Living in Two Worlds
A Brief Survey of Korean-Australian Youth
I myself can be categorised as a 2nd generation Korean living in Australia. Technically, as I was not born here, I’m not exactly a fully-fledged 2nd generation-er. Yet having arrived with my family as a 5 year old child, and having completed all of my schooling in Australia, I am, for all intents and purposes, a 2nd generation Korean. If you want to be picky, you could say I’m a 1.9 generation!
As one who has been called into pastoral ministry, my long-term commitment is to youth ministry work, both amongst Korean teens and in equipping the up-and-coming generation of youth pastors. As such, the sub-culture of current 2nd generation Korean teens is of great interest to me. What I write here are the impressions I have received and insights gained in speaking with literally hundreds of Korean teenagers in the course of serving in youth ministry over a number of years. As such, the values, outlooks, ideals, and experiences described here are not necessarily the values, outlook, ideals, and experiences of specific individual teenagers, but rather what seems to be typical of the current batch of 2nd generation Korean teenagers as a whole.
While the casual observer may think that not much has changed in the time that I was a teen to the present, this is very far from the truth. While there are some points of similarity, the values, ideals, and dynamics of current 2nd generation Korean teens are, for the most part, vastly different to those I myself held.
Some Things Stay the Same…
One thing that has remained the same, however, is the parental expectation of success. In the long-term, this invariably takes on the shape of a desire to see their child in a highly respected, well-paying career. In the short-term, this expectation is expressed through pressure to excel academically at school. Academic excellence is taken very seriously. If something can be an educational advantage, then most parents seem willing to make the sacrifice in their own lives to provide such an edge for their children. As a result, a high percentage of ethnically Korean students are accepted into selective schools.
Once in the selective school system, however, a radical change seems to come about in the lives of some of these students. With the onset of puberty, many students seem to rebel against their parents by turning their backs on academic excellence. While to say that they have rejected the values of their parents may be a bit extreme, in certain respects, it is an unconscious rejection of the pressure from parents to excel academically that they may have endured for several years. As a result, their grades start to plummet.
The Racial Divide?
At the same time, there is a growing association with students from the same 2nd generation Korean pool. Students, who once happily played and formed close friendships with ethnically non-Korean children, seem to withdraw into an us-against-them, siege mentality driven isolation where they segregate themselves into a Korean, or at best, Asian group. As they do this, they start looking towards what they perceive to be Korean culture in order to form their own identity. Rather than listening to rock and pop music on the radio, they prefer to listen to Korean pop music. Rather than reading local teen magazines, they prefer to buy imported Korean magazines. Rather than following local fashion trends, they follow the fashion trends from Korea. This is, on the one hand, highly irrational, while on the other, somewhat understandable.
It is irrational in the sense that their language of preference still remains English, and their values and outlook, in the initial stages, are similar to any given teenager from any cultural background. Thus, this racial division is their own construct. To add to the irrational nature of this situation, within the framework of their own racial segregation, they make themselves feel as though they are the victims.
However, when viewed within the context of developing adolescents who are, possibly for the first time, noticing very obvious physical differences between themselves and their “Aussie” friends, it can be understandable. Puberty can be a time of great turmoil for teenagers, and many struggle to find their own identity. When one includes the added burden of having to cope within two culturally different worlds, where the ideals and values of parents and family may possibly clash with those society in general seem to be promoting, this irrational behaviour, while inexcusable, can be understood.
When this growing move towards racial segregation occurs in a school due to sufficient numbers of 2nd generation Korean teens attending a given school, another problem arises. Often, the downturn in academic performance is accompanied by behavioural problems at school. Not doing homework, inattention in class, disrupting class, skipping class, “wagging” school, and even forging reports are some of these problems. As such, these groups of Korean students are often identified and targeted by some teachers as being problem-makers. This further fuels the “us-against-them/we’re being racially discriminated against” mentality of the students.
This is the general situation at schools among 2nd generation Korean teens until sometime in year 10. At this point, most seem to knuckle down and start studying hard, or at least much harder than they have done for many years. This is a welcome turn-around, and the often icy relations between teachers and ethnically Korean students thaw, especially in years 11 and 12. As a result, most 2nd generation Korean students perform admirably in the HSC.
New Languages for a New Century
These teenagers are very tech-savvy and readily converse with each other through 21st century forms of communication. In fact, this can almost be seen as a totally new language, as it remains a mystery for many adults. Most students have their own computer with internet access. The vast majority of students also have their own mobile phones. This means that current 2nd generation Korean teens are very easy to contact, be it via email, instant messenger programs, SMS, or mobile phone. Furthermore, it has been my own personal experience that students who are too shy or unwilling to open up in a face-to-face discussion will be more willing to discuss issues in their lives more honestly online. Thus, this “connected” state of many 2nd generation Korean teens can be a productive tool in targeting and ministering to them on an individual basis.
