Developing a spiritually thriving child: the role of faithfulness

It's an age-old parenting mystery: how can two siblings raised in the same environment turn out to be so different? Of course, no two environments are truly the same; an oldest child's world is changed once the first little brother or sister comes into the world, and families are ever-adapting with successive babies. But still, you can pour virtually the same inputs into each child, yet they turn out as different products.

The question is: are you ok with that?

It's unnerving to think that you could pour your life and best efforts into your children with no guarantees that things will work out. Everyone takes advice - from books, from their own parents, from friends with same-aged kids, from mentors or speakers or "Nanny 911" - but in the end, not only could your particular expert be wrong, but even barring catastrophe, your kid could turn out very differently than you intended.

The question that faces every parent and youthworker and teacher and mentor at that point is a question of faithfulness: do you have what it takes to continue to do the right thing, even in the face of apparent failure or ineffectiveness?

The better part of this Fall, this space has been devoted a series called "Nine Things Your Child Needs to Spiritually Thrive." These nine assets are based on the work I've done with and observations I've made about kids and adolescents and their parents over 13 years. I believe if parents and churches and other caregivers are deliberate about building these nine factors into a child's life prior to - and continuing through - adolescence, a child will have the foundation they need to thrive spiritually. The "Nine Things" are not "biblical" in the sense that you'll find them systematically presented in the Bible as a template for parenting, nor outlined in 2 Parenting 5:1-10; yet what they accomplish is very biblical. They are means to an end, not an end in themselves. That end is the spiritual transformation - the salvation - of kids.

Too often we get caught up in evaluating kids' performance when we should be focused on our own faithfulness. This can work both ways. A kid fails to measure up ("I don't like your attitude", "You'll never get into college if you keep this up", "Your friends are losers") and we go into corrective management mode, attending to one derailment after another but ignoring the preventive maintenance. Short-term objectives win the day; long-term ones fall off the horizon. Ultimately, what does matter in raising a child? I would suggest that if a problem is unrelated to physical health, spiritual vitality, character development, or emotional maturation, it's minor. Sweat the big stuff, but let go of the little stuff. Or, a kid meets our expectations, but our objectives are misguided ("He's such a nice boy", but he has no character; "She said her memory verse!" but she has no idea what it means; "They got an A!" but their enthusiasm for learning was dulled in the process) and we think we're making progress, but it's just window dressing.

To be faithful is to formulate a plan and stick with it (keeping a promise to oneself). This is not an argument for staying with failed methods and practices, whether in ministry or parenting or education. Of course "training a child up in the way he should go" needs to be rooted firmly in realism, which sometimes necessitates changing strategy and making course corrections. But if anything, I'd say it's the church culture that's been inflexible and completely unwilling to reinvent itself. A statistic that shows 70% of churched youth walking away from the church by their early 20s is simply unacceptable. We are failing to transmit a legacy of faith to our kids. I'm all about reversing that trend, and it doesn't entail trying harder at what hasn't worked. It does involve looking very broadly at the factors that either support or detract from spiritual development and then doggedly pursuing those that give kids advantages. We'd fight for a free country and for the safety of our neighborhoods and to keep drugs away from kids and for adequate funding in our schools, and we're willing to keep the pressure on to achieve freedom, peace, safety, and prosperity. Why wouldn't we fight to establish the best spiritual climate possible too?

Faithfulness puts the onus on us - the adults who shepherd kids - to do the right thing, consistently...and to relax. What did the Apostle Paul say? "I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. Therefore, neither he who plants or he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow." (1 Corinthians 3:6-7) There's great freedom in that, and it's not freedom from responsibility, but freedom that comes from readjusting our focus: we are accountable to God for the way we've raised kids; not to the College Board or to their future employer or their future spouse or their bank. Kids become accountable to those things as we release them to adulthood; but we remain accountable to God, who will judge our faithfulness.

It's for this reason that I started with 9 inputs, rather than focusing on outputs. I realized that individuals live out their spirituality in different ways: one is evangelistic, another is a prayer warrior, another questions everything, another's faith is profoundly simple. If we begin by casting a mold of "what a young Christian looks like" the temptation is simply too great to engineer for that mold, in which case our ministry work is reduced to a series of inducements. But kids aren't parrots or dogs, they're human lives, and they will develop in individual and interesting ways if we continue to nurture them with healthy inputs.

What might we see from a spiritually thriving child? One would hope that they would begin to live worship as a lifestyle - that beyond Sunday singing, the way they speak and interact and their values would reflect the worth of God. We would hope to see a transformed heart for people, evidenced by an improvement in relationships. This is a natural progression from a well-developed Christian worldview: first a person begins to see others the way God sees them, then they proceed to treat others accordingly. We would hope to see the Fruits of the Spirit characterizing their lives (Galatians 5:22-23). We would see their values transformed - again a product of having internalized God's view on people and possessions. We would see them willingly engaged in acts of service, large and small. Their days would be governed by the ways they might be of help to others.

