The thing that scares me more than anything is duality.
At the basic level, duality is the separation of the spiritual and the physical. Gnostic Christians took up this idea when they asserted that Christ could not have been physical, because all things that are/were physical are evil.
A form of dualism is still lingering in our world today; it is represented in multiple forms of identity. Notably this is most prevalent within adolescents who create different identities for themselves depending on their environments. Psychologists believe this has to do with the teenage journey to find oneself, yet is it now continuing past adolescence. Identity has become very fluid; different forms of identity are lived out and determined by the environment a person finds himself or herself in. A person’s identities are determined by fluid structures: relationships, consumerism, where one works, and/or where one lives.
I am most fearful when the fluidity of identity does not stop at the larger structures, but continues into more specific environments. Therefore, some continue to live as an actor who plays different roles depending upon their surroundings. At work they act one way, at home they work another way, and with friends they work another way.
Once, while I was cleaning up after youth group a fellow church member asked, “Don’t you ever get tired of this?”
I assumed that he was referring to cleaning up after youth group, but he wasn’t. Clarifying, he said, “Tired of living two lives, one here at church and another while you are not here? I mean, I tried to explain how hard this was to my girlfriend the other day and she didn’t get it.”
I carefully responded, “I try to live the same way whether I am at home or I am at work, whether I am hanging out with students or my friends.”
My answer surprised this person. He looked at me questioningly and said, “Really?”
If I were totally honest, I would say that living out my identity in Christ is challenging thing to do. I mess up a lot, but I believe that God is concerned with how we live and how we act in every part of our lives, not just on Sunday, or right before we sit to partake in a meal.
My wife found a quote by G.K. Chesterton that reads, “You say grace before meals. All right. But I say grace before the play and the opera, and grace before the concert and pantomime, and grace before I open a book, and grace before sketching, painting, swimming, fencing, boxing, walking, playing, dancing; and grace before I dip the pen in the ink.”
Maybe I am being presumptuous, but when I read this quote I see Chesterton taking the idea of duality head on. In his own way, he reinforces that God is everywhere and is deeply concerned with and deeply involved in everything we do.
When I was in high school I used to surf a lot. Every Sunday morning I would leave church right after youth group to drive down to the beach with a couple of my friends. Every time we went surfing, we would pray before we got into the water.
When I joined the leadership team in my youth group, my youth pastor asked me why I never stuck around for “big-church.” I still remember the conversation and my response; “I go to the beach and experience and worship God in another way.”
Now, I am not saying my teenage self was right to not participate in “big-church,” but my statement about God was not far off.
What would it look like if believed that God was everywhere? Not just everywhere, but that he cared about how we acted and what identity we confessed as we went about our days, weeks, and years?
One of the hardest things about the Christian life is realizing that in Christ our identity has not only been redeemed, but that it is also in the process of being transformed. The ultimate goal is that everything previously held as “ours,” would be let go of, and that selfishness would turn into selflessness as Christ sanctifies us completely.
Imagine what the world would be like if people stopped living in duality and started living in Christ.
October 31, 2011
October 24, 2011
What Defines a Man?
I am tired of being told what a “man” is.
This blog post might quickly turn into a rant. Therefore, let me first apologize if it does, because it is not my intension. My hope is to draw attention to the recent shift in advertising by companies such as Dr. Pepper and Miller, who are now strongly marketing to “men.”
In order to appeal to men, these companies have drawn a line in the sand and declared that certain actions, likes and dislikes, purchases, products, and/or fashion styles are not manly. These companies then ask their audience to “man-up,” as the Miller ads state, and purchase their [the company’s] product. These advertisements, based on fictitious assumptions of what manhood should be, are riddled with false views of what communicates a person’s masculinity.
Focusing on the latter first, a person’s masculinity is often based in culture. The culture one is raised in communicates certain expectations regarding who a man should be. If a man does not meet these cultural expectations, he is deemed not manly, feminine, or even sometimes “gay.” Once someone has been called these things, he is left with two choices, trying to fit into the cultural expectation of manhood that is being pushed onto him, or being stuck in the non-manly camp. The question I ask is, how can one determine if a male is “manly” or not?
This brings us to the subsequent assumption of these advertisements, what communicates a person’s masculinity. The culture of the United States has bought into the idea that one’s identity lies in the motto, “you are what you consume,” or put on your body, or what you do with your body, or the shape of your body. Current culture tells people that they are what others perceive them to be.
