I've Been Thinking About This... » children

Message: A Father’s Heart

Steve — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 14:30:27 +0000

Here are the supporting Scriptures from the message on ‘A Father’s Heart’, June 20, 2010. The audio message will be posted here: A Father’s Heart

… and the slides are here:

Further readings on ‘A Father’s Heart’:

Want to know what your teenage kids are up against? This is an eye-opener:

… and here’s another …

Tags: children, Christian, Church, Family, God, leadership, Life, Sermon notes, Youth

Comic Book News

Steve — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:36:15 +0000

I think this is clever marketing. In Japan, although newspapers are more widely subscribed to than in the US, the publishers can see an inevitable decline as the next generation moves up. They also observe that the next generation is crazy about manga – a stylized form of cartoon.

Wired Magazine on 'Manga News'

Putting the two together, they are appealing to young potential readers by setting the news into manga – real news in cartoon form. Talk about adjusting your approach to meet the culture!

Tags: children, Creativity, Review, Technology, Trends, Youth

Christianity-A Pop History of the Last 150 Years

Steve — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:26:13 +0000

Start the picture around the 1850s, at a time when almost everyone was still on board with a single sense of morality as defined by the Church & the Bible. Everybody believed a thing is either true on false – there was only absolute truth. It is a high standard to follow, and some fail. Many are already outside the church – alcoholics, prostitutes, the desperately poor, the willfully lost … which is odd, because they’re the very people Christ said he came to save, and with whom he frequently connected. Few Christians chose to notice this, however, and fewer did anything about it.
Across the next 100 years, with the increase in mobility of the industrial revolution (the rise of the railroads, seeking jobs in the cities, emigrating to another country, new wealth and, later, automobiles), community cohesion begins to erode. People aren’t perpetually connected with their family and old friends, so they don’t have to live up to those expectations.
Suburbs grow up; houses are farther apart and driving for everyday needs (school, groceries, church) becomes the norm. At the same time, the communication of ideas increases – reading rates increase as school is mandated for all children; college is something to aspire to; newspapers are more readily available and more widely read. Every town and village has a library. Later, telephone and radio improve the dissemination of new ideas (and later still, movies and then television).
With the advent of those schools, teenagers become a group unto themselves, rather than each child being part of a family. They discover common ground – how parents can say one thing and do another; humor is peer-based rather than family-based, so clowning and pranks abound. Boy-girl relationships become more accessible now that continual family monitoring is absent. Parents begin to feel the frustration of loss of control over their children and point to the school as the reason. Meanwhile teenage ‘rebellion’ becomes a standard, as teens naturally try to distance themselves from their parents’ beliefs and ideals.
Some people don’t want to be held to an absolute standard of morality and they break away from the church. Having left their family (or secure in the knowledge that they can leave their family whenever they want to) their burden of conformity is eased. They break away from this standard and from the church -
1. perhaps because they have sinned in some way that they want to condone or excuse,
2. or perhaps because they want to justify a future or potential form of conduct.
Those people originally leaving the church are seen first as shocking and brazen, then as courageous and daring, since they’re risking public condemnation. Because they are so radically different, they attain near-hero status. They are seen as ‘their own person’; holding to the courage of their convictions. Recall that they are not alone – others were already ignored by the church, and consequently outcast. The two groups may connect to some degree. The temporary angst and rebellions of teens adds to the numbers and confusion.
As time goes by, others also break away – either (1) through discussion with/ persuasion from these ‘early adopters’, (2) on their own, or (3) (possibly the largest group, and definitely including the teens at the point) because it’s ‘cool’ to rebel. New moral philosophies are developed.
1. Truth is no longer seen universally as absolute;
2. God is redefined to fit a mold: “God is love” is kept; “God is Holy” slips.
As more people leave the church for this new morality:
1. many concerned and liberal preachers attempt to soften the perceived harshness of the church’s message and dilute it. The congregation is told the same message, “God is Love”, and the Righteousness of God is put aside. The logic is to get the people back into church where they can be reached with a ‘truer’ gospel once they’re back. Social awareness is acceptable to all, and so that becomes the extent of any effort to help others.
2. At the same time, many fundamentalist preachers react by drawing a hard line, condemning the leavers – circling the wagons to protect against possible incursion of external beliefs.
Some of the pillars of the church – people who were leaders and very public about it – inevitably slip. Priests; pastors; televangelists. Still very public, everybody sees the failures and shame being revealed.
There are other people who slip first and then become leaders in the church after punishment – Chuck Colson and others. This is seen – at least initially – as a way to get back into peoples’ good graces. It’s convenient to be redeemed in jail – easier to get out earlier for good behavior.
Either way, the church is seen as harboring hypocrisy. When it attempts to speak out against the new morality, the hypocritical divide is brought up.
Many in the church itself see the hypocrisy more clearly than the Message and leave, disenchanted.
Now when the church tries to uphold Biblical principles and speaks of absolute truth, it is seen as outmoded, irrelevant and, of course, hypocritical. People have moved on – so should the church.
By now, abortion, homosexuality and same-sex marriage are all becoming acceptable to society, although not to those of the church hierarchy that see the Bible as inerrant.
Church and state begin a rapid separation.
For a while, many Christians hold on desperately to the illusion that the state owes allegiance to the church, and connect to form political alliances and voting blocs. Politicians pay attention to such blocs, and so pay lip service to Christianity.
At the same time however, laws are passed to enforce the separation. Political allegiance cannot be encouraged from the pulpit or the church’s tax status is revoked. Later, laws are passed to revoke tax status if the church insists on applying a morality that differs from the state’s moral code – for instance, if it won’t condone and perform same-sex marriages.
Slowly the church comes to realize that its mission is in jeopardy unless it gets back to its roots. No longer enjoying a most-favored status as it has since 313AD, the church is under a form of persecution – mild, compared to the 2 centuries before Constantine, but increasingly evident.
With the decreasing acceptability of church, many people who used to go now disconnect from the church. The number of people calling themselves Christians drops precipitously – 80% or more no longer claim allegiance to the church. The miniscule congregations that remain can no longer support the buildings they met in, and so sell them off.
Denominations that own such buildings become very wealthy from the sales (temporarily); they focus on the larger pockets of Christians in the cities. For a while the remaining churches thrive – they have the best leaders, speakers and visionaries in the denomination, as well as the lion’s share of the budget, allowing them the best technology for communication.
In other areas, those Christians who still hold onto their belief consolidate into those churches that have managed to hold on; they begin to ignore their denominational boundaries and focus on core principles.
In still other areas, Christians meet in homes in small groups.
Tax-exempt status for churches is reduced, although for other religions is continued.
The Church begins to reemerge as missional. People who become Christians do so at the risk that they may experience some persecution – at work, from their neighbors and even from their family. Being a Christian becomes either something to be denied or embraced passionately. People who go to church commit everything to Christ and depend on Him completely.
Christians have become the outsiders and the risk-takers. Some see them as impractical, self-destructive and stubborn fools; others see them as courageous and daring, since they’re risking public condemnation. Because they are so radically different, they attain near-hero status. They are seen as ‘their own person’; holding to the courage of their convictions.
People who aren’t Christian start to ask a question that hasn’t been asked since 313AD: “If being a Christian leads to persecution, why would anyone become one? What is there in it that is worth that danger?” The question puzzles people. They ask a Christian, who starts to tell them about what Jesus Christ means to him.

