Another Of The Things I’m Going to See

As you may recall, last week I mentioned both the upcoming return on of The X-Files and how I had called for such a development last year.  Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I was feeling quite the prophet.

But now?  Well, now I’m wondering if the powers that be have been reading my work.  Take a look at this promo for an upcoming movie:

What does this have to do with what I’ve written on this blog?  Nothing, apparently.  I thought I had posted on here about a “Young Jesus” television series that I wanted to see.  After a little searching, however, nothing came up.  And then I thought: “I know where it is!”  And there, of course, it was: in my first blogging effort.  The entry is now over nine years old, but it is still there.  As discussed, the series

first focuses on Jesus, but neither the Christmas “baby version” nor the fully grown prophetic model of the gospels. Rather, it seeks to fill in the “in-between” time…you guessed it—Jesus’ teenage years. The way I see things, it would be a great option for the WB Network to pick up. It could be called “Nazareth” and follow the same model as so many other coming-of-age teen dramas.

Granted, what I proposed there is somewhat different from what we’ll be seeing in the film, both in Jesus’ age and media delivery model.  Nevertheless, I’ChristTheLordbookcover.jpg.300x468_q100m interested in the thought-filled possibilities this portrayal may provide. Perhaps, in the strange interpretational territory that Jesus’ youth provides, there exists an opportunity to reflect upon Him in a new way.  We will see.

As for me, I should clearly start selling my ideas to Hollywood.  That is, unless I’ve been taking them from someone else.  A little digging reveals that this film is based on Anne Rice’s novel Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt.  The book was published in 2005–the year before my initial blog post.  Though the trail of connections may be somewhat cold, her project probably influenced my musings.  But…since we don’t know completely, perhaps I could just take credit for it anyway?  I’ll let you decide that one.

That’s now two down, friends.  Let’s see what other things we’re going to see!



USHB_slide_roseburgIn yet another in a seemingly unending series of school shootings, tragedy visited our nation yesterday once again.  The victims this time were residents of the Roseburg, Oregon community.

You’ve watched/listened/read the news.  You’ve been on social media.  You know how the response mechanisms go.  The way we process this is all too familiar.  Shock and prayers. The naming of a shooter.  Word from the President.  Debate over gun control and Second Amendment rights.  And then?  Back to the status quo until someone decides to kill again.

Well, that’s nonsense.  Whether liberal, conservative, or moderate–we can agree on that.

It has been said that to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results is the very definition of insanity.  And yet that’s exactly what we collectively seem to do as a nation.  Agree with his politics or not, the President’s words ring true: “Somehow this has become routine.  The reporting is routine.  My response here at this podium ends up being routine.  The conversation in the aftermath of it.  We’ve become numb to this.”  He went on to note “This is a political choice that we make to allow this to happen every few months in America.”635793217376156758-AP-Obama-Oregon-School-Shooting.1

Whether you are urging fewer gun laws or (with the President) more restrictions, you would essentially agree with that last statement.  We are a nation that is meant to operate under the rule of law, and as such our laws matter.  But, after 142 school shootings since the Newtown tragedy, we still seem to be limping along without much action.  Where’s the new direction we need?

Nothing changes as both sides dig in their heels.  There’s an interior logic to both positions, granted.  I see what each is trying to say.  I understand and sympathize when many citizens call for more gun control and restrictions.  If we are indeed (as I’ve heard mentioned) the only developed country with this much gun violence, we need to think about that.  I see that point of view.  But I also have a good friend who is a gun owner and has helped me understand his perspective.  And I can’t deny that, when I hear stories like Roseburg and then go to teach at my college, I’d feel safer if all of my colleagues and I were carrying weapons.

On a national scale, though, neither “side” is being fully implemented.  Instead we hang in some in-between area, with inconsistency and its results the name of the game.  No bold change on either end seems to happen, and nothing changes.