Take the advertisement below for instance. The “unmanly guy” in the commercial is carrying a bag. It is this bag that communicates his unmanliness, not who he is.
Miller Lite
Dr. Pepper
Even these commercials realize that culture believes that what people put on their bodies helps to define them, which is why these advertisements work. Men are “manly” when they drink Miller Lite or when they drink Dr. Pepper 10, but not when they drink that “other lite beer” or “lady drink.”
Has identity formation really become so fluid a process that people, including me, are what they do, drink, or wear?
As Christians, our identities do not come from our culture or “world.” That is why many New Testament writers, such as Peter, refer to Christians as “aliens” or “foreigners” (1 Peter 2:11-12). There is a difference between those who follow Christ and those who do not. This difference finds its roots in where our identities derive themselves. As those who are “rooted in Christ,” we derive our identities from the one whom we are rooted in, Christ.
Even within the 1st century church, there were people who wanted to define others by what their body looked like or by what they ate. The Judaizers demanded that all Gentiles be circumcised, acting as a bodily marker, to become Christ followers. Yet, Paul argued that circumcision does not define a Christian; it is the “circumcision of the heart” and what a person is “rooted in” that makes him or her a Jesus follower (Romans 2:29).
If we find our identities in Christ, shouldn’t our definition of manhood also be found in him?
Jesus was the complete revelation of God to humanity (John 1:18). He not only reveals God to us, but he also reveals that we are created to be God’s image. If you want to know what a man looks like, look at Jesus, who was homeless, who gave up everything to serve, who cried, who turned over tables, and who died on a cross. That is what a man is. What you drink, what you wear, what you do or act like does not define you as a man. God defines you as a man.
This blog post might quickly turn into a rant. Therefore, let me first apologize if it does, because it is not my intension. My hope is to draw attention to the recent shift in advertising by companies such as Dr. Pepper and Miller, who are now strongly marketing to “men.”
In order to appeal to men, these companies have drawn a line in the sand and declared that certain actions, likes and dislikes, purchases, products, and/or fashion styles are not manly. These companies then ask their audience to “man-up,” as the Miller ads state, and purchase their [the company’s] product. These advertisements, based on fictitious assumptions of what manhood should be, are riddled with false views of what communicates a person’s masculinity.
Focusing on the latter first, a person’s masculinity is often based in culture. The culture one is raised in communicates certain expectations regarding who a man should be. If a man does not meet these cultural expectations, he is deemed not manly, feminine, or even sometimes “gay.” Once someone has been called these things, he is left with two choices, trying to fit into the cultural expectation of manhood that is being pushed onto him, or being stuck in the non-manly camp. The question I ask is, how can one determine if a male is “manly” or not?
This brings us to the subsequent assumption of these advertisements, what communicates a person’s masculinity. The culture of the United States has bought into the idea that one’s identity lies in the motto, “you are what you consume,” or put on your body, or what you do with your body, or the shape of your body. Current culture tells people that they are what others perceive them to be.
Take the advertisement below for instance. The “unmanly guy” in the commercial is carrying a bag. It is this bag that communicates his unmanliness, not who he is.
Miller Lite
Dr. Pepper
Even these commercials realize that culture believes that what people put on their bodies helps to define them, which is why these advertisements work. Men are “manly” when they drink Miller Lite or when they drink Dr. Pepper 10, but not when they drink that “other lite beer” or “lady drink.”
Has identity formation really become so fluid a process that people, including me, are what they do, drink, or wear?
As Christians, our identities do not come from our culture or “world.” That is why many New Testament writers, such as Peter, refer to Christians as “aliens” or “foreigners” (1 Peter 2:11-12). There is a difference between those who follow Christ and those who do not. This difference finds its roots in where our identities derive themselves. As those who are “rooted in Christ,” we derive our identities from the one whom we are rooted in, Christ.
Even within the 1st century church, there were people who wanted to define others by what their body looked like or by what they ate. The Judaizers demanded that all Gentiles be circumcised, acting as a bodily marker, to become Christ followers. Yet, Paul argued that circumcision does not define a Christian; it is the “circumcision of the heart” and what a person is “rooted in” that makes him or her a Jesus follower (Romans 2:29).
If we find our identities in Christ, shouldn’t our definition of manhood also be found in him?
