When Youth Pastors Grow Up (?)

About 10 years ago, there was a youth pastor holed up in his office, trying to think of a creative way to get kids in the door so he could tell them about Jesus. This was a significant part of his job. Yes, actually telling kids about Jesus was important, but getting them in the door occupied most of his energy. Kids were busy with school and family and Halo, kids weren't interested in church, and the kids who were interested were mostly heading to the bigger church down the street, the church with the bigger budget and the cooler toys. So our youth pastor friend here was desperate to come up with a new way to get kids into the door of his church.

On good days, most youth pastors would say their primary goal in life was to introduce kids to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and then to train them as followers of Christ. On more honest days, however. . .the unspoken truth was that their unspoken goal was just to get kids in the door. Yes, before you can tell kids about Jesus you need to meet them, so getting them in the door was a good goal. But in reality, one of the only measures of success that could be gauged was "how many kids are sitting in the seats?" Church members would look at the budget every year, and compare it to "how many kids are sitting in the seats?" Youth pastors would read books and go to conferences and the not-so-subtle message they heard was "effective youth ministries have lots of kids sitting in the seats." All the youth pastors in town would gather for lunch, and everybody knew who the superstars were, who the really important youth pastors were - the ones who had the most kids sitting in the seats. In fact, the really really important youth pastors didn't even come to the meetings, because they were so busy taking care of all those kids that were sitting in those seats.

And of course, they all knew that the way to get kids into those seats was to offer something really cool. Really radical. Really awesome. Really gross. Really relevant. Like a series called "Jesus and Sex and Dating." Or, more often, an event that was just awesome and super and gross. Like when the church across town held the Nickelodeon-style Slime Night, at which the youth pastor and his staff and some of the cool kids all got slimed, and it was gross and awesome and amazing, and all the kids in town were talking about how cool it was when the youth intern (the new hip one) had gotten slimed.

So our youth pastor, the one in our story, had to come up with something even more cool and gross and awesome than slime night. He didn't want to admit it, but he was in competition with all those other churches, so he had to out-cool, out-awesome, out-gross those others. He needed something more super-awesome than Slime Night.

So he sat there, with a couple of his volunteers, and the racked their brains, until an idea popped into his head.

"I know. . .let's have a toilet bowl night! That will be super-gross and funny. We can have toilet-themed games! Like, we could fill a (clean) toilet with Mountain Dew, and throw in some Tootsie Rolls, and make the kids get them out with their mouths - like bobbing for apples, only in a toilet!"

(note: this is an actual youth group event that has been tried in many youth ministries across America. I'm not making it up.)

And then his intern said "Yeah! We could even throw in some mustard, so it looks like diarrhea!" And they all laughed at that one for a good 5 minutes.

They spent the next hour coming up with slogans and toilet bowl relay races and toilet-paper games. The creative arts girl went to work putting together the graphic arts for the flyers. And they all went home that day, stoked at their creativity that was sure to bring in a big crowd to sit in those seats.

Now, the thing is, sometimes in youth ministry, this isn't all bad. Kids like gross and different and fun; they might invite their friends to toilet night, and they'd certainly talk about it for years to come. A steady diet of gross-out super radical youth ministry can be dangerous, but the occasional goofy game night can be a welcome moment of frivolity for stressed-out kids.

What I always wondered, though, was what would happen when all these youth pastors, whose primary giftings seemed to lie in creative ways to fill the seats, grew up and became senior pastors or church planters. There has often been, unfortunately, a correlation between a youth pastor's immaturity and their success, at least insofar as getting kids to sit in those seats. So what happens when that mentality of "immaturity + gross-out factor = more people in the seats" moves upward into the senior leadership in the church?

That question is now being answered. A few years ago a church in a Seattle suburb held a large promotional event, offering free tattoos during their morning worship service. This year's example was a church in South Carolina that mailed out thousands of mass-mail invitations to Easter worship; on the cover was a photograph of a dead rabbit on the road, obvious road-kill, surrounded by plastic Easter eggs.

Setting aside the fact that mass-mail invitations have been proven to be absolutely worthless in attracting people to church, these were sent out with the direct purpose of offending people. According to their pastor, "Are we willing to offend some to get the attention of other folks who have no regard for Jesus, the church, the gospel or Easter?  That's a risk a we're always willing to take."