Image Conscious
2nd generation Korean teens are also highly conscious of their image. While this may be true of all teens everywhere, it is more so within the 2nd generation context. Korean culture and society has traditionally placed great importance on outward appearance and presentation. Although I am not certain, I suspect this stems from the value placed on the maintenance of individual and family face. If these were the original reasons, they no longer exist in the minds of Korean teens. However, the residual importance placed on image still remains. These teenagers are often very sensitive to the appearance of their leaders as well. A new shirt, or a haircut often draws a comment from some of the students. Thus, while image is not really the high priority in the context of preaching the Gospel, it is an issue which must be considered when ministering to 2nd generation Korean youth.
Earned, Not Automatic
Respect is another issue amongst Korean teens. In terms of respect, 2nd generation Korean teens usually have to view that respect must be earned. However, for many of their parents, respect to them from their children is considered a given. When the parents are not proficient in English and require the help of the children to translate and interpret for them, the problem can often be magnified. To avoid conflict, an uneasy truce can result, where the students just avoid their parents altogether. As a consequence, these young people are often highly cautious of new people, and may remain closed to the approaches of new leader. It must be remembered that the respect of these students must be earned, not only in the knowledge and understanding of the Gospel that the leader has, but also in terms of truly reflecting and living that Gospel out with their lives.
Rejection of Values
Previously, I mentioned that one possible reason for the general deterioration in academic performance in the initial high school years might have something to do with an unconscious rejection of parental values thrust upon them in earlier years. In a sense, it may be the student baulking at the thought that their parent is planning out “their life”.
This unconscious rejection of values held by their parents, if it is that, may also be related to the hypocrisy, perceived or real, that teens see in their parents. Many teenagers have often approached me with highly critical complaints about their parents’ hypocrisy. One of these relate directly to Christianity. For many immigrant Korean families, Australia may be their first exposure to a Christian church. Adults who have never been interested in attending a church in Korea often start attending once they arrive in Australia for the social interaction with other Koreans and support. As such, they are initially nominal Christians, who turn up to church and take up a space on a pew every Sunday, yet day to day during the week may show no demonstrable signs that they are in fact citizens of God’s Kingdom. For many of the children, they see their parents call themselves Christians, yet reflect none of the values and ideals they are taught in Sunday School. This hypocrisy they see in their parents leads many 2nd generation Korean teens to reject Christianity, not because they have understood the Gospel, yet have rejected it, but more so because they want to reject the hypocrisy they perceive in their parents. The proof is in the high number of 2nd and 1.5 generation Koreans in the 25-40 age group who have drifted away from the church.
Us vs Us?
Another issue facing 2nd generation Korean teens is the increasing number of international students arriving from Korea. While it may seem ridiculous, the very same students who seemingly revel in their Korean-ness are quite hostile to these new Korean teenagers. These new students are referred to by several derogatory names, namely FOB (Fresh Off the Boat), or FFK (Fresh From Korea). Overcoming this divisive stance is quite difficult. However, integrating and including these new students is of vital importance, else the youth group effectively becomes two separate youth groups.
In Summary…
This is the framework in which most of the 2nd generation Korean youths that I have come across in the last few years find themselves. The incidence and severity of rebellion against authority figures, be they parents or school teachers, has gradually declined over the past few years. While these issues were sometimes directly addressed, this turn-around seems to have more to do with the personal commitment to Christ, and the change in their lives such a commitment has brought about.
The struggle and search for identity these Korean teens go through does not have to be a depressing and tumultuous experience. In encouraging them to accept Christ and to be Christians first and foremost before any socio-ethnic group, some of the angst and helplessness in finding their identity can be avoided.
To this end, while academic excellence is important, parents must be encouraged to view their children not in comparison to other children, but as individuals with specific God-given talents. As such, rather than blindly pushing every child to excel academically, then to go on to a high paying job, individual teens should be encouraged to actively seek out and identify their God-given talents and gifts and seek ways in which those abilities can be used to not only enrich their own lives, but to bring glory to God.
Was John Calvin a Dictator?
The mere mention of the name John Calvin stirs up contrasting reactions from different people. To some, he is the hero of the Christian Reformation. In the words of William Cunningham, the man who “next to St Paul, has done the most good to mankind”. In a similar vein, Church historian Philip Schaff asserts that Calvin “must be reckoned as one of the greatest and best men whom God raised up in the history of the Church.”
To others, however, Calvin was a cruel and unopposed dictator who saw Geneva as nothing more than a spiritual laboratory on which he could unleash his theological experiments. The 20th century German-born American psycho-analyst and social philosopher Erich Fromm regards Calvin as belonging “to the ranks of the greatest haters in history”.
Indeed, the tendency of history in general has been to portray Calvin as a “humourless, dogmatic tyrant of Geneva who when he was not teaching a rigid loveless doctrine of predestination, busied himself depriving his flock of all the pleasure of life.” Some, such as Father Andre Favre-Dorsaz have gone so far as to portray Calvin as a cruel, sadistic dictator, a superficial theologian and a believer whose religious feeling was of doubtful character. When Calvin returned to Geneva in 1541, he would never have imagined his efforts in the French city would centuries later be labelled a “religious terror” or a “rigid theocracy.”
