Top 10 Blog Posts of 2013



So 2013 was an amazing year for our ministry.  Some of the highlights we increased speaking and writing opportunities, new partnerships and more importantly, new friends.  Below are the TOP 10 blog posts of 2013.  Thanks so much for support CotF.  We believe in the work we are called to do and hope to continue that work into the new year.

 1.   Engaging Resistant Students in Youth Ministry

 2.   The Importance if the Imago Dei in Youth Ministry

 3.   Sex: A Little Porn Never Hurt Anyone

 4.   Sex: Porn Zombies

 5.   Sex: There’s An App For That

 6.   Youth Ministry and the Glee Effect

 7.   Moral Disengagement: Bombers, School Shooters, and Bullies

 8.   Incarnational Ministry to LGBTQ Students

 9.   Credibility in Youth Ministry

 10. Trauma Stewardship in Youth Ministry

 Honorable Mention:   The Power of Permission in Youth Ministry

 I’ve also been given the honor of blogging on one of the most popular youth ministry blogs on the topic of Soul Care.  This is a recent partnership with Group Publishing (SYMC and KidMin) and part of my new job is to coordinate their ministry to pastors/workers called The Shelter.  I’ll be blogging over there periodically and there are some other really great bloggers there so give it a look.

Moral Disengagement: Bombers, School Shootings, and Bullying

google_moralityThis post will be pretty clinical in nature but I think it is important to understand just what goes through the mind of an individual that detonates a bomb at the finish line of a marathon, or enters an elementary school and unloads on unsuspecting children, or the bully that relentlessly victimized that Aspie at school, or that spouse that steps out on his partner, or any number of us who have compromised our convictions, great or small.

Albert Bandura (born December 4, 1925, in Mundare, Alberta, Canada) is a psychologist who is the David Starr Jordan Professor Emeritus of Social Science in Psychology at Stanford University. For almost six decades, he has been responsible for contributions to many fields of psychology, including social cognitive theory, therapy and personality psychology, and was also influential in the transition between behaviorism and cognitive psychology.  He developed the Moral Disengagement theory in which he describes eight different mechanisms by which people disengage from moral self-control.

Reprehensible Behaviors

One important factor in engaging pro-social thinking/behaviors is the need for activation.  Moral self-control does not come into play if it is not triggered by empathy.  If moral self-control is only partially triggered or fails to activate completely, the individual will become disengaged humane conduct and anti-social behavior can be shown without the negative consequences of one’s self.

  •  Moral Justification:  this is an attempt to describe how the behavior serves a moral right, acceptable or even desirable outcome or purpose.
  •  Soft Labeling:  The label given to certain behaviors that attempts to “clean up” the negative or harmful actions, making them smoother and more acceptable.
  •  Advantageous Comparison:  This is the tendency to contrast negative or harmful behaviors against perceived greater wrongdoings.

Detrimental Effects

A necessity for moral control is the acknowledgement of one’s own wrongdoing.  If, however, the responsibility for the harm one causes is obscured, the possibility of acknowledgement of responsibility and self-control is lessened drastically.

  •  Displacement of Responsibility:  This works by distorting the relationship between actions and the effects they cause. People behave in ways they would normally oppose if a legitimate authority accepts responsibility for the consequences of that behavior.
  •  Diffusion of Responsibility:  This is when the services of many people, where each performs a task that seems harmless in itself, can enable people to behave inhumanely collectively, because no single person feels responsible.

For moral self-control to exist, not only the behavior itself and responsibility for the behavior have to be accepted, but also the (negative) effects of the anti-social behavior have to acknowledge. 

  •  Minimizing, Ignoring, or Distort the Consequences:  The farther removed individuals are from the destructive consequences, the weaker the restraining power of guilt is regarding the effects of the behavior.

View of the Victim

The degree to which moral self-control takes place depends on the way the individual perpetrators view the people they mistreat.

  •  Dehumanizing:  These means the loss of all human features, i.e., feelings, hopes, wishes, concerns, and therefore are viewed as an inhumane “object”.
  •  Attribution of Blame:  Similar to the mechanisms of displacement and diffusion of responsibility, the consequences of a person’s wrongdoings can only be dealt with if the person accepts responsibility for his or her engagement in anti-social behavior.  Often the victim or external source is blamed as the cause of the destructive behavior, therefore the behavior is seem only as a reaction to provocation through other circumstances, leading to feelings of justification or self-righteousness.

We are all capable of these kind of justification regardless of the offense.  Whether you are lying to your boss to get off work early or are manipulating a loved one to get what you want.  These mechanisms are in play. 

Pay attention this week to your own thoughts and behaviors as well as those of your students to see if you can identify moral disengagement.  If you can, then maybe we’re all in need of some supernatural interventions.

