Young Theologians Society

The Incarnation

2006-12-14T16:47:00.000-08:00

Surely there had to be a better way. One not so humiliating... so human. The incarnation has taken on a new aspect for me this month. With the addition of Haddon Elliot last month, this once pretty theological term has taken on new, drastically more earthy tones in recent days. Could it really be true? The God of the universe woke for 2 AM feedings with Mary and Joseph (and 4 AM and 6 AM...). He waited on His mother to change his diapers and needed to be carried from place to place. Until now I took too lightly the humiliation involved in His birth. Often I thought of it in terms of the cross and the suffering He endured. This Christmas I have been compelled to think of it as reflected in His birth - and His daily life as well. God wrapped in human flesh. Confined to the movements of fragile hands and feet. Capable of experiencing pain. Gathering dust and dirt and needing a bath. The creator of the Universe bound by the limits of His creation. And for what purpose? That He might return to His Father the glory He so richly deserves. Soli Deo Gloria. Emmanuel, God with us...

new design

2006-09-19T19:59:00.000-07:00

since we update so often... :)
i decided to freshen up our design a bit.

hey, at least some updates are happening.

Invitations

2006-09-13T11:09:00.000-07:00

I am not anti-invitations, but i'm close. no, not the kind asking you to attend a wedding -- the kind that accompanies a service in most southern churches. Here are some of the issues i find with our 'invitations'.

1. It teaches our people that there is a special time for prayer. - When we invite people to 'pray at the alter' it often gives a false assumption that prayer at 'the alter' is better than any other prayer. i'm convinced that some couples only pray together during this time, and rarely apply it and pray when they get home.

2. It often creates moments driven by emotions, not truth. - I have been in countless services when this time is over-emotional, and people are making decisions (i have had countless friends who "surrendered to missions" in the heat of a moment or camp, who are nowhere near the ministry now) based on their emotions -- not an authentic calling of the Spirit. I've also been in cross-cultural situations where someone has asked a body of people to raise their hands if they don't want to burn in hell, of course their culture doesn't understand the invitation and no one wants to burn -- so everyone raises their hand. our dis-service is to assume that their magical formulaic prayer has saved these people, though they may never again hear the name of Jesus in their life.

3. It can cause a church to think God is moving if no one goes up. - I have been in several churches where no one responds week-after-week, and it can often lead a church to believe that God is not working. If He were, people would be recommitting and surrendering, signing cards and raising hands right?

4. It moves a service from God-centric to a focus on those praying. - People can sometimes put the focus on themselves by praying up in front of everyone, instead of putting the proper focus on God. Often people think "i know why she's up there!" Ok, i can't say i know what people think, just what i do. :) I know several people who typically go up front do so, so that others make notice.

5. Hand-raising and repeat-after-me prayers are not authentic salvation experiences. - We try to over-simplify the Gospel. Jesus didn't come so we could ask everyone to simply repeat after me and then tell their friend if they meant it. There's more to the Gospel, and salvation is not from a magical prayer. It takes a real understanding of who Christ is and what He has done for us. I have been to several youth events where most kids will do whatever the guy on stage asks (especially if they think he's cool). At the last youth event i took my kids to, i had an unchurched kid raise his hand, fill out a card, and the whole shebang. on the way home i was asking him what "saved" meant, or what commitment did he make. He had no clue. and now we're backtracking to help him understand.

6. It is really something that has to be learned, it's not natural... so its not really effective in reaching the unchurched. - the 'invitation' is obviously not something that has been done for thousands of years... it's been much more popular since the Great Awakening during times when God is moving and people needed a system to handle all of the decisions. To respond to an invitiation, almost requires a culture of understanding what it is. Unchurched people don't know what this is and why we do it. or why we have to sing the same stanza of "just as i am" 8 times to get it done.

So, what are they good for? There is a good time to have an invitation. inviting others to find someone they can talk to about the Gospel or if they need counseling. Oftentimes hearing God's Word requires a response time -- not necessarily meaning to 'pray at the alter', but we need to learn to be creative in how we help others apply this truth to their lives. Giving an invitation every sermon is a lame, simple way out of proper discipleship.

Diminishing Denominations

2006-08-27T19:15:00.000-07:00

Mark Driscoll wrote an interesting article on how to kill a denomination.

check it out here

Is my new church healthy?

2006-06-21T14:01:00.000-07:00

Most of us in the ministry desire to be successful. In fact, I doubt you would speak with many pastors who would admit that he would be just as happy in a declining, dying church than in a growing, exuberant one. This may have something to do with our infatuation with numbers equaling success. We’ve all sought out how to help our church grow from guys with dramatic stories of how they grew a church from 10 to 10,000 after only 3 short years – with detailed encouragement on how we could do the same thing in our neck of the woods. After a barrage of conferences, hearing from many of our modern ‘church growth’ experts; I began to wonder ‘what really did make a new church healthy?’

Church health does not happen overnight. There have been many who have grown incredible ministries with great stories of God doing amazing things in short amounts of time. However, even with the prospect of a new mega-church being born every 2 days, the 1/3 of new churches considered successful may not all hit the profile of a large, mega-church very quickly. And numbers can’t always equal success, can it? Numbers can be an excellent gauge on our effectiveness, but are rarely the definition of it. Every church regardless of its age needs to question its vitality, and I’ve made some observations about successful church plants that could also apply to the established church:

1. Strong Ecclesiology – The first step of a healthy church is a strong foundation for the church. This foundation can’t be found in a business handbook – it needs to birth out of our strong theology that derives from Scripture. Too often new churches structures don’t differ too much from a fast-food franchise or coffeehouse. We can gain much from business practices to help make us more effective and efficient, but we need to begin with the Biblical view of the church.

2. Transformed Lives – Simply having high numbers is not enough, it is what you do with them. A new church needs to be a place where these individuals are experiencing a lifechange. Part of our command in the Great Commission is to make disciples, and we can’t do that with solely entertaining services with non-committal attendees. At some point, we need to see some major lifechange happen; whether that is new believers, or existing believers committing to a deeper relationship.

3. Proper Missiology - The church needs to be an accurate representation of its community stylistically. We can’t try to force a community to express themselves differently than is common to them. Fights over style need to come to an end, and we need to realize our goal is to contextualize the Gospel to the culture we are trying to reach. A healthy church should represent their culture well, while still offering the counter-cultural life that Jesus calls us to.

4. Impact in the Community – A healthy church needs to be shaping the community around it. McManus and others have considered themselves to be ‘cultural architects’ because of their desire and ability to have a cultural impact on the community around them. Our churches need to be incarnational in the sense that we are taking the Good News to the community surrounding us, not waiting for them to come to us.

5. Active in Multiplication – Many new churches have started with the help and support of other networks, churches, and organizations, but when they start to do well they often forget that there is a huge need still out there. If a new church is not actively involved yet in helping plant other new churches, they need to have a solid plan at the very least that their congregation needs to be aware of. A healthy new church is one that multiplies, by its support of new churches and ministries both here and abroad, it needs to have a strong focus on mission. For most churches, this is where the rubber hits the road for true success.

If your church is doing well at these five observations, you most likely will experience growth; both numerically and in spiritual depth. But defining your success by numbers alone can be dangerous; there are plenty of invalid ministries (just turn on the tv) that have huge numbers. Not to mention the fastest growing religion in the world is an invalid one – but they have the numbers. They are a good gauge of success, but not a means to an end. Our success needs to be understood from several angles, not just attendance.

Look for more in the future about evaluating these 5 things. But if you’re not finding your new church has busted at the seams just yet, maybe you will find encouragement in these ways of self-evaluation for success.

Entitlement zone

2006-05-16T16:13:00.000-07:00

so, a few days ago i began a post on entitlement. i eventually deleted it because of my lack of clarity in thought and brevity in speech. however, i will again attempt this inegma and most likely botch it up.