But was Geneva really a theocracy, and Calvin its ruthless dictator? This is question which has not so much been asked, but accepted as fact in a very uncritical way throughout the ages. A prime example of this is Aldous Huxley putting forward the old and groundless legend that Calvin’s theocratic rule in Geneva resulted in the public beheading of a child for striking its parents.
However, these assertions have to be weighed against the evidence; the evidence of the man, the city, and the very context of sixteenth century Europe.
Even before Calvin commenced his ministry, the signs were there that his views were anything but dictatorial. Calvin’s first book was a commentary on De Clementia, Seneca’s attempt to persuade the emperor Nero to be more benevolent to his subjects.
His subsequent works display a reinforcing of this view. Based on his study of Scripture, Calvin believed that man was created to be a servant-ruler under God. For Calvin, man could not be properly understood, or understand himself apart from his relationship to his Creator.
Thus, man was commanded to subdue and cultivate creation under the wise and loving direction of the Lord, for God’s glory and the blessing and benefit of his fellow man. “We possess the things which God has committed to our hands, on condition that being content with a frugal and moderate use of them, we should take care of what shall remain. Let him who possesses a field, so partake of its yearly fruits, that he may not suffer the ground to be injured by his negligence; but let him endeavour to hand it down to his posterity as he received it, or even better cultivated.”
Furthermore, service was an integral part of Calvin’s view of man. As he writes, “even kings do not rule justly or lawfully unless they serve.” It is clear that tyranny was neither something Calvin condoned, nor aspired to.
Another issue critics of Calvin raise to support the idea that he was a humourless tyrant is his supposed rejection of joyful living altogether. However, this is far from the case. For instance, while Calvin did reject much ecclesiastical painting and sculpture due to its idolatrous tendencies, Calvin asserted “…yet I am not gripped by the superstition of thinking absolutely no images permissible. But because sculpture and painting are gifts of God, I seek a pure and legitimate use of each, lest those things which the Lord has conferred upon us for His glory and our good be not only polluted by perverse misuse but also turned tour destruction.” Indeed, as Vos states, “…in spite of all the presentations of Calvin as an austere and rigid sort of person, it must be said that Calvin promoted joyful living. Our happiness he claims is in the Lord.” Calvin himself concludes, “…we have never been forbidden to laugh of to be filled…or to delight in musical harmony, or to drink wine.”
In addition, contrary to the portrait painted by his detractors, Calvin was a loving husband. Of a forced separation from his wife due to an outbreak of plague in Strasbourg in 1541, Calvin wrote to his friend and colleague Farel, “…night and day my wife is in my thoughts, deprived of advice since she is not in her husband’s presence.” These are the words of a man of deep feeling, not a stoic.
Concerning friendships, Stauffer observes that no other reformer had the personal attraction that Calvin had.Calvin’s faithfulness and steadiness of character allowed his friendships to be deep and lasting. Even where there were differences, as Calvin had with his lifetime friend Farel who had married a very young woman when 69, he remained gracious. In his last letter to Farel, he demonstrates his love for a friend with whom he had such a strong difference.
Calvin’s attitude in returning to Geneva as a pastor for the second time reveals much of his character. In 1538, Geneva’s Council of Two Hundred had exiled Calvin for not celebrating the Lord’s Supper with those Calvin thought unworthy to partake of the Lord’s Supper. However, a year later, the Council was already missing the presence of Calvin in Geneva. On 21 September, 1540, the Council charged one of their members to find means to bring back Calvin, and on 13 October, they wrote a letter to “Monsieur Calvin that he would assist us.”
These letters and requests served as reminders of the painful struggle Calvin had experienced in Geneva, and he wrote to Farel, “Who will pardon me if I do not willingly throw myself into a whirlpool which I have found so dangerous?” To Calvin, Geneva was a torture chamber. However, his friend Martin Bucer reminded him of the punishment of Jonah for refusing to go to Ninevah, and Calvin reluctantly agreed to return to Geneva. On 13 September, 1541, Calvin arrived at the gates of Geneva and walked down the city’s main street.
His very first sermon picked up exactly where he had left off when he had been forced into exile. He visited the poor and the sick tirelessly. Indeed, he accepted the guardianship of the children of a friend, saying to Beza, “I owe it to the memory of my wonderful friend to love his children as if they were my own.” Calvin wept with the sorrowful, and rejoiced with those who were overjoyed.
On his deathbed, Calvin sought the forgiveness of each person he had offended, and begged God for mercy. Stauffer concludes, “‘Such a wretched sinner!’ Is not this confession the best proof that Calvin was not the inhuman or anti-human person whom some people have believed him to be? After having offered his heart as a burnt sacrifice to the Lord, after having spent body and soul for the triumph of the gospel, far from shitting himself up in a prideful contemplation of his sacrifice or his genius, he felt a solidarity with sinful humanity which can find justification only in Jesus Christ.”
It is clear that Calvin the man was not, indeed, could not have been the cruel and ruthless dictator of Geneva. Furthermore, Geneva was not the theocracy that critics of Calvin force Geneva to be.
