What we wear

Yet again I’m frustrated by the way in which young people can be regarded at church. I am reminded again at the prevailing culture that young people are to be “seen and not heard” and that they are only required in order to make the church look good: “See this young person saying something at the front of our church, aren’t we such an all-encompassing family?”

James 2:1-4 says:

“My dear brothers and sisters, how can you claim to have faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ if you favour some people over others? For example, suppose someone comes into your meeting dressed in fancy clothes and expensive jewellery, and another comes in who is poor and dressed in dirty clothes. If you give special attention and a good seat to the rich person, but you say to the poor one, “You stand over there, or else sit on the floor” – well, doesn’t this discrimination show that you are guided by evil motives?”

And here’s where my frustration comes: people tend not to be particularly bothered by what teenagers wear. We all know that some teenagers can dress rather provocatively: some do it to rebel against our culture and society; others do it to keep up with their fashion. Either way, shouldn’t we, as Christians, be glad when a teenager walks into church?

Time and again we hear it said: “Don’t judge a book by it’s cover.” And yet those first impressions can say a lot. The church “welcome team” will pass judgment just by staring at incorrect attire, and the young person will be filled with such warmth and love... that it’s probably an act of God that they don’t walk out straight away!

Enough about extreme examples. What really gets me is when a teenager comes to church, wearing clothes that they’ve worn to church before and which are ‘socially acceptable’ outside of church, but just because they are given something to say from the front, where the whole congregation will be watching, they are told it is inappropriate.

It’s as if to say, “Sorry, but this church prides itself on excellence.” The whole showbiz attitude comes in and you’re only allowed on stage if you’re dressed correctly. Seriously, if I was ever asked to speak at a church like that, I’d want to do it dressed in rags!

James might be talking more about reserving special seats for ‘people of importance’ but I believe the passage can be applied in this context too. By telling someone that they must change the way they dress just because they are on a stage, we effectively tell them, “As you are, you’re not good enough for this church.” It reinforces the toxic message that God only accepts those who are perfect, and that the church is a place for ‘perfect’ people. I firmly believe that such attitudes run counter to the values of Jesus.

If a young person isn’t good enough to be on show as they are, then such a church is not good enough for that young person.

It’s not about ‘dressing appropriately for the occasion’: sure, in non-Christian environments (or any employment arena), there are social rules for how we dress. But church is about the Kingdom. It’s not about how we look to others, it’s about how we look to God. We don’t want to be white-washed tombs. It’s about our heart.

For some young people, church is a big enough struggle as it is. The people in church, along with various traditions and customs, can be the stumbling block in the faith of teenagers. There’s no need to add to their burdens. After all, we’ll only be left asking ourselves the question, “Why aren’t there many young people in our church?”

When other people became gods...

Our society seems to be one of always caring about what other people think. Many boys like to have a suave hairstyle, many girls like to douse themselves in makeup. Whether it’s where we live or what car we have, the clothes we wear or the food we eat, so often a determining factor can be what it will look like to other people.

Much of that can be shrugged off, but it even affects how we act. We wouldn’t like to be seen to be in a situation where our actions could be misinterpreted, therefore we sometimes avoid such situations. In fact, many people would tell you that the sensible option is to avoid such a situation.

But what happens when this clashes with other values we may hold?

Does another person hold any value when we want to make sure we don’t look bad? Should I drive the young person home on my own to avoid them having to walk 45 minutes in the freezing cold? Should I make someone spend money to catch the bus when I’m travelling the same journey at the same time?

Should I change my plans just because someone, somewhere might think negatively about it? Should I cancel an evening activity for young people, not because it breaks the law, but because there aren’t enough adults to please others? Should I submit to a higher authority rather than positively impacting the lives of others?

Why do we bow the knee to the thoughts of a select few, at the expense of the needy? Why do we care how others perceive our motives? If we have a pure heart and pure motives, why do we allow our compassion to be restricted? Why do we let others dictate how our kindness is displayed? Why should a godly way of life be quenched because someone, somewhere might disagree with it?