It seems that I occasionally run into young (i use this word as if i'm not in this category...) leaders (or want-to-be's) fresh out of college or seminary that have the attitude we used to describe in elementary school as 'know-it-all'. I love hearing them declare that they want to be 'senior pastors', plant 'mega-churches', and many other useless phrases in seeking personal gain. young leaders often don't say, "i want to learn from the best, work hard, give my life -- and maybe God will use me." But is the older generation saying this too? i doubt that many of the young guys would agree that they embrace this thought, and i myself would probably disagree that i embrace that thought -- despite often reoccuring attitudes and opinions that surface from my conversations. Part of it is this sense of entitlement, often claimed to embody this young generation... one that expects what they haven't earned. Though i may express thoughts or opinions doesn't mean i'm less teachable... in fact, i may even mean i am MORE teachable than many of my counter-parts. how is that (you ask)?

Because teachability begins by asking questions. When we begin to simply accept things without contest and are no longer critical (no... not negative, critical -- look it up) thinkers; we have lost our edge to be teachable. in fact, i concur that the more unteachable groups are the ones demanding for their cheese not to be moved. I love what my friend says, 'People think we [Christians] are weird, because we are.' If you're looking around your denomination or conventions meetings, and you could take a picture of that room home to your neighbors, and they 'might' think that pic was taken 15-20 years ago -- then yeh, we might be stuck in a rut.

so, what do we do with many of these guys who feel they are 'entitled'?
Here's how i feel we can effectively use these young leaders.
1. Harness their passion. use it for good. If you fight, they will fight back. Dont' be surprised to see this. History proves that oppressed people are often fueled by a rebellious passion that can often be reckless (also see a cool movie on this subject titled 'braveheart'). So, why do we fight them? Let's harness that energy and use it for good. our denominational mission centers shouldn't hire young guys to mop floors, lets hire these guys to put our finger on the pulse of culture and the church community -- and filter these suggestions with years of experience and wisdom.
2. Lead by example. Of course this should be the goal in any case, but especially in this one. How do you want the 'young' guys to act? Remember that old commercial where the father found pot in his sons room, to which the son cries with an empassioned tear "i learned it from watching you Dad!". In SBC life, the conservative resurgence came about by a graassroots movement to see the convention focus on theology... now there appears to be the same in regards to missiology -- both are (and were) repressed by the current leaders of the day.
3. Pass on a teachable spirit. Should we expect them to become teachable if we aren't? We (collectively) have to remain teachable if we EVER want to see the same reflected in those under us. My jock friends know what movie this line comes from: "Attitude reflects leadership, captain." If we prove ourselves to become more teachable, i think we will see other generational
4. Recognize young guys who embody a healthy, Biblical mindset and are effective in their ministry. Even if you disagree with their methods (and those methods don't contradict Scripture... and keep in mind that Jesus never spoke from a pulpit that i know of. If we see young leaders embracing strong theology fueled with a strong missiology -- lift them up, encourage them. Don't just give them the complimentary head nod and move on.

to a point we are ALL entitled to fulfilling our mission in life with God. No matter what He calls us to, we can't wait on our grandparents to start embracing new ideas, but we can honor their past ministries and thank God that it was them who brought us here -- and continue to move forward.

I know this may not have any ripple, but it helps me to get some thoughts out there.

Attractional Vs. Incarnational

2006-05-10T22:03:00.000-07:00

I am a Tivo addict. Technically mine is a DVR, but the term Tivo has been coined already, and i guess it will stick. Nonetheless, i love setting this thing to record all of the shows i like, or kinda like (most in High Def); and i can watch them when i feel like it.

Tonight Mel and I watched the latest installment of Apprentice. It aired monday, but nothing interupts our 24! Anyway, the task this week was to throw a tailgating party sponsored by Outback. The guys threw a huge party: they had a money grab box, eating contests, give-aways, and lots of cheerleaders. They also did a ton of promotion and syked up the students. The girls took a different approach. With all the excitement going on at the guys tent, they decided their strategy would be to take the food to the tailgaters. They didn't have tons of people around their tent, but they delivered the food and beat the guys by almost a 50% more in sales.

There is a big debate among many churches as far as model. We often define these as 'Attractional' and 'Incarnational'. Within many Attractional-based churches, the ultimate goal is for the community to come to them. It's all about the weekend, and generally the ministry of this church focuses primarily on the weekend services alone. Small groups are a good addition, but often in Attractional churches the focus is on the service. Thus the term, their attempt is to 'attract' those who aren't in church, seekers, etc. The Attractional model usually throws huge parties (when they're done right) for their services and they go all out on being creative and unique. Terms used here are often "invest and invite", meaning the church encourages their members to invest in those they come in contact with, in order to invite them to come to church -- again the primary target being to get a person inside the service.

Another idea is what many call 'Incarnational'. Incarnational churches differ in focus, as their goal is to grow naturally and out of an expression of the local culture. Many incarnational churches actually hold their services in what is becoming another common term, the 'third place' (our 'first' place being home and our 'second' being work, the 'third' place is where people spend their time when they aren't in place 1 and 2 -- such as Starbucks or a Local Pub/Bar). Incarnational churches choose to grow through relationships and not gimmicks, giveaways, or mailouts. These churches change the focus from "come to me" to a "go to them" mentality, and their goal is to equip the members of their church to live in their communities as missionaries -- reaching their friends, co-workers, and neighbors for Jesus even if they never darken the door of a church.

What i'm NOT suggesting is that there is any truth to be learned about the church from The Apprentice (though i have seen pastors with as bad hair as Trump), but my it did catch my interest. I'm not sure which model is the perfect one, and i'm not sure we have to be stuck in one or the other. But i do know that often our churches err on becoming to 'business-like', when we are lacking authenticity and truth through our communities. It is not just enough for someone that attends our churches for them to invite their friends, there is so much more to our job of equipping than that. We definitely need to be attractional (Jesus did say "come and see.."), but not at the sake of our incarnationality.

All i know is, i was kinda bummed the girls one; but while the guys tent was a huge fun party full of spectators, the winners took the meat out TO hungry fans.

Worthship

2006-05-04T12:16:00.000-07:00

For some reason I have found myself reading a lot, in a variety of forms of media, about worship. It seems like the church has almost moved from one battle over "worship" to the next. Do we sing the Psalms or the hymns? Do we sing hymns or choruses? Do we sing hymns again? It almost feels like in the midst of contending for our own preferences, the church has lost sight of what worship is really supposed to be - a declaration of the worthiness of our God. It has become a means of putting rear ends in the seats to hear the truth. Two common questoins have become: Is it relevant? Is it excellent? While these are valid questions, we need to remember to add a qualifier to them - "to God."

But why do most arguments seem to come back to the idea of worship? I wonder if its because Satan knows that it is the central battleground in our lives. We are what we worship - whether artist, preacher, or possession - we can be defined by our object of worship. Has our enemy crafted a scheme where what we worship, and where our worth is, is no longer God, but the idea of worship itself? Have we become so concerned with its form that we've forgotten its function. If we lose sight of the object of our worship in our debate over its form, my friends, we have sorely missed the mark.

Does it need to be done to the best of our abilities and relevant (if we define relevant as being in the heart language) to the participant - yes, because in failing either of these two, it ceases to be worship and becomes mere words. But in discussing form and style, we must not forget that God is worshipped in every way. So let the discussion on emerging vs. contemporary vs. traditional/liturgical rage, but let us remain vigilent that in the discussion our worship does not shift from the ONE worthy of our worship to the form in which we do so.

In His Grace.

Does Sin of Omission lead to Sins of Commission?

2006-05-01T21:29:00.000-07:00

I read Mark Driscoll's blog tonight where he begins a discussion on sins of omission vs commission and it got me thinking... do we often promote a sinful lifestyle because of our fear of approaching the subject and topic?

We really have created a unique culture in church life... remember the pastor that encouraged us to dress up to church by saying "if the president of the US was coming to visit, wouldn't you wear your best?" -- as if we can only meet with the Lord in a building erected in His Name. I can think of several faux-pas' within our churches today that didn't seem to have quite as much difficulty rising to the surface of the Biblical text. So, my question is... Do we lack discipline and risk because we are nervous to mention that the Chrisitan life is not about a comfortable life? Do we see sexual sins and addictions more prevalent within the body of Christ because of our fear to talk openly about it as the Bible often has? (likewise, does this often cause shame when the word is mentioned, when it should cause joy in something God has created for good?) Does the body of Christ often lack effectiveness and unity because we are too afraid to approach morons (ok, strong word... maybe stupid-heads work) who twist and abandon good Biblical truth to accomodate their own personal views, causing the body to suffer and disessemble?

i just do wonder if the things we create as "no-no's" within our services are often the things that need to be spoken about the most (outside of the Gospel being preached) for our body to live their lives with more glory to the Father.

American Jesus

2006-04-18T20:55:00.000-07:00

I have always been amazed at how much Jesus' message seems to have gotten twisted, and we argue over interpretation... but its never questioned what Jesus looked like. Of course -- we've all seen the pictures. You can find them all over; in malls, christian bookstores, pastors offices... right next to the Kincaids. Jesus has perfect hair (no split ends), a nice groomed beard, He is usually thin and very clean looking. I'm not quite sure where this picture of Jesus started from, but i do find it interesting that it is hardly even questioned. In fact, i'm surprised franchised churches and other coffee-houses... er, churches haven't picked up on this. Why not show a picture of Jesus as we would know him? Short haircut, maybe a cool goatee, some designer jeans, and maybe a really nice preppy polo. (oh i can see the mailer now)

As much as the visual of the thin-bearded Jesus has really made over at least the last 1,000 years; i'm quite sure we've lost much of our understanding on who Jesus really was. What we have here today is... an American Jesus. When we hear stories from the Bible, we immediately begin to associate and identify in a way that is common to us -- not in a way that was common to them. This can be difficult when understanding a passage, because we are immediately infusing a concept that may have never meant to be implied. What should our goal be? i assume our goal would be to unlearn our Western thoughts, and begin to attempt to think with an Eastern mind. Yes, Jesus was not American... He was in fact Eastern, Middle Eastern to be exact.

I think Jesus was in fact not a thin, clean cut, groomed person we picture him as. I've got a feelilng He had rough hands, a frame that made you hope He was friendly, and a sweet ZZ-Top beard... ok, maybe not the super-long beard, but i doubt it was nicely groomed and wearing new balance's. We can never fully adapt a completely new mindset, but we sure do need to try.

Deadly Ecclesiology?

2006-04-13T06:05:00.000-07:00

Here's a link to Walt Mueller's blog on his CPYU.org website. He raises some interesting questions - albeit not new ones - regarding how and why we do church.

Theology of Bling

2006-04-06T08:12:00.000-07:00

I know this gets into really deep water... and will likely offend a bunch, but who cares? What is a proper financial theology? The modern church is putting a large emphasis on helping the poor, and things of that nature, but also on being culturally relevant technologically (in both mission and personal aspects). Where is the line? When does it become too much money spent on our personal comfort and technological savvy? Should we all be driving used cars and listening to non-Ipod mp3 players? Is it wrong to eat lobster and steak and live in houses with more rooms for more of our stuff? Is it enough to simply say, "honor God with your earnings"? What is the line that denotes "your heart is right" and the one that denotes "you're focused too much on self"? I know this is just a lot of questions, but is there even an answer?

Welcome

2006-03-30T20:42:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure how long this will last, but we figured we'd give it a go.
YTS is a group of young guys who like to sit around and discuss theology. We have a heart to see the Church contextualize their ministry and spread the Gospel. Simply put, we love Jesus and want to see others do the same...
and talking about what old dead guys wrote is kind of a hobby.