Within hours of returning to Geneva, Calvin addressed the Council and demanded the erection of a court of morals, or ecclesiastical discipline. In a letter to Farel, Calvin wrote, “Immediately after I had offered my services to the Senate, I declared that a Church could not hold together unless a settled government should be agreed on, such as is prescribed to us in the Word of God, and such as in use in the ancient Church. I requested that they would appoint certain of their number who might confer with us on the subject. Six were then appointed.”
By 2 January, 1542, the Council of Two Hundred had adopted a slightly refined version of Calvin’s original Ecclesiastical Ordinances. Through his Ordinances, Calvin created four orders, the Pastor, the Doctor, the Presbyter, and the Deacon. These orders formed the Consistory, which was made up of twelve lay leaders selected by the city officials, and a council of nine Pastors designed to oversee church discipline.
According to Calvin, the Consistory was designed solely for the purpose of adhering to religious orthodoxy thereby maintaining the purity of the Church, Calvinism as a whole, and ultimately, the Reformation. The Consistory was to show the transgressor their sin, and then if the warning had not sufficed, to execute purely ecclesiastical judgment. The Consistory would then transfer the case to civil government which would execute judgment in the form of anything ranging from imprisonment to banishment.
For Calvin, there was a rather distinctive separation between church and state. Gordon Keddie writes that “the civil power, while deriving its authority from Christ…is not to be understood as the earthly representative of the eternal kingdom, for that is the prerogative of the Church.”
Calvin himself said, “We may call one the spiritual kingdom, the other the political kingdom. Now these two, as we have distinguished them, are always to be considered separately…for there exist in man, as it were, two world over which different kings and diverse laws have the power to rule.”
Calvin’s belief that the state is the creation of God has been grasped by some as proof that Calvin created a theocracy within Geneva. However, while a cursory glance could suggest that Calvin instituted a system where a government was subject to a religious authority, closer examination shows that Calvin’s concern was not to bring a theocratic rule to Geneva, but to bring Church and State closely together again in mutual interdependence so that the Church had its spiritual independence restored, and civil government was allowed to retain its full power. It was not a “government according to the Word,” a fully fledged theocracy.
In 1553, an event occurred which would blacken the reputation of Calvin forever in the eyes of the world at large. The burning at the stake of the Spaniard Michael Servetus was considered to be “the event which eventually led to the consolidation of Calvin’s power within Geneva on one hand, and his vilification as a bloodthirsty tyrant on the other.” Servetus chose the fundamentals of Christianity, primarily the doctrine of the Trinity to attack. He denied the existence of the Trinity, as well as aligning himself with the Anabaptists by opposing infant baptism. His works offended those of the Reformation and Roman Catholics alike. In 1546, Servetus wrote to Calvin wanting to “initiate [Calvin] into his new system and assign him the post of leader in that great movement by which mankind were to be led into a grander domain of truth.” With such a blatant announcement of a belief system which bordered on pantheism, the only possible reaction on Calvin’s part could have been one of disgust and rejection.
Why Servetus came to Geneva is unclear, though Wolfgang Musculus wrote that he apparently thought Geneva might be favourable to him since there was so much opposition to Calvin. What is certain is that he was already fleeing the Roman Catholic authorities of France after being condemned for his heresy there and escaping from prison in Vienna. He was seen in the streets of Geneva and arrested on August 13, 1553. On August 21, the authorities in Geneva wrote to Vienna seeking further information regarding Servetus. On receiving this request, the authorities in Vienna immediately demanded the extradition of Servetus to face charges there. At this point, Geneva offered Servetus a choice which is often conveniently forgotten: “he could either return to Vienne, or remain at Geneva and face the outcome of Genevan justice.” Significantly, Servetus chose to remain in Geneva.
In the initial stages of Servetus’ trial, he “disowned his books, denied his handwriting…and professed himself a son of his ‘holy mother the Church.’” He was ready to recant until Calvin entered the room. Witnesses claim a sudden change within Servetus at that very moment, calling the Trinity a “three-headed Cerberus, a hellhound.”
It became evident to the authorities that they had two choices. Banish Servetus, or execute him. To guide their decision, the council sent to their sister cities of Berne, Zurich, Schaffhausen and Basle for their counsel. There was a unanimous response from each of the cities. Execute the heretic by burning him alive at the stake. Calvin himself urged the Council to reconsider the method of execution and instead choose the quicker and more merciful beheading as the method of execution. The Council disregarded Calvin’s plea and proceeded with the public burning of Servetus on October 26, 1553. Unfortunately, Geneva did not have a professional executioner, and the burning was completely “a botched attempt” that took a full half hour.
It is strange that this incident should bring such hatred to bear on Calvin. The broad context of the sixteenth century Europe meant that Servetus would have been tried, convicted, and executed for heresy no matter where he was. Indeed, the facts are that mass executions were common place. After the Peasants’ War in Germany, after the siege of Munster, during the ruthless period of Roman Catholic dominance in England, even as late as 1612 the authorities in England burned two men who held views similar to those of Servetus. Between May 1547 and March 1550, thirty nine people were burned at the stake for heresy. Sixteenth century Europe was not a time of great tolerance for heresy.
