This is website about how the gospel affects youth ministry. You can read about its full reason to exist. If you're trying to find something in particular or just want to read more content then you can look in the archives. It's written by Mark Walley, contact him.
At some point in the early stages of your career as a youth worker or volunteer you will be faced with the question. And it is important in your fledging youth involvement that you get this question right. This is not one of those things to pussyfoot around, or one of those things where you say something like "it's both yes and no". Get this right now, or deal with the consequences forever. When a young person asks you "can I shoot backwards?" the answer is emphatically yes. These things are not down to house rules, or personal preference, or what would give you the advantage on the day, these things are down to the official rules of pool. These rules are not obscure, hard to learn, or hard to find; they are straight forward and available on the internet. Because, despite all this, youth workers still refuse to teach such things here is a summary of all the points you get wrong.
You can shoot backwards after someone pots the white.
Here is how it works when you play from behind the Baulk Line1, you place the white ball behind the Baulk Line and you take your shot. That's it. Because there are people like you who struggle with this though, the nice people at the World Eight-ball Pool Federation, added a line into their rules to specifically state that the cue ball made be played in any direction. This is what the rules say: The Cue Ball may be played in any direction. See? I mean, if you want to complicate it and make things more confusing for people you can make up crazy rules about not shooting in one particular direction... oh no wait you can't, because that would be making up rules.
You get two shots on the black.
If a standard foul is committed, the referee awards two visits to the opponent. There are no exceptions to this if you're on the black, of if you're both on the black, or if you're an idiot. You probably don't have a referee to award you two visits because you've probably never met a pool referee, you might try and use this as an excuse for not knowing the rules. Don't.
You get two shots on an open table.
Sometimes people like to claim that if colours haven't been decided, no-one gets two shots from a foul. Or they say that if you haven't potted you can't get two shots from a foul. I say if a standard foul is committed, the referee awards two visits to the opponent. That's the same rule you've got wrong twice now. Sort it out.
That shot you just did there where you got all happy because you rolled the white incredibly slowly behind another ball to snooker your opponent? That's called a foul shot.
Every time you play a shot, at least one ball has to be pocketed or bounce off a cushion. Those are the rules. With the above example it's actually a step further, it's a foul snooker, but that's complicated and we'll get onto that when we talk about free balls later on. What's not complicated is the rule about getting one of your balls to hit the edge of the table.
Jump shots are fouls.
Really? Yes. Really. For simplicity it's only considered a jump shot if it actually jumps a ball it would otherwise hit, but that's the rule. If the rules say they are illegal, then they're illegal. Stop making your own rules up. Aside: I think some of the pool rules exist to protect the table, especially as the table is normally in a pub and needs looking after. Extra evidence for this is found by noting that there is a whole sub-section of rules devoted to not smoking or drinking near or over the table. For example, causing a beverage container or beverage to touch the table or enter the space directly above the table is a standard foul.
You can't just magically choose colours when you want to.
Before any ball is potted the table is called open. You could be either colour, will you be reds or will you be yellows? It's one of the many questions that makes pool so interesting. Once the first shot is played (called "the break" even by people who get the rules as badly wrong as you do) if a ball is potted the player can then say that are going to be that colour. That's the colours decision made. If you pot both colours from the break, you can pick which colour you want to be by telling your opponent. That's the colours decision made. So far, so easy right? If you don't pot anything, your opponent gets a go and he has to try and pot a ball. In which case he is on that colour. If he happens to pot two balls, he has to tell his opponent. The only slight hiccup to this rule is if you break and pot only the colour you don't want. You can then choose to be the other colour but only if you pot it on your next shot. Otherwise the table is still open.
There is no such thing as a free ball.
Alright, this one is confusing, so I'll let you off on not knowing this until now. Until now. Classically, if someone has committed a foul, there opponent has said "free ball" and then hit a ball they normally weren't allowed to hit as if it was their own. I say classically, what I mean is ignorantly, stupidly, and wrongly. There is no such thing as a free ball in that sense. That said, if you are placed in a snooker as a result of an opponents foul you can either take the white and play it from the Baulk or you can nominate one of his balls or the black to be-for this turn only-one of your balls. You can play that ball like it's your ball, although if you pot the black before you're meant to, you still lose the game. To clarify then, it's not wrong to snooker someone, it's wrong to snooker someone by fouling the ball to get into that snooker and at that point special rules apply. It's also wrong that up until now you've been making up these rules as they go along.
You don't have to call the pocket you're potting into on the black or double the ball on the black.
I mean, this is obviously wrong. You at least don't do this one right?
Next week: I make you feel bad for letting your young people lean on the table during table tennis.
1 That area that you call "behind the white line"? It's got a name, it's called the Baulk. The line is called the Baulk line. How painful was that to learn? See, this is easy. Stop complaining.
I could read Dale Ralph Davis on the Old Testament all day long. Here's a worthwhile interview with him about that subject, useful as you plan your weekend away on the book of Judges. (Seriously, my favourite weekend away talk series ever that I've done was the one on Judges.)