140723-bookclub-waldman-submitted Something does need to be done.  That’s a statement that gains credence with each and every massacre like yesterday’s.  I know there’s a fear that the wrong decision could make things worse, of course.  I see that.  But we’re in a situation where it is really bad right now, and to be honest, guns and politics are one of those issues where it can seem increasingly difficult to sort through competing and proliferating facts and arguments on both sides.

So then, here’s a stark proposal born from grasping at straws: what if instead of doing nothing we just picked a perspective and went with it for the common good?  What if, for instance, we gave a gun to every law-abiding citizen and required every teacher and professor to be armed?  Maybe that would help decrease the Newtowns of our day.  What if we deleted the Second Amendment and restricted firearms accordingly?  Maybe that would help limit these tragedies too.  Not everyone would like these solutions, but at least it would be doing something instead of standing by while the long list of masscres continue.

I realize in my attempt at some kind of Realpolitik arising out of my frustration with our current situation, I’ve created what could be a nasty Internet debate.  Please be kind and remember: I offer what I do because I’m weary of what happens in our nation with such tragic regularity, not because I’m trying to be a political ideologue.

Questioning the Youth Church

Youth-1In the third installment in my “Coming Youth Ministry Reformation” series, I’d like briefly touch on the topic of integration. Specifically, how youth ministries and churches alike should not operate as separate entities but as the Body of Christ.

For too long many of our youth groups have functioned somewhat autonomously, drawing resources and staff from the larger congregations of which they are officially a part while having little other connection to the local church.  In this model, budget, curriculum, pastoral leadership, activities, and even vision can tend to be very distinct from the rest of the church.  While there are sometimes moments of “coming together” for youth group and adult congregation over the course of the year, many of these can be superficial and few are lasting.

Youth ministry experts have long referred to this model of ministry as the “one-eared Mickey Mouse” and raised questions about its practice: disconnecting youth from the life of the entire Church, modeling an unbiblical picture of the body of Christ, and eschewing multigenerational opportunities in favor of more peer-based activities.  While the separate one-eared-mickey-mouse1“youth group” setup we’ve developed has risen out of a desire to do some important age-specific ministry, the effects have been that we are potentially limiting opportunities for discipleship and ministry.

The gap between “big church” and “youth group” can be so wide in so many ways that students can have little desire to be a part of the former, whether they are 15 or 25.  Inadvertently, then, we may be sowing the seeds for faith frustration and immaturity in adolescents, all while thinking we’re doing a good job because we have what appears to be a successful youth ministry.

I’m not really saying anything new here.  The problems and danger I’ve mentioned have been known and discussed for some time.  Sadly, I don’t feel that many of our churches have done enough about it.  (I know I didn’t when I was a youth pastor.)  If anything, some have embraced a flawed model even more–at least in terminology.  I have to admit that every time I see the phrase “youth church” to describe a local church’s ministry to adolescents, I have to cringe.  I mean no disrespect to those who have such a name and am not trying to attack any fellow ministry laborers, but I do want tomulti-generational ask a few questions.  Is this representative of how you understand things, with a separate church for teens and adults?  Does this make any sense, biblically or theologically?  Even if you would say that “it is just a name,” doesn’t the phrase itself set the stage for unhelpful and potentially damaging ways of thinking about the Church?

Some, so frustrated with the modern youth ministry enterprise, have decided to forgo all age-segregated ministries in favor of what they call a family-based model.  While I do not endorse their approach because I think there is some importance to life stage ministry, I understand what they are reacting against.  The traditional youth ministry model has created a lot of “one-eared Mickey Mouses.”  The outward success of such ministries has made youth-church-copy-500x200a lot of youth pastors feel satisfied with their work.  But the cost of such developments—to the body of Christ and to the students under our care–may be far more than we realize.

It will be hard for many churches in this persistent model to being to think differently, but they must.  The church belongs together.  “Youth church,” in name and actuality, should fade in favor of a more integrated and body-like pattern.