Listen, the gospel is offensive enough without us adding layers and layers of trumped-up offense. As the Rev. Don Robinson once said, "If we're going to offend people, let's make sure they're offended for the right reasons." Proclaiming the lordship of Jesus? Okay. Mailing out postcards with dead bunnies to unsuspecting families? Not so much.

By the way, that whole 'competing with the church across town' idea was certainly at play here. Because another church in the same town set this sign up to attract people:

If there was one thing lacking in many of the youth pastors I used to know, it was the filter that said "Just because it gets people's attention, it's not necessarily a good idea." And the subsidiary filter that said "Just because it's my idea, it's not necessarily a good idea."

Unfortunately, it seems that, just because these youth pastors grew up and became senior pastors and church planters, they didn't leave behind the "be super-shocking and amazing to get people in the seats" mentality.

Not to rant about this too long. . .but just imagine for a moment you're a frazzled single mom, barely making it through a long day of getting kids up and out the door to school, heading off to work, picking up the kids from day care, running them to soccer practice, heading home for dinner, and then little Susie picks up the mail and finds this picture of a dead rabbit. Exactly what part of that makes you say "Oh yes, I want to go to that church! That looks like a place where I'll find the love, mercy, grace, hope, and friendship I so desperately need! That looks like a place of hope and grace!" Really. . .what non-church attender is going to come to your church because of this? The only people you're really going to attract is people who are already attending other churches, but getting a little bored with the same-old same-old. So you're not spreading the gospel, you're really just stealing sheep with the help of cheap marketing tactics.

And that's not how you build a healthy church.

Addendum 1: Over the last few years I've hung out with many youth pastors who seem to be doing much better at the disciple-making thing, avoiding much of the gimmick-based ministry of earlier days. So don't read this as any kind of judgment against today's youth ministers. The ones I know are pretty cool people.

Addendum 2: I just noticed that Eugene Cho posted a blog about this same subject a few days ago. As usual, he says it a lot better than I did.  

The Scourge of Self-Righteous Divisiveness

Back from a weekend at family camp. The weekend started with a conversation with a fellow Covenant minister. He related a story of a group of neo-calvinists who had joined up with his church, and then attempted to force the church to adopt their theology, and teach it, and nothing else, to their youth. Their suggested curriculum for the youth group was all 'Pure Calvinist theology" a la John Piper and J.I. Packer. Said one father to the pastor, "We have to teach our youth to be afraid of God, so they won't sin." When the pastor responded "I'd rather teach them about the love of God, so they will want to obey," that man left the church, taking quite a few families with him. And he took a parting shot, labeling this man of God a Liberal, and dangerous to the church.

Later in the weekend, I had a conversation with a Young Life leader and youth pastor, a man caught up in the current atonement debate within Young Life. Once again, a vocal group of neo-calvinists has taken control, declaring that Penal Substitutionary Atonement, being a good Calvinist position, be the only method of atonement/salvation taught in Young Life. A group of others, who hold to other models of atonement (mostly Christus Victor, but there are others), a group that wants to tell the story of a loving, forgiving God rather than an angry, vindictive God, have essentially been told to be quiet or leave.

Finally, I came home to read a heartbreaking email, telling the story of a seminary prof and personal friend being accused, slandered, labeled a heretic, and essentially being forced to defend himself before his denomination. . .all because he dared challenge the predominant, Penal-Substitution Model of the Atonement. And the charges. . .once again, strident neo-calvinist influences.

Why?

I don't have a problem with calvinism, really, although I don't agree with much of it. I do recognize the weight of their arguments, and don't deny that they may be right. I give them the right to believe, to teach, to hold to those positions. But time and again, they don't offer the same freedom to others, instead teaching that calvinism (especially as espoused by Piper, Sproul, and MacArthur) IS the gospel. And thus they divide the Body, a sin (in my opinion) far greater than choosing the wrong model of the atonement.

For a people who supposedly believe so much in grace, they sure don't show it much.

(and I know there are some good calvinists who read this blog, so feel free to join in the conversation. I don't want to attack the many for the sins of the few. . .it's just that, I know too many who have suffered too much at the hands of your fellow theological brothers and sisters)

Somebody needs to say it

In the capacity of an official representative of the Body of Christ, I would like to make the following statement:


The "Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8" bumper stickers that certain cars are sporting do not, in any way, reflect the attitude for which Christians are to be known in the world. Putting it simpler: You cannot justify the use of these stickers from a Christian viewpoint. Putting it simpler: These stickers are horrible and should not be used by any who call themselves followers of Christ.

