories the Bible uses to help us pursue whole and healthy identities. Let’s start from there, instead, and see if we find a healthy version of masculinity within these pursuits.

The overwhelming pursuit in the Bible, then, is not manliness, (or womanliness for that matter); it’s nearness to God. This is achieved though worship, obedience, and imitation.

The godliest men I know are not pursuing manliness, they’re pursing nearness to God. This will ordinarily shape itself around how God designed them to be. Trying to do that bit first, however, is like learning to play the violin by drawing the instrument over the bow, rather than the other way around. It’s clumsy, it’s uncomfortable, and it makes crummy music!

If we want our boys to grow into fantastic men, then let’s spend less time teaching them how to be men, and more time helping them to draw near to God. It’s a far more effective tool – and it allows them to grow as they’re designed to be.

 

Photo by Craig McLachlan on Unsplash

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

Why youth workers sometimes need to switch off

/2 Comments/in , , , , /by

I have a cat. At most levels she is a normal, run-of-the-mill cat. White, fluffy, purry – the whole cat-esq shebang. But she harbours a dark secret – and that is she’s a psychotic lunatic freak with macabre pastimes and dangerous hobbies.

Let me explain. Luna (the cat) hunts mice. Normal enough, right? However, Luna can bring home (and eat) seven mice a day… that we know of. If that wasn’t bad enough, she doesn’t eat the whole mouse. She eats everything but the head, which she likes to leave on our doorstep. I assume as a warning to other mice – or just as a talking point for the postman.

Luna also loves to play with string. Again, normal right? But Luna will purposely spin in a circle chasing string over and over and over again, until she becomes so dizzy, that she stumbles around drunk, and then promptly falls over.

Youth workers can be just like my cat!

Through one lens we can look exactly like every other youth worker. We play games, we teach using creative object lessons, we wear ripped jeans, and we grow soul patches. We look like we’re doing this thing ‘normally.’ But under the surface, many youth workers – including at times, myself, are self-destructive, narcissistic, people-pleasing, terrified-of-our-own-shadow nightmares!

We have to be doing stuff – constantly. Stopping and considering or even appreciating is rarely on the cards. If there’s space, we have to fill it: An empty room? Run around throwing loo roll! A quiet space? Yell loudly! A sparse calendar. Fill it entirely!

Is this you? Then you’re running hot – and you’re gonna blow!

Some of this is certainly fear-driven. We get fearful that people aren’t having a good time, or fearful that the pastor isn’t happy with our job performance, etc. Fear is a huge motivator. I think there’s another reason though and that is that we just don’t know any better.

The self-perpetuating model of youth worker burnout

Most youth work in the UK is done by volunteers, and the large majority of paid youth workers have had no formal training. For most of us, we learned youth work from ‘the guy who went before.’ What I mean by this is that many youth workers learned youth work from their youth worker – with some tips picked up from festival and event youth workers along the way.

So, if these youth workers were ‘always on’ then we’re probably just perpetuating the same poor practice. More likely, however, we only ever witnessed them in full-on youth worker mode at projects, and then assumed ‘that’s just what being a youth worker looks like.’

Then there’s a theological reason too. Since the late 1940s we’ve been reading books and attending seminars telling us that as ‘incarnational youth workers’ we’re supposed to always be on. Our door should always be open, our phone always switched on, and young people should feel free to demand our energy whenever they feel like it.

Since this time, however, and especially since the 1980s, it’s been really hard to convince youth workers to stick around for very long. Very rarely will a youth worker work beyond one contract before moving on to something else. All of the youth workers I knew from growing up are not youth workers anymore.

There’s a lot of reasons for that, but I believe there’s more than just a subtle corelation between overexertion in youth work, and time spent in youth work.

So, switching off?

Why do you need to switch off? Because you will burn out if you don’t. We know this, but we don’t really know it.

We don’t really know the importance of regular, consistent days off.

We don’t really know the importance of booking and taking holidays.

We don’t really know the importance of switching off notifications.

We don’t really know the importance of hobbies, friends, and activities away from youth work.

Those who work these things out (and so do know) are those who keep going! But even they still need occasional reminding. There are others who know the importance of these things too though, and that’s those who have already burned out.

I could have phrased it ‘we don’t really know the consequences of not…’ Consequences on our health, our marriage, our kids, our sleep, our friendships, our hairlines, or even our job effectiveness. Exertion in does not mean quality out.

So, let me just end there – using a language we can all get:

Youth workers sometimes need to switch off because they won’t be very good at youthwork if they don’t.

Food for thought.

 

Photo by Isabella and Louisa Fischer on Unsplash

Using the Bible in debates on social media

/0 Comments/in , , /by

I’m part of a few youth worker Facebook groups and I’m so encouraged by how many people online genuinely love their Bibles. It’s fab to know there’s a whole generation of youth workers who are immensely passionate about the Word of God. Its inspiring! That’s not meant sarcastically or condescendingly; it genuinely cheers my soul.

I’ve noticed some pretty fierce debates on these pages of late. I guess we’re all adults though, and if we’re going to fight over anything, at least it’s over what God said, right?

I worry sometimes, however, about the heated rhetoric and tribalism that sometimes follows our passions. I often warn students against First year at Accredited Theology college Syndrome (or FARTS), where we first become very certain over debatable issues, then very offensive against those who don’t share them, then finally very aggressive in how we defend them.

Please hold your views, love the Word, and be spirited in debate! We need iron-sharpening-iron conversation, and we don’t want these pages to dissolve into a places that can only handle trivialities. We don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, I feel like we could all do a little better in how we hold ourselves.

I also know that page admins have an immensely hard job refereeing all of this. So maybe we could all do more to help?

I’m a 90s kid – so I came up with an acronym! Wonderfully, it spells Bible (:D, see what I did there?). So here we go, how to use the B.I.B.L.E. in online debate.

Benefit of the doubt

When you read something you disagree with, err on the side of grace. Ask a clarifying question or two first. Listen and make every effort to understand nuances that might not have been present in the first place.

Individual

Remember that you’re talking to another human being; someone who is likely a sister or brother in Jesus that you’ll know in Heaven. You might end up being neighbours for eternity! They have a life, a family, a home, and experiences – all of which bear upon who they are. They probably love young people and Jesus at least as much as you too. They probably know a joke you’d laugh at, or a story you’d empathise with.

Basics

Jesus came, lived, died, rose, ascended and is coming back. These are the main things – the majors on which we should major. These form the mountain we would die on. Pick your battles outside of the gospel very carefully, and pitch them gently. Have conversation and gracious disagreement, but don’t weaponise the Bible for issues that orbit the gospel, but which aren’t the gospel.

Love

Before you respond to something that you take issue with, pray. Pray for the person. Ask God to give you compassion for them, not just to rebuke/correct/challenge them, but to truly walk with, journey alongside, and support as a fellow worker of the gospel. Stay cheerful and be playful. You might need to mourn with them one day. If you think your only job is to correct brothers and sisters without this type of love, then are sure this is the religion you think it is?

Exploration

Don’t speak in broad absolutes or sweeping abstracts. Use real texts and actual exegesis. Talk particulars, ask authentic questions, be open to new ideas, and let the community guide and shape your ideas. Ask more questions than you give answers. Know that the world won’t fall apart if you don’t happen to square every circle.

Let’s do better! Let’s lead with love, act like our young people are in the room, set the example, pursue holiness in our interactions, and – even better – give our awesome admins much less to do!

Love God, Love People, Don’t be a Jerk.

Thanks 🙂

Photo by Hannah Busing 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

How do we respond to CORVID-19 as youth workers?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Let’s start with the obvious: we respond with love, grace, compassion, selflessness, and hope in Jesus Christ. On Sunday I was invited to preach in a local church where I talked about the opportunities we have to shine as Christians in the middle of dark and scary times – and how having a God-perspective on these times lifts our eyes to see a bigger picture. You can get the recording here.

Closer to home, we made the decision today to cancel our meetings. Our team will work from home, and our projects will be suspended until further notice. This was absolutely the right decision in order to protect the vulnerable that we all know. However, before we move on too quickly, lets just acknowledge that this really sucks. I am really really going to miss seeing our young people, and connecting with them over the message of Jesus. I’m going to miss their sense of humour and fun – and the light they bring each week. It’s rubbish for us, for them, and for their parents not to run. It’s still the right thing to do.

Before we go any further lets remember to take responsibility as leaders in our community. Parents and young people are looking up to us for guidance. Let’s take that seriously, and lead with love and clairity. Motivation is not enough, we want to be clear guiding examples. Let’s not pose as experts, or take overly sketchy political lines. We need to lead with love and grace and set a godly, humble, clear, and assuring example.

With that in mind – and after canceling our usual projects, what are we doing. Here’s 6 things:

1. Streaming

We are going to stream messages, fun clips, and challenges through YouTube, Facebook and Instagram. These will be simple and straightforward, short and sweet, and aimed at staying connected.

