Review: Family Driven Faith

There's a good chance I'm developing a man-crush on Voddie Baucham. I can't beleive I'm saying that, but ... I am. I have been struggling to define a feeling in my soul for (literally) about three years now. I've explored the world of Emerging Church in large part as a result of my soul's questions. I spent close to two years as a Children's Pastor doing a lot of philosophy of ministry thinking. Recently I've been reading in the "Family Ministry" movement. I have all of these to thank for guiding my thinking toward a particular philosophy of ministry. I have Voddie to thank for really beginning to codify my thinking...

There is a growing sense in this country that we've been doing something altogether wrong in the realm of youth ministry. Ask just about any Youth Pastor and they'll tell you the same thing: we do pretty good with teens when they're here, but once they graduate, the majority of them crash and burn spiritually. Countless volumes have been written to address this concern, with theories ranging from the need for more money to the need for more parental involvement to the need for more culturally post-modern methods, etc...

None of these are bad ideas, but they're missing the point.

It has seemed to me for some time that we've completely abandoned our priorities. Within the life of the local church, parents have almost universally given over their fundamental responsibility to others. Harsh words, I know. But what exactly is this fundamental responsibility? I'm persuaded that it's this simple: lead our children to Jesus and teach them to follow Him. So to whom have we relinquished this responsibility? To the local church: its pastors, its youth programs, its Sunday School teachers, etc... It seems very clear that the majority of American Christians now believe "the church" is the primary spiritual agent in the life of their children.

This must not be so.

We - parents, not the church - have a God-given responsibility to train up our children in the understanding of the LORD (Proverbs 22:6). We are commanded to teach our children the truth of God in every situation of life (Deuteronomy 6:7). We are required to exhort them, encourage them, and insist that they live in a way worthy of God (1 Thessalonians 2:11,12). We cannot shrug off this responsibility to "the professionals".

Voddie makes this point with all the wit, clarity, and grace that I'll never have. He calls us to the truly hard, but truly rewarding, work of discipling our kids. He then explains how the local church he's a part of has structured itself to best help (not do it for them) parents in this highest of callings.

This book is a slow read ... I found I could only read and digest it in small pieces. So challenging; so much food for thought. But it's a must read! For my part, I'm challenging myself to do better by my family, and to help my church do better by theirs.

Hatushili

Read More......

Book Review: Family-Integrated Church

I just finished reading J. Mark Fox's Family-Integrated Church today (one of the few benefits of a snow day). Though it wasn't exactly what I expected, I appreciated the book nonetheless...

I confess: I was expecting a discourse on what "family-integrated" means to Mark and the church he pastors. And while he does get into some of that, his book is for the most part a sort of play-by-play of the life of his local church. Along the journey, he shares wisdom from their experiences at starting and growing a family-integrated church. He even briefly discusses how they transitioned in their thinking to a family-integrated approach.

Want to hear first-hand what to do when a heretic dressed in white and proclaiming herself to be the "bride of Christ" shows up on a Sunday morning and starts cat-calling? Seriously. Mark's been there and handled that.

Looking for advice on training males to be men, husbands, and fathers? Mark's got plenty of tidbits for you.

All told, I found the book encouraging. Here is a pastor who knows he doesn't have it all figured out. He's quite sure he's not a finished project, and neither is the church he pastors. I find that honesty refreshing. The landscape of pastor-written books is littered with those that give lip-service to the notion that they're a work in progress; here's one that really seems to believe it.

The larger question remains: what exactly does "family-integrated" church mean? Mark's quick to point out that there is and always should be great diversity in the forms taken by churches that choose to be family-integrated. I like that: different isn't always bad - often it's just different.

Fundamentally, it seems to me that as churches we must commit to leading men to be the leaders in their homes that they're called by God to be. We must do nothing that will implicitly or explicitly usurp their position, even if they're willing to surrender it. We must fight the overly-pragmatic church forms that have dominated the last 75 years or so. We must work to be a family of families.

Now there's a load expression: a family of families! If nothing else I've written has provoked you to think, let me humbly ask you to chew on that expression for while...

Hatushili

Read More......

The secret value of Children's Ministry

Like so many other pastors, I sometimes find myself pondering some of the less than encouraging statistics reported about the Church in America. One that particularly bothers me is that (per Barna) 2 out of 3 teens involved in a local church will graduate from high school and rarely even grace the doors of a church building again until they marry and have children.

How is it possible that we're failing this badly? Surely the local church alone can't bear all of the responsibility, but just as surely we must bear some. We spend gobs of time, effort, and money on Youth Pastors, youth ministries, youth centers, etc... but to seemingly little long-term effect. Is it perhaps time to rethink things...

I have wondered out loud for some time now ... wondered if good CM isn't part of the solution. Hear me out for a moment.

CM is typically handled one of two ways in most American churches. A) It's left as a strictly volunteer ministry, believing that good CM "just happens". B) It's loaded with all the latest bells and whistles; Disney-land meets daycare with a Bible theme.

It's my considered opinion that neither is the right way to go.

Good CM is designed and led to be so. It focuses on both evangelism and discipleship; that is, it leads kids to Jesus and then teaches them how to follow Him. When done right, we're building a foundation for future, further growth and maturity. When done well, we're crafting safeguards against many of the problems common to kids when hormones and peer-pressure really start to weigh in.

It seems to me that the standard mantra about Youth Ministries ("teens these days face so much more difficulty than we ever did") misses the real point: teens these days were generally given no significant foundation by the local church when they were young to cope with and conquer the trials in their lives.

If that's the case - and can anyone really argue otherwise? - then why do we continue to repeat the same flawed formula? Why is it that most churches will hire virtually every other "specialty" pastor before thinking about hiring a Children's Pastor? We keep doing things the same way yet expect different results...

I know, I know ... there are certainly other issues here. For example, what about the time-honoured debate over how to care for the teens with roots in our local churches and the teens that simply show up looking for love and encouragement? Plainly we have an obligation to both.

What about parents? Surely I'm not letting them off the hook! Mom and Dad have the primary responsibility for leading their own children to Jesus and teaching them how to follow Him; the local church works to partner with them. But how are Mom and Dad supposed to know how? If the local church doesn't model and teach these principles, how will Mom and Dad ever stumble across them? Oh, some will for sure. But the majority? We will have failed to serve them and failed to serve their children.