If the contention is that Calvin was wrong in agreeing with the execution of heretics, then equal indignation should be directed against all other leaders who supported and carried these measures. In sixteenth century Europe, this was a practice condoned by the vast majority, if not the entirety of those in power. Indeed, Thomas Aquinas, the hero of Roman Catholic theology explicitly supported the execution of heretics saying, “if the heretic still remains pertinacious, the Church, despairing of his conversion, provides for the salvation of others by separating him from the Church by the sentence of excommunication and then leaves him to the secular judge to be exterminated from the world by death.”
If Geneva had released Servetus, or even banished him to exile, this would only have been a temporary delay of his inevitable execution. Had Calvin accepted Servetus, this would have spelled the end of the Reformation. Anything less than an execution would have signified Calvin’s acceptance of Servetus’ pantheism. “Belief in the Trinity had been the foundation not only of all the Catholic doctrine, but of Christian civilisation itself. To spread denial of such a doctrine was an act of treason and an attempt to spread anarchy…there was no place in the world of the day either Catholic or Protestant where Servetus would have met with anything but a sentence of death.” The execution had very little to do with Calvin or his implied theocracy. Rather, his execution had more to do with the “verdict of that age on the case of Servetus.”
Furthermore, not only was Servetus “the only individual put to death for his religious opinions in Geneva during Calvin’s lifetime,” Calvin’s role in this entire matter was only that of an expert witness during the trial. The idea that Calvin was “the dictator of Geneva” is one which totally disregards the facts of history. Indeed, Calvin was not even a citizen of Geneva at this point. He was technically a habitant – a resident legal alien who had no right to vote, no right carry weapons, and no right to hold public office. The only place where Calvin could exert significant influence was in the Consistory. However, the Consistory was completely bypassed in this matter by the Council.
Was Calvin really the dictator of a theocracy in Geneva? Despite widespread opinion that this was the case, a scrutiny of the evidence points to the fact that the only reasonable answer to this question is a resounding “No!” John Calvin the man was moderate, gentle, humble. There was nothing in his actions, or his thoughts portrayed in his writings which mark him out as a megalomaniac, enforcing a strict and rigid system onto an unwilling and unsuspecting populace. Furthermore, even if Calvin had wished to attain to the position of absolute power in Geneva, this was realistically impossible. As Calvin was not a citizen, but a legal alien with a very restricted voice in terms of the matter of civil governance, Calvin could only exert influence over the Consistory. And even there, his voice and opinion did not hold absolute authority.
In addition, Geneva was not a theocracy. A theocracy requires rule by clergy, or a representative of God, alone. Geneva was clearly a rule by Church AND State. A clear distinction between Church and State, but also an interdependence. In that respect, Geneva was more a commonwealth, rather than a theocracy. The final aspect which demolishes the view that Calvin was a cruel dictator of a theocracy is the very context of sixteenth century Europe itself. Executions were widespread, not unique to Geneva alone. Indeed, it could very well be argued that within the cultural context of the day, Geneva was an example of moderation, only one heretic being executed in Calvin’s lifetime. Thus, ultimately, Geneva was not a theocracy, and Calvin was not her cruel dictator. Rather, Geneva was a place where Calvin attempted to reconcile the different roles of Church and State within an interdependent, but independent, and ultimately biblical framework.
Thinking Big: Training for the Future Through Transformation in the Present
It’s a common refrain heard in churches throughout the world – the young people are our future. This is undoubtedly true. Long after most of us have gone, our young people will remain to shine God’s light into this dark world. This, however, is an incomplete picture. They are not only the future, our youth are also integral members of the present. They are our future precisely because they are part of our present.
In fact, if our desire is to see our youth be people of influence for the glory of God way into the future, we need to train and equip them to be that now. This is what JAMA as a ministry strives towards as we join with, and serve the Churches. We long and pray for the day when a great revival of God breaks out throughout Sydney, Australia and the whole world. We yearn to see a flood of humanity stream into the churches spread throughout this nation of ours, all bowing down before the One True God in worship. In preparation for that day, our aim is to serve God by serving the churches in training and equipping our young generation to love and honour and serve God with everything they have from this very day.
Looking towards the future and making it a vital part of the present makes perfect sense. In fact, the business world is adopting this very strategy. Within many large-scale multi-national corporations, there is a cultural shift taking place. In days past, the core of the executive talent was concentrated on established businesses and clients that accounted for the profits of the present. Today, they are now re-directed to the risky new efforts that represent the company’s future. The rationale behind this shift is that the growth and future of a company is too important to entrust to novices. The best of the company, the thinking goes, must be invested into the future, not the present, if it is to continue to grow and thrive.
This is the very model, the very mindset that we hold as a ministry. Giving our youth responsibility to be change-makers only once they graduate from their schooling is far too late. This is why the ministry of raising our youth not only for the future, but also for the present is so vital. Our ministry is not just about seeing how many young people are saved. Teaching and bringing them to a saved relationship with Christ is of vital importance. This cannot be diminished in the slightest. But it is important as a first step. This must not be all that we aim for, as biblically, it is not an end, but a beginning; the beginning of an incredible lifelong journey of discipleship. That is why we who are serving in the JAMA ministry endeavour to equip and empower our youth in their growth and development as Christians so that they will be committed followers of Christ not only in the future, but right here in the present.