All of this proceeds from their salvation, a once and future encounter with grace, which is not the end destination of our efforts but rather the self-sustaining wellspring of spiritual vitality. In other words, we fortify the inputs that drive our kids toward salvation, and once they have it, salvation overflows into various outworkings - which then turn around and re-fortify the inputs, and the spiritual being grows and strengthens. You cannot jump straight to the outflow and circumvent the heart of it, which is salvation. You could - but all you would succeed in producing is religiosity! For instance, do we want to produce kids who are kind? Well, yes, we do - but we want that kindness to be the fruit of the spirit that's living inside of them, not some behavior we've externally manipulated. Do we want our kids to serve others? Yes - but with the heart of God, not out of guilt or compulsion or pride or because it will improve their college resume. Do we want them to sing worship songs? Well, yes, but at some point we have to concern ourselves with the motivation behind the singing or it's just noise.

The fact is, the world wants for its kids much of what we want - but they come from a totally different motivation. The world treats spirituality like an "add-on"; if it tames people, makes them altruistic and responsible, it must be a good thing. That can't be our position. We have to aim higher for our kids than just mild conduct or A-Z Bible knowledge or participation in social justice movements. Our priority must be the development in each kid we serve of a spiritual life, which is, first and foremost, a life: it grows and stagnates and has an individualized character and needs support and nourishment. The exact form the overflow will take is not for us to determine. We just need to be faithful with the "building into".

Likewise, we need to watch that the inputs themselves don't become idols. If they point away from, and not towards, salvation, they're detracting from, not contributing to, spiritual growth. Thus, we want kids to have Christian friends, but if the character of those relationships isn't edifying, no one benefits. We want kids to learn to pray, but just because someone can voice an eloquent prayer doesn't mean they're being led into deeper communion with God. We want kids to be emotionally healthy, but lacking other spiritual influence, they'll just grow up to be well-adjusted pagans.

Finally, I believe that the inputs drive kids toward one of three "levels", as illustrated in the diagram below. At the first level is exposure - the earliest encounters a kid has with the message and its carrier, which is usually a faith community. The next level in is affiliation and identification - a kid begins to feel like these ideas belong to them, and that they belong with the people who hold them. Many kids get stuck at this level: they're comfortable identifying themselves as Christians and would even say they agree with what's being taught. But they haven't reached the third level, which is where growth begins - the level of repentance and conversion. It's at this stage where a kid actually takes the dive and commits their life. At the second level, it's merely regarded as a good idea. Repentance, though, is more than intellectual assent. It's an act of the will to change and be changed.

May every kid we touch in 2008 be driven toward this conversion, and may we be faithful in the process of building in.

Holiday Bible Guide 2007

Before you buy your kid a Bible this Christmas - or anytime - here's some things you should know:

• There are more and more products coming out for older kids. There have always been Bible storybooks, but between there and teenage study bibles, the pickings were pretty slim. Not anymore. Below are some descriptions and samples of the products that are now out there.
• The best Bible translation is the one they will read. Even books of Bible stories are still ok at this age (and a particularly great example appears below). Students generally read less than they did a generation ago and therefore aren't as good at reading, less attuned to the written word. The Bible isn't boring, but sometimes the way we present it is. So - NIV, NLT, The Message, NCV - as long as your son or daughter can read it without getting bored or frustrated, it's the right translation.
• Many Bibles contain "extras" like reading plans, maps, devotional readings, basic theology, God's plan of salvation. It's important to check for what's included if those are important to you.

For more, see my article from April of this year, "Wanted: The Right Bible for Your Kid".

All of the Bibles and products featured here are available through Calvary Chapel Books and Gifts, located in room 105. Without further ado...

As the back of this New Testament Bible rightly notes, one reason we get bogged down in all-text Bibles is that we can't picture what we're reading. Now you don't have to - they've done it for you. Don't let the pinkish cover throw you - this is for boys and girls, and is new (they previously did a few NT books before releasing this compilation), containing the New Testament, verse by verse, laid out in panel/storyboard form. It is the ICB translation (International Children's Bible) so it's easy to read. I highly recommend this Bible for any kid, but especially those who need visuals for comprehension (which is most of us).



















The Picture Bible is another way to visually experience the Bible. Unlike The Illustrated Bible, it is not a translation. It selects key stories from the Old and New Testaments and presents them, but does not give a verse-by-verse treatment. It does, however, span both Old and New Testaments, whereas The Illustrated Bible is NT only. It's better than a kid's Bible storybook in that the stories are longer, more numerous, and the presentation is in panels.



















