Recommended Reading

I'm reading a tremendous book by Erwin McManus, The Unstoppable Force. Here is an intriguing excerpt on one of the crises in the American church:

Is it really about us being fed (church members)? I think it might be important to remember that over 60 percent (and climbing) of Americans are overweight or even obese. Is it possible that this is also true in the arena of personal spirituality? Are we too much about us getting fed and too little about us exercising our faith?

Too many of our statements about the crisis in the American church center on the superficial arena of style and neglect to go to the core issue of self. At the core of so much of the resistance the church is experiencing is the preservation of selfishness and self-centeredness. It is one thing to have a preference, it is another to demand that one's preferences be honored above the needs of those without Christ.

Back Again

Well, I am entering “Bloggendom” once again. My inspiration is threefold:

1) In theological circles, I believe the doctrine of humanity to be totally misrepresented and misinformed.
2) I am using this as a platform. This is the topic of my final paper at Trinity (PhD Studies).
3) Lastly,a guilt trip provided by the great Aaron Duvall.

“What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? (Ps 8:4, TNIV)”

Echoing David's sentiments, my goal is to attempt to make sense of the dynamic relationship that exists between the Creator God and His most beloved of all creation. Especially when the David reveals that we (humankind) have "been made a little lower than elohim (God)."

How does this reality affect our theology? How does this impact the way in which we minister? Can we ever declare someone unredeemable? What lengths should we go to save even one?

Stay tuned.

The Most Feared Word

In the church, there is perhaps no word feared more than the six letter word - change. The word that Webster’s defines as a) to make different in some particular, b) to make radically different or c) to give a different position, course, or direction to. Change has been the cause of many an argument, a church split, and even a pastoral reassignment (firing or resignation).

In most “traditional” churches the concept of change is treated as if it is a dirty word. Any deviation from the “standard” that congregants have become accustomed to and soon the conspiracy theorists are out in full form. Soon your first elder is convinced that you have gone liberal or your board believes you are obviously too mentally exhausted to make an informed decision.

Change is to be avoided at all costs. To survive, we must settle for the status quo. If “they” want to come to our church they need learn sing our songs. If he wants to preach at our church, he must use our Bible! They must do “their” time before they can join the board or teach Sunday school. Sunday school in the evening…worship on Saturday night…we have never done that before – that’s just simply not Christian!

Yet, here is the irony. Change is the very centerpiece of the Christian experience! Change is the very heartbeat of evangelical theology - the promise that one can be changed from the inside out. We quote often, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” The promise is that one can become radically different through relationship with Jesus.

So, why is that those who proclaim to have been “radically” altered so reticent to change?

Church Happens - The Liquid Church

Pete Ward came out with a new “theological” concept of the church is being under development in the UK. In his book titled Liquid Church, he challenges us to think theologically about the “church” (the body of Christ). In a special interview with Pete Ward on the youth specialties website you can read about some of his ideas about the liquid church concept. On the same site a link takes us to another article, titled Why we need liquid church, where we can learn more about Pete’s thoughts on this subject.

Johnny Baker says, “Peter Ward revolutionized thinking about youth ministry in the UK from being program-based to relational, from being reactive to reflective, and from being amateur to professional. I’d say he has helped youth ministry grow up.” The following question comes to mind when I try to digest a statement like that, what is the standard that youth ministry needs to grow up to? As younger generations are looking for the authentic way of church and people come with emerging, and new cutting edge ideas for “doing church”, and “being the church” there is a danger in the new cutting edge, emerging movement that someone will “cut” off too much of the “edges.”

Ward makes a distinction between solid church and liquid church in his study. He defines solid church, “getting together in one place to do the same thing together.” It relies on counting, and gathering. On the other hand liquid church consists of informal fellowship, not related to buildings, and does not need a weekly congregational meeting but “living as Christ’s body in the world.” Ward also defines Liquid Church as “a church that goes out to find its members whether or not they show up on a Sunday morning and participate in all the things we think of as church.”

Furthermore, Ward shows his idea through an example that was used in the interview which was a boat floating in water. People, so many times, compared the church to the boat that sails through the culture, however, Ward’s revolutionary thought was to become like that water (liquid) and “become flexible, fluid, changeable, and embrace and internalize the liquid nature of culture rather than just sail through it.” However, it raises a few troubling questions to think this way. While liquid conforms and changes shape, what do we measure this shape to? What are the cultural dynamics that we will adapt to? If we look at the early church which was relational and at the same time did not compromise with the culture, she managed to grow and increase in numbers. She was not the most flexible, not liquid like and the members paid a great price. So, where do we draw the line as a post-modern society, whether in Europe or in the USA, in our adaptation to the dynamics of the society? To put it bluntly, what will dictate in our lives; the Bible to the society or the society to the Bible?

Ward challenges us in his article to think outside of the box. Having said that, it raises questions about the liquid church idea as people yearn in their soul for something, as authentic and intimate, people had in the first century. My question for the liquid aspect is the following; how condense is the fluid? Is it only water that we pour in a bottle and takes up the bottle’s shape then we can mix cool aid and sugar in it and we can drink it? Or are we talking about a fluid which is condense and when something that does not conform to it then it can not be mixed in it? Like oil floats on the surface of cold water. It is necessary to be flexible but how far do we go with that? What do we let in our lives and what not?

What is an informal fellowship? Do people really long for community? Do they really want to experience what people experienced in the first century? “Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with gland and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people.” (NIV) Is this what we long for in our ministry? My original question still stands; how liquid these people were? Are people ready in the 21st century to be like people in the 1st century?

The liquid church concept could be used in the forefront of the church for evangelism, outreach, and mission. However, the body of Christ is living organism. It breaths and with each breath more people should come in the church. When people are in the “church”, whether it is related to a building, or has the liquid church concept at hand, the real aspect of it should be that people go out into the world and will bring in more people. This can be accomplished through teaching, instructing, and educating believers what the true church of God looks like. Following Jesus model in his ministry everything revolved around relations. He passed this down to his disciples and they passed it down to other generations. We need to keep the legacy of teaching others to keep his commandments and with that bring more people in the body of Christ(Church).

What are your thoughts?

Article contributed by Viktor Rozsa, a Senior Youth Ministry major at Ohio Christian University.

A New Theology of Hell?

Lately, I have been involved in several events that have caused me to reflect theologically about one topic that is often overlooked and largely avoided in today’s society – hell. Now I’ll admit that even though I may believe in a literal hell I rarely ever preach the typical old-time-fundamental-evangelical-bapticostal Hell, Fire and Brimstone sermon. Homiletically speaking, I am often a wimp; however, strategically I believe it is more effective to preach a positive gospel centered in the love and grace of Lord Jesus wins as opposed to common scare tactic (hell escape, hell’s flames, left behind, etc.) approach.

A frightening trend among many evangelicals (the more “liberal” ones) is to treat all references to Hell as allegorical or metaphorical. In fact, many evangelicals have adopted either beliefs in Universalism (all will be saved) or annihilationism (people just cease to exist at death). However, those views are difficult to swallow considering all the evidence for the existence of hell contained within scripture. In addition, there was no subject broached more often than hell by Jesus. With that being said, here are a few things that can be learned about hell:

1. Hell is eternal/everlasting (Isaiah 66:24; Matt. 18:8; 25:41; 25:46; 2 Thes. 1:9; Jude 1:7, Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:46)
2. Hell is hot, compared to an unquenchable fire and a lake of fire (Mark 9:43, Rev. 19:20; 20:10, 14, 15; 21:8)
3. The wicked will never cease to exist and their body will never be consumed (Isaiah 66:24; Mark 9:43, 48)
4. It is a form of eternal punishment (Matt. 25:46)
5. It is separation from the presence of God (2 Thes. 1:9)
6. It is a place of Judgment (Matt. 25:31-46; Heb. 9:27; 10:27, 30; Rev. 20:11-15)
7. And the list goes on – you get the idea

We get the idea – Hell is a terrible place and to paraphrase Lazarus, “a place to avoid at all costs!”

But what if both the conservative and liberal commentators are both correct? Or at least both groups have elements of truth to be found in their interpretations. What if Hell is a real place as the conservatives proclaim, but what if the description is more allegorical – meaning that it may not be an actual lake of fire, but the actual effects of “this place” is like a lake of fire? After all, for some I know (namely college girls) spend $30 for one half hour in an oven and look as if they tanned outside a “lake of fire” (note this is Tongue & Cheek). Think about it what would be a more cruel punishment: eternal fire or enduring your worst fear/nightmare/experience perpetually for eternity?

If that were the case, I would have to say it would be waking each morning walking the aisles of Wal-Mart (insert retail store of choice here) and than in a blink of an eye being teleported to Main Street (Circleville) listening to an 80’s cover band performing at Pumpkin Show (insert fair or carnival of choice here) while ingesting the combination of cigarettes, Porta-John and Funnel Cakes into my nasal passage and lungs. Could you imagine living that for an eternity? That would truly scare one straight!

Anyway, what would be your hell?

PS – Thought I’d take a lighter approach to get back into the swing of things. I hope I have not offended too many.

Getting Teens Excited About God!

Time magazine recently wrote an excellent article on teenage spirituality. In this article, some disturbing trends are expressed; however, hope is also expressed.

Take a moment and read the article. It is a good read. Let me know what you think? What are some positives we can take from Barna's research? Also, what do you think of Ron Luce's very ambitious plan?

Good Teaching Is...

Ron Jackson tries to give some insight on effective teaching in the July/August Youth Worker Journal of 2006. He gives us a few characteristics of what he believes to be good teaching.

Jackson says that good teaching doesn’t always give an answer. I do not agree with this statement at face value in the fact that ‘I don’t know’ is an answer and can be an effective answer because it shows the youth that the teacher is still human and is still growing in knowledge and spirituality. That in itself ought to motivate the youth to desire to do the same. However, Jackson is mostly referring to narrative teaching. The Bible is full of narrative and sometimes the stories are not completely clear of what the whole ‘moral of the story is.’ Rather than trying to force teaching points, it is suggested that we ought to just let the Scripture speak for itself. I truly believe that Scripture is lecterned, it is powerful and God speaks tremendously. However, it can be a different story when there are a room full of unchurched youths. I feel there is a need to dive into the text theologically for sound teaching that gives the youth a good foundation to build upon.

He says that good teaching is comfortable with tension. Jackson is referring to answering difficult questions. How do we respond to these difficult questions is how we measure the effectiveness of our teaching in this area. I believe the teacher ought to create tension in order to stretch the minds and thinking of the learners. An example would be if it is appropriate to interpret the second commandment to say that a picture of Jesus is idolatry. A healthy tension is always good in a learning environment.

Good teaching happens in a safe place. A teacher is responsible to create an environment where the student feels safe physically and mentally. A youth ought to feel comfortable to ask questions that they may not bring up at the lunch table at school. However we need to understand that everyone has things that they won’t share in front of a group, including the teachers. That’s why accountability groups/partners are so important for spiritual growth.
Good teaching occurs in community. I really don’t know why Jackson even listed this in his article. I guess he just wanted five points. This goes sort of hand in hand with the point made about the safe place. I guess he wanted to have a sentence where he used the word ‘discipleship’ to attempt to make the nurturers happy. Yes. Discipleship is a good thing. Thanks Ron Jackson.

Finally, good teaching creates a place where truth is practiced. Jackson is referring to the place where the youth group would meet. It is a place where the kids can put into practice all they have learned in how to worship. That is definitely very important. We want our youths to understand proper worship. But I suggest to take this point a step further. The youths ought to put into practice all they have learned outside the church walls or wherever they meet. The youth are a part of the Body of Christ and they too have responsibility to share the Gospel. Because of the teaching they receive at youth group, they can in result share their faith at the lunch table at school, and even with their grandparents at Thanksgiving.

To make it simple, good (Christian) teaching requires love of God and love of people. However, outflowing of this love comes obedience, where disciplines come into play, which equip the teacher to be effective.

Article Submitted by Clay Huffman, a Junior Youth Ministry Major at Ohio Christian University.