Jesus was the complete revelation of God to humanity (John 1:18). He not only reveals God to us, but he also reveals that we are created to be God’s image. If you want to know what a man looks like, look at Jesus, who was homeless, who gave up everything to serve, who cried, who turned over tables, and who died on a cross. That is what a man is. What you drink, what you wear, what you do or act like does not define you as a man. God defines you as a man.
October 17, 2011
Young Adults Leaving the Church: Not only Sociological, but Philosophical
The reality of youth leaving the church upon their high school graduations is disconcerting, namely to those within practical theology and church ministry.
There are a lot of people in the world of practical theology and church ministry writing and talking about why youth are leaving the church after they graduate from high school. Many of the books and much of the research that has been done is very helpful for those, like me, in full-time youth ministry. In fact, while I was at Fuller Theological Seminary, I had the opportunity to hear some of the essential research being done by the Fuller Youth Center and what became known as “Sticky Faith.” Based on those conversations at Fuller, I developed a Senior Transition class at my old church and am now facilitating one at my current church. The other day I began questioning, does this have way more to do with a philosophical shift than we would like to admit?
Let me back up, while I was on Facebook a couple weeks ago, I noticed that a few of my junior and senior students who had not come to church that morning “checked-in” at another local church. I have to admit, his disheartened me a little bit and I began to wonder, why aren’t these students coming to their home church?
That morning my wife had been sitting in a classroom at our church waiting for the 9:30 Bible study class to start. She overheard a conversation regarding some things happening in our church community when one person made this statement, “We keep wondering when they are going to do away with the choir and leave us behind.”
While sitting on Sunday night after hearing about this conversation and seeing students “check-in” on Facebook, I started thinking, what if something deeper is happening? Something not only sociological, but philosophical?
A Philosophical Shift
The study of theology is not required to acknowledge that something within our culture has changed. We have moved from a “modern” to a “late-modern” or “postmodern” world. What some have failed to realize is how much our philosophical understanding of the world around us affects the way we worship and connect with God.
Today’s Christian church has become saturated with modernism. In the book, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?, James K.A. Smith makes the statement, “One of the reasons postmodernism has been the bogeyman for the Christian church is that we have become so thoroughly modern” (23). Everything that happens within thousands of churches across the country is plainly modern, and for good reason. The church became modern to reach moderns.
While modernism emerged as a result of the enlightenment, what most forget is that the Reformation also occurred amidst this earlier shift. During the Reformation many of today’s churches built and established their confessions and theology. Therefore, we must assume that the majority of current practical theology was created in a modern context, and, therefore, speaks most readily to a modern audience.
Now jump ahead with me six hundred years to current society: There is a new philosophical shift happening in the world, to postmodernism. Everyone between the age of 25 and 45 was most likely raised in a blended version of modern meets post-modern world. A world where a modern understanding was on its way out and a new philosophical mindset was on its way in.
Today’s teens are not being raised in such a world; they are being raised in a completely postmodern world. This world does not speak modernism and does not communicate in a modern way, with the exception of the church. Every week the church asks teens to cover their postmodern eyes with modern glasses so that they can “worship God” through modified lenses. I find myself asking: Would God require that? Or would God meet postmodern thinkers were they were at?
Taking it Back to Church
This reality hits close to home. I am a part of a very modern mainline church. I weekly ask teens to come and worship God in a modern service that has yet to ask teens how they connect with God.
I agree with and love all of the research that is being done regarding why young adults leave the church, but there must come a time when we admit that things must change in our churches if we ever plan on keeping postmoderns around. As David Kinnaman proclaims in his book You Lost Me: Why Young Christians are Leaving Church…And Rethinking Faith,
…the Christian community must rethink our efforts to make disciples. Many
of the assumptions on which we have built our work with young people are rooted in modern, mechanistic, and mass production paradigms…We need to renew our catechism and confirmations—not because we need new theology, but because their current forms too rarely produce young people of deep, abiding faith” (12-13).
The church is not producing what Kinnaman calls, “deep, abiding faith” within young people because it is not taking the philosophical shift seriously. Instead it is asking students to become modern to worship God.
Please do not hear me saying we must do away with all “modern” forms of worship, in reality that would create a whole new problem. At the same time, I do not think the answer is to create a new service for postmoderns, as many churches have done. What needs to happen is reformation, reconciliation, and the development of hybrid services in order to include all members.
When Luther nailed the 95 Theses to the door of the church he did not want to divide the Catholic Church, he wanted to reform it. However, the leadership of the Catholic Church at the time had other ideas. The essential question is, what will the leadership of our churches do? Will they create a split or will they create conversation? Will today’s denominations and church leaders look to bridge the gap of modernity and postmodernity, or will they look to split the church? Or most unfortunately, will leaders allow churches to die with modernity?