I'm not being too idealistic here - I have no delusions that good CM will vaccinate kids against all the troubles that beset most teens. But it's obvious that what the local churches in America have been doing with regard to making disciples of kids has been an almost universal failure.

Isn't it time to seriously consider rethinking our methods?

Hatushili

Read More......

You CAN'T be anything you want to be, folks

"You can be anything you want to be." "You can do anything you set your mind to."

This particular issue has come up a few times recently, and it's reminded me of the folly of so much of today's parenting. I'm not sure exactly when we started telling kids these things. But if you think about it for just a few moments, they're obviously not true.



For example, let's say little Johnny dreams all his days of being a fighter pilot ... but he grows up to be a 6' 3" man. So much for fighter pilot; they're not made to accommodate people that tall. What if little Suzy really wants to be an accountant when she grows up ... but she's terrible with math. So much for being an accountant. The list goes on; there are things in this life so far beyond our control that we simply must stop telling kids these lies.

More to the point: we are implicitly telling kids that a) life is fair, and b) they can control their own lot in life right down to the minutiae. Neither is true. Life simply is not always fair (unless you understand that what's fair would be universal condemnation, but now I'm digressing). We cannot control every detail of our life story - height, aptitude, tragedy, circumstances, etc... We are essentially building within our kids the notion that they are little gods unto themselves.

I know, I know ... that seems like I'm overplaying it. And perhaps I am; the point remains the same. Neither you nor I, nor our children or grandchildren, can be anything we want to be. I don't care how many cartoons, info-mercials or people in stuffed animal suits proclaim otherwise.

[Note: A quick search o' the internet tells me that Robert E Lee is credited with using the expression, so it's safe to assume it goes back at least that far...]

Hatushili

Read More......

We are a family

I've been preaching and teaching that we (the local church) are a family for years now. At our local church we recently made a change to reinforce that concept - we now include our K-5 children in corporate worship. We're one week in, but I'm already excited...

It seems odd to me that so many local churches shuttle their kids off to their own little corner virtually every time they meet. I understand that there's great value in having kids grouped with other kids sometimes: age-appropriate teaching, peer bonding, etc... But why the trend toward virtual isolation? I'm not sure it speaks well of our culture.

Having said that, one of the things I most like about our local church is that people actually want to include kids in the life of the local church! So we finally took the next major step last week, keeping the K-5s with their parents until the start of the sermon. For my part, it was great! Having all those kids viewing and participating in corporate worship, seeing what a mass of adult followers of Jesus looks like when singing their praise to Him, ... The benefits are probably incalculable, to be honest.

So, if you get a chance, let me know how you see this issue. What does your local church do? What would you change about the involvement of children in the life of your local church?

Hatushili

Read More......

Missional training

As most of you know, I'm absolutely convinced that the church in America has messed up the very nature of Children's Ministry (CM) almost beyond repair. We have coddled them, we have entertained them, we have over-simplified everything for them. In the process we have also implicitly taught them that the local church exists for them.

One of the reasons I'm most honoured to be the Children's Pastor at our local church is the chance to change this, at least within our church family. We reached what I think I might look back on as a milestone the other day...

During our Wednesday night children's ministry, we began collecting items for our local nursing home. Children of all ages brought candies, cards, chapstick and other goodies to the church building. Then last week those same children decorated white gift bags and made Valentine cards for the residents of the nursing home.

So far, pretty standard fare for CM. What we did next has - I pray - laid the foundation for training our children to think missionally. We took the older kids from this group - a Sunday School class - to the nursing home to personally deliver our gift bags and Valentine cards. Twelve young souls - most of them in 4th and 5th grade - travelled the halls of the nursing home in groups of 6, guided to rooms of residents that could use some cheering up. The group I was with spoke with a lady recovering from the nasty cold that's been going around in these parts. She asked me to pray with her before I left the room. We were given the real honour of meeting and talking with a WWII vet, a man that was on the shores of Normandy 2 days after the invasion! We met a sweet lady that shard the same name as one of our children there that day. We spoke with a man barely able to speak.

What didn't we do? We didn't preach. We didn't insert the token gospel tract into their bags. We also didn't hide our love for Jesus. We didn't hide the fact that we were representing a local church. We wore our faith on our sleeves yet did not wield it as a weapon.

I couldn't be more proud of these, "my" kids. They shared the love of Jesus. They encouraged lonely hearts. They were - I think - challenged themselves by some of what they saw. They advanced God's glory.

On top of all that, they're learning first-hand that the life of the local church is not about being served. It's not about consumerism. It's not about what a local church can do for you. It's about service. As our Lord did, we came to serve those residents.

My great hope is that we've begun what will be a long-term relationship with this nursing home. I hope to get these children and others back to visit them regularly. We're already planning to tell the real story of St. Patrick with them sometime next month.

I know it seems small in so many ways, but I really think we're on to something here. Your thoughts?

Hatushili

Read More......

Baby Dedication Day!

I had the privilege of officiating my first baby dedication today. [In the future, I'll be doing them jointly with our elder of family life, but he was out of town for the weekend.]

It was a great experience, and it got me to thinking about the nature of community again...

As I navigated through the dedication of this beautiful little boy, I reminded the family that they were being dedicated too - it wasn't just about the little one.

Just as importantly, I reminded our people that children are people too (a phrase I use all the time, and intentionally) and that we have a responsibility to help them raise this little one to know Jesus and to learn how to follow Him.

But what does that mean, exactly? Clearly parents are the spiritual leaders of their children, and fathers are the spiritual leaders of their homes. But it's just as clear from Scripture that we're a family - a single body in Christ striving for His purposes.

I wonder if we haven't allowed the American "right to privacy" to overly permeate our parenting. Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating the ol' "it takes a village" per se. It's just that too often (in my experience) we don't seek the help and wisdom that our fellow Christians could offer. We're too proud, or too shy, or ... too something. Always too something...

Am I - as the Children's Pastor - modelling the kind of attitude I feel the Bible calls for? I'm not sure. Of course I'd like to say yes ... but I don't know if that's completely honest.

I'm not even sure exactly what I'm calling for. I just know that I'm tired of watching well-meaning Christian parents struggle with issues about which other parents in our assembly could share wisdom. Maybe we're too closed off - not connected enough. Maybe it hasn't even occurred to these parents that these family resources are available to them.