Become a member of the Archbishop's Council! It's entirely voluntary, around three days a month, and they're after someone from a youth work background. It's probably exactly as fun as it sounds, and for some people that's a worrying amount of fun.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York wish to appoint an individual who will be part of the leadership of the Church at national level. As one of its 19 members (6 of whom are appointed), you will help develop the Council's strategic direction and goals and promote its policies...
The Archbishops are especially keen to appoint someone who is closely involved with youth work or work with children and able to take a broad overview of the Council's range of activities. You will have a lively Christian faith, be expected to contribute to the mission and ministry of the Church and be able to commit at least three days per month. The post is unpaid, but expenses associated with attending meetings will be reimbursed.
As you've probably heard, the Gift Aid system is being reformed slightly to "bring [it] into the 21st century". It benefits charities, especially smaller ones. That's almost certainly you or your church. The Guardian has the details.
Getting Your Kids Through Church is a new resource / event / movement / any of the above from Care For The Family aimed at helping parents, pastors, and youth workers bring young people through church without them hating God. It's in its early stages so not much more information about it exists than that, and so normally I wouldn't blog about it at this stage, but for the title.
Is getting kids through church without them hating God what we're aiming for now? Really? Is that the best we can do? I'm sure the intention there is good, and they'll be useful stuff to come out of it I'm sure. But are we going to settle for teenagers finally leaving home and being relieved that they don't hate God? And are we going to settle for a church that has to be coped with and gotten through? And yes, I realise their are churches that are terrible, and there are times when parents despair as to how they can get their children to church without them bursting into floods of tears, but the response to that is not to develop a decent coping strategy. How about, we aim for churches which live and teach out the gospel, and so through the Holy Spirit show such love for each other that the young people grow up delighting in God and rejoicing in all that He has given them in Christ. Instead of praying that our children wouldn't hate God, we could pray that God's chosen people with God's Spirit upon them help raise their children to love their heavenly Father.
The Youthwork Summit kicks into high gear with the launch of the new website for 2011. Horizontal scrolling! Exclusive T-shirts! Ignatian retreats! Anyone would think it was a San Francisco start-up not a Manchester based youthwork event. New this year is the aforementioned Ignatian quiet day the day before (what an Ignatian quiet day is is covered on the website), some re-jigging of the day stuff, and obviously the venue's not right next to my flat any more. Booking's open now.
Can you do anything to save yourself? Or put more technically, can you do anything to make atonement between you and God? Can you bring yourself closer to him through your works?
"The LORD said to Moses, 'The tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement. Hold a sacred assembly and deny yourselves, and present a food offering to the LORD. Do not do any work on that day, because it is the Day of Atonement, when atonement is made for you before the LORD your God.' (Leviticus 23:26-28)
But surely you should do something to contribute to being made right with God?
Those who do not deny themselves on that day must be cut off from their people. I will destroy from among their people anyone who does any work on that day. (v. 29, 30)
So what, we should do nothing at all and atonement shall be made for us?
You shall do no work at all. This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live. It is a day of sabbath rest for you, and you must deny yourselves. From the evening of the ninth day of the month until the following evening you are to observe your sabbath. (v. 31-32)
I will confess, I've probably used this clip at some point during a youth event. Or at least if I haven't I've approved as someone else has. Seize the day young people! It's beautiful, or something like that. It's also a lie.
That first stanza that is read out:
GATHER ye rosebuds while ye may,
Old Time is still a-flying:
And this same flower that smiles to-day
To-morrow will be dying.
What is Robin Williams' character's point about this poem? Seize the day! Make every moment count. Because you're going to die. You're going to buy it, so you want to make your lives extraordinary. That bit isn't true. The Bible gives us the baffling book of Ecclesiastes just to make that point. If this life is all there is, if there is nothing else under the sun, then there's no satisfaction, no fulfilment, and no real sense of achievement. It's all dust and vapour and chasing after the wind. Seize the day? Screw the day! Do whatever you want with it. Seize it if you want. Waste it on the couch with Pro Evolution Soccer if you prefer. If you are nothing but worm food and tomorrow you might be dead, why do anything? It's not like they'll be meaning in it anyway, no-one will remember you in five hundred years anyway.
If there is a resurrection of the dead though. If Christ has died and risen again. If the Gospel has power to save people and to give lives meaning and given us power to seize the day. Well. That's something different altogether. That's a motivation to live for. That's a reason to not sit on the couch. There's power to live extraordinary lives.
For a while now there's been consensus that there is a correlation between cannabis use and psychosis; those people who have smoked cannabis were also statistically more at risk of psychosis. Whether cannabis caused the psychosis, or whether it was just that people at risk of psychosis were more likely to use cannabis, no-one really knew. And so this study is interesting because it suggests strongly that it's more than a link, that cannabis may well cause psychosis. Now, it is one study and it is early days, and I'm not medical or statistical enough to tell you how rigorous that study is, but it is interesting. It's also the first of a few studies into it. So maybe in the next few years we'll know for certain.