When did we make the thoughts of other people our god?

The fathers we need

"I believe that God desires for every father to courageously step up and do whatever it takes to be involved in the lives of his children. But more than just being there, providing for them, he is to walk with them through their young lives and be a visual representation of the character of God, their father in heaven.

A father should love his children and seek to win their hearts. He should protect them, discipline them, and teach them about God. He should model how to walk with integrity and treat others with respect and should call out his children to become responsible men and women who live their lives for what matters in eternity.

 

Some men will hear this and mock it, or ignore it. But I tell you that as a father, you are accountable to God for the position of influence He has given you. You can’t fall asleep at the wheel, only to wake up one day and realise that your job or your hobbies have no eternal value, but the souls of your children do.

Some men will hear this and agree with it, but have no resolve to live it out. Instead, they will live for themselves and waste the opportunity to leave a Godly legacy for the next generation. But there are some men who, regardless of the mistakes we’ve made in the past, regardless of what our fathers did not do for us, will give the strength of our arms and the rest of our days to loving God with all that we are, and to teach our children to do the same. And whenever possible, to love and mentor others who have no fathers in their lives, but who desperately need help and direction."

Courtesy of Sherwood Pictures' film Courageous.

I may not have children of my own, but there are many children who I have come to care for, to protect and to love as if they were my own.

The 'other' lost sheep

Once, there were two shepherds.

One shepherd is often talked about; his heroism being a well-known story. He is the one who looked after 100 sheep and, when one wandered off, he left the other ninety nine and looked everywhere, not stopping until he found it. When he did find it, he put the sheep on his shoulders and held a great celebration.

The other shepherd lived in a different time.

He also had 100 sheep, but some of his sheep were much younger – some were still lambs. One day, he noticed that one little lamb had wandered off. He was about to set off to search for that lamb, when he paused to think. The culture of the day said that lambs were fragile creatures that needed a lot of love and care, so much so that two shepherds were needed, just in case the lamb had gotten itself into a spot of bother.

The shepherd didn’t want to be accused of mistreating his delicate lamb, so he went to a neighbouring farm and asked the shepherd there if he could have some help. His neighbour listened to his problem, and then accused him of not thinking the situation through: how could he be so careless as to leave ninety nine sheep alone – especially when some of them were just lambs – in order to go searching for just one? Perhaps he should just cut his losses and get on with his duties for the others. After all, he could have faith that God would make sure the lost little lamb was safe...

The Good Samaritan - revamped

A teenager, having missed the last bus, was walking home one evening. The journey was a few miles and he knew his parents wouldn’t be best pleased if he called them up and asked them to come out and pick him up. So he walked.

The journey wasn’t too bad, although part of it was on fast roads and part on narrow lanes.

Along the way, a car approached him, travelling in the same direction. The driver, one of his teachers from school, slowed down, but as soon as the teacher recognised the teenager, she overtook safely and continued, knowing that her job did not permit her to give lifts to pupils.

A short while later, another car approached, again travelling in the same direction. This time the driver was the vicar from the local church. As he neared the teenager, he too slowed down. He took a look at the teenager and, realising he was a member of the church, overtook safely and continued on his journey. He knew that the procedures and policies in place did not allow him to take the teenager home, unless there was another adult in the car with him.

However, because the vicar tries to be a good Christian, when he reached his destination, he telephoned the teenager’s parents to inform them of the situation.

Soon after, another car approached, this time travelling in the opposite direction. The driver noticed the teenager walking with his head down, and pulled over. He looked at the teenager and asked if he wanted a lift. The teenager, not knowing the driver of the car, said he was going in the other direction and that it wasn’t much further. The driver gently insisted. He said it was a dangerous road and it was no bother to him.