This is the Adventure Bible. It's a popular kids' study bible, published by Zondervan, with the full text of the Old and New Testaments, interspersed with lots of graphics, pullouts, and background information. The drawback is that it's an NIV translation, which I've become convinced is simply too difficult for most kids to understand. I know a lot of adults are committed to it because it is the translation of choice in the evangelical church, but what value comes from having kids read words they don't understand?

I'm much more a fan now of simpler translations, like the New Living Translation, the Contemporary English Version, the New Century Version, or the New International Reader's Version - which is actually a translation of a translation: they took the NIV and made it simpler, for people who were learning English or learning to read (3rd grade reading level).

This is a great NiRV Bible:

Not only is it an easy-to-read translation, but it's stocked with lots of simply drawn, but powerfully clear illustrations.

The "Pocket-Size" Bibles don't carry a lot of frills, but kids like them for their style. Here are some that are New Living Translation (a 5th grade reading level):


And some that are NIV:


Some do contain some of the "extras": topical reading lists, key memory verses, the plan of salvation; again, browse before you buy so you'll get what you want.

Last but not least are the Bible "zines", published by Tommy Nelson. Laid out and designed to look like popular magazines, these are a great fit for many kids. Lots of extras in these, as the covers attest to:












This is Magnify, a Bible zine designed just for kids. The one with the yellow cover has Old Testament stories (advantages: keeps it a readable size, no Song of Solomon; disadvantage: since it's selected passages, you're not getting a verse-by-verse treatment), while the other is a complete New Testament. There are lots of word puzzles, quizzes, sidebars, games, and secret words that can only be read with a special pair of red-lens glasses (included). The "kid" feel is unmistakable in these, though, so if your preteen has hit the point where they're sensitive about that, then they're ready for the next step up: Refuel for boys, Blossom for girls.

Again, these are New Testament-only Bibles, but very topical in their approach and a layout designed to grab attention:















Nearly every page has some feature designed to bring the Bible home. All of the "zines" have a very busy feel to them that would drive lots of adults crazy. But, although you may not favor reading that way, your kids very well might, and if it draws them into the Bible, so be it. The other drawback to these is that they're glossy softcovers, so their durability probably isn't great (just like a regular magazine). They might be more appropriate for home reading, with a hard-bound or leather-bound volume to take to church. Note that Refuel and Blossom are designed for middle-school students and older. It's certainly appropriate for any 6th grader; younger than that, some of the features may not be relevant. If you're not sure, have your son or daughter browse both Magnify and Refuel or Blossom and ask them which one they'd be more likely to read.

There's one other "zine" that, although it's not a Bible, I'm showing here because I know it hits home with pre-teen girls. A student I know read hers cover-to-cover.

With devotional features like "10 tips for surviving mean girls", "Quiz: R U a good friend?", "Thanking God for your bod", and "Do you fit in?" Between has keyed in on the central concerns of the 10-to-14-year-old set. There is not yet a companion volume for boys (although considering that boys mature a couple years later than girls, Refuel is probably appropriately targeted as the youngest age boys start to face up to serious life issues).

The Golden Compass: Dangerous or Merely Offensive?

I was 15 when The Last Temptation of Christ came out in theaters. That's the first time I can remember my normally staid Lutheran church getting too excited about anything. Petitions were circulated - I don't remember about what - people expressed the requisite shock and alarm, the film came out - and then it was over.

Next came The Da Vinci Code book and movie which in the end seemed only to solidify the beliefs people already held; skeptics of church authority and the Bible's legitimacy deepened their skepticism, while churchgoers learned a few things they never knew about early church history.

Now comes The Golden Compass. On its face, the threat seems distinct: the books of Philip Pullman, a children's novelist and self-professed atheist who hates Narnia and despises the Church, are being adapted for films. Are we as Christians about to go down the well-traveled road of alarm, or is this like nothing we've seen before? Is this a dangerous movie, or merely offensive?



The release of the first film of the His Dark Materials trilogy has been cloaked in so much intrigue you have to wonder if Pullman and the folks at New Line Cinema aren't reveling in the commotion. The Golden Compass is not a new story, but it's drawing fresh attention with the screen adaptation, which is due out December 7. A crop of rumors has been stirred up and each builds peoples' expectations - and ultimately the film's profit potential. God is killed in the movie/no, God isn't killed until the third book. The movie is critical of religion/no, the anti-religious content has been watered down. The movie reflects poor theology/the bad theology is only encountered once you read the books. The two main characters end up consummating their relationship/they only fall in love but the rest is an open question.

What is this movie actually like? I don't know - I haven't seen it, and I, like you, can only go on the reviews. Here are a couple:

From the Daily Telegraph: The Golden Compass: An epic grandeur that's hard to resist

From Christianity Today: Fear Not the Compass

And for a good review of the trilogy, see An Almost Christian Fantasy by Daniel Moloney

And if you want a good sense of the cyber-wrangling that's surfaced over the books alone: Amazon.com and scroll down the page.