Privilege And Oppression In The American Church

There’s no denying that there are a handful of Evangelical churches that largely shape and control the American Christian culture.  You can probably think of a handful of them right off the top of your head.  Those churches have contributed much to the Kingdom and this post is not an attempt to argue whether their success is God-driven or marketing-driven.  Regardless, many necessary issues/concerns have been addressed by churches like this and they honored and glorified God in the process.

The focus of this post is the danger of having too much dominance over a culture and how the systems that govern many of these churches may be contributing to a larger problem that will impact our faith for a long time to come.

When any group rises to the top it is often accompanied by a sense of privilege.  It’s the “Good Ol’ Boys Club” mentality.  And, it often happens without its members even knowing it.  As a result of one group believing it is privileged another group consequentially is oppressed by the very nature of this belief system.  I have and you do not.

In other words, if dominant groups, in this case, larger affluent churches, really saw privilege and oppression as unacceptable – if white people saw race as their issues, if men saw gender as a men’s issue, if heterosexuals saw heterosexism as their problem – privilege and oppression wouldn’t have much of a place in the future of the church.  But that isn’t what’s happening.  Dominant groups don’t often engage these issues, and when they do, it’s not for very long or with much effect, and rarely do they address the systemic causes.

When asked “Why not?” certain responses pour out without hesitation.  These dominant church don’t see privilege as a problem.

  • Because they don’t know it exists in the first place.  They’re oblivious to it.  The reality of privilege doesn’t occur to them because they don’t go out of their way to see it or ask about it and because no one dares bring it up for fear of making things worse.  They also have no understanding of how their privilege actually oppresses others.
  • Because they don’t have to.  If you point it out to them, they may acknowledge that the trouble exists.  Otherwise, they don’t pay attention, because privilege insulates them from its consequences.  There is nothing to compel their attention except, perhaps, when a school shooting or sexual harassment lawsuit or a race riot or celebrity murder trial disrupts the natural flow of things.
  • Because they think it’s just a personal problem.  They think individuals usually get what they deserve, which makes the trouble just a sum of individual troubles.  This means that if whites or males get more than others, it’s because they have it coming – they work harder, they’re smarter, more capable.  If other people get less, it’s up to them to do something about it.
  • Because they want to protect their privilege.  On some level, they know they benefit from the status quo and they don’t want to change.  Many feel a sense of entitlement, that they deserve everything they have, including whatever advantages they have over others. 
  • Because their prejudiced – racist, sexist, heterosexist, classist.  They’re consciously hostile towards blacks, women, lesbians, gay men, the poor.  They believe in the superiority of their group, and the belief is like a high, thick wall. 
  • Because they’re afraid.  They may be sympathetic to doing something about the trouble, but they’re afraid of being blamed for it if they acknowledge that it exists.  They’re afraid of being saddled with guilt just for being white or male or middle-class, attacked and no place to hide.  They’re even more afraid that members of their own group – other whites, other heterosexuals, other men – will reject them if they break ranks and call attention to issues of privilege, making people feel uncomfortable or threatened.

Although doing the right thing can be morally compelling, it usually rests on a sense of obligation to principle more that to people, which can lead to disconnection (injustice) rather than to restorative justice (reconnection).  I take care of my children, for example, not because it’s the right thing to do and the neighbors would disapprove if I didn’t, but because I feel a sense of connection to them that carries with it an automatic sense of responsibility for their welfare.  The less connected to them I feel, the less responsible I’ll feel.  It isn’t that I owe them something as a debtor owes a creditor; it’s rather that my life is bound up in their lives and their in mine, which means that what happens to them in a sense also happens to me.  I don’t experience them as “others” whom I decide to help because it’s the right thing to do and I’m feeling charitable at the moment.  The family is something larger than myself that I participate in, and I can’t be a part of that without paying attention to what goes on in it.

Maybe that’s where we start…paying attention to all the members of the family.  No just the few in my club that look like me.  But, it can’t end there, as it usually does.  We must share resources, breach cross-cultural barriers, take risk, and sacrifice if the church is to ever be what God intended for it to be.

Where do you see privilege in your community?  Where do you see oppression?  What conversations do we need to start?  How are our youth being shaped by privilege and oppression?


excerpts taken from:

Privilege, Power, and Difference by Allan G. Johnson

French Gay Friendly McDonald’s Commercial Causing Quite A Stir

There’s a new viral ad for McDonald’s in France that’s causing quite a stir.  What are you’re thoughts on the video?  What do you like about the ad?  What do you dislike about the ad?  How can this stimulate healthy discussion about the issue of LGBTQ teens?

UYWI West Coast Conference

We have the awesome privilege of spending next week with urban youth workers from all over the country.  This is a unique and amazing tribe of people.  If you work with urban youth I’d like to invite you to join us for a week of training, rest, and fun. 

We’re leading two workshops at the conference this year on developing healing communities and current behavioral trends for at-risk youth.

Other presenters this year are: