I am preparing for a new lesson series for the youth here. We have been tackling identity and formation for three years. I keep trying to leave it, but they continue to cling to a couple of foundational ideas. What I want to move onto is how to become the awesome creation that we are called in Eph. 2:10 (God’s workmanship). I’ve been thinking about it and trying to find a Biblical example of this.

Maybe it’s holy.

I have been trying to understand this word and have met with rhetoric. What is Holy? Most people respond with the typical “set apart.” Really? Set apart for what? Response, “righteousness.” So I ask what Holy means and I get “set apart for righteousness.” How easy it is for the church to hide behind rhetoric.

So phrases that I learned growing up like “be holy for I am holy” mean that God is set apart for righteousness and so we should be too? My heart tells me that there is more to this word than just set apart.

So I am experimenting with new words that would help my group understand what this means. The closest I find is “awesome.”

Be awesome because I am awesome.

Or even better yet, be awesome the way I created you to be, because, after all, I created you in my image and I am awesome in every way.

Does that really work?

1  1

Isn’t it interesting that the church, like the world, has bought into the idea that if we all just thought correctly and knew the right things, then our society would all work correctly. Ever had a conversation disagreement with someone from the other side of the fence? The conversation probably involved both of you trying to get the other to understand their point of view and a certain amount of eye rolling about how the other person just didn’t understand.

So the worldly response is to educate. If we all just had the same facts to work with, if we all understood things the same way, wouldn’t that ensure peace and harmony? Or as a friend said once, wouldn’t right thinking lead to right living?

Check out this post from Seth Godin on the difference.

The problem is that we all approach knowledge from a different perspective and our response to that knowledge combined with our perspective is what defines us.

We are all unique. We are all created to be unique. One hundred people can listen to the same message and take away at least one hundred different ideas from the same talk, heard the same exact way. There isn’t anything wrong with that. It is what we are.

The other problem is that knowledge doesn’t transform. It isn’t meant to transform. I think the best we can hope for is that knowledge helps reveal who we are in how we respond to knowledge. For example, someone dies in the hospital. Someone fills out a form and notes the time, that’s the doctor. Someone sits in the corner weeping, that’s the friend or close relative. These two responses to the same knowledge are what defines each person as who they are.

So can we give up on being information merchants in the church? I know that it feels safer to just through information around, but can’t we just move on to each person’s understanding and what that says about us? Thanks.

1  1

I just had the most surreal experience. Preface it with the fact that I have had a circuitous route through my faith that has included fundamentalist, modernist, foundationalist, federalist, covenantal, reformed, postmodern, emerging, emergent, liturgical, etc. I have read the thoughts of Schaffer, Pratt, Frame, Ortberg, Pagitt, Jones, Sweet, Packer, Sproul, Tozer, Luther, Aquinas, Augustine, Chan, Ferguson, Webber, Foster, Piper, Barton and many more. I’m not new to the postmodern conversation is my point, and I’m not a theological lightweight. So here is what happened.

I watched this video from Doug Pagitt on his book A Christianity Worth Believing. I have read this book and followed Doug through many of his thoughts, and I think he is a helpful voice in the future of the church. What I took away from this video was that he has concluded that the church defined itself out of the past that was appropriate for it then, but that definition doesn’t really work today. In fact, it gets in the way. I wouldn’t disagree with his conclusion either.

Then I hit this article immediately after from Andy Root. In this article, he tells us the history of culture and how Modernity has broken it. His words:

“At its core, modernity turns our attention away from the past and toward the future. For most of human history, human life was really about assimilation of the past (past wisdom, ancient stories). To live in the present, you had to assimilate yourself to the past; to survive your “now,” you would need the wisdom and maybe the spirit of your fathers. Modernity breaks this past-looking inclination and turns our chins toward the future. Modernity says, “Forget the past! The past is old (and old is bad). The future is before you; go and make a life for yourself!” While for most of human history, life was organized by what was in the past (tradition), modernity organizes life by what can be in the future.”

He goes on to point to how modernity has dislocated people from their past and how that has led to an identity crisis. He concludes that people no longer have the identity that is developed through work and love and the cultural expectations that followed with that because in our modern mindset and the advent of technology, people don’t have the same expectations as they once had.

I wouldn’t disagree with Root or Pagitt, but these two ideas don’t seem consistent to me. One person says that postmodernism is about freeing ourselves from the past, while another says it is being freed from our past that has caused most of our problems.

What do we do when presented with two very rational thoughts explaining the mess we find ourselves in today’s church in America that also contradict each other?

I’m not really struggling with this in my heart, but I wonder at how we deal with the tension between opposing views, especially when it comes to our faith. It is easy to see how many people become confused when trying to understand what emergent, emerging, and postmodernism is when the leaders of those movements don’t agree.

What happens to an organization that can’t define itself and can’t maintain a unified expression of its own identity?

1  1

We had a great group last night talking about the cycle of faith that Christians go through from rebellion to crying out to redemption to pride. I really love these kids.

After we had wrapped up, one of them told me that he would love to hear from the group about why Christianity is better than other religions. It was such a straight ahead and honest question, that I was just in awe of this guy. I told him we would talk about that but it would probably take more than one week.

I have several ideas about where I would go, but was just wondering. Anybody want to weigh in? What would you say?

1  1

I just read about this upcoming film and I think it is going to be a must see for people woking with teens.

“Race to Nowhere is a documentary film examining the pressures faced by youth, teachers and parents in our achievement obsessed education system and culture. Featuring the heartbreaking stories of young people who have been pushed to the brink, educators who are burned out and worried that students aren’t developing the skills needed, and parents who are trying to do what’s best for their kids, Race to Nowhere points to the silent epidemic running rampant in our schools.”

Anyone want to make some popcorn? Check out the trailer here.

1  1

I saw on Marko’s blog that he had a list of questions from a friend that was a really good list. People have often said that the questions are often more important than the answers. These were good questions. Several I really liked were:

“3. What is the effect of facebook, social networking, and computer screens on a faith and community?

4. Why do so many of our students date people who don’t share a common faith system with them?”

And especially:

“9. What am I doing as a norm in ministry that I will genuinely have to apologize to the next generation of youth pastors for?”

These are good questions, but mine is different. I only really have one and it is the biggest, most often problematic source of what I do in youth ministry. It is what I spend most of my time trying to change (and would spend the rest of my life trying to change).

Why does Christianity create a culture of happiness as an end goal?

I don’t have anything against happiness, mind you. But it is like an idol in many Christian’s lives and for teens it is their goal in life. All this sounds great until you try to help someone start living like what they were created for. It’s not a comfortable place. It means change and awkwardness. It often means seeing friends go another way. New habits, new patterns for the new creation.

So said teen often comes back to me after trying this and understandably is confused. Their not as happy as they were. They are pursuing something that isn’t for their own comfort. Granted their life is way better in almost every sense, but they don’t feel as happy as they were, and then they look at people in the Christian culture and wonder what they missed. And it must be them, because everyone else seems like they are having a good time.

There are people out there who don’t get into this, but I just want to know why we feel like we should always present the happy side of life.

1  1

There is a great post by Donald Miller (one of my favorite authors). Please go read it for yourself. He tackles two huge issues for the church today.

1. Do you have to attend church on Sunday morning in the building that has a cross to be considered in fellowship with other believers?

2. Is the church missing out on leadership because it focuses only on church leadership?

There are two great questions in there and a lot more to think about. He makes three points that really bring home something that is one of the things I hate about church today.

“1. Leadership in church has to do with teaching and administrating mostly centered around education.

2. Church attendance, then, is mostly about learning something,

3. When Jesus chose his disciples, they weren’t a group of educators.”

Now I have a bit of a soapbox that I need to get on. I have said so many times that I disagree with many of my former co-workers in their statement that “right thinking always leads to right living.” I think that is insane.

But the essential point is that I don’t think the church should be trying to make leaders, I don’t think the church should be mostly about education, and I don’t think that the church is on a good path when they talk about discipleship being a mix of the first two.

I need to flesh this out, so expect some future posts on this.

1  1

I’ve spoken about discipleship for a while, and I usually begin most of those talks with two questions that qualify discipleship as the type of relationship that invests the kingdom in someone else through a close relationship. In other words, what Jesus did with his disciples.

The first question: “How many of you have been discipled like that?”

Often two thirds to one half of the room will raise their hands. Many have had that type of relationship with others and been led into a deeper relationship with Jesus. Most of the time it looks like a Bible study or a small group that meets once a week. It might be a breakfast or after dinner group, but usually the focus is a book or the Bible.

The second question: “How many of you are discipling someone else like that right now?”

This question never receives more than a ten percent response. I have spoken to lay people and pastors alike and it is never higher than ten percent. Less than ten percent of the people who come to a talk about discipleship are out there practicing what is called the Great Commission.

It’s time for something different, and that is what I have been trying for the past 15 years. There are four things that I have seen that have become hallmarks of the way I do discipleship. These four things are what I have come to rely upon to know that I am doing the right things in discipleship.

Process over Outcomes
Intrinsic over Extrinsic Value
Dynamic over Static Relationships
Heuristic over Algorithmic  Structure

In the next few posts, I want to expand these markers of discipleship and make clear what I mean about each of these ideas.

1  1

I have been working on my first book (which I have been planning to make available as an ebook) for some time now. The process is not all I have expected, but the biggest challenge for me is the style of writing I want to use. I decided early on that I wanted the book to be short and concise, much like Tom Peters‘ book Design. I really like (though many don’t) the writing style of Rob Bell and John Eldredge, but think the material calls for something more like Jim Belcher or Eric Geiger.

So after struggling with this dilemma for several drafts and re-writing many chapters, I have invited a second writer into the process. Actually, as I was talking about it with my wife, she made me realize that I just wanted to include her. So the process is starting over again as she begins helping me refine my thoughts and co-writes with me. Hopefully, this will make the book even better than I anticipate and speed the process as well.

1  1

I have been thinking madly about this MBA program that Seth Godin is offering that I applied for yesterday. After reading much of the information on the site, I think it would still be an amazing thing to be in that program, but I have thought more about what I would do if it did. I really don’t want to wait around to start doing something, so I am starting something soon.

What I am thinking of will be something very new for me and something that starts small. I want it to start with only a few people, but I think it has the probability of growing into something gargantuan. That’s all I can really say about it for now, but I think it is going to be called The Initiative.

1  1