Faith Like a Child - Part 3

What role do children play in overcoming evil? That question may seem strange, even a little uncomfortable. I think we too often view children as "cute and sweet" at the expense of some significant scriptural teachings about their power and potential. These are really just "out loud" thoughts; I don’t intend to be dogmatic about these points. Still, it is worth pondering.

Let's consider the 8th Psalm, a psalm of David. This psalm opens and closes with the declaration, "O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!" We can easily get that this is a psalm about the majesty of the Lord, but focusing in on verse 2, it reads:  "From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise...". This is usually the only part of the sentence that you hear recited, and if left there, again we reach that "cute and sweet" reaction most of us have to God and children. However, the verse does not stop there in reality. It actually continues:  "...because of your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger." Whoa! Would it be an overstatement to say that God has ordained praise from babies not just to be cute and give us a warm fuzzy, but as an act of war? An aggressive battle move? A strategy to overcome those that would come against his holiness?

I don't want to exaggerate the claims here, but I do want to pause and reflect on what could be something very powerful in the spiritual realm. Maybe, we human adults, don't understand the praises that an infant can make and express, but perhaps the enemies of God understand it full well. I can't be sure, but I wonder.

After looking up the Hebrew behind some of these words that have been translated into English in this verse, my paraphrase would read something like this:  The God that is full of majesty and glory in all the earth and the heavens finds it fitting to have children and infants praise him to shut up his enemies, to put out of commission those that would try to take him on.

 

Faith Like a Child - Part 2

As a teacher, parent, former youth pastor, and teen/family counselor, I have often been asked the when question regarding teaching something to children. Examples: When should we talk about sex? When should I tell them about Santa Claus? When will they understand this or that about God? When should I teach them about faith, serving others, the Holy Spirit, etc.? (We have many of the same discussions in the education realm - When are they ready to write in cursive? Or, should we at all? When should we introduce fractions?)

There is a lot about the brain and human development that factors in here, and while that is very important, we can't all be neurologists or developmental psychologists. Besides, even within those fields among the experts, there is so much debate and disagreement. So, I have only one suggestion here - a "rule of thumb" if you will - to help us. The idea actually comes from the teachings of Scripture thousands of years ago.

In the Old Testament, we come across a phrase more than once that reads like this:  "And when your children ask you...then tell them...". Someone asked me recently when teaching takes place with children in the organic church life. My answer - "When you breathe." The spiritual formation and overall education of our children is a constant, daily activity. Don't be fooled into thinking that learning takes place "at school" or that worship takes place "at church." That mindset will rob you of the rich experience of discipling your children, and frankly, has probably done more damage than good in the name of religion.

Instead, we can be looking and listening for the teachable moments, what Dr. James Dobson referred to as "incidental learning," the type of learning that takes place in the midst of everyday life. Of course, this means we have to be present with our children, not just physically but also emotionally and mentally. (This is an area I have to constantly work on.) 

In sum, a good guiding point as to when children are ready to learn about something is whenever they ask about it. And the assumption in the Old Testament seems to be that if you're really living faithfully for God, then that alone will prompt them to ask questions. There is no need to wait for them to be put in artificial settings (classrooms, Sunday School, youth groups, etc. - although these can sometimes help) for them to receive instruction. And the icing on the cake is that while we are looking for these ongoing opportunities to pass on truth, faith and love to the next generation, we just might learn something from them, as well.

Faith Like a Child - Part 1

Our local school district hosts an annual conference for educators. A few years ago the guest keynote speaker was Ian Jukes.  One of his main points was the FACT that kids today are very different.  Now that, in and of itself, might not shock anyone.  We all observe how they are different culturally, socially, etc., BUT he points out (along with many others) that it goes much, much farther and deeper than that.  His conclusion may be a difficult pill for some adults to swallow.

His contention is that kids today are also neurologically, biologically different!  That's right!  They have different brains from even their parents' generation.  It is a long, in-depth discussion about brain chemistry and media stimulation and technology. I can't explain it all, but it raises questions about the importance of striving to understand children. It is not about only what we can teach them, but also genuinely caring about what we might learn from them.

One of my convictions is to see a vibrant faith passed on to the next generation.  The foundational belief within this conviction is that children should be an active part of expressing ekklesia.  In other words, children not only belong to the church as members of the body, but children are also ministers in a very real way.  They are an important realization of our "called out" identity as the ekklesia of God.