We have seen first hand the incredible change that has taken place among our youth ever since the first JAMA Jr Retreat 3 years ago. We have had the incredible privilege of playing a part in that change. And this privilege has also been your privilege because you have partnered in this ministry through your prayers. We are raising up a generation of godly men and women who will truly count for God in this world both in the future, precisely because they desire to do that in the present. There can be no doubt that God has incredible and miraculous things in store for our children in the years to come. He truly is up to something big and amazing.
As you read this, please continue to pray that JAMA will be greatly used by God to help serve the churches by equipping and raising up a generation of passionate followers of Christ who make a difference for God in the future because they have made a difference for God now. Above all, pray for the upcoming JAMA Jr retreat, that it will be a place where God comes to meet, transform, bless and lead our youth in all parts of their lives.
크게 생각하기: 오늘 준비하는 내일의 미래
우리는 미래에 관심이 많고, 많은 기대를 갖습니다. 특히 이민사회에 살면서 오늘을 살 수있는 것은 내일이라는 미래를 바라볼 수 있기 때문일 것입니다. 이러한 미래에 관한 이야기를 할 때, 우리의 마음을 설레게 하면서 빠지지 않고 나누는 이야기는 우리의 아이들이 우리의 미래라는 사실입니다. 그 누구도 부인하지 않는 우리의 미래인 아이들……
그러나 우리는 자주 우리의 자녀들이 우리의 미래라는 생각에 갇혀서, 현재에 존재하는 그들의 중요성을 잊고 있는 우리의 모습을 발견하게 됩니다. 큰 그림안에서 우리의 미래로만 존재하는 아이들. 현재의 그들의 중요성을 잊은 채, 큰 기대감과 함께 미래에서만 그들의 영향력과 능력을 온전히 재고 싶어하는 우리들의 모습을 발견하게 됩니다. 그러나 그 미래의 아이들은 오늘 현재에 우리의 아무런 노력과 준비없이 자동적으로 우리가 바라는 그러한 미래의 모습으로 존재 할 수가 없으며, 그들은 단지 우리의 미래일뿐만 아니라 또한 현재에도 없어서는 안되는 교회의 구성원들입니다. 현재 우리와 함께 하는 우리가 지금부터 함께 준비하며 나아가야 하는 우리의 미래인 것입니다.
미래를 바라보고 그것을 만들어 가는 것에 현재가 중요한 역활을 감당한다는 것은 매우 일반적인 생각으로, 사실, 비지니스 세계에서는 이미 이러한 사실을 받아들이고 적용하며, 많은 대규모의 다국적 기업 내부에서 생각의 변화를 창출하고 있습니다. 최근까지 경영의 최고 간부와 능력 사원들은 이미 잘 운영되며 현재에 이익을 내고 있는 사업체에만 집중되어 있었지만, 오늘날 그들은 회사의 미래를 상징할 수 있는 위험하지만 새로운 시도들을 위하여 그러한 인력들을 재구성하며, 그러한 최고 인력을 미래를 준비하는데 사용하며 신참자들에게 현재의 사업에 더욱 적극적으로 참여하여 배울 수 있는 기회를 제공하고 있는 것입니다. 이러한 변화의 근본적인 배경은 계속적인 성장을 위해서는 그 회사의 가장 최고의 자원들로 미래를 위하여 투자해야 한다는 것입니다.
이것이 바로 현재 우리의 사역지에서 적용되여야 하는 그러한 생각의 전형입니다. 이민 1세대와 부모들은 우리 자녀들에 대한 많은 기대와 함께 그들이 세상에 영향력을 끼치는 중요한 인물들로 자라나기를 기도하며 바랍니다. 그러나 만약 진정으로 우리의 자녀들이 미래에 하나님의 영광을 위하여 세상에 영향력을 미치는 그러한 사람들이 되기를 원한다면, 우리는 지금부터 그들을 준비시키며 훈련시켜야 할 필요가 있는 것입니다. 우리의 미래의 아이들은 오늘 현재의 삶 가운데 우리 아이들에게 주어지는 영향력으로 준비되어 지며, 이것이 바로 JAMA 사역이 교회를 섬기며 함께 힘쓰고자 하는 것입니다. 우리는 시드니 땅에, 아니 호주와 전 열방에 하나님의 위대한 부흥의 날이 시작되기를 기도하며 기다리고 있습니다. 우리는 이 땅의 곳곳에서 많은 사람들의 물결이 교회로 나아와 오직 하나님 앞에 예배드리며 그들의 삶을 통하여 온전한 그리스도인으로 살아가는 그러한 모습을 보기를 갈망하고 있습니다. 이러한 날을 준비하기 위하여, 우리는 오늘 이 순간부터 우리 아이들이 그들이 가진 모든 것을 가지고 하나님을 사랑하며 섬기고 헌신하는 그러한 젊은 세대가 될 수 있도록 훈련하고 준비시키는 것을 교회가 할 수 있도록 섬기고자 하는 것입니다.