I have a friend in seminary on the East Coast. The last time I spoke to him, he shared that he was interning at a mainline church of less than 100 people who were all on their to meet the LORD. Every Sunday the church sings hymns and goes about things the same way they always have. In reality this church is dying. This church will not be around in twenty years. Why? Because they will not change to meet the changing culture around them.
The reality is that this is going to be a messy process. People will be emotional, angry, and misunderstand what is happening. There will be those who choose to hold tight to their idols of preference and personal demand. While these people may die with these held close, we must not allow the church to die with them.
What do I do?
To be honest, I am still developing my answer. The only idea I have is to start creating conversations, made up of young people, old people, and everyone in between. These conversations should be made up of people in different places and of different mindsets. I know it will be messy, I know it will be hard, but I think it is the best place to start.
The goals of such conversations need to be twofold: listening and then speaking. Every person must be heard and understood. Only after people understand each other can we move forward.
If you have other ideas, I would love to hear them. If you disagree, I would love to hear why.
So with that, I offer the church peace, discernment, and wisdom.
There are a lot of people in the world of practical theology and church ministry writing and talking about why youth are leaving the church after they graduate from high school. Many of the books and much of the research that has been done is very helpful for those, like me, in full-time youth ministry. In fact, while I was at Fuller Theological Seminary, I had the opportunity to hear some of the essential research being done by the Fuller Youth Center and what became known as “Sticky Faith.” Based on those conversations at Fuller, I developed a Senior Transition class at my old church and am now facilitating one at my current church. The other day I began questioning, does this have way more to do with a philosophical shift than we would like to admit?
Let me back up, while I was on Facebook a couple weeks ago, I noticed that a few of my junior and senior students who had not come to church that morning “checked-in” at another local church. I have to admit, his disheartened me a little bit and I began to wonder, why aren’t these students coming to their home church?
That morning my wife had been sitting in a classroom at our church waiting for the 9:30 Bible study class to start. She overheard a conversation regarding some things happening in our church community when one person made this statement, “We keep wondering when they are going to do away with the choir and leave us behind.”
While sitting on Sunday night after hearing about this conversation and seeing students “check-in” on Facebook, I started thinking, what if something deeper is happening? Something not only sociological, but philosophical?
A Philosophical Shift
The study of theology is not required to acknowledge that something within our culture has changed. We have moved from a “modern” to a “late-modern” or “postmodern” world. What some have failed to realize is how much our philosophical understanding of the world around us affects the way we worship and connect with God.
Today’s Christian church has become saturated with modernism. In the book, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?, James K.A. Smith makes the statement, “One of the reasons postmodernism has been the bogeyman for the Christian church is that we have become so thoroughly modern” (23). Everything that happens within thousands of churches across the country is plainly modern, and for good reason. The church became modern to reach moderns.
While modernism emerged as a result of the enlightenment, what most forget is that the Reformation also occurred amidst this earlier shift. During the Reformation many of today’s churches built and established their confessions and theology. Therefore, we must assume that the majority of current practical theology was created in a modern context, and, therefore, speaks most readily to a modern audience.
Now jump ahead with me six hundred years to current society: There is a new philosophical shift happening in the world, to postmodernism. Everyone between the age of 25 and 45 was most likely raised in a blended version of modern meets post-modern world. A world where a modern understanding was on its way out and a new philosophical mindset was on its way in.
Today’s teens are not being raised in such a world; they are being raised in a completely postmodern world. This world does not speak modernism and does not communicate in a modern way, with the exception of the church. Every week the church asks teens to cover their postmodern eyes with modern glasses so that they can “worship God” through modified lenses. I find myself asking: Would God require that? Or would God meet postmodern thinkers were they were at?
Taking it Back to Church
This reality hits close to home. I am a part of a very modern mainline church. I weekly ask teens to come and worship God in a modern service that has yet to ask teens how they connect with God.
I agree with and love all of the research that is being done regarding why young adults leave the church, but there must come a time when we admit that things must change in our churches if we ever plan on keeping postmoderns around. As David Kinnaman proclaims in his book You Lost Me: Why Young Christians are Leaving Church…And Rethinking Faith,
…the Christian community must rethink our efforts to make disciples. Many
of the assumptions on which we have built our work with young people are rooted in modern, mechanistic, and mass production paradigms…We need to renew our catechism and confirmations—not because we need new theology, but because their current forms too rarely produce young people of deep, abiding faith” (12-13).
The church is not producing what Kinnaman calls, “deep, abiding faith” within young people because it is not taking the philosophical shift seriously. Instead it is asking students to become modern to worship God.
Please do not hear me saying we must do away with all “modern” forms of worship, in reality that would create a whole new problem. At the same time, I do not think the answer is to create a new service for postmoderns, as many churches have done. What needs to happen is reformation, reconciliation, and the development of hybrid services in order to include all members.
When Luther nailed the 95 Theses to the door of the church he did not want to divide the Catholic Church, he wanted to reform it. However, the leadership of the Catholic Church at the time had other ideas. The essential question is, what will the leadership of our churches do? Will they create a split or will they create conversation? Will today’s denominations and church leaders look to bridge the gap of modernity and postmodernity, or will they look to split the church? Or most unfortunately, will leaders allow churches to die with modernity?
I have a friend in seminary on the East Coast. The last time I spoke to him, he shared that he was interning at a mainline church of less than 100 people who were all on their to meet the LORD. Every Sunday the church sings hymns and goes about things the same way they always have. In reality this church is dying. This church will not be around in twenty years. Why? Because they will not change to meet the changing culture around them.
The reality is that this is going to be a messy process. People will be emotional, angry, and misunderstand what is happening. There will be those who choose to hold tight to their idols of preference and personal demand. While these people may die with these held close, we must not allow the church to die with them.
What do I do?
To be honest, I am still developing my answer. The only idea I have is to start creating conversations, made up of young people, old people, and everyone in between. These conversations should be made up of people in different places and of different mindsets. I know it will be messy, I know it will be hard, but I think it is the best place to start.
The goals of such conversations need to be twofold: listening and then speaking. Every person must be heard and understood. Only after people understand each other can we move forward.
If you have other ideas, I would love to hear them. If you disagree, I would love to hear why.
So with that, I offer the church peace, discernment, and wisdom.
October 10, 2011
NYWC Debrief of Theological Fourms and Cafes (Part 2)
For the final part of my blog and debrief of the theological forums at the National Youth Workers Convention I wanted to focus on Discipleship. These thoughts and reflections came from the forums on "The Interaction Between Human and Divine Action" and "Theological Issues Impacting the Christian Formation of Adolescents.
Thanks again for all you are reading. I would be happy to know your thoughts on what I have written in my reflections.
Discipleship
When talking about discipleship one most first confess that discipleship is a lot more than just following Jesus. The goal has to be seen as a holistic transformation of the person that concluded in the turn of Jesus. At the center of this, “The interaction between Human and Divine Action” and “Theological Issues impacting the Christian Formation of Adolescents.” It is important to note that Christian Formation is done through the help of God and is a part of our calling as God’s Children as we respond to God out of our redemption. It is calling people to die, as Bonhoeffer pointed out, this is the cost of discipleship, to carry your cross.
There are a few issues here that have to be brought forward. First, there is a reality that within Christian Tradition there has been what is referred to as spiritual disciplines. Through these practices the Spirit of God transforms individuals and communities into disciples. Some confessing communities even believe that there are some disciplines that administer grace to those participating in them. (Communion and etc.). The reality that has to dealt with is that everyone spiritual life is going to be different. What works to transform one, might not work to transform the next. This is very important to note when dealing with different generations. There are some spiritual disciplines that speak to one generation, but not to the next. That is why it is essential to be having a certain fluidity in the defining spiritual disciplines.
Secondly, the hope of spiritual disciplines is that they might announce to us what God has already done for humanity, and that in that humanity might respond and be transformed. “Faith” is an eschatological reality that breaks into the “not yet” of the world. Therefore, spiritual disciplines can transform us as we become aware of that reality, they cannot redeem us. At the heart of communicating the need for spiritual disciplines is a rhythm of grace and discipline, or as my Methodists friends might say, “call and response” motion from God to humanity.
Lastly, spiritual formation have to be about teaching a community to form habits around means of grace and disciplines. That means creating a new grammar for people, a new way of looking at life. As Adam English stated in one of the theological forums, “The greatest threat is turning the gospel into a systematic idea that fit into the life they already have.”
Questions to ask:
- What are some new ways God is communicating his transforming grace to different generations within church (elderly, parents, singles, students and children today)? Are we open to including those into our definition of transformation? What might we be missing?
- Do others understand what discipleship means?
- Do people understand how their baptism affects their identity and formation?
Call for a Transformation Appearance
There is a temptation to communicate that Christians have to have everything “together” to be or become disciples of Jesus. This could not be fuller from being correct. Christianity is messy because life and people are messy. Therefore, true discipleship is found when in the messiness of life Christians can forsake the appearance of having it all together and confess, “I hurt but Jesus is with me. “In this type of discipleship the Church and un-churched can discover Jesus in suffering through his people.
A helpful way of framing this that has been offered by Andrew Root has been the question, “are you serving life, or serving death?” This question moves us past moralistic formation to holistic formation. It states, “life can be a bitch,” but I serve my God because he has redeemed and is transforming me. It moves us into the reality where the love of God overcomes death in the resurrection. It help answers the question of many, what is stronger, “Life or death?” or “does this emptiness end?”
All suffer, and a part of discipleship needs to be both teaching people how Christ is with them in their suffering and helping people realize that Christains are called by God to walk through suffering with others by being honest with the crap of life.
Questions to ask:
- Have we modeled the correct appearance of discipleship to our church?
- Is suffering a part of our grammar?
- Are we teaching people that in Christianity everything needs appear okay?
- What are our practices serving, life or death?
- Are we really seeking our congregation’s questions about life?
- Are we ready to hear our congregation’s fears?
Thanks again for all you are reading. I would be happy to know your thoughts on what I have written in my reflections.
Discipleship
When talking about discipleship one most first confess that discipleship is a lot more than just following Jesus. The goal has to be seen as a holistic transformation of the person that concluded in the turn of Jesus. At the center of this, “The interaction between Human and Divine Action” and “Theological Issues impacting the Christian Formation of Adolescents.” It is important to note that Christian Formation is done through the help of God and is a part of our calling as God’s Children as we respond to God out of our redemption. It is calling people to die, as Bonhoeffer pointed out, this is the cost of discipleship, to carry your cross.
There are a few issues here that have to be brought forward. First, there is a reality that within Christian Tradition there has been what is referred to as spiritual disciplines. Through these practices the Spirit of God transforms individuals and communities into disciples. Some confessing communities even believe that there are some disciplines that administer grace to those participating in them. (Communion and etc.). The reality that has to dealt with is that everyone spiritual life is going to be different. What works to transform one, might not work to transform the next. This is very important to note when dealing with different generations. There are some spiritual disciplines that speak to one generation, but not to the next. That is why it is essential to be having a certain fluidity in the defining spiritual disciplines.
Secondly, the hope of spiritual disciplines is that they might announce to us what God has already done for humanity, and that in that humanity might respond and be transformed. “Faith” is an eschatological reality that breaks into the “not yet” of the world. Therefore, spiritual disciplines can transform us as we become aware of that reality, they cannot redeem us. At the heart of communicating the need for spiritual disciplines is a rhythm of grace and discipline, or as my Methodists friends might say, “call and response” motion from God to humanity.
Lastly, spiritual formation have to be about teaching a community to form habits around means of grace and disciplines. That means creating a new grammar for people, a new way of looking at life. As Adam English stated in one of the theological forums, “The greatest threat is turning the gospel into a systematic idea that fit into the life they already have.”
Questions to ask:
- What are some new ways God is communicating his transforming grace to different generations within church (elderly, parents, singles, students and children today)? Are we open to including those into our definition of transformation? What might we be missing?
- Do others understand what discipleship means?
- Do people understand how their baptism affects their identity and formation?
Call for a Transformation Appearance
There is a temptation to communicate that Christians have to have everything “together” to be or become disciples of Jesus. This could not be fuller from being correct. Christianity is messy because life and people are messy. Therefore, true discipleship is found when in the messiness of life Christians can forsake the appearance of having it all together and confess, “I hurt but Jesus is with me. “In this type of discipleship the Church and un-churched can discover Jesus in suffering through his people.
A helpful way of framing this that has been offered by Andrew Root has been the question, “are you serving life, or serving death?” This question moves us past moralistic formation to holistic formation. It states, “life can be a bitch,” but I serve my God because he has redeemed and is transforming me. It moves us into the reality where the love of God overcomes death in the resurrection. It help answers the question of many, what is stronger, “Life or death?” or “does this emptiness end?”
All suffer, and a part of discipleship needs to be both teaching people how Christ is with them in their suffering and helping people realize that Christains are called by God to walk through suffering with others by being honest with the crap of life.
Questions to ask:
- Have we modeled the correct appearance of discipleship to our church?
- Is suffering a part of our grammar?
- Are we teaching people that in Christianity everything needs appear okay?
- What are our practices serving, life or death?
- Are we really seeking our congregation’s questions about life?
- Are we ready to hear our congregation’s fears?
October 3, 2011
NYWC Debrief of Theological Fourms and Cafes (Part 1)
This weekend at National Youth Workers Conference (NYWC) I had the great chance to hear and sit with some of the greatest minds in practical theology and youth ministry: Kenda Creasy Dean (Princeton), Andrew Root (Luther), Mike King (Nazarene Theological Seminary and Sr. ed. Of Immerse Journal), Amy Jacober (Truett/ Baylor), Kara Powell (Fuller), Chap Clark (Fuller), Jeffrey Keuss (Seattle Pacific University), Adam English (Campbell), and Dean Blevins (Nazarene Theological Seminary). I write those names not to say I have met them, but to show from whom my theological thinking was with this last weekend.
Some context, this year at NYWC they started “Theological Fourms” and “Theological Café’s.” These events created space where youth workers who have a more theological inclination could gather to hear and participate in conversations on topics important to youth ministry. Topics included but were not limited to: “What does it mean to be a person?” or “Theological issues impacting the Christian formation of adolescents.” In total there were four such theological fourms made up of panels from the above persons.
Theological Café’s were something a little different. Theological café’s were a time where youth workers could have one-on-one or group conversations with many of the persons above over the beverage of your choice purchased by Sparkhouse Publishing. (If you work with teens Sparkhouse has some amazing curriculum for Confirmation Programs and/or youth programs, so check them out.) At these café’s I had conversations concerning “what does it mean to be a person?” “Should the church still do infant baptisms in a post-Christian individualistic consumer world?” and “What does our worship space and practices communicate to our teens?”
On top of these conversations, I had the opportunity to hear a session on “Sticky Faith” from Kara Powell and attend many lectures from the likes of Kenda Creasy Dean and psychology researcher Dr. Robert Epstein.
Before I move from hear I would just like to state that I am thankful that the NYWC created these theological fourms and cafés. Speaking for myself, it redeemed NYWC because it opened up a deeper conversation on issues affecting our teens and families. I want to thank Mike King, the sponors, and everyone that was a part of these great sessions.
Out of these conversations and sessions, some key topics and questions emerged for me this week. In today’s blog I wanted to put out the first one to continue some of the conversation that started this week at the NYWC. Feel free to post your thoughts, disagree, or ask questions. Let’s continue the conversation.
Personhood
The first topic/questions that emerged for me centered on or around personhood. At the heart of this conversation was two topics:
1. God determines our personhood: God calls us into a unique relationship with himself. It is in the relationship Christians find a unique calling and gifting as individuals and as children of God. This is what makes us “particular” or individuals.
2. Others reveal our personhood: People are who they are because of the relationships they have, not because of their functions in the world. For example, a women is a mother not because of the functions she does, but because of the relationship she has to her children. This also plays out in the Godhead, in that the Son is the Son because his relationship to the Father and the Spirit. This is why we need relationships. It is also important to note that there is both beauty and danger to this reality. It is beautiful because a community can “hold a person’s identity in Christ when they are unable to hold themselves” (Amy Jacober). The dangerous is when others reveal to us who things that are “contrary to who God says we are” (Amy Jacober). (Note: there is a reality that all relationships are probably doing both, but the question is how to facilitate the latter?)
As a Lutheran I am grounded in a theology that says in a person’s baptism and in faith they are united with Christ and become Children of God. The question to ask ourselves is are we creating space to reveal that reality to our children, teens, adults, and elderly?
At the heart of this questions is not a program, but two things: relationships and our non-verbal communication.
Some questions on relationships:
1. Are you creating relationships at all? If you are, are people revealing who they are as God’s Children to each other within those relationships? If not, how do you empower them to do so?
2. Are you creating relationships in silos? Isn’t there something to be said for a child/teen to reveal God to an adult and an adult to reveal God to a child/teen? Why do you allow curtain adults, children, or teens, of your church to gather were others cannot?
3. Are you working to put adults in relationship with children and teens so that they might understand who they are as God’s Children?
