After five years away, I have rejoined a gym. I used to exercise regularly, but busyness and laziness overtook my self-motivation. I went in for my orientation this week, which was part of the start-up package. I came away understanding that exercise is truly a science. Who knew that a computer could calculate my cardio fitness level as I lay flat on my back for three minutes? Moreover, the trainer's advice shed light on the fact that there are many ways to work out, but not all are profitable. And in that, I saw an analogy to training up kids.
Weight lifting used to be all about gaining bulk and strength. Weight trainers were musclemen - wimps need not apply. But as the public turned on to exercise, gyms became "fitness centers" and cardio machines replaced weight benches. Now, most of the public works out to "get in shape". But they aren't all succeeding. Why?
The answer has to do with what the trainer shared with me. A healthy body has a lot to do with body composition. Everyone, regardless of their weight, has a certain amount of lean muscle tissue and a certain amount of fat. The goal of a 30 minutes on the treadmill is not just to burn calories but to burn fat, which in turn is dependent on exercising at a target heart rate. The trainer said he's seen people work out for months and end up with the same body they started with; they lost some sweat, breath, and pounds, but their body makeup remained unchanged. In other words, progress isn't just a matter of losing weight, it's a process of transforming your own makeup - exchanging fat tissue for lean. Working out "wrong" will at worst lead to injury but at best lead to an unchanged body - time and money basically wasted.
Another friend of mine, who is also a personal trainer, says most people aren't interested in doing what it takes to actually be in shape, they just want to look in shape - a flatter stomach, firmer thighs, bigger arms, and so on. He's trying to teach them to work out for fitness and they want to work out for looks. One serves health; the other, vanity.
Here, then, is the question for churches in their work with kids: is the net effect of our programming - our teaching, our events, our modeling - bringing kids into a transformational relationship with their Lord; or, is it a great religious exercise that delivers some fruit and coaxes right answers, but little more? Are we leading them towards being re-made, or are we just extracting sweat and effort?
What is the goal - outward conformity or inner transformation? Are we content just to have kids mouth simple truths, or are we in the much harder business of molding their character?
The latter takes time, and patience with who they are now, not just a fixation on what we wish they were. It also requires the willingness to let them stumble, even fail - because growth, after all, is largely a process of recovering from our missteps. The opposite tack that so many churches have adopted is to manage kids into exhibiting a narrow set of behaviors we've chosen for them, and producing these by coercion or manipulation (prizes, payments, grades). I would question whether this is the proper job of a parent. It certainly is not the job of the church.
But we, the church, are at fault for assuming that role - Sunday School as Charm School - and the expectations that accompany it. A certain look is now expected of us - that at all times and in all things children will be quiet, mannerly "young men and women". We've become valued as a tool of socialization - we raise kids who don't rock the boat - instead of as the incubator of change agents. When was the last time our churches challenged kids to be bold, to be visionary, to assert themselves in righting wrongs, to fight injustice? Instead, we are valued as places of safety, happiness, and conformity. Was this Christ's mandate?
Zach Hunter is a spokesman for The Amazing Change, a movement to abolish slavery worldwide. He wrote a book called "Be the Change" and was instrumental in Amazing Grace Sunday, a day devoted to raising the issue in churches (in conjunction with the release of the movie Amazing Grace earlier this year). Inspired by Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, and William Wilberforce, he speaks to "his generation" - teens and 20-somethings - about ending slavery during their lifetimes. He, by the way, is 15. His "Loose Change to Loosen Chains" project raised more than $8,500 at his Christian school in Virginia. That's when he was 12.
We are able to determine someone's body composition; what would we see if we could tell a child's heart composition? Is there a passion in there for the poor, for outcasts, for sinners, for justice - for anything beyond PlayStation and the next big movie-of-the-summer? Are the kids who graduate our church programs really any different from well-behaved non-Christian kids? If all we turn out are strivers with pleasant manners, how will we convince them (or anyone) down the road that Christ makes any difference in a life at all - or that he is himself worth living for?
Weight lifting used to be all about gaining bulk and strength. Weight trainers were musclemen - wimps need not apply. But as the public turned on to exercise, gyms became "fitness centers" and cardio machines replaced weight benches. Now, most of the public works out to "get in shape". But they aren't all succeeding. Why?
The answer has to do with what the trainer shared with me. A healthy body has a lot to do with body composition. Everyone, regardless of their weight, has a certain amount of lean muscle tissue and a certain amount of fat. The goal of a 30 minutes on the treadmill is not just to burn calories but to burn fat, which in turn is dependent on exercising at a target heart rate. The trainer said he's seen people work out for months and end up with the same body they started with; they lost some sweat, breath, and pounds, but their body makeup remained unchanged. In other words, progress isn't just a matter of losing weight, it's a process of transforming your own makeup - exchanging fat tissue for lean. Working out "wrong" will at worst lead to injury but at best lead to an unchanged body - time and money basically wasted.
Another friend of mine, who is also a personal trainer, says most people aren't interested in doing what it takes to actually be in shape, they just want to look in shape - a flatter stomach, firmer thighs, bigger arms, and so on. He's trying to teach them to work out for fitness and they want to work out for looks. One serves health; the other, vanity.
Here, then, is the question for churches in their work with kids: is the net effect of our programming - our teaching, our events, our modeling - bringing kids into a transformational relationship with their Lord; or, is it a great religious exercise that delivers some fruit and coaxes right answers, but little more? Are we leading them towards being re-made, or are we just extracting sweat and effort?
What is the goal - outward conformity or inner transformation? Are we content just to have kids mouth simple truths, or are we in the much harder business of molding their character?
The latter takes time, and patience with who they are now, not just a fixation on what we wish they were. It also requires the willingness to let them stumble, even fail - because growth, after all, is largely a process of recovering from our missteps. The opposite tack that so many churches have adopted is to manage kids into exhibiting a narrow set of behaviors we've chosen for them, and producing these by coercion or manipulation (prizes, payments, grades). I would question whether this is the proper job of a parent. It certainly is not the job of the church.
But we, the church, are at fault for assuming that role - Sunday School as Charm School - and the expectations that accompany it. A certain look is now expected of us - that at all times and in all things children will be quiet, mannerly "young men and women". We've become valued as a tool of socialization - we raise kids who don't rock the boat - instead of as the incubator of change agents. When was the last time our churches challenged kids to be bold, to be visionary, to assert themselves in righting wrongs, to fight injustice? Instead, we are valued as places of safety, happiness, and conformity. Was this Christ's mandate?
Zach Hunter is a spokesman for The Amazing Change, a movement to abolish slavery worldwide. He wrote a book called "Be the Change" and was instrumental in Amazing Grace Sunday, a day devoted to raising the issue in churches (in conjunction with the release of the movie Amazing Grace earlier this year). Inspired by Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, and William Wilberforce, he speaks to "his generation" - teens and 20-somethings - about ending slavery during their lifetimes. He, by the way, is 15. His "Loose Change to Loosen Chains" project raised more than $8,500 at his Christian school in Virginia. That's when he was 12.
We are able to determine someone's body composition; what would we see if we could tell a child's heart composition? Is there a passion in there for the poor, for outcasts, for sinners, for justice - for anything beyond PlayStation and the next big movie-of-the-summer? Are the kids who graduate our church programs really any different from well-behaved non-Christian kids? If all we turn out are strivers with pleasant manners, how will we convince them (or anyone) down the road that Christ makes any difference in a life at all - or that he is himself worth living for?