Things I’m Going To See

I_Want_to_BelieveIn a previous (and potentially ongoing) series of posts, I spent time discussing what I called “Things I’d Like To See.”  This was (and is) a set of entries consisting of my own hopes and dreams.  Sometimes they are more weighty in nature and reflection.  Sometimes, well, they’re not.  With regard to the latter, I tended to offer things like this: A new Star Trek series.  A reverse microwave.  This kind are semi-serious and mostly for fun.  You get the picture.

Imagine my delight, then, when one of my flights of fancy is now coming true.  This January, after nearly 13 years off of the air, The X-Files is returning to television.  Granted, this is more of a six-episode “event,” but I nevertheless look forward to checking in with my friends Mulder and Scully to see what they’re up to.

A trailer (I’ve updated to a different one on 10/1) for the series has been released, and it seems some of the old crew are back together:

Exciting.  I know.  As I reflected on my hopes for a revived series last October, I said the following:

A chance to rekindle some of the old magic would be interesting to see with a show like The X-Files.  Yes, it might end up seeming dated or out of step, but I’d definitely like the-powers-that-be to give it some thought.  And even though we’re deep in the age of the full reboot, it would be nice to have some familiar faces inhabiting or at least kicking off a story that would take us somewhere new.

I don’t know what the plans are for The X-Files beyond the January episodes, but I do hope they augur something exciting.  I’m ready for a return to the world of conspiracies with our intrepid agents.  I daresay the tenor of the times may be as well.

And hey, since this “thing I’d like to see” came true, who knows what’s next?  Before too long we might all have reverse microwaves in our kitchens.

Matthew 17

“Get up…don’t be afraid.”

-Jesus, Matthew 17:7

This brief moment takes me back to an old college professor who impressed upon us the reality of the Third Commandment–a lesson that has stayed with me all these years.  He told us, in short, that this guideline was in more danger of being swearingbroken in the monastery than the saloon.

“Do not take the name of the Lord in vain” is one of those things we think we know the meaning of, but in reality goes rather deeper than we supposed.  Using the Lord’s name in a forbidden way is not just about cursing God’s name (though that can certainly be a part of it) but is about what it means to respect and reverence the Lord and realize, as best we can, Who God really is (and is not).

We who are the religious leaders are in most danger of this kind of irreverence, as we use the name of God so much that it has become commonplace.  Think about it: we pastors and professors are always saying “God this” and “God that.”  We do this so much that God becomes just one actor or object amongst many.  Mostly unintentionally, we have defined God away.  In so controlling God’s name we have reduced the Divine to our particular material.  The name of God becomes like any other name transfiguration-abstract-e1360464424741or word, and in the process is domesticated.

Thinking that we have control over some aspect of God is a very human thing to do.  It makes us feel safe and steady.  The world makes sense when God, like everything else, is conformed to our understanding.

Peter, James, and John may very well have felt they had some things about the ways of God figured out here in Matthew 17. Until God spoke to them from Heaven and they fell to their faces.  God unsettled them.  Terrified them.

May we think twice before understanding God in commonplace ways–with or without the requisite voice from Heaven.

No More Youth Pastors (Part II)

(Continued from yesterday‘s post.)

6070198_origWhat, then, to do?  That’s a good question.  What will it mean for congregations to think outside the box of the past forty years and consider what makes most sense in their context?  We need to have the courage to make big changes–even ones that might be uncomfortable.  This might mean a less hierarchical structure amongst pastoral staff.  It could involve a complete rejection of the term youth pastor in favor of “family pastor” or “discipleship pastor”: roles that should not be mere name changes, but shifts in thinking and acting.

It is hard to see beyond what we are currently doing. It can even feel wrong to consider not hiring a youth pastor.  I know.  But shouldn’t we countenance different things for the sake of the Church?