교회에서 또는 1세대들이 우리 아이들에게 대학생이 되고 어른이 되고 난 후에만 세상에서 영향력을 발휘할 수 있는 그런 아이들이 되는 것처럼 그들을 교육한다면, 그리고 그러한 교육을 미루고 그러한 시기만이 오기를 기다린다면, 그들은 정작 세상에 나아가 그리스도인으로 어떻게 살아야 하는지를 모르는 청년으로 자라나 있을 것입니다. 그들이 진정으로 미래에 그들의 일을 감당하며 그들의 삶을 통하여 영향력을 미칠 수 있도록 청소년 시기부터 아니 더 어린 시기부터 삶 속에서 조그만 것부터 그들이 헌신하고 훈련받고 살아갈 수 있도록 준비시켜야 할 것입니다. 이것이 바로 우리의 자녀들을 오늘 그들의 자리에서 부터 말씀위에 세워주는 것이 미래를 위한 것일 뿐만 아니라 현재를 위해서 꼭 필요한 이유인 것입니다.
우리의 목회는, 교회의 목적은 단순히 얼마나 많은 아이들이 구원받는지를 보기 위한 것이 아닙니다. 구원의 확신을 가지는 것은 매우 중요하며 이것의 중요성을 비하시켜서도 안될 것입니다. 그러나 아이들이 구원의 확신을 받은 것으로 끝나서 그것이 그들의 전체 삶의 목적이 되어서는 안된다는 것입니다. 그것은 그리스도인의 삶의 첫번째 단계이며, 성경적으로 이것은 끝이 아닌 시작으로, 바로 놀라운 제자로서의 삶이 계속적으로 연결되어야 하는 것입니다. 이것이 바로 JAMA사역을 통하여 우리의 자녀들이 미래에서만이 아닌 바로 오늘 현재 그들이 있는 자리에서 그리스도를 따르는 헌신된자로 성장하고 자라날 수 있도록 훈련시키기를 갈망하는 이유입니다.
우리는 3년전에 있었던 처음 JAMA 청소년 집회 후에 각 교회에서 우리 아이들 가운데 일어난 놀라운 변화를 경험했습니다. 우리는 이러한 변화의 일부분을 감당할 수 있는 귀한 특권을 가질 수 있었고, 이러한 특권은 또한 많은 성도들이 기도를 통하여 이 사역에 동참할 수 있는 당신의 특권이기도 합니다. 우리는 우리 아이들이 지금 오늘의 순간부터 하나님과 진정으로 함께 하는 하나님의 거룩한 세대로 일어나 미래에도 그렇게 살아가기를 바라는 것입니다. 이것을 위하여 우리는 청소년 아이들을 위하여 JAMA청소년 집회를 준비하며, 몇 개의 교회가 아닌 시드니의 모든 교회, 특히 우리 아이들에게 그들의 언어로 복음을 전할 수 없는 그러한 교회의 아이들에게 하나님의 음성을 듣고 삶의 목적을 깨닫고, 그 순간부터 미래를 바라보며 하나님과 함께 나아가는 그러한 아이들이 될 수 있도록 준비하고 있는 것입니다. 이것은 단순한 바램이나 소망이 아닌, 또한 하나님께서 우리에게 다음 세대를 향하여 주신 소명이며 사명입니다. 이러한 온전한 준비와 훈련 가운데, 하나님께서는 우리의 아이들에게 놀랍고 기적적인 일을 행하실 것이며, 우리가 바라는 그러한 세상의 영향력 보다 더 확실하고 중요한 일을 감당하고 있는 다음 세대들을 볼 수 있을 것입니다. 하나님께서는 분명 우리 아이들을 향한 진실로 크고 놀라운 일을 계획하고 계십니다.
이 글을 읽는 여러분이 오늘 현재에 하나님을 위하여 변화됨으로 미래에도 하나님을 위하여 세상의 많은 영향력을 가질 열정적인 세대를 일으키고 준비시키는데 교회들이 사용되도록 JAMA가 돕는 일을 잘 감당할 수 있도록 계속적으로 기도해주기를 바라며, 무엇보다도 이제 곧 있을 JAMA청소년 집회를 통하여 하나님께서 우리 아이들을 만나시며, 변화시키고, 축복하시며 그들의 삶의 모든 부분을 이끄시는 그러한 장이 되도록 기도하여 주기를 부탁드립니다.
Authenticity, Not Age - The Key to Pastoral Leadership
On the whole, the issue of age and authority is no longer a major source of conflict or difficulty for the young pastor. While it may still exist, a situation where a younger person is to have authority in relation to older people is no longer a socially sensitive issue. However, within some ethnic congregations, age can be problematic, especially when the relatively new pastor is much younger than the established leadership, or spheres of influence within the congregation. In such situations, pastoral authority which should be rightly his, is not readily acknowledged or given.