We are not only the family of God for the benefit of children, but also because of the children.  We are something less without them.  We become something different, something not quite of holy design.  I believe we need to take the Bible more seriously here.  We quote lots of Bible verses about children as though they are cute and sweet, but I'm starting to think we dismiss much of the penetrating spiritual truth behind them.

Speaking of Jesus (Book Review)

"Jesus is the point of the Bible. It all points to him. I don't have to be the Bible's defense attorney. All I have to do is speak of Jesus and He will draw people to himself."

This is a quote from Speaking of Jesus (David Cook, 2011), written by Carl Medearis. This book is excellent! The particular idea above is just an example of the terrific messages found in this book.

Perhaps the greatest part of the book is the chapter about speaking "Christianese." Medearis brilliantly examines our use of certain words. First, he mentions Christian, which only appears three times in the New Testament. The term, he argues, has become so loaded that it means all kinds of things to all kinds of people. In some parts of the world, it has political meaning. In some places, the label identifies a person as someone that "kills Muslims" while in other places it is equated only with Roman Catholicism. There are countless interpretations and assumptions connected to the word Christian, so many so that Medearis simply suggests replacing it with the phrase "follower of Jesus." This is solid advice as it cuts through the clutter to focus on the main thing.

Next, the author takes on the word church, a personal favoite of mine. The Greek word ekklesia often gets translated as "church" in English, but it actually comes from a German word kirke. This is important because church has come to be associated with a building (i.e. "go to church", "be at the church at 9:00", "the church is the house of worship"), which it virtually never meant in the Bible. Originally, the church (ekklesia) simply meant the "called out ones." Essentially, the church is an organism, not an organization. Rather than a place to go, it is more accurately an identity to be expressed. The mis-use of this word is the cause of great confusion today!

Another word is Bible, which interestingly enough, the Bible never calls itself! Then, Medearis addresses the problems with the word evangelism. Here is some of what he says:

 

"I think part of the reason [that so many Christians are weak in their faith] is

that we tend to promote the evangelism method of spreading Christianity

rather than the discipleship model of Jesus. We get people 'in' and then try

to go out and get others. After a while, everybody's 'in' and nobody has any

idea how to mature in their faith...Making disciples, as opposed to evangelism,

is a journey of relationship that encompasses support, trial and error, and difficulty."

Finally, there is missionary, another word never found in the Bible . This word is like the others in that it carries with it baggage filled with all sorts of preconceived ideas. The point with this whole discussion is that we need to be careful with our vocabulary. As a colleague of mine often says, "Words matter!" Our language is important because we are constantly expressing something, and it may not be what we intend.

It might be wise to ask people to define the terms they use and ask, "What do you mean by that word?" Then, maybe some genuine, fruitful discussion can occur.

A Friendly Dialogue (Book Review)

What do atheists and Christians have in common?

I recently finished reading a book (Zondervan, 2006) that recorded a multiple-day conversation over numerous topics between Luis Palau, a Christian evangelist, and Zhao Qizheng, a Chinese atheist. I was struck by three points.

First, Zhao states, "I read the Bible, but I am not a believer. Why? Because I cannot understand God" (p. 17). This sentiment echoes a common atheistic argument I have heard before. Basically, if God cannot be understood on their terms, then He must not exist. This seems like strange logic to me. I would think it would be just the opposite - that if God could be completely understood by the human mind, then that would be the evidence that He is not real. Am I alone in that thought?

Second, another objection to theism, in general, and Christianity, in particular, is that there are many religious people who do bad things. A few summers ago, I read works by well known atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Some form of this claim showed up often in their writings, too. It goes like this: if followers of a deity do bad things (i.e. Crusades, wars, etc.), then that means the deity can't be real. Again, I just don't get the logic. The truth is that these tragic historical events carried out in the name of religion are undeniable, and they are further evidence that professing disciples of Christ can fall very short of God's perfect standard. Sometimes, people get so mixed up in their belief systems that their actions don't resemble Jesus at all. A bad job of following does not equal proof that no one is leading. Palau's response seems appropriate: "Religion causes troubles sometimes, but Jesus? No" (p. 120).

Third, what Palau and Qizheng demonstrate is that it is very possible, and even not that difficult, to have a courteous dialogue despite having opposing views. Both men were highly respectful and complimentary toward each other. They were genuinely appreciative of one another's background, insight, and contributions to society. Hopefully, we can follow their example.