Tags: children, Church, Family, ideas, mission, Sin

Fruitful Outreach

Steve — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:41:26 +0000

It’s just struck me that somewhere around the time (in the twentieth century) that we stopped talking about marriage as God’s tool for propagation, we also stopped taking evangelism seriously. I wonder if there’s a connection? It used to be that, when a couple got married, the minister talked about the purpose of marriage and included words to this effect (from the 1689 Book of Common Prayer):

“First, It was ordained for the blessing of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.”

Perhaps the injunction to “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:22, 28; 8:17; 9:1, 7; 17:20; 28:3; 35:11; 48:4; Lev 26:9) was needed in Biblical times, to stop the family or tribe or clan from dying out, since there were few enough people around. In Abraham’s day, having children was a blessing to both father (because his name was carried on down through the ages, and was his passage to such eternity as he understood), and mother (God blesses her by giving her children – 1 Sam 1:5-7, 27). However, today we don’t need to propagate the species – we’re in no danger of extinction.
Or perhaps the move from farm to city during the industrial revolution fueled the decrease in family size – on a farm, you need lots of hands; in the city that’s a lot of mouths to feed.
Or perhaps the recognition at the beginning of the twentieth century that the world population was growing geometrically, that there were too many people already, and smaller families were preferable, encouraged the de-emphasis on having children.

So family sizes became smaller in the West, and (late twentieth century) in USSR and China as well. According to Gapminder.com, only India is still growing furiously.

In Ephesians 5:31-32 Paul speaks of marriage as a metaphor for Christ and His bride, the Church. In this metaphor, a case could be made for the time before marriage (in the family of one’s youth) representing the old pre-Christian life, and the time from the marriage onward as the new Christian life. As such, once married (having become a Christian), it is important to ‘procreate’, ‘bear fruit’ or birth new life.

(Which begs the question, “Is the parallel true to the point that, just as it takes a man and a woman to bring a child into the world (with One notable exception!), does it take both parties to bring a Christian into salvation?” – and of course, the answer is ‘yes’. You obviously can’t do it without the Groom, but the Bride is, without exception, involved in the birth as well.)

At some time – in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century? – we evolved the decision that the focus of marriage was really not on having children, but on the relationship of the man and wife. The passage from the Book of Common Prayer began to be dropped, along with the bit about the bride obeying the groom. Being married to ‘have babies’ was not a nice or genteel thing to think about in Victorian times. (We weren’t too keen on the ‘with my body I thee worship’ bit, either!)

My point is that – somewhere around the same time – we began to think that although missionary work overseas was important, and the Salvation Army work in the cities was important, the church was not supposed to invite others to Christ who lived locally. This was a time when almost everybody went to church, so if I didn’t go to your church, then I must have been going to another one down the street. If I went to church, then of course I was a Christian. It was an intrusive and even offensive invitation. My minister viewed it as poaching by your church; I viewed it as none of your business, and you wouldn’t catch me talking about a topic that had become uncomfortable and controversial.

Any thoughts? Stick ‘em in the comments below…

Tags: Bible, children, evangelism, marriage, outreach