Practically speaking this will begin by using two devices. A phone for Instagram, and a laptop for YouTube (which will be linked to Facebook). Both will be sat next too each other (the phone on a stand), recording the same thing at the same time.

2. Video Conferencing

We are going to have a weekly discussion / Bible Study using video conferencing software for those young people who want to go deeper. We’re going to think of some innovative games and challenges too.

We’re still deciding between Google Hangouts and Zoom, although leaning towards Zoom because we can use breakout groups, and you don’t have to have a specific account. Nick Farr has provided a great tutorial for how to set this up here.

There are some safeguarding concerns, but after talking to the amazing thirtyone:eight this morning, they have sportingly put a document of advice together which I’ll upload a bit later today and link here.

3. Family packages

This is one I’m really excited about! We’re going to come up with loads of ideas to share with families so they can get the ‘most’ out of their extra time together.

This will include games, ice-breakers, activities, challenges and thoughts. We will do this in pdf form with maybe some prerecorded videos and send them out through email and social media.

4. Mobilising the healthy!

We’re going to help young people identify those in need, put together care packages, and (safely) delivery those to local people. We will also encourage families to connect (again, carefully) with their vulnerable neighbours and do some good Samaritan deeds for them as a family. Neat eh?

5. Informing young people

We are aware how much fear and misinformation is about. So we have come up with a short FAQ for young people – answering their questions such as, what does Coronavirus feel like? And am I at risk? I’ll upload this here for free once we’re happy with it.

It’s super important that we both inform and assure young people – who are going to be both nervous and bored for a while.

More to come!

We’ve got lots of ideas and you probably do to. This is a serious time, and we want to lovingly help people generally, and serve young people particularly. We’ll add more ideas as they come – but please comment, or send us yours.

This is an opportunity to innovate and there is a real necessity for us to lead. So lets do both!

All the best!

 

Photo by Kamil Feczko on Unsplash

Is there any satisfactory alternative to the Western-epistemological method in our youth ministry?

/1 Comment/in , /by

If ever you needed evidence that click-bait isn’t really my thing, this title might be it. So to the four of you who clicked on this, hi! This is a very brief summary of my thoughts on something I’ve been both pondering for a while – namely, how should we model to young people how to think in what methods we use to teach them. We’ll get to juicier, more applicable thoughts in later posts (or you can find some old stuff here, here, here, and here!), but if you’re interested in the dry, note-form background, here it is. This has also been at the heart of some of my lectures on youth work and philosophy. To the two of you who are left, thanks for sticking around!

While studying Philosophy with Oxford University I wrote a paper entitled ‘Is there any satisfactory alternative to epistemological scepticism’. My answer was largely yes, but no, but yes, but no, but. So here we are.

Youth ministry comes with the expectation of teaching within conversational frameworks. Open Bible studies, Q&As, small groups, one-to-ones are all more common practice in youth ministry than regular church ministry. There’s an enormous plethora of resources available to help us do these practices well, however, in my experience they suffer from the simple problem of not being personal. None of these resources – as good as they are – can predict the attitudes and personalities of the people in my groups on any given day.

What’s needed, therefore, is not a new resource, but rather a new method. Most of our resources are based in a classical Western analytic method. Each question has a narrowly defined parameter for an answer, and the answers all point together towards an increasingly specific point. Teaching times are designed to have a cutting edge every time.

What is an epistemological method?

For starters, I’ve been quietly and glibly calling myself a ‘lay epistemologist’ for quite a few years. The subject that fascinates me more than any other is ‘what is thought’, and how should we, do we, could we, think. Epistemology then, at its most basic, is the theory of knowledge. How we obtain and distinguish between types of knowledge (as truth, facts, opinions, hyperbole, applicable, abstract etc.), is the place of our epistemological method – or the practical filter, or lens that we use to view and process cognitive stimulus. So, you see/perceive something – run it through our method – and then decide what to think as a result.

Most of us are only really familiar with the analytic method – so much so that you might believe it’s the only natural, de facto, method. Therefore, we’ll start there.

Analytical methodology

The Western analytic methodology (as made famous by philosophers such as Russell, Moore, Wittgenstein, Reichenbach, Frege, and Searle) follows exactly the pattern seen in our resources and most common teaching styles. It begins with a lot of information on the table, then slowly whittles it down, disregarding ideas and views, until only one ‘indisputable’ thought remains. It breaks ideas down into concepts, turns concepts into premises, and uses premises to prop up a single conclusion. It’s the basis of deductive logic. The key values of this method, therefore, are precision, clarity, and actionable qualities. This looks for ‘proofs’ and tests hypothesises in a largely mathematical fashion. This is usually the same pattern we follow in our talks: exegeting a piece of scripture down until we have a single sentence application.