Such new approaches could involve churches considering how not just one “professional,” but a team of co-laborers (pastors and laypersons alike) might interact and work with adolescents in the midst of their service to the whole congregation.  Youth ministry would then be of the church, not hired out to one person, as it were, by the church.  Think about it: what if the youth, together with everyone else in the congregation, had the same pastor(s)?  In this scenario, diverse ministers and servants in the church could work with young people, but in a way more integrated with each other, families, and the larger church.f6743e6ce445c443ec25bffe579994df

All of this means that more, not less, people ought to be taking courses and getting training in youth ministry.  Those studying for all kinds of ministry should be able to reflect on what adolescence is about so that they might serve together with the rest of the church. No longer, in other words, ought there just to be one “expert” in the church that does all the ministry with a single group.  While a “point person” or coordinator still makes sense…maybe no more than that is needed.

Build_YouthMinistriesSo, those are my few thoughts today.  Many thanks to the youth pastors out there who even now are faithfully serving in our churches.  This post is not meant to reject the work in which you are engaged, but rather as a challenge for our churches to consider as we minister to those within and without our walls. May the result of changing times not be less ministry to young people, but a deeper awareness of the way ministry, discipleship, and evangelism is a part of the life and work of the whole church.

Today and yesterday’s brief thoughts represent only the beginning of a conversation.  Please feel free to continue the dialogue as you respond and comment.

No More Youth Pastors? (Part I)

eBook___The_youth_pastor_471383682 Last week I announced I was going to spend some time this Fall talking about youth ministry.  More specifically, how I think it needs to change.  Today represents a further effort in that direction.

So: let’s think about youth pastors.  In most Protestant churches of a certain size, there is a person on staff whose job it is to provide spiritual guidance and direction to adolescents.  The title can vary, from “youth pastor,” “youth minister,” “minister to youth, or even “nextgen pastor” and so on.  They have become so common that most congregations accept their role as a given in any hiring strategy.

Youth pastors, of course, have not always existed.  While the church has always ministered to its people–younger ones included–the innovation of having a full-time minister for youth is only around thirty to forty years old.  A relatively short time when one considers the two thousand years of Christian history.

The need for youth ministry in our current state rose out of perceived changes and needs in American youth culture.  The Church had to adapt to changes over time, and in this case it did.  But now, a number of decades into this, I would suggest that our experience with youth pastors and the needs we see displayed calls for a new way of thinking about things.  As my title suggests, perhaps it is time to bid farewell to youth pastors.539272_286878791417822_1609029950_n

Before you stop reading, please hear me on this.  I myself was a youth pastor for six years.  Since August 2011 I’ve been the Associate Professor of Youth Ministries at my school.  I attend my own church’s youth ministry meetings and serve in a kind of advisory role to youth pastors in our region.  Please understand, in other words, that I’m not speaking out of ignorance or any kind of desire to watch the world burn.

When I think about “getting rid” of youth pastors, I’m not saying that we delete the role and subsequently ignore the adolescents in our midst.  Far from it.  Instead, I believe that churches should rethink the title and responsibilities of youth pastors and their place in our congregations.  For too long, hiring someone in this role–while a sign that the church cares about young people–has nevertheless carried with it some problems and limitations.

youth-ministry-cartoonFirst, it has meant that working with teenagers has been “outsourced” to the professional, so to speak.  The rest of the church need not worry about teens if their resident expert is doing so.  Second, the title of “youth pastor” has not been taken as seriously as it should.  Instead it is often perceived as a training ground for “real” ministry.  Third, having a youth pastor has not only made the congregation more apathetic about its own work with teens, but it may be having the effect of absolving parents and families of their spiritual responsibilities.  After all, why do they need to worry about things when Pastor Josh and his college-aged volunteers are doing it all?

Lastly, the existence of the youth pastor can send the silent message to students that he or she is their pastor–not the lead pastor of the entire congregation.  In addition to cutting off ministers and youth alike from deeper interaction, this can contribute to an unintentional division within the body of Christ and a continued silo-ization of ministries that is troubling.

To Be Continued…