Or, put it this way: If you truly are a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, and if you attempt to live your life according to God's Word, then DON'T GET ONE OF THESE STICKERS!

Also, if you're none of the above, then I apologize for this blatant misuse of scripture to make a foul political point. This is deceptive, it is not 'cute' as it purports to be. This is just plain wrong. And it's nothing to joke about.

Christians are told to pray for those in authority over us. But this is what our attitude is supposed to look like:

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. - 1 Timothy 2


Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. - Romans 13

Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men. - Titus 3


Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king. - 1 Peter 2.

Seriously. . .is it all that difficult? You don't have to like the guy; you don't even have to agree with, nor support, his policies. But this is what we are called to do: Submit to him, pray for him (pray that he comes to a knowledge of the truth), be thankful for him, be obedient and humble toward him, refrain from slandering him, honor him. All those things are right there in the Book. Right there in the New Testament.You may not feel like doing any of those things, but you don't really have a choice. You either do those things, or you stand disobedient before God.

When we go around behaving silly and stupidly, misusing the Text to make some sort of political joke, we sin against God, we disobey the Biblical mandate before us, we make a mockery of the Bible in front of the world, we make fools of ourselves, we damage our credibility, we sacrifice our witness and mission on the altar of political tomfoolery.

Is this clear enough for you? Come on, Christians. Let's be smarter than this. Let's do what the text actually calls us to do. Let's be above the mud-slinging and cynicism. Let's pray for the man. Better that he come to follow the wisdom of God, than something terrible happen to him and cause more chaos in the land. Better we be models of peace and humility than we lose any shred of respectability we have left.

One more reason to boycott Starbucks

Did you hear the one about the Egyptian Cleric who denounced Starbucks, because the SB logo depicts Queen Esther?

No, seriously.

"Have any of you ever wondered who this woman with a crown on her head is? Why do we boycott Starbucks? I will tell you, so you will know why you should boycott this company, and what this logo stands for. . .The girl in the Starbucks logo is Queen Esther. Do you know who Queen Esther was and what the crown on her head means? This is the crown of the Persian kingdom. This queen is the queen of the Jews. She is mentioned in the Torah, in the Book of Esther. The girl you see is Esther, the queen of the Jews in Persia."

Question for a Tuesday Afternoon

Why is it that, for young people bent on moving out of their sheltered evangelical upbringing, the next stop on the train is so often cynicism?

We live in a world in which many people are asking many good questions about the assumptions of the past century's christendom. Many are rightfully calling the church to task for errors we have made in our past. The Rob Bells, Erwin McManus's, Brian McLarens, and Donald Millers of the world are pushing the church into some new areas it needs to address. And part of that process is opening up to places we've been wrong in the past. Perhaps we did allow the trappings of modernity and white european males to dominate the Church for too long. Perhaps we did make some mistakes in attempting to create christianized versions of all-things worldly back in the 1980s (note: this tendency is still alive and well).

But where I hear Bell and Miller and McManus and McLaren poking and prodding in healthy directions, I keep coming across angry young Christians who are into full-blown cynicism. It's like they get the critique of the emergents or the postmoderns or the (insert critiquer here), but they stop there, right at the "here's everything that's wrong with the church" part. They don't seem to take the next step of "But the Church is the Bride of Christ, so I will do all I can to make her beautiful"

When MLK jr decided enough was enough, he set out to make a difference. When the Dalai Lama decided enough was enough, he began to work for change. But istm that many young Christians, when they tire of the Bibleman Jesus junk and schlocky Christian Music, simply give up, preferring to hang out at bohemian coffee shops and complain about "the church is just so hypocritical, man. It's just too modernistic for a pomo like me."

Is there something about Christianity that breeds cynicism? Or is it just kids these days?

Not Helping the Conversation

One of the people who belong to the church I pastor asked me about an article she had read. In the article, Greg Laurie, pastor of Harvest Fellowship in Riverside, CA, joins the chorus of voices speaking out against the Emergent Church.

