You know how it works with kids. There is always the "in" crowd, that group of "special" kids who are in the inner circle of some undefined category of "cool". The other kids clamor to be in that inner circle, to be part of that special group, to perhaps be associated in some way, to at least not be thrown out. It's not a pretty game. Unfortunately, the same scenario typically plays itself out in church youth groups. There is a nexus of "cool" kids at the center with an entourage of followers. Outside that circle are the "lesser known" in diminishing brilliance until they reach the level of invisible. Just like school. The difference, of course, is that this is church and, well, these things ought not be. But ... they are.
I wish that things were better at church. I wish that parents could teach their kids not to do that. I wish that the kids at church were more inclusive, more caring, more open. But they are kids. Even if parents were paying attention (which, for the most part, they aren't), I'm not entirely sure what could be done about it. Even if the youth leaders were trying to change that (which, for the most part, they aren't), I'm not sure what course of action I would recommend. (You see, for youth leaders in particular, if you have a core group of "in" people that can attract others to them, then you have a built-in "attraction factor" for getting kids in your group, and that's a good thing, right?)
Obviously the primary problem here is human nature. Changing human nature is, by definition, an act of God. I think, though, that the problem is aggravated by the fact that kids don't see much different in adults. There. I said it. You see, go to most any church and you'll see the same dynamic at work. There are groups of adults entertwined. (That's not a misspelled word -- I just made it up. It's a combination of "entertained" and "intertwined".) They know each other, spend time together, chat happily at church and (hopefully) beyond. But they don't normally accept outsiders. That's right, "outsiders". Visit this church (which is likely any church) and it takes time and effort to become an "insider". You need to invest the time and the effort to become part of the "in" crowd because they are not likely going to reach out to you.
This is what I expect from kids. It is, in fact, what I expect from unbelievers. It is the normal human thing. Form groups normally related to whatever they have in common -- skin color, income, neighborhood, etc. It's the normal thing to do. But Christians are supposed to be something different, something new. The basic ethic of Christian living is "love your neighbor". (And Jesus went out of His way to explain that "neighbor" meant "anyone who crosses your path".) It doesn't get any more basic than that. So why is it so rare to find church people who do that? Why is it so easy to go to a church and leave without being noticed? Why is it so hard for believers to break out of the standardized, worldly, "clique" perspective and reach out to those around them? I ask because I don't have all the answers.
3 comments:
The church I went to as a youngster was too small to have cliques in the usual sense. But there were varying levels of popularity, for sure. I can remember being disappointed while at a Friday night youth group that a kid (about 15 years old, as was I) told a dirty joke while some of us were standing outdoors waiting for some activity to start, and it got laughter from a couple of other guys. The kid who told the joke was more popular among them than I was, for sure.
--Lee
Doesn't it defeat the purpose of being anonymous when you put your name at the end? :p
It get the humor, and, indeed, a lot of people comment as "anonymous" to avoid detection (bad thing). There are, however, people who comment as "anonymous" not because they want to avoid detection, but because they don't have an account, an ID, or a URL, so they're left only with the "anonymous" option.
Now, with Lee, I'm not entirely sure how this works because he did indicate that he has a blog, so I don't know why he goes as "anonymous" ... but it's clearly not because he wants anonymity.
Post a Comment