Perhaps that's where to start - to at least make parents aware that they can both receive and offer wisdom with regard to the struggles of other parents.

Today, that's just what happened as we dedicated this little soul and his family to Christ in the presence of His followers. May we take seriously the affirmations made this day. Too much depends upon it to do otherwise.

Hatushili

Read More......

Survivor Camp

The local church I serve just finished our Survivor Camp today. What is Survivor Camp? Think traditional vacation Bible school on steroids!

Every day we had some corporate worship, a skit relating to the Bible lesson of the day, the corporate Bible lesson, then we moved the kids by age (ish) through a series of 15 minutes stations. One was snack/discussion, where they got some refreshments and a chance to talk about the Bible lesson in a small group format. The other stations were all games/activities, mostly of a somewhat crazy variety!

For example, today was water day, so we had a couple of water balloon slings set up and let the kids launch away at their leaders! We also had an obstacle course that would challenge many adults.

We had some of the more standard games, too. Volleyball, soccer, wheelbarrow races, etc... All told, the week was outstanding. We had a couple hundred kids running around having a grand time, learning a bit of Bible and building relationships with (mostly) teenagers that intentionally showed the love of Christ.

We also involved some civil service to the week. One day we had a demonstration by a K-9 unit. The kids loved the dog (of course!) but it was also nice to see our police forces painted in such a wholesome light (in lieu of so many video games). Another day we had members of the SWAT team come in. It was awesome! They brought an APV, a bunch of equipment and a bomb robot! The robot roamed around and took a team flag from a child ... who nervously cooperated.

I know there are some that would see what we did this week and think (or say), "They weren't direct enough in their presentation of the Gospel". But this week wasn't about a head count of "decisions for the LORD". It was about being a beacon of love and hope in the midst of our community. I shared the Gospel directly during the final day's Bible lesson, and I'm sure the topic came up through small group discussion as well. But more than anything we wanted to plant seeds and build bridges.

We'll be inviting each of these families to come to our next Family Sunday (see this post), which is at the end of this month. Pray that the love and grace we poured into these little lives will continue to honour God in the days to come.

Hatushili

Read More......

Baptism revisited

A while back I brought up the topic of baptizing young children. I know those of you in 'baby baptism' circles might find this hard to believe, but you can really get a heated discussion going when you bring up questions on this subject in evangelical circles.

Well, as I mentioned in that older post, we've been rethinking the process some and have come out of the woods, as it were...

I still maintain that the very best way to determine whether a younger child is really ready to be baptized is to follow them around for a week! But since that simply isn't possible, we've decided to do the next best thing.

I began interviewing candidates for baptism a few weeks ago. The interviews are not tests - I'm not just reading a list of questions and looking for "correct" answers. We're spending some time getting to know each other better, these children and I. Along the way, we're talking about the issues that matter most when it comes to readiness for baptism. But rather than just ask questions, I've been weaving a narrative for them involving something they like (sports, music, games, etc...) and using that narrative as a framework to find the answers children really believe, not just what they've been taught to say.

In case you're curious, here's the list of concepts/questions I try to weave into our interviews. In no particular order:

a) How many ways are there to Heaven?
b) Why would a person want to be baptized?
c) Is baptism necessary for salvation?
d) What about persecution - things like 2 Tim 3:12?
e) What exactly is a sinner?
f) Why do we need the Bible?
g) Who and what is Jesus?
h) What about those that don't yet know the LORD?

Depending on how the conversation goes, I'll emphasize one or more of these issues. I'm finding (in my limited experience so far) that kids understand a fair bit about these subjects. There have been (of course!) some youthful errors to correct along the way, but so far I've been pleasantly surprised by the interviews.

Anyway, having said all that, I'm happy to announce that I'm expecting to conduct a number of baptisms for some of our younger souls in the upcoming months! These will be truly joyous occasions, and I can't wait for them to start...

Baptism in many local churches seems to have become a ritual in the worst sense of the word - something we do simply because we feel we must. Gone is the excitement at the symbolism. Gone is the joy for the public display of lost ones that have been found. Why is this? For my part, I hope to always model the kind of excitement I think baptism deserves.

Hatushili

[PS: If you dig the William Johnson print as much as I, you can buy it here.]

Read More......

Children and Baptism

Wow! If you decide you want to elicit some strong emotions from parents of young children, just bring up the topic of when/if children should be baptized!

I find myself in the position of having to wrestle with this issue right now, so I thought I'd share some thoughts and then (as usual) ask for feedback...

First, let me note (briefly) why I don't practice or approve of infant baptism. I understand that there are plenty of folk that do; I just have to agree to disagree. In a nutshell, those that baptize babies believe that the ancient rite of circumcision was a sign of membership into the community of faith (a point I agree with) and that modern day infant baptism is the replacement for that rite, now that we're in the church age. These folk believe that the Church has replaced Israel.

I don't take that position. I advocate what's commonly called "believer's baptism"; that is, I believe only those who've personally chosen to follow Christ should be baptized.

Hence, the "at what age" questions begin...

For my part, I believe that it's in the best interest of local churches to make a legitimate effort not to baptize those that really don't understand the Gospel. It's ultimately unfair and unhealthy to baptize a hypothetical seven year old kid that says she loves Jesus but otherwise doesn't really understand what she's saying.

Therefore, local churches have a responsibility to implement wisdom in making this decision. For me, I'm increasingly coming to the conviction that wisdom on this question involves asking the prospective baptismal candidate the right questions; questions that are neither tricky nor leading. We can't, for example, simply ask a child "Do you love Jesus?" and expect that their answer reflects actual understanding!

But neither can we expect children (or adults, for that matter) to have a developed theology before we baptize them. The New Testament pattern typically reflects baptism very soon after the decision to follow Christ. But with children, the question centers around when they are actually mature enough to really make that decision.

Believing as I do that young children best grasp narrative, I'm thinking that posing hypothetical situations is a much better way to get the kind of honest, heart-felt answers we should be looking for. Asking a child a "fill in the blank" kind of question will get us only so far. But asking a child to tell a story in response to a story we tell them? Much better.