You need to know that I have attended Harvest Fellowship, and while mega-churches with their own bookstores and coffee shops and parking attendants aren't my cup of tea, I could tell that God was at work there. I have listened to Greg Laurie on the radio, I once attended a Harvest Crusade in Anaheim where I saw him in person. I have always enjoyed his powerful delivery of the gospel, his passion for evangelism, and his cultural sensitivity. And I've been a fan of the Calvary Chapel non-denomination, to which Harvest belongs.

Which is why I was all the more saddened, disheartened, and angered by the above-mentioned article. I'm not sure what Laurie's intentions were (I suspect he is hoping to "protect" his flock from those heretical emergents), but the result is disastrous. He misrepresents the Emergent movement, he fails to grasp the real issues, he chases after red herrings, and he ends up being divisive and disparaging toward his brothers and sisters in Christ. I'm shocked that he would publish something so shoddy.

Let this be a teachable moment to us all.

1. From the article:

One of these leaders made this statement: "I must add, though, that I don't believe making disciples must equal making adherence to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many, not all circumstances, to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts."

This sounds very inclusive and loving, but it is flat-out wrong and unscriptural! We want people to become followers of Jesus in a biblical context!

Part of the problem with this article is that it doesn't leave room for nuance or further explanation. Laurie uses quick soundbites to create positions that he then dismantles. The above quote could be construed as unbiblical, but not necessarily so. In fact, this isn't even an Emergent discussion, per se. This is a discussion being held among the leading missiologists around the world. And it's not the "younger, emergent" types leading the charge. None other than Ralph Winter, godfather of U.S. Missions, has been leading the discussion on "Insider Movements." The question is this - is it better to see a Muslim converted, only to have them "come out" and be ostracized, cast out of their family and network, and probably killed? Or could they remain within their life, yet pray to Jesus during the prayer times, and worship Jesus when they go to the mosque? Would it be possible to create underground networks of Christians within those systems, who could then start to witness for Christ from within?

Please note: I'm not attempting to begin a discussion on Insider Movements. I'm only pointing out that whereas Laurie would call out Emergents as being unbiblical, this issue is not even an Emergent issue. It is just entering into the emergent discussion because it's the very discussion that our missionary leaders are having.

2. From the article

Jesus plainly said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the life. …" (John 14:6, NKJV) Yet despite this clear biblical teaching, another "emergent" leader says, "I see the world through the images of Christianity, which teaches me that I encounter God in everyone I meet, regardless of what they believe."

This is New Age mysticism, not New Testament Christianity. The truth is, you will only find Christ living in those who have put their faith in Him.

Again, the problem here is that Laurie has picked up on a couple "red flags" and, without attempting to understand what is really being said, he has chosen to shoot down the entire movement. However, with just the tiniest theological work, the above quote could, in fact, be entirely biblical. Simply begin with "Let us make humans in our image," and you're there already. Or go with the words of Jesus: "Whenever you do this to the least of these, you've done it unto me." I don't think the person being quoted meant to say that we're all one big happy God-filled family (although Laurie's failure to identify sources makes any backtracking impossible - another weakness of the article); from what I understand of Emergent thinking, the premise is simply that God can be seen in and through anyone. It's not a question of salvation, it's a question of the imago Dei. Wasn't it Mother Teresa who said something like "If you want to see Jesus, then go love a leper"? Whenever I took our youth group to feed the people at the Modesto Gospel Mission, I always told them "look in their eyes - those are Jesus' eyes looking back at you." Unfortunately, Laurie is coming in with suspicious eyes and finding heresies that aren't really there.

3. From the article

At the same time, I see other churches becoming distracted from the proclamation of the Gospel and instead focusing their primary energies on issues like "global warming." I'll tell you about global warming; it's when people spend eternity separated from Jesus Christ in hell! Jesus said of hell, "The fire never goes out" (Mark 9:48, NLT).

Here Laurie makes the logical mistake of assuming this is an either/or. You can either care for creation or you can witness to sinners. You can't seem to do both in Laurie's world. However, he misses at least three important points. First, the creation-care mandate was the first given to humans, (read Genesis 2), and it has never been rescinded. We are commanded to care for the earth, so we can't cop out by saying "we need to focus on other things." Second, he misses that creation care can actually be a powerful witness to Christ by children of the Creator. Proclamation of the Gospel is not solely accomplished by door-to-door evangelism, nor crusades. When the Church joins in with those who are working to better treat the creation, we witness to our love for our Creator, which is another way of proclaiming the gospel. Third, we won't have the opportunity to witness for the gospel if millions of people are dying because of the way we mismanage this planet.

