Movement, Myth, or Reality?

Robert Webber’s book, Younger Evangelical captures what he calls, “the thinking of the college and seminary student, and in particular, the ‘Twenty-Something’. A major concern of this book is where these movers and shakers are likely to lead the evangelical community in the next 25 years.”
Webber breaks down the major cultural and religious shifts into three categories: 1. Traditional Evangelicals (1950-1975)…Modern Worldview/Industrial Society/Post-WWII, 2. Pragmatic Evangelicals (1975-2000)…Transitional Paradigm/Technological Society/Vietnam War, and 3. Younger Evangelicals (2000-)…Postmodern Worldview/Internet Society/War on Terrorism.
He attempts to present the differences between traditional, pragmatic, and younger evangelicals, and he addresses how each group approaches many aspects of the Church (e.g. theology, apologetics, youth work, evangelism, and so forth). Below are some of Webber’s thoughts on Worship, Theology, and Ecclesiology.
*(make note that Webber states that these declarations are not of ‘absolute accuracy’, but are intended for thought and discussion).

1. Theological Understanding:
-Traditional Evangelical: Mostly affirm the purity of the church
-Pragmatic Evangelical: Great Commission ecclesiology
-Younger Evangelical: Incarnational ecclesiology

2. Theology Commitment:
-Traditional Evangelical: Christianity as a rational worldview
-Pragmatic Evangelical: Christianity as therapy, Answers need
-Younger Evangelical: Christianity as a community of faith, Ancient/Reformation

3. Church Polity:
-Traditional Evangelical: Mostly denominational
-Pragmatic Evangelical: Mostly congregational but creating new fellowships
-Younger Evangelical: Mostly congregational but networking with all Christians

4. Church Eschatology:
-Traditional Evangelical: Has an eschatological view, Mostly pre-millennial
-Pragmatic Evangelical: Indifferent to eschatological views
-Younger Evangelical: Seeks to be an eschatological community living out the future in the present

5. Ecclesial Paradigm:
-Traditional Evangelical: Constantinian church, Civil religion
-Pragmatic Evangelical: Culturally sensitive church, Market driven
-Younger Evangelical: Missional church, Countercultural

6. Leadership Style:
-Traditional Evangelical: Pastor centered
-Pragmatic Evangelical: Managerial model, CEO
-Younger Evangelical: Team ministry, Priesthood of all

7. Worship:
-Traditional Evangelical: Traditional
-Pragmatic Evangelical: Contemporary
-Younger Evangelical: Convergence

8. Style
-Traditional Evangelical: Traditional program
-Pragmatic Evangelical: Contemporary presentation
-Younger Evangelical: Liturgical, Ancient/Future, Contemporary

9. Content
-Traditional Evangelical: Thematic
-Pragmatic Evangelical: Topical
-Younger Evangelical: Triune

10. Participation:
-Traditional Evangelical: Primarily congregation singing
-Pragmatic Evangelical: Singing choruses
-Younger Evangelical: Highly interactive

11. Seating:
-Traditional Evangelical: Rows
-Pragmatic Evangelical: Theatre seats
-Younger Evangelical: Relational configuration

12. Instruments:
-Traditional Evangelical: Organ and brass
-Pragmatic Evangelical: Bands
-Younger Evangelical: Eclectic use of instruments

13. Music:
-Traditional Evangelical: Traditional hymns
-Pragmatic Evangelical: Contemporary choruses
-Younger Evangelical: Eclectic use including ancient forms of singing

14. Choir:
-Traditional Evangelical: Traditional choirs, Presentational
-Pragmatic Evangelical: No choir, Worship leader teams
-Younger Evangelical: Singing serves the text, Strong emphasis on congregational leadership

15. Preaching:
-Traditional Evangelical: Didactic
-Pragmatic Evangelical: Therapeutic
-Younger Evangelical: Narrative with an emphasis on obedience and Christian living, Interactive


So, what do you think?

1. Do you agree with Webber’s assessment?

2. What category do you personally fall into [not by age, but by practice :-) ]? Do you personally favor the Traditional, Pragmatic, or Younger Evangelical?

3. What category best represents your local church?

4. How do these findings influence how we ‘do’ church, as well as ‘being’ the church…both now and in the years to come?


(also, check out The Wonder of Worship, by Keith Drury, Worship Old and New, by Robert Webber, and Emerging Worship, by Dan Kimball)

The Christian Practice of Hospitality

The practice of hospitality was a pillar of the early church, but in the last 200 years it has become a foreign concept. In being one of the main practices seen throughout the Old and New Testament Scriptures, hospitality had a special place in the movement of God and His work. For example, in Genesis, the people of Israel are aliens in a foreign land and embodied the stranger/guest role, while God resembled the host.

In addition, we read how Abraham and Sarah welcomed in a stranger, offering them water and fine food. However, the stranger that they welcomed ended up being an angel sent by God (Genesis 18:1-10). In the New Testament, one of the most humbling examples of the practice of hospitality is when Jesus, as host, supplies breakfast for his guests (the disciples). In this act, along the shore after his resurrection, Jesus prepares fish (breakfast) over a fire (John 21).
For the first 400 years of Church history, believers of Christ tended to welcome those who knocked at their doors, for they thought it could be Jesus who was knocking. However, during the Medieval period, hospitality was increasingly used for selfish gain, rather than self-giving. It focused more on entertaining those with status; excluding rather than embracing. Therefore, while the church began losing its influence on this rich Christian Practice, governments and civil groups took more of lead in the area of hospitality.
Hospitality is about inclusion, a welcoming into one’s space, which moves past the ‘strangeness’ of the stranger. As a result, it breaks down the biological family, for it is a theology that sees things from a Kingdom perspective, rather than a local or privatized perspective.