The question now becomes harder - the details. That's where I'm wrestling right now. I'm trying to think of reasonable, hypothetical situations I could mentally put children into - narratives that will set the stage for their continuation of the story. I'm optimistic that(if done the right way) this will get us closer to a child's true understanding of what it means to follow Jesus.

Your thoughts? Anybody with personal experience on this issue? I'd love to hear from you ...

Hatushili

Read More......

Wednesday night stuff

I'm in the process of researching some of the various programs out there for Wed. night church programming for kids. We'll be expanding what we do on Wed. nights at my home church, so I'm trying to figure out the best and wisest way to go.

Here's what I've found and what I know, but I need your help...

After a cursory search on the good ol' internet, I've found the following:

1. CEF/Good News Club
2. AWANA
3. Word of Life/Olympians
4. Faith Weavers
5. Royal Rangers
6. Pioneer Club

I know a fair bit about the first two (especially AWANA), and have a passing familiarity with WOL. I know the last three only by name.

So ... if any of you know something you think I should know to make a wise decision, I'd love to hear from you. Feel free to either comment here or email me.

Hatushili

Read More......

Family Sundays

As most of you know, I'm always trying to figure out ways to foster a more authentic sense of community in local churches. Over at my home church we're going to try something different that I think will really help on a number of fronts...

If you look at a calendar, you'll discover that there are four (sometimes five) months in a year that have five Sundays. I doesn't take much imagination to realize that this regularly creates scheduling difficulties for Children's Ministry workers. You usually have volunteers that agree to work one Sunday per month ... but suddenly you have an extra week but not extra workers! Churches choose to resolve the issue in many various (and fully functional) ways. We are electing to do something a little out of the norm.

On these "extra" Sundays, we're declaring Family Sunday. We'll not have our normal Children's Ministries, but instead we'll have everyone all together in the main assembly area. This will create some challenges, for sure - but we think the rewards will far outweigh the difficulties. When you put them on a scale, it looks something like this:

Challenges:
1. It's different - there will be a certain amount of adjustment to things just plain old "not normal"!
2. It will be louder - there's no question that having children in this setting will create more noise and a little bit of chaos, too.
3. It will create some tension - some parents will be uncomfortable with the fear that perhaps their child will do something embarrassing or distracting.

Advantages:
1. It will foster authentic community. Real community is multi-generational, yet we typically exclude an entire generation from our corporate worship times. Family Sunday will be truly multi-generational.
2. It will weave children into the life of the church. Kids need to know that they're valuable and that they have a legitimate place in the life of the church. Involving them in "big church" will help bridge this gap.
3. It will help disciple our children. For starters, our children will have an opportunity to see a large group of adults (including Mom and Dad) worship together. It's hard to over-estimate the value of this experience. Also, it will allow many followers of Christ to share with the children in a variety of ways.
4. It will force us out of our comfort zone. At the risk of sounding harsh, I am increasingly convinced that many American church-goers keep a god in the closet and its name is "Comfort". We get in our ruts and we get comfortable. Doing something this out of the ordinary will be a healthy experience for us now and again.
5. It will involve more people in corporate ministry. In order to keep younger children involved and interested, we'll be doing things in smaller pieces. Instead of one 45 minute sermon, we'll have two sermons of perhaps 15-20 minutes each. Instead of one long set of corporate worship, we'll break out into singing in spurts throughout the entire time. Instead of just a few faces on the platform, we'll be involving many more. Instead of mostly 35-55 year old people, we'll have a more legitimate multi-generational feel - we're striving for the very best of a family reunion feeling.

Mind you, this is all in theory at this stage! Who knows if things will really work out as I'm suggesting. Our first Family Sunday will be in just a few weeks - I'll post to let you know how it works out.

In the meantime, do any of you do something like this? Have any ideas to share with me? I'd gladly give a (cyber) penny for your thoughts!

Hatushili

Read More......

A tale of two plicits

[My apologies to Mr. Dickens for the very bad allusion!]

In the process of caring for the souls of our children, we should be very careful about what we teach them. With this no one would argue. In the context of the local church, this means we carefully scrutinize various curricula to verify the teachings are sound. It means we work to insure that our volunteer teachers are both capable and theologically sound. We must always be on the guard for wolves in the flock, but most especially when it comes to our children.

Once we find a curriculum we approve of and teachers that are competent, we usually go the extra mile and make sure to tailor our teaching to the specific ages and sometimes even the specific children to whom we minister. We might infuse the lessons with specific examples taken from the world they live in - borrowing Jesus' use of parables.

All of this is good; it should and must continue. But it's not enough...

All of what I've mentioned thus far is explicit teaching methodology. As evangelical churches, we've done a pretty good job of making sure the things we teach explicitly are within the pale of orthodoxy. They're often far too watered down, to be sure - but still within the pale of orthodoxy.

But what about what we're implicitly teaching our children? Do we spend much time mulling over this issue? Frankly, I don't think so.

For example, what if your church uses a largely entertainment-model program for children? What are implicitly teaching them? Are you encouraging longer attention spans? Are you working to make the transition into the next program smooth? Are you showing them they are truly a part of the life of the local church? Are you teaching them self-control and humility?

No, no at the implicit level. And trust me: children are much more in tune with your implicit message than your explicit.

So we need to be not only on guard against heresy and twisted doctrine and all the other explicit stuff. We need to spend at least as much time dealing with the implicit level. Here are some examples:

- Rather than giving children a script to re-enact a Bible story, try telling them the story and giving them the freedom to re-enact it in the way they see fit. This works best in a non-age segregated environments, so the older kids are given an opportunity to teach and lead the younger.

- Rather than fusing everything with "fun", try modeling your children's program after the general pattern of your adult program. Better yet, try finding ways to involve them in your "regular" worship service.

- Rather than merely reading them Bible stories and telling them what they mean, try reading them Bible stories and asking them what they mean. [Fear not - you're there to guard against heresy and gently rebuke if needed. But don't we want to encourage them to explore God's World?]

These are just a few examples. Many more could be given, but I just wanted to give some food for thought right now.

What are you seeing in children's ministry?

Hatushili

Read More......

Book Review: Postmodern Children's Ministry

If you search around for books on Children's Ministry from a postmodern perspective, you'll soon be disappointed. There aren't a whole lot of choices. But Ivy Beckwith's Postmodern Children's Ministry usually comes to the top of this short list of choices. She is unashamedly postmodern and an emerging church advocate. For these reasons, I felt her book should be on my reading list.