Some questions on non-verbal communication that affect relationships:
1. What are you communicating to children, teens, and adults about who they are by what you are not doing?
a. Example: The church leadership meets every month to talk about vision, but no one has ever asked a youth for his or her options on where the church should be going. What are you communicating to youth?
2. What are you communicating to children, teens, and adults about who they are by what you are doing?
a. Example: the choir gathers in the choir room between services instead of outside on the patio with the rest of the church body. What is that communicating to the church and the choir?
Quote to think about: “We have a lot of adult in our churches who don’t know they have any gifts to give.” – Kenda Creasy Dean.
Have a great week everyone.
Steven Johnson
Some context, this year at NYWC they started “Theological Fourms” and “Theological Café’s.” These events created space where youth workers who have a more theological inclination could gather to hear and participate in conversations on topics important to youth ministry. Topics included but were not limited to: “What does it mean to be a person?” or “Theological issues impacting the Christian formation of adolescents.” In total there were four such theological fourms made up of panels from the above persons.
Theological Café’s were something a little different. Theological café’s were a time where youth workers could have one-on-one or group conversations with many of the persons above over the beverage of your choice purchased by Sparkhouse Publishing. (If you work with teens Sparkhouse has some amazing curriculum for Confirmation Programs and/or youth programs, so check them out.) At these café’s I had conversations concerning “what does it mean to be a person?” “Should the church still do infant baptisms in a post-Christian individualistic consumer world?” and “What does our worship space and practices communicate to our teens?”
On top of these conversations, I had the opportunity to hear a session on “Sticky Faith” from Kara Powell and attend many lectures from the likes of Kenda Creasy Dean and psychology researcher Dr. Robert Epstein.
Before I move from hear I would just like to state that I am thankful that the NYWC created these theological fourms and cafés. Speaking for myself, it redeemed NYWC because it opened up a deeper conversation on issues affecting our teens and families. I want to thank Mike King, the sponors, and everyone that was a part of these great sessions.
Out of these conversations and sessions, some key topics and questions emerged for me this week. In today’s blog I wanted to put out the first one to continue some of the conversation that started this week at the NYWC. Feel free to post your thoughts, disagree, or ask questions. Let’s continue the conversation.
Personhood
The first topic/questions that emerged for me centered on or around personhood. At the heart of this conversation was two topics:
1. God determines our personhood: God calls us into a unique relationship with himself. It is in the relationship Christians find a unique calling and gifting as individuals and as children of God. This is what makes us “particular” or individuals.
2. Others reveal our personhood: People are who they are because of the relationships they have, not because of their functions in the world. For example, a women is a mother not because of the functions she does, but because of the relationship she has to her children. This also plays out in the Godhead, in that the Son is the Son because his relationship to the Father and the Spirit. This is why we need relationships. It is also important to note that there is both beauty and danger to this reality. It is beautiful because a community can “hold a person’s identity in Christ when they are unable to hold themselves” (Amy Jacober). The dangerous is when others reveal to us who things that are “contrary to who God says we are” (Amy Jacober). (Note: there is a reality that all relationships are probably doing both, but the question is how to facilitate the latter?)
As a Lutheran I am grounded in a theology that says in a person’s baptism and in faith they are united with Christ and become Children of God. The question to ask ourselves is are we creating space to reveal that reality to our children, teens, adults, and elderly?
At the heart of this questions is not a program, but two things: relationships and our non-verbal communication.
Some questions on relationships:
1. Are you creating relationships at all? If you are, are people revealing who they are as God’s Children to each other within those relationships? If not, how do you empower them to do so?
2. Are you creating relationships in silos? Isn’t there something to be said for a child/teen to reveal God to an adult and an adult to reveal God to a child/teen? Why do you allow curtain adults, children, or teens, of your church to gather were others cannot?
3. Are you working to put adults in relationship with children and teens so that they might understand who they are as God’s Children?
Some questions on non-verbal communication that affect relationships:
1. What are you communicating to children, teens, and adults about who they are by what you are not doing?
a. Example: The church leadership meets every month to talk about vision, but no one has ever asked a youth for his or her options on where the church should be going. What are you communicating to youth?
2. What are you communicating to children, teens, and adults about who they are by what you are doing?
a. Example: the choir gathers in the choir room between services instead of outside on the patio with the rest of the church body. What is that communicating to the church and the choir?
Quote to think about: “We have a lot of adult in our churches who don’t know they have any gifts to give.” – Kenda Creasy Dean.
Have a great week everyone.
Steven Johnson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)