What is the movie about? That's an easier question. A 12-year-old girl goes to the Arctic in search of her kidnapped friend, accompanied by her entourage, which includes an armored bear (it's fantasy), a band of warriors, a balloonist, and a witch. She also holds the golden compass, which is an alethiometer ("truth meter"), from which she gets her sense of direction (get it?). Central to the story is the concept of Dust, a particle naked to the human eye but attracted to adults. Ostensibly, dust is evidence of Original Sin; actually, it "confers consciousness, knowledge and wisdom", and the Church is therefore trying to destroy it.

OK...so should a Christian see this film, or what?

My answer to that relies on a couple of factors that lie outside of the plotline:

1. Pullman's stated intentions. He has stated that he hates the Narnia books, but his hatred seems to stem more from an aversion to the romantic way in which childhood is depicted than antagonism toward the books' spiritual themes (although there is that, too). In Pullman's world, we just keep getting better and better as we age and discover good and make the world a better place. Childhood is just the first phase, but fulfillment is to be found in adulthood.

Another frequently-quoted Pullman line is the "My books are about killing God" reference (original article here). He said that in 2003, in the context of expressing wonder that Harry Potter books were drawing all kinds of criticism from churches, while his novels were flying under the radar.

Frankly, I'm surprised that everyone's ferreted out these old quotes relating to his written works, when the motive for the film adaptation seems pretty obvious: to make lots of money. Pullman is first and foremost a storyteller.

2. The nature of the Pullman's beef with religion. When I finally got around to reading The DaVinci Code in 2005, it was with the goal of equipping myself to be able to address its errors by the time the film came out. What lay in the pages made that a little harder. Yes, there were historical and theological errors aplenty, but they were all entangled in Dan Brown's agenda to blow a hole in the armor of "The Church" - for him, the Catholic Church. Secret societies, the power to excommunicate, Gnostic Christian beliefs...this is not the stuff of the Church I'm a part of. After a while, I didn't feel very compelled to finish my study nor to defend what he was attacking.

I feel the same way about the straw man Pullman has constructed in his books. "As you look back over the history of the Christian church, it's a record of terrible infamy and cruelty and persecution and tyranny," he said in 2002. Though his grandfather was a minister and his early church experience was positive, he was turned off by history: the Inquisition, the English Civil Wars, the Salem Witch Trials, and other instances of religious power being abused. Of course, all of us have to come to terms with what Power has done in the name of Religion, but Pullman views religious corruption as automatic and endemic; the human failure to exercise power responsibly nullifies any truth the belief system may claim.

It gets to the point where you can find yourself agreeing with each of his objections, yet rejecting his verdict - that the Church is a fraud, and God an invention. Pullman sees nothing redeeming in the Church, and why should he? He has no use for God, or the Church; in his mind, God doesn't exist.

3. The amount of religious content in the film. Even its worst critics will allow that the movie goes easy on religion - according to the Telegraph review, "God" and "church" are words not even spoken in the film. The fear is that kids will be hooked on the movie, and then want to read the books - all three of them - and then detect the spiritual argument that lies between the lines and adhere to it. There's a lot of contingencies there, and it's quite possible that many kids - as it happened with one boy I know - would read the trilogy and just consider it a good story.

Why then, it may be asked, Pullman is hell-bent on destroying religious faith, wouldn't he be more blatant and outspoken about it? The question points to something about the faith of atheists vs. the faith of believers - there's a different level of allegiance in play. Most atheists don't lose a lot of sleep over what others believe - as long as they don't have to contend with it (as in politics or public schools). They're committed in their own minds but pretty indifferent toward the spiritual beliefs of others. Contrast this with the evangelical church, which sees itself entrusted with the mission to change every heart and every mind. So when Pullman says he wants to destroy Christianity, that he is the anti-Narnia, etc., he's really reacting against what he sees as a too-thoroughly dominant Christian worldview and his own limited experience with the Christian Church. He's primarily a storyteller, not a preacher, a politician, or even a philosopher. Please, can we not give this guy more credit and ascribe to him more power than he actually merits?

So, let's all take a deep breath. One movie alone is not going to derail a generation. Apart from whether he'll succeed in communicating an a-theistic message with this film (and presumably two more to come), I just can't see giving him my money to get his message out. Movies come and go. Fantasy's not my thing, anyhow. If it's yours, stay home Friday and rent Narnia, or Lord of the Rings. Or, go see The Golden Compass. Just don't be unaware that what lies underneath the storyline is an empty theology and the criticism of a Church that I don't represent and don't feel compelled to defend.