I just finished it, and found it an exercise in frustration. One minute I'd be loving every word she wrote; the next I found myself laughing at the inconsistencies and folly of other concepts...

Her first chapter is a fine synopsis of what most of us mean by "cultural Postmodernity". In particular, she discusses the impact that this worldview is having on children and the need for changing our methods and ways of thinking with regard to CM. The book started out on a very good note, in my opinion.

Chapter 2 lost me a bit. In this chapter, our self-stated postmodern turns to and leans heavily on (apparently) decidedly Modern sociologists. She walks us through the theoretical stages of childhood development and faith development. While there is surely merit in some of these theories and they deserve to be considered, I found it fascinating that the same author who will (in a later chapter) embrace the notion that all truth is dependent upon context and community is in this chapter so sure that these psycho-social principles are valid. Not awful; not particularly awe inspiring.

I found Chapter 3 more valuable. Here the author talks about (among other things) the folly of insisting our children grow up so fast and the unBiblical notion that children must be groomed for the best paying job possible. She talks about focusing on their spiritual development as much or more than their academic development. In particular, I love this quote:

"Spiritually forming children means we help them see that in the economy of the kingdom of God being successful is loving others, showing mercy, fighting for justice, and walking humbly with God."

Though she doesn't specifically reference Micah or any of the other Minor Prophets, this concept is draw directly from them. We would all do well to remember this. In this age when the ultimate goal of most parents is to see their children graduate from college and get a "good job" it is the duty of pastors and other concerned folk to remind these parents of their truly God-given responsibilities and to challenge them to be about the business of spiritually forming (read: discipling) their children.

Chapter 4 is a short but good reminder of the value of community. Children are much more likely to remember the relationships they had as small children than to remember any specific Sunday School lessons. Children are as much a part of community as any adult.

Chapter 5 takes the concept of community and addresses children specifically. There are some good thoughts in this chapter, but for the most part I found it frustrating. For example, in her discussion of "Citizenship" she completely ignores the very important truth of sheltering and protecting children. It is our God-given responsibility to watch over and guard them, slowly letting up our guard as they begin to develop their own. But for the author, this is tantamount to creating a "Christian ghetto". She finds it frustrating that so many churches want to offer their children alternatives to the godless activities of public schools and local communities. She asserts that children need to learn about being "salt and light".

But at what point are children prepared to be salt and light? Surely we cannot simply cast them to the wolves from their earliest elementary school years, can we? Aren't we charged with watching what they see, hear, experience and regard? While I agree that we cannot foster an "us versus them" mentality with our children, I am not willing to cast my children before the wolves of Satan until they are good and ready!

I appreciated Chapter 6. Here the author focuses on the family - the fundamental unit God first created. She bravely points out that too many well meaning churches have usurped the authority of family over the spiritual formation of their own children. She also discusses how church community naturally emulates family (by being multi-generational and composed of families itself) and suggests that churches would do well to incorporate this truth into their work of discipling children.

Chapter 7. What can I say? I wish Chapter 7 hadn't been written. Here the author discusses the Bible. She talks about how one should and should not read and teach the Bible. Here is where her postmodernity runs amok - "And since we all bring our own stories and our community's story to any reading of the Bible, we all read the Bible subjectively [so far, she's making a valid point]. There is never an objective exegesis or analysis of the biblical text. We'll never know for sure what the original writers of the story were intending to say."

That's an awfully absolute statement to be making, no? It is defeatist, and it underestimates the purpose of God in recording Scripture. Even more frustrating, within the span of just a few pages, the author is talking about the critical importance of understanding the historical and cultural context of a given passage of Scripture, and asking the question "why did God choose to have this passage recorded". It appears she wants to have her postmodern cake and eat it too!

What's good about this discussion is it points out an inherent weakness in postmodern philosophy. Those in the ivory towers tell us that there is no such thing as absolute truth, and those on the cultural ground try to buy into that thinking. But in reality - unless you have a tenured position at a university - no one can really live this way. We all understand that certain things are objectively true. In this case, the author somehow knows that context and culture are absolutely imperative to an understanding of Scripture. She knows this deep within her being, yet she's refusing to acknowledge the implicit truthfulness of her claim. There is great tension where the ivory tower meets the street.

Chapter 8 ended the book on a good note for me. Here the author talks about ways to incorporate children into the weekly worship service of the church. She acknowledges the difficulties, but believes the benefits outweigh the challenges. I think she's right, personally. But whether a church family chooses to always include children in worship or chooses to do so on regular occasions, the choice belongs to the elders of the community of faith. I would simply argue that we must make every effort to help children feel a legitimate, valuable part of the community of faith.

All things considered, I'm glad to have read Beckwith's Postmodern Children's Ministry. Like so many things in life, you take the good and throw out the bad after chewing on it for a while. There are concepts and ideas she shares that need to gain a broader audience. I stand with her in her opposition to what she calls Disney-esque children's "ministry". Parents must be about the business of discipling their children. The community of faith has an obligation to help in any way it can.

Hatushili

Read More......

Why I hate info-tainment

Info-tainment isn't a real word. It was made up some years ago to describe an all too common methodology. We've been led to believe that people today simply cannot learn things unless the learning process itself is entertaining. So every lesson is wrapped in a game, a video, a song, or something...

Nowhere is the methodology more damaging than in the children's ministry of a local church ...

Talk to a dozen school teachers who are followers of Christ and the odds are excellent that they'll complain about the short attention spans of children these days. They'll talk about the difficulties associated with teaching them anything that takes more than 4 minutes to explain.

Why is this? As usual, I won't pretend to know all the answers, nor to be definitive about this subject. But I believe part of the problem to be the whole notion of info-tainment.

Once upon a time, we had some young school-age children who had a hard time focusing in class. Somewhere along the line, some creative teachers discovered that by "fooling" these children into thinking they were at play they could actually teach them things. But instead of using this methodology sparingly and with careful wisdom, somehow (does anyone know how?) it became increasingly the norm.

Today, it is basically assumed that all children have an attention span the length of an ant and that you simply must entertain them while you educate them if you hope to have any chance of success. To the witness stand I call all of the "educational" video games and cartoons that have flooded the market in the last number of years.