One more point to be made - Note the employ of flashy rhetoric, equating global warming with people burning in hell. I hope your non sequitor alarms were going off when you read that one. Laurie is attempting to circumvent logical discussion with fiery (pardon the pun) language, pulling you in emotionally while short-changing you logically.

4. From the article:

We in the Church of Jesus Christ had better get back to basics, or we will lose what little influence we have left in our culture.

The ironic thing is, this is exactly what the Emergent Church is attempting to do - leave behind the packaging of modernity and returning to biblical basics, such as being the community of God, being salt and light IN our communities, living our faith as much as we verbally proclaim it, allowing the scriptures to speak rather than forcing on them arguments of human theological systems.

So, to conclude, Greg Laurie has attempted to speak out on an issue on which he has proven he has no understanding; I fear he has listened to other voices speaking out against the Emergents and allowed their rhetoric to cloud his judgment. He has called his brothers and sisters in Christ a "dangerous counterfeit"; he has clouded the discussion with empty, hollow rhetoric, he is causing division in the Body of Christ, and all by way of proclaiming an expertise in an area where he has yet to prove that he understands the issues.

For this, I am troubled and saddened, for his ministry has been blessed, and has been successful in winning many to the Lord. I just hope he's not becoming more exclusivist as he moves on. The Church does not need more Christians throwing stones at one another. We should set the example of those who listen, sift, discern, do the hard theological work, then listen, sift, and discern once again. And above all, we should be known by our love for one another, not our suspicion of one another.

I'm not sure this is what he meant

From time to time I am asked about the fact that America is never mentioned in the Bible. After all, the logic goes, the Prophecies in the Bible clearly spell out just how everything comes to a screeching halt at the End Of All Time. And if the prophets knew so much, then why didn't they mention America?

To some, this is a curiosity. To others, it's an existential crisis. How could God's Nation not play some vital role in the End Times?

To me, it's a non-issue, since I don't tend to hold to a strict, literalistic, dispensationalist view on the future. The prophets didn't mention America because, well, mostly because America didn't exist a couple thousand years ago. And also because much of what today passes as True Prophetic Messages of the End Times might just as well have been metaphorical interpretations of the times in which the authors were living. And, again, America was non-existent at that time.

But now all that might have changed. It seems some people have discovered that America actually is mentioned in the Bible. Or, at least, an American Interstate is mentioned in the book of Isaiah.

Here's the text:
Isaiah 35:8 "And a highway will be there; it will be called the Way of Holiness. The unclean will not journey on it; it will be for those who walk in that Way; wicked fools will not go about on it."

And see, here's the genius. Isaiah 35. Isaiah begins with an I. Thus, it's really talking about I-35, a freeway that runs from Larado, TX to Duluth, Minn.

And upon such a strange hermeneutic is founded the "Light the Highway" movement.

(If you'd rather not read through their whole web page, you can read a summary in the news article here.)

Let me state three somewhat disparate thoughts:
1) Seeking righteousness, proclaiming the Name of the Lord, praying for your city and country, fasting and evangelizing and interceding are all good things.
2) This method of Bible interpretation, that would lead one to believe that Isaiah's prophecy of Israel's redemption is in fact speaking of Interstate 35, is completely, utterly wrong.
3) I truly wish I understood where these people were coming from. When I worked in Portland I found myself among the same sort of people. People who regularly had Prophetic Revelations, revelations that sounded biblical, prophesies regarding Portland's revival, or Portland's condemnation. And the people behind these revelations were so sincere, so passionate, so fired-up for Jesus, but it seemed like one huge internal reaction with no external impact. The prophecies never came true; but the people just jumped off into the Next Big Prophetic Thing. It was like a runaway chain reaction that kept these people bouncing around, that had nothing whatsoever to do with reality. Instead of doing the things Christ commanded (feeding the poor, visiting the prisoners, standing up against injustice) they breathlessly forwarded emails about prophesies, they went to parks and sang worship songs, they hiked down highways praying for "demonic walls" to come down. It all seemed like so much wasted energy.

But, anyway, that's not really what all this was about. Instead, it was to let you all know that America is mentioned in the Bible, so we can lay that misperception to rest.