The misconceptions of the practice of Hospitality
1. Consists of tea, appetizers and house warming parties…things my grandma would do.
2. Lay Leaders who are given leadership over greeting and welcoming folks at the front door of a church…passing out bulletins, shaking hands, saying ‘welcome’, and so forth.
3. Something that women do…it has a feminine slant. Men do not perceive hospitality as a practice or a means of grace, because men preach and evangelize. This is a big misnomer.
4. Scripture does not speak much about hospitality, nor the importance of it…therefore, it is not something that is really important to the Christian Faith.

So, what are the gestures of Hospitality?
1. Anticipating needs, being aware of those around you, being sensitive to their needs…often times they are small acts
2. Marks one’s entrance and departure (accompanying them on their arrival or exit)…even if it interrupts the conversation or event.
3. Offering people food, a shared meal
4. Makes sure that when you are welcoming someone they do not feel like an interruption.
5. Does not expect blessing…it is selfless, but Christ-like
6. The practice of discernment is important, for one cannot truly welcome everyone
7. One must cultivate an attitude of gratitude (see 1 Peter 4)…if not, hospitality cannot be sustained

What would the Church resemble if it seriously adopted the practice of Hospitality?
1. At its core, it would be diverse
2. There might be a level of ‘rich’ chaos in our congregations (translating different languages during the services, disruptions—such as testimonies, common prayer, etc.)
3. Homes and Churches would weave together hospitality…a holistic approach.
4. Congregations would centrally embrace the importance of social ministries and see their community through the lens of God’s Kingdom.
5. The Church’s theology of the practice of hospitality would be reflected in the architecture, design of the services, and the like.
6. A philosophy of hospitality, removes the ‘task’ mentality and the tendency to measure success by results, etc.
7. Hospitality would include family, friends, and those of the ‘least of these’—strangers, oppressed, outcasts of ‘your’ society (e.g. alienated teens, elderly, or the obvious-refugees, homeless, etc.).
8. Christian hospitality would not be mistaken for just a salutation or kind words…but bringing one ‘into’ our world…the Kingdom of God.
9. As Wesley taught, hospitality is a means of Grace. Thus, there is mystery in the practice of Hospitality (both publicly and privately)…which may be why it is so difficult, yet so rewarding


Other passages speaking about Christian Practice of Hospitality:
Luke 14:4, 12-15—“But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him away….Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do no invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

1Peter 4:8-11—“Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling. Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God’s grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.

Questions:

1. What comes to mind when you first hear of the word hospitality? Does it reflect the Christian tradition of this ancient practice?

2. How do you practice hospitality? How does your church practice hospitality?

3. It’s one thing to practice hospitality with people that we like or people that we want around. But how do we practice hospitality with people that are difficult to include?

4. The church growth movement has studied how much more successful it is for churches to reach out to people that are ‘like them’ (homogenous unit principle). Is this trend (and human tendency) Biblical?

5. Do you think the Christian practice of hospitality is easier or realized more fully in cultures that aren't as individualized as western culture?

Re-discovering the Theology of Christian Practices

Christian practices are patterns of cooperative human activity in which life together takes shape over time in response to the Word and work of Christ. Thus, our practices are a conversation between our actions and beliefs, and are a balance between being and doing. However, Christian practices must not be mistaken for duties, but rather patterns of communal action that create openings in our lives where the grace, mercy, and presence of God may be made known to us. They are places where the power of God is experienced. Wesley calls such practices a means of grace, which helps us live out a life that is holy. Therefore, in the end, Christian practices are forms of participation in the practice of God.

In the coming weeks we will look at the theology of some of these Christian practices (and their deformation), such as hospitality, truth telling, confession, promise keeping, fidelity, gratitude, and so forth.

For Further Thought:
1. How would you (or your local church) define Christian Practices?
2. Are there certain practices that should be more emphasized than others?
3. What practices would you add to the list above?


(Notes taken from: Craig Dykstra-practicingourfaith.org, Volf-Practicing Theology, and Pohl-Making Room)

Hello World!

Hello world…it has been over 2 ½ months since my last post, and I was not planning on posting anything for another week or so, however, this could not wait. You see, I do not normally post personal “information” on this blog, but I figured I would make an exception due to the magnitude of this news…well...


Andrea and I are expecting our second child sometime in the middle of April :-) !!!

Well, I have to get back to studying …talk with you all in about a week!

Christians should post Beatitudes, not Decalogue

In doing some research on issues of church and politics, I came across an interesting article, written by Prof. Jerome Meckier, a University of Kentucky professor of English emeritus. The premise of the article deals with Christians (primarily Evangelical Christians) voicing their opinion on the issue of fighting for the right to ‘post' the Ten Commandments, while not ‘living’ out the Beatitudes! Professor Jerome Meckier states:

“Supporters of posting the Ten Commandments in America's post offices or on the lawns of state capitols misunderstand separation of church and state. Unfortunately, their grasp of Christianity is just as faulty. The Commandments are a pre-Christian document central to the covenant between the God of the Old Testament and his chosen people.

For Christians, the New Testament supersedes the Old. Tolerance and compassion replace the demand for an eye for an eye. The Sermon on the Mount, nine blessings, takes precedence over 10 strictures from Mount Sinai. Christians