But set aside the image of the public school for a moment and envision instead your local church's Sunday morning children's ministry (CM). If your assembly is like most, regardless of what specific program they use, the fundamental methodology is likely built around info-tainment.

"Kid's church" (or whatever you call it) often becomes nothing more than slightly-controlled chaos filled with loud music, bold videos and plenty of play time.

So what's the problem?, you might ask. Here's why (in a nutshell) I hate info-tainment in CM:

1. Rather than mediate them, it actually encourages short attention spans.
2. It demeans the fundamental ability God gave children to learn.
3. It's lazy and easy.
4. It promotes a consumerist mentality - we're implicitly teaching our children that the life of the local church exists to entertain them.
5. It sets the bar so low that many children (most children, I would argue) are short-changed.
6. It over-simplifies theology and the Christian life, leaving children with one of two logical conclusions: a) God and the Bible are more like fairy tales than reality, or b) the Bible is so simple that in-depth study is not necessary and sound sermons are frivolous.

We - as the local church - are to be about the business of discipling young children, giving them tools necessary to develop into faithful followers of Christ as teens and adults. But far too often we short-circuit this responsibility and do worse than nothing - we actually teach (implicitly and explicitly) what will later need to be un-taught.

Things must change, folks.

Hatushili

Read More......

Oh, the weather outside is frightful...

I find myself iced in today, something I'm not really accustomed it. Snow? Sure. But too much ice? This is simply not normal for this part of the country. Worse still, today is Sunday. We dared not make the trek to our church services.

But all is not lost. We're taking the day off as a family. Munchies for meals; fun and games; trimming the tree. (The boys and I got our tree yesterday but we've not decorated it yet.)

So far, my list of accomplishments include:

Not showering.
Building a fire (we heat with wood).
Not showering.
Eating breakfast.
Not showering.
Playing Crusader with Noah.
Not showering.
Playing Scrabble with Noah and Bekah.
Not showering.
Eating lunch.

It's been a full day already! As you can see, I've clearly not had time to shower yet and the chances look slim for the rest of the day ...

If, like me, you're iced in with family take the time to enjoy it!

Hatushili

Read More......

What's wrong with kids these days?

You hear that question seemingly all the time in culture today. Turn on an AM talk show and the topic is likely to come up somehow. Listen very long to the older generation at any given local church and you'll hear it. Spend time on conservative blogs and you'll read of the woes of "modern kids".

Everyone's got their ideas, and I suppose I'm no different than everyone in that respect. But I don't think I have the answer to this question, just some thoughts...

Before I even start into my thoughts, I want to point out that in many ways there's nothing more "wrong" with today's kids than any other generation. The problems are different, to be sure. But in the same way that today's kids can be stereotyped as self-absorbed and undisciplined, so too can the previous generation's be stereotyped as drug and sex obsessed. Stereotypes exist because there's a certain amount of truth to them, but they never tell the whole story. Keep that in mind whenever you discuss "what's wrong with today's kids".

I have just one observation I offer up for your thought. I think (because I can't prove) that this may be the first generation of parents in America that don't want to grow up. Today's 20- or 30-something parent seems much more likely to devalue what in the past would've been called discipline and sacrifice. This generation of parents seems much more interested in reliving their childhood, or in "never growing up" at all.

You can see this phenomenon in culture all over the place. Here are a few examples:

1. Halloween - it was always a kids' holiday in the past. It was about cheap plastic masks with rubber bands on the back that pulled your hair. It was about fake blood and hockey masks. It was candy, more candy, and a little more candy. Now? Halloween has entered an arena previously occupied only by Christmas, Valentine's Day, Easter, Mother's Day, and Father's Day - Halloween is now the sixth largest retail holiday of the year. And it's not because more kids are buying costumes; young adults (18-24) make up a very large portion of the increase in business over the last 5-10 years. We don't want to grow up.

2. The success of so many bawdy situation comedies. Not that long ago, what passed for entertainment was generally above-board when it came to comedy. Innuendos were abundant, for sure. But the childish over-the-top nature of today's comedy is just that - childish. We don't want to grow up.

3. The cultural acceptance of the "slacker". Once upon a time, no self-respecting man would choose to live with mom and dad into his late twenties. No self-respecting man would want to live with mom and dad a moment past high school! But now? The image of a 28 year old guy living in mom's basement is so common place that it's ceased to be shocking. We don't want to grow up.

4. The booming market for "men's toys" - whether power sports, extreme sports, high-end fishing and hunting gear, video games marketed specifically to 20-somethings, or otherwise. There's no shortage of diversions to keep should-be-men from becoming actual men. We don't want to grow up.

I'm not saying that these four trends are absolutely and/or only linked to the poor state of parenting today. But I do think they're tell-tale signs of a generation of parents much more comfortable being their child's friend, not her/his parent.

Don't hear me letting kids off the hook - they bear individual responsibility for their actions, too. But when we're trying to figure out "what's wrong with kids these days" we need look no further than the homes they come from and the sorry state of their "friends"; oops! ... I mean, their parents.

Hatushili

[Note: I don't think for one moment that I've "arrived" as a parent, or that I'm now above wrestling with these tendencies myself. I'm a 30-something parent, and one that sometimes looks uncomfortably like those I've just taken to task.]

Read More......

How many children? (part 2)

I started a discussion of "family planning" a little while back (you can find the first post here). There, I focused on the folly of thinking of children merely as "economic entities" and therefore making children not a "blessing" but in fact a burden.

Today, I'd like to address the other end of the spectrum - those that say Christians should allow God Himself to decide how many children to have...

There are plenty of folk that would have us simply "let go and let God" with regard to family planning. They generally advocate that married couples should not use birth control and should have as many children as the LORD gives them. The logic behind this position is simple:

God opens and closes the wombs of women.
God is sovereign over our lives.
Therefore we should allow God to decide how often to open or close the womb.

Advocates of this position are usually quick to point out that having 7 children does not make one more blessed than having 2. At least they should be quick to point this out.

Before I get started, though, let me remind you that for a brief time I held this position and I still presently move in some circles that advocate it. In other words, I don't think mine is an uninformed "outside" interpretation.

---

There are two levels of problems I have with this position. The first is strictly practical; the second (and more important) is more theological.