When they turned up to the teenager’s house, the stranger led him to his front door and explained the situation to his parents. They thanked the man and he left. Then the teenager received a telling off, not only for missing the bus, but also for not telling them that he had missed the bus (they found out because the church’s vicar had called them) and for accepting a lift home from a stranger.

Now, which of those three – the teacher, the vicar or the stranger – acted like a neighbour to that teenager?

But also, with which of those three would the teenager’s parents have been happier to provide the lift home?

The problem of postmodernism

The dictionary says that postmodernism is “characterised by a rejection of ideology and theory in favour of a plurality of values and techniques.” Basically it says that there is more than one way of doing things and that it really doesn’t matter – we have to make up our own minds. An “all roads lead to Rome” idea.

The problem is that it doesn’t work.

Yes, we have to make up our own minds on how we are going to do things – that’s the beauty of free will – but the problem is that some paths just end up in disaster.

Here’s an example. The idea that the type of films young people watch and the computer games they play can seriously influence them has been around for a long time. A Home Office study reported in 1977 showed as much. But the backlash was that there are people who were exposed to extreme sex and violence as a child who are as decent as any other member of the human race. Whilst that may be true, it’s a non-argument: it is selective observation, or cherry picking. The issue here comes from the assumption that we can somehow ‘know’ how a child will turn out if we subject them to such material. Some people get lucky. Others get scarred.

The path we choose to take will have an effect on how we live our lives, and can even affect the lives of those around us – especially children.

And here’s where postmodernism fails. It says that we should be free to do what we want to do, that people shouldn’t judge just because it isn’t their cup of tea, and that there are many expressions and interpretations of things. Now, whilst a lot of this is good, there is one huge problem… and it comes from the application of postmodernism into society.

Postmodernism is enforced by adults. These are people who have grown up with a strong set of rules (whether they abided by them or rebelled against them, they knew those rules) and have grown to a level of intellectual understanding to be able to question those rules. It’s like being taught about black and white, and then learning about the grey area in between.

But postmodernism enforces the grey area without establishing the black and white. It means our children don’t have any rules to question, no boundaries to push against. By enforcing postmodern philosophy we actually prevent the next generation from learning the way we learned.

As adults, we can understand that there is a big grey area. But young people are still learning. We need to be aware that whilst some of them can understand the greyness, others cannot, and we are all (adults included) at different stages.

The argument of postmodernism is supposedly one of freedom against established (‘old fashioned’) rules. I wonder if in reality it is arguing for non-responsibility.

Labels

I find it interesting. We send our kids to school. We’re concerned about rebellious teenagers or riotous youths. We have child protection policies and there are a lot of projects regarding young people who are under-18. There are all these labels for people who are living through their first 2 decades of their lives and the only thing we can be sure of is that they are not adults.

As such, there are things in place to make sure they are protected, or that they have enough activities, or so that they have a good learning experience. There are certain ways in which adults are to act around them to make sure there is absolutely no hint of anything which might (even remotely) be construed as abuse.

We have children’s workers, youth workers and family workers. People take the role of ‘appropriate adults’ and mentors. There are specialised professions for working with those under-18s. Whilst it may be no bad thing, it all adds to the divide. It is precisely these people who need to help people grow from childhood to adulthood.

It doesn’t happen overnight as a person becomes 18. It’s a process. It takes years of teaching and learning where the social boundaries are. It means that as one of those young people goes through life, we must gradually give them more responsibility, rather than making them abide by the same rules until they are 18… at which point the cultural rulebook suddenly changes and they are thrown into a whole realm of freedom they are not ready for.

Is it any wonder why the nation’s young adult population is such a mess? Alcohol abuse, drug abuse, vehicle abuse, people abuse and no taking responsibility: ‘it must be someone else’s fault’ because it always was whilst they were growing up.

I think we’ve missed the big picture. You can call them children or kids or teenagers or young people or youths or under-18s. Call them whatever you want.

When are we going to start treating them like human beings?