In the specific context of first generation, ethnically Korean congregations, there are enormous barriers that must be crossed in order to minister and work effectively with members who are much older than the pastor. These barriers are essentially cultural ones. Traditional Korean society operates on a very hierarchical model where respect must be given to those who are older for no other reason than the fact that they were born earlier than oneself. While this is not necessarily a fault and can have some beneficial aspects, the system is often abused by equating total deference and obedience with respect. As such, many of the older generation expect automatic obedience, irrespective of the merits of their suggestions.
This is clearly an unbiblical attitude. In many ways, it is similar to the situation that faced Timothy in Ephesus. Addressing this situation, Paul writes, “Command and teach these things. Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers and example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.” In addressing this issue, it would be entirely more productive to base solutions on biblical principles rather than synthesising a piece-meal approach based solely on pragmatism. Thus, we can look to these two verses and unpack their content to reveal the principles which should be adopted to overcome this obstacle.
Before addressing the external issues, the pastor must be secure in his role. He should not be intimidated by those who are older, and realise that he must not be despised because he is young. As Paul writes, “Let no one despise you for your youth.” He has been divinely called into ministry and so has pastoral authority that comes from God.
However, this authority is not an absolute and unconditional authority. The pastor must not engage in a power struggle, or attempt to grasp power. The pastor’s authority comes from his validation of scriptural truth, in the first place, by providing authoritative direction and instruction for the church from the Bible. And secondly, by acting and living in such a way as to be an example of a godly life. As Bonhoeffer writes, “[The pastor’s] authority lies in the exercise of his ministry. In the man himself there is nothing to admire.” The implication here is that in faithful teaching and preaching of God’s Word and exemplary Christian living, this will eventually win the respect of those who may have been measuring him by human standards.
The first aspect in gaining the respect and co-operation of church members much older than the pastor is through faithful preaching and teaching of God’s Word. Throughout Scripture, the function of leadership is associated with the authoritative communication of God’s Word. John Stott emphasises this aspect of pastoral authority. “Here, then, is the preacher’s authority. It depends on the closeness of his adherence to the text he is handling, that is, on the accuracy with which he has understood it and on the forcefulness with which it has spoken to his own soul.” In similar manner, Jay Adams defines ruling as “bringing sheep together as a flock, or congregation, teaching and helping them to live, learn, love, and labour together for Jesus Christ…the authoritative instruction in and application of the Word of God to the individual and corporate activities of the sheep.” True authority for the pastor comes not from personal ability or worldly wisdom, but from the faithful teaching of the Word.
The second aspect of gaining the respect of those older than the pastor is through living a life that models Christian discipleship. Thus, the pastor must think and take action with a conscious desire to “make [themselves] a model for [others] to follow.” In 1 Timothy 4:12, five areas are listed. The first two cover speech and conduct of the pastor, while the last three cover the qualities that he must show. These areas are not just for exemplary purposes but the “normative mould.” Timothy can be an example to other believers because he himself is moulded by the Gospel. This kind of pastoral leadership is powerful, but never manipulative. The motivation of the pastor in doing good, exemplary things is not to get others to imitate or respect them. The pastor lives such a life because they are scripturally mandated. And pastors who live such lives are leaders of influence. They gain support and co-operation not because of clever methodologies, but because they evidence spiritual authenticity in day to day life. They not only preach, they also practice. And the practice gives credibility to their message and power to their pastoral leadership.
The goal of the pastor is not to make his congregation realise and understand any failings they may have. Rather, it is to urge and encourage the flock on towards Christian maturity. This idea is implied in Paul’s words to Timothy. While it is wrong for the older members of the church to despise and look down on the young pastor, it is equally wrong to try and confront this head on and combat it. The solution is not to force the pastor’s authority down the throat of unwilling church members. The solution is to guide them towards Christian maturity. The solution is not to insist on personal authority, but to point to Christ. When such a goal is pursued, the natural consequence of mature Christian living is that those in the flock will submit to the authority that God has placed in the pastor’s care. As Bonhoeffer writes, “Genuine authority knows that it is bound in the strictest sense by the saying of Jesus: ‘One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren’ (Matthew 23:8). The Church does not need brilliant personalities but faithful servants of Jesus and the brethren. Not in the former but in the latter is the lack. The Church will place its confidence only in the simple servant of the Word of Jesus Christ because it knows that then it will be guided, not according to human wisdom and human conceit, but by the Word of the Good Shepherd.”
It is without doubt that the pastor, irrespective of his age, should have authority and a leadership role within a congregation. Where he is despised and looked down upon because of his age, the congregation is displaying its lack of Christian maturity and understanding. But at such points, the pastor should never grasp for power and authority. The pastor’s authority comes through the preaching and teaching faithfully from God’s Word, the living of a godly life which is a clear model for discipleship, and guiding and encouraging the members of the congregation, no matter their age, to Christian maturity. Pastors, even those who are young, are meant to influence opinion, induce belief and lead the flock to action. However, this must be sought only within biblical guidelines. While such an approach may often take a long period of time to realise, one must always remember that the church is a theocracy. Christ has appointed pastors to have positions of authority within the church. But they must reside and guide in humility and according to God’s guidelines. To do otherwise would be seeking to gain authority where none is to be found.