First class of problems: pragmatic.

Advocates of the "God controls the womb" position typically have a number of practical dilemmas to overcome. First, as I hinted at above, they often act as if there is a hierarchy of blessedness, with those who have the most children at the top. Many of them don't believe this, but most of them give this impression nonetheless. Second, as a corollary to the first, they often give the impression that women without children are somehow deficient. 'Is God closing this woman's womb due to some secret sin?' 'Does He know she'd make a poor mother?' These questions are almost never actually voiced, but women going through the pain of childlessness often hear echoes of these sentiments in the company of "God controls the womb" folk.

Another pragmatic problem has to do with cost. Don't hear me advocating the silly "children are too expensive to have more than one or two" nonsense that passes for wisdom these days. And I'm certainly not buying the argument that says we must put all of our children through college. No! But let's be honest, there are costs associated with having children and some folk simply cannot afford ten. Those that have significantly more than they can wisely afford usually end up increasingly on the government dime, an issue which has ethical considerations not usually worked through by this camp.

There's another pragmatic problem that begins to touch on the theological, too - what happens when husband and wife disagree on this issue? Generally it will be that the man wants no more children and the woman wants to "leave God in control", though sometimes the situation is reversed. But what do we do now? Most folk would argue (in the first case) that the wife submit to her husband's wish but pray that God will show him the error of his ways. So what if the husband has an operation to end his potency? Now what? Talk about a rift in the marriage relationship!

But what if the situation is reversed - the husband wants more but the wife doesn't? Now we have a situation where most would advocate that the wife submit to her husband's desire and attempt to conceive a child she does not want. I know that she'll likely change her mind once she delivers the child, but that's not the point. The damage done to the marriage relationship could be considerable.

Second class of problems: theological.

As I noted above, I think these problems to be more significant that "merely" pragmatic ones. [Note: I'm not silly enough to think that theological problems don't have pragmatic effects, nor that pragmatic problems don't often have theological roots - the categories are just handy for this post.]

At its core, the major problem I have here is directly related to hermeneutics - the branch of scientific inquiry that has to do with how we interpret texts (in this case, the Bible). Advocates of the "God controls the womb" position tend to make more out of narrative texts than should be. They take portions of Scripture that were written as descriptions of events and try to make them commands. To put it another way, they tend to take what is descriptive and make it prescriptive.

So you find an example in the Old Testament of God "opening the womb" (of which there are several) and you broaden that narrative event to become a general principle for all the living. 'If God opened her womb, He must be in charge of everyone's womb.' Of course there's a certain amount of truth to the claim - God clearly has the authority to and ability to do this in each and every sexual encounter throughout humanity. But this opening and closing of the womb has much more in common with the miracles of the Bible than the commands - cases where God chooses to intervene in the normal/natural method He previously established.

One of the biggest reasons I believe this to be the case has to do with death. Every year over 500,000 women die in the act of childbirth worldwide, and countless more babies die in the womb or just moments out of it. We're talking about in excess of a million deaths a year directly related to childbirth! How can I blame God for this? Was death a part of His original plan? No! Is death a "natural" event? No! Is it accurate to say that God "wanted these people more"? No!

Death is a product of the Fall of Humanity. It is no more fair to blame God for death than to blame Him for cancer, leukemia, marital infidelity or hurricanes.

So, if sound theology must not blame God for these million-plus deaths each year surrounding childbirth how are we to understand them? What are we to do when wise medical professionals (not just any medical professional - plenty of them lack wisdom!) tell us the chances are very great that mother or child could die?

Let me put wheels on this: I have a good friend who has precisely one child. His wife had many, many medical issues surrounding childbirth and came much closer to death than anyone really wants to think about. She was told in no uncertain terms that having another child could do any of a number of awful things to her or the baby's body, including death. After much prayer (and some tears) they came to the wise decision to prevent future pregnancies. But let's say they didn't - let's say they adopted the "God controls the womb" position and got pregnant anyway. They'd be forced to say that God caused their particular pregnancy, right - He causes all pregnancies in this model. Then, when she died, my friend would be forced to believe that God either caused her death or knew that it would happen and chose to do nothing about it. Remember, though, that in this system of belief God caused (not just allowed) the pregnancy that He knew would lead to death. In any court of law God would be judged liable for the death, and rightfully so.

The list could go on: why does God cause rape victims to become pregnant?; why does He cause young teenagers to become pregnant?; why does He cause uterine ruptures?; why does He cause so many good and Godly women to be incapable of conceiving?...

This is not just a semantic battle - there's a world of difference between allowing and causing. In the first, God establishes a natural/normal way things work (sperm meets egg and conception occurs) and sometimes intervenes (ie, performs a miracle), or God chooses not to intervene against the by-products of the Fall (ie, He allows people to die of cancer or childbirth). In the second case, God is willfully manipulating events to cause awful outcomes, outcomes that do not reflect the character of God.

---

Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating for the "normal" American model of family planning. Go back and read the first post in this topic if you doubt me. But God has given us the principle of wisdom over and over again in the Bible. Making wise decisions - that's the command. But making wise decisions and fatalistically allowing God to control the womb are two different models. The weight of Scriptures is certainly aligned with seeking wisdom far more than a handful of narratives that describe specific workings of God.

Hatushili

PS: Expect one last post on this subject to tie up loose ends and offer a practical example of what I think looks most Biblical.

Read More......

Immoral pregnancies?!

So I just posted the other day about the problem of seeing children primarily as economic entities and basing "family planning" decisions upon such a view. I argued in that post that this view is common, even though it sounds awful if you actually put it on paper.

Well, it seems I understated the case. I don't normally recommend overly-long web articles to you folk, but you really should read this.

It seems babies aren't "eco-friendly"...

I hope you just finished reading the article and are now outraged. If not, please stop reading my post and go read that article - the whole thing. Sometimes it's useful to be outraged...

Read it? Good.

Obviously I have serious issues with these women, especially the first one. Remember my contention that people view children as economic entities? How about this statement from the first woman in the article:

"I've never doubted that I made the right decision. Ed and I married in September 2002, and have a much nicer lifestyle as a result of not having children... We love walking and hiking, and we often go away for weekends... Every year, we also take a nice holiday - we've just come back from South Africa... We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating over-population. "

So this is the latest in the "offsetting carbon credit" thinking?! Unbelievable.