I’m not against this idea out of hand. It certainly has its place. The problem, however, is that a lot of what gets cleared off the table is useful – and can often include the nuances needed to understand the more complex dramas of a passage or of human life more generally. Also, ideas are not always well-prepared to be reconceptualised into purely premise-type forms. The concept, although helpful as a way of distilling or summarising information, or as a way of moving quickly to action points, can miss out on a huge amount of truth.

When I first went to Bible College, everything we were taught came through this particular methodology which could make one assume that the Bible was written with pure logic and reductionist form in mind. This makes poetry, story, metaphor – frankly a lot of the Bible’s literature – feel rather redundant.

The analytic method makes us feel safe as it is supported by the idea that truth is singular, and that we have all the necessarily tools needed to distil it. It gives us the power. This isn’t just a Bible College thing as almost all of the English-speaking world has learned everything in this way since the 17th Century. It’s largely underwritten into all our major community processes: Education, politics, law, culture, entertainment. Most of us evaluate everything based on this method (some being more naturally gifted at it than others) without even realising that it’s a method not a de facto natural state of reasoning.

So, what can we do?

Other potential methodologies

Eastern/Oriental

We could, instead, reach across the globe to an Eastern methodology (Confucius, Rumi, Laozi) where all ideas remain on the table and arriving at limiting conclusions are almost entirely discouraged. The focus tends to be how can you live your best life rather than what is true. Considering the nature of ministry – there’s a lot to respect here. Whereas Western, analytical philosophy breaks ideas into pieces and travels in a linear way towards a single idea, Eastern philosophy tries to grasp the whole, seeing ideas in a circular, repetitive way.

I certainly have a lot of patience for the Eastern method because it sees things as a unity, rather than breaking things up into segmented parts. Most of nature requires togetherness rather than separation, and things work in large eco systems, not separated echo chambers. Wholistic medicine is making enormous leaps forward using this approach, as is unifying, cross-discipline education. These are based in the Eastern method of approaching ideas.

The issue is that Eastern philosophy as a method is just less interested in truth (or at least in facts) and can have us going around in circles indefinitely. As a method it can at least turn us inwards so far that we lose our connections to the world outside or any notion of God’s plan for the future.

Continental

We could delve then into the phenomenology and existentialism prevalent in the Continental method (Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Sartre, Foucault, Heidegger, and Deleuze), looking instead at mostly personal experience and spending more time in purely abstract, a priori thought experiments in the hope at reaching more subjective yet personal applications.

As a general rule, analytic methodology reaches for mathematics, logic and the science, whereas Continental looks at the overlap of history, space, time, culture, language and experience. Kant, famously said that natural sciences rely on ‘pre-theoretical substrate of experience’ thus cannot be seen as the most accurate way of arriving at truth.

I like Continental approaches to thinking, as they allow us much more time in abstract complexities, rather than tying us down to minimalistic, highly questionable, reductionist soundbites. They also look for an ‘ultimate’ that exists beyond the ability of human reasoning, leaving us with less scope for the idol of human knowledge.

The problem, however, is the subjective nature of this as a method means it often overrides, bypasses, or side-lines absolute truth or authority. Not to mention you could spend long days swimming around in purely dizzying epistemological mush – leaving everyone in a small group feeling lost, confused and vulnerable.

Rabbinic

This is an odd one, because it sits really as a subset of the Eastern approach, and – if you wanted to be really pedantic – it’s more of a hermeneutic key than an epistemological method. The rabbinic method depends on a question-driven technique that orbits an eventual answer but requires scriptural knowledge to get there. It’s also known as textual reasoning or discourse. Questions are asked, then answered with questions that lead to and from various parts of the Torah, letting the question, the answer, and the text all dialogue together to arrive – hopefully – as deeper interpretations.

I like this a lot! It allows the Word of God to speak particularly into the situations of people in our groups, while still holding it accountable to itself. It also opens things up more than closing them down, and keeps pointing back to the text. That’s quite cool! If you know what you’re doing (by which I mean you at least have a solid grasp of the Bible, and know how to mediate conversation) then this method can work immensely well in small groups or one-to-ones, as well as think-tanks and seminar groups.

This method, however, also comes with its problems – especially in a culture where knowledge of the Bible is practically non-existent, and simply answering questions with questions is categorised as chronic avoidance. It also places a lot of trust in the ‘rabbi’ (or group facilitator), giving them arbitration authority over what’s true or objectionable.

Socratic

Similar to the rabbinic method (in fact it probably largely informed it), is the Socratic method. This is again odd, because those in the analytic tradition would at least claim this as part of their approach. It is, after all, based in Plato – the Father of philosophy and the Hero (along with Aristotle) of all Western thinking.

The Socratic method is largely dialectic, relying on answering deeper and more specific questions, opening options up, while at the same time narrowing ideas down. It usually starts with a hypothesis or truth statement, then probes it by asking a series of challenges. It’s largely interrogative demanding the why behind every answer and exploring how far the why-answer goes. It chips away (like the analytic method) but does so with far more exploration and open-handedness.

This is a tool which I use a lot in Bible studies with young people. We explore concepts and probe ideas with a series of why questions and challenges. It allows us to explore nuance, apply directly, and remove taboos around what we should and shouldn’t talk about – or know.

The problem with this is less about whether it helps us arrive at truth, and more how it does that. It becomes very hard to falsify a truth claim when ideas or suggestion are constantly thrown back indiscriminately at the learner. This method makes it very easy to manipulate people into certain contortions of truth and can easily drain the room of the curiosity it needs to feed it. Questions become weaponised, and all dialogue becomes defensive dialogue.

Did we find an alternative?

All these methods have problems, so what do we do then? Are we stuck with the analytic method which gets to at least some truth, even if it glibly bypasses much of it, and is somewhat accountable, even if it’s only really accountable to our interpretations?

The answer, like in many things, is awareness, moderation and variety; not blinkered reliance without examination. We should be aware of our methodological biases as we teach and draw truth out from others. We should employ strategies from different epistemological methods (which could be as simple as asking both closed and open questions), drawing threads together – remembering that the method is a way to get at truth, the method itself is not necessarily truth.

We should be less defensive, therefore, of our methodologies. We should ultimately rely on God for his direct and indirect revelations, remember that He is so much bigger than our abilities to reason and that he inhabits our thoughts – He doesn’t just inform them.

For those on the neo-Reformed end of the theological spectrum (who I imagine would have the most problem with this), I’d ask them to consider the exegetical approaches of our heroes, such as Calvin, Melanchthon, Zwingli, and Luther. They reached wide and broad, rarely closed things down, and drew massively complex threads together with several conclusions, not just one. They reached for God to overrule their interpretations, and left things up for him to examine, inform, and convict.

So, what’s the best method? It’s using all of them as tools, with an underlying faith in God to uphold His truth, supported by a constant language of prayer. Seems legit to me.

Therefor youth workers need to be critical thinkers and conversational mediators – not just presenters of resources or leaders of material. Honed skills will always outperform the best resources.

Photo by Johannes Plenio on Unsplash

So you want to be a youth work blogger…

/0 Comments/in , /by

I started ministry blogging in my first year at Bible College, which means I’ve been doing it for over sixteen years. It’s an amazing privilege and a joy – and yet it’s hard work and a slog too. There’s been plenty that I’ve gotten wrong, both in front and behind the keyboard. There are many apologies that I’ve had to make over the years. I think that places me well to write this.

I’d love more youth workers to be bloggers because it’s a great way to share experiences, wisdom and resources. Over the last decade I’ve seen many youth ministry blogs pop-up and then disappear almost overnight. This is an immense shame. We need a bit more follow through, and a lot more care.

With that in mind, here are ten ‘rules’ for longevity that I’d like to bring to the blogosphere.

Take it seriously

Set out real time, energy, money, and focus. If you really want to cultivate an audience, then you need to respect that audience by putting in the work. Pray over it and ask God to guide you throughout the process. Don’t just wing it.

Don’t take it seriously

Wing it a little. The best blogs are by their very nature personal and personable. So, don’t try to hide away all your foibles, or iron out all your creases. Don’t work too hard on a professional look, start with good content. As in any kind of writing, a little vulnerability creates great empathy – and great empathy means engaged reading.

Write well

Read lots, proofread, develop your craft, and edit, edit, edit. I shouldn’t have to read a post twice to understand what it’s driving at or why I should care about it. Usually for me this means tell the story, be specific, show your working, and call to action. Then edit, edit, edit! Respect the reader by presenting your content well.

Don’t write well

Remember that it’s still a blog, and so it should be readable on coffee breaks, and understandable on the loo. It’s about consistently adding to the conversation, not trying to have the last polished word.

Actually do ministry

For me, your blog loses credibility if you’re not actually practising what you preach. It’s easy to throw mud into a ring from the outside than it is to actually put the gloves on. A blog should comment on what you know, not speculate on something that you have no experience in.

Don’t do ministry

A blog should go further than just commenting on what we’ve experienced. It should ask big questions about areas we’re not conversant in. It should play devil’s advocate, and graciously engage viewpoints outside our worldview. It should invite other players onto the pitch. A blog is set up to be part of the learning environment, not to dominate it.

Be bold

Be honest and clear about what you believe. Suggest strong changes and push people with genuine challenges. Hold yourself, and those you’re writing to, to high standards of healthy practice and theology.

Don’t be bold

Drop down a few floors from the Ivory Tower. Don’t be pretentious about your aims and objectives, or what you decide to name your blog. Don’t been an absolutist, or subtly side-line others in the arena through back handed passive-aggression. Don’t be anonymous.

Be respectful

Understand that anyone with a public voice should be held to a higher account. Always speak about the others with great care, sacrificial love, and never forget to give the benefit of the doubt – especially if you’re likely to know that person in heaven. If you’re going to call out anybody, make sure you follow the same Bible-driven guidelines you would face-to-face or at a public meeting.

Yup – always be respectful

I know just how much of an ego stroke and vanity cesspool a successful blog can be. This is especially true when you’ve taken a side and rouse an online rabble to join you. Vindication – as good as it might feel – is simply not a holy way to use your voice. Guard your heart, bridle your keyboard-tongue, and pray over every word that leaves your webspace. Treat it as holy ground, surrender it to God, and ask the Holy Spirit to inhabit it. If a post becomes more about you than Jesus or strokes your itches more than worships Him – then delete it. Period.

A Christian blog should never be weaponised, especially against a neighbour.

So, in the end, lead with love. Treat keyboard conversation as you would real conversation. Be aware of the power of your tool. Protect your voice. Honour God with your words and tone. Treat it with respect and again – lead with love. Then go ahead and blog!

 

Photo by Andrew Neel 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

Happy 30th Birthday to The Simpsons!

/0 Comments/in /by

So, The Simpsons is 30 years old today. Happy Birthday!

The Simpsons has been a part of my life since growing up during the golden era of TVQuick in the 90s. I’ve seen every episode and own the best Simpsons mug in the world ever!

I remember people pushing back against watching the Simpsons in my own youth clubs at age 16 in much the same way that I push back against people watching Game of Thrones today. The Simpsons was rude, it was disrespectful and it glorified dysfunction.

At one level this is absolutely true. The Simpsons are an immensely dysfunctional family: Gifted, yet chronically depressed and isolated bohemian Lisa. ADHD-riddled, juvenile criminal Bart. Repressed, anxious and pathologically OCD Marge. Mostly drunk, angry, bumbling, and prematurely aging Homer. And of course, all round psychotic, stunted developing Maggie. Add to this an unruly dog, a terrified cat, an oft experimented on hamster, and a senile old Grandpa – in a detached suburban house – with hyper-conservative neighbour Ned, and a rag tag town of the confused and the ignorant. Then you have The Simpsons.

Sound familiar?

At the heart of The Simpsons massive appeal is empathy and recognition. They unapologetically display the worst of ourselves – and we all find someone to relate to in their yellow world. However, there is a twist – and the twist is hope.

Each Simpsons story arc goes through the same three acts: Act 1, very random setup; Act 2, unbearable and unresolvable chaos and destruction; Act 3, resolution, reconciliation, and loving life lesson.

The Simpsons Third Act

It’s in this closing act that the power of The Simpsons comes through. Even though there is so much chaos and disfunction, the overwhelming power of love always conquers all. The family always ends united and together.

The power of the Simpsons is hope. Granted, sometimes I wonder if Marge would be better without Homer, or if Lisa would be better living in a boarding school – but the place of the family always wins out. There is just so much hope.

There are plenty of books and articles already discussing the place of Spirituality and particularly the Christian religion in The Simpsons, so I won’t retell those stories here. However, the Christian-driven focus on the dysfunctional, yet powerfully united-in-love family is what has kept The Simpsons ticking over all these years. It’s also what will keep the church alive too!

I’m glad to be a fan and wish The Simpsons a very happy birthday indeed!