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?

What message do we communicate?

I remember being sat in a meeting for people working in persecuted countries. The subject matter was how to act when under threat. But this wasn’t just about mild threats; this was the threat of being thrown out of the country. How do we act when our very being is offensive to those in power; when the things we believe are considered illegal?

At first I was surprised at the answer that was given, but then I understood. The answer was to do nothing: to continue attending church and to continue daily business. Do not be afraid to show your face in public and do not hide your Christianity.

The reason really made me think: if a missionary was threatened with deportation, and they decided it was best to stop attending their regular church and “lay low” for a while so that they could continue witnessing in such a country, it would undermine their very message! For their actions would speak louder than their words: when trouble comes your way, stop what you do until it passes! Change your behaviour, hide your light under a basket and pretend to be someone you are not.

Our actions do speak louder than words. Our motives can have more of an impact on people than the action itself.

And this is especially true for youth work. Are our actions out of our love for our young people, or out of fear of stepping on the wrong toes? Are our activities designed for genuine enjoyment, or drawn up solely because it’s our job? Are the things we allow and disallow motivated by our passion to follow the life and teachings of Jesus, or by a fear of false accusation and a fear of those in power over us?

Do we really love our youth unconditionally, or are there limits? What message are we communicating?

Every action we do will be seen by others, and no matter how much we tell people to “do as we say and not as we do” they will still follow the example we set. Or just leave, when they realise our mouths and lives are full of hypocrisy.

If we tell our young people not to swear, but swear when they are not around, it will be picked up on. If we tell our young people not to play with the drum kit, but we mess around with it anyway because we are leaders, we should not be surprised at their lack of respect for authority. The authority Jesus had was so powerful because he lived the very words he spoke.

When he said, “Love your neighbour,” he loved even those who would disrespect him. He may have told stories of those who would be “cast away” on Judgement Day, but in his life he even loved those who were socially unacceptable. He upset those who were in power by his strong devotion to his Father’s Will: he did not follow the rules of men, and he didn’t even try to wriggle his way around in an attempt to please God and men. He did what was right and stuck to it.

The question is: do we accept young people more than they accept us as leaders? Do we stick to what is right, or do we bend over to accommodate the rules of men?

Investing in young people

Christian youth work is crucial.

There are plenty of secular youth projects going on, and these are great. In fact, it is quite incredible just how much time and energy is put into young people despite religion. Projects to help them develop properly, to address social issues, to provide good education and play facilities and so on. Whether we like it or not (after all, some people would rather have nothing to do with young people), they are part of society.

But Christian youth work is crucial.

If we strive to live with the attitudes and principles of Jesus, we see a way of life that is more than just ‘helping’ others. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus shows how we can help more than just a one-off action, but by caring until the other person is completely fit and healthy. In the parable of the Prodigal Son, Jesus describes a love that goes far beyond what another person has done. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says how we should love our enemies. He also says how we should continue to forgive, even if we are wronged many times.

In the Christian life, we are shown a love that perseveres, a love that does not count wrongs, a love that continues to hope, a love that protects. This is the kind of love that truly loves. It is not self-seeking or easily angered. It loves despite the circumstances. It does not keep people at arm’s length but instead provides care and comfort. It is a love that cares because it is love, not because it has to. We do not love because it is our job or our duty, but purely because we are loved and we have love.

The question is: do we show this to our young people?

Do we keep our young people at arm’s length? Do we provide activities purely to keep them out of mischief? Do we provide Bible studies because “we’re Christians and that’s what we should be doing” or because we actually believe in it? Are we just keeping our youth occupied, or are we really investing in them?

As Christians, more than anyone else, we must understand that young people are the future. They are not just the future of society, but they are the future of the Church: future theologians, future leaders, future social activists.

Do we show this to our young people?

Our youth will know what we think of them and how we view them not by what we say to them, but by how we treat them. Actions truly do speak louder than words. They can tell if a conversation is out of politeness or from a genuine sense of care. They can tell if our leading is out of a sense of duty or because of calling and genuine love.

Love is personal. Jesus got personal with his disciples. He got them in on the activities he did. He shared his life with them and, as he did it, he taught them. Too often in today’s society, we talk of professionalism and how we are to keep a distance between ourselves and the people we deal with. But did Jesus ever do that? Sure, he sometimes went off to get some prayer time to himself, but the people he hung out with, those he discipled, were his friends too.

His love was personal. It still is. If he really is the example we want to follow, maybe we should do the same. Society says to be professional, but we must understand that our society is secular. It deals with people’s issues, but doesn’t provide the love that is so essential for complete healing. But this is where Jesus’ example is so important. Our young people need to know that: they need to understand why what we do as Christians is different to secular work; and we need to show it in our actions.

And that’s why Christian youth work is crucial.