The second lady in the article, to her credit, does not appear to be a materialistic hypocrite. Hers is a problem we should not be surprised by. Allow me a brief (but relevant) aside into social history:

In the 19th century, Charles Darwin introduced what was inarguably the most significant concept of the century - evolution. Today we talk about the nuances of micro- versus macro-evolution (at least, we should acknowledge this hugely significant difference... funny how public schools don't, but I digress). But in Darwin's day, the concept was (for most of his followers) as simple as "survival of the fittest".

What followed was horrific, but perfectly understandable. Social evolutionists popped up on the scene and began arguing that only the "fittest" of people should be encouraged to bear children and populate the earth. Then came forced encouragement - Hitler, for example, clearly based his genocidal methods on the concept of "survival of the fittest". For him, Jews were least fit and therefore did not deserve the natural resources they were consuming. Killing them merely sped up the natural process of evolution toward a superior race.

In light of all this, the notion of a Creator-God that sustains all life slowly faded from the social consciousness of many peoples around the globe. "Mother Nature" was said to be able to take care of herself, thank you very much! And since Mother Nature doesn't need our help, it has for some become only natural to believe that ...

... the earth would really be better off without people screwing it up.

The second lady in the linked article clearly believes along these lines. It seem unbelievable that she could, but clearly she does. And I'm sure she's not alone. She's just got the courage to live her convictions to the fullest, regardless of where they take her. Most people of her persuasion only say the earth would be better off without us - she's actually living that principle.

I guess she should be commended... ?

No. She's traded the Almighty God for an idol; an image she perhaps calls Mother Earth. She's quite literally perverted the very nature of God and the universe in her own mind.

And you thought evolution was no big deal, didn't you?


Hatushili

---

Note: The only possible good news that can be squeezed out of a story like this is a truth that sociologists have recently begun to pick up on: "liberals" are having far fewer children than "conservatives" and will therefore likely be severely outnumbered in the coming generations. [Please don't comment on my use of liberal/conservative - I understand the limitations and am merely using the term as sociologists tend to.]

Read More......

How many children?

As a father of seven children, I routinely get asked whether we're "done" or not. While this question often leads in comical directions, it does bring up a great issue: reproductive theology.

Don't let that sound too boring to you. Trust me; you should read what I'm about to say. Not that it'll necessarily be profound, but it's an issue you should be wrestling through...

In my experience, there are basically two major ways Christ followers view the issue of "family planning" - that is, two different ways Christians think through how many children they'd like to have. There are (of course) variations within these two major paradigms, too. But in broad brushes, the major views can be laid out this way:

Paradigm 1: The number of children we have is entirely driven by our own personal wants. Choosing how many children to have is largely an economic decision - we all want children, but they're expensive. Choose to have what you can afford.

Paradigm 2: The number of children we have is entirely up to the LORD. He opens and closes the womb; He is the author of all life. We will have as many children as He gives us, with no thought toward contraception. Choose to be content with as many as He gives.

There are significant problems with both of these views, but I've found that (fundamentally) most people are in one camp or the other. Obviously, the vast majority of people operate in Paradigm 1. But Paradigm 2 people are increasingly vocal in Christian culture, too.

I have to admit that I've never really been terribly comfortable in either of these camps. I've spent time in both of them (something most can't say) and find neither very satisfactory.

I want to use the remainder of this post to discuss the problems with Paradigm 1. I'll follow that up with a post about the problems of Paradigm 2, then get to what I think is a more Biblical view. Here we go...

As I said, most people are fundamentally Paradigm 1-types. If you're reading this, odds are very good I'm describing you. If so, understand that I'm not trying to be mean or pick a fight. I want all of us to think through the implications of what we're saying - I want us to think critically. Having spent a number of years with this paradigm, please allow me to point out some very real problems along with the paradigm's strengths.

Strengths: Paradigm 1 encourages people to try to make wise decisions. It does not seek to remove the individual from responsibility over hugely important life issues (few issues are bigger than this one!). Having said that, I can't think of any other virtues of this paradigm...

Weaknesses: Paradigm 1 often makes children a largely economic entity. People are encouraged to think of kids in terms of what it will cost them - grossly exaggerated figures are bandied about for cost of education, clothing, vacations, etc... A classic example: virtually every time some meets me and finds out I have seven children they get around to asking, "How are you going to pay for college for all of them?". Though tempting, I don't want to go down that rabbit trail right here - I cite the question to prove the point: people are trained to think of children almost exclusively as economic entities.

Paradigm 1 largely ignores a few major themes of Scripture: a) that God commanded us to "be fruitful", b) that God is the author of human life, c) that the family has from the very beginning been the fundamental unit that God works through. Let's be honest, most couples don't think about the implications of these truths when having the "family planning" discussion. Often token acknowledgment is given, but serious consideration? Perhaps you're the exception, but most prove the rule.

Paradigm 1 takes too lightly the fact that children are a blessing. There are very few specifically named blessings in the Bible that apply to all of us - children are on that short list, yet we often ignore that and focus on dollars and cents.

Paradigm 1 is often in cahoots with materialism: if you want the finer things in life, you can't have too many children. If you want to do right by your children, you'll try to provide for them a better life than you had as as child. It's better to have a few children and provide these things for them than to have many and force them to go without.

As I've done before, I turn to my own family as an example of the folly of this view: we get along just fine on significantly less than the average American family income, even though we have significantly more children than the average American family. Believe it or not, the US government more or less considers our family poor. Those that know me personally would likely call our family lifestyle "modest", but "poor"?!

Paradigm 1 completely fails to wrestle with this concept:

If I have to choose between new cars, satellite TV, fancy vacations, a big house, etc... and a large family, children always trump lots of stuff.

I'm really not sure how any Christian could argue with this concept. But Paradigm 1 encourages us to ignore it. We've allowed the standard cultural expectation for a "normal American lifestyle" to so dominate our minds that we can't think straight.

Talk to someone who is unable to become pregnant - they'll pick the small, crying baby behind Door Number 1 over the pile of goodies behind Door Number 2 every time.

I'll leave you with one more to chew on. I've met many older couples that admit to sometimes wishing they'd had more children.

I've yet to meet any that wish they'd had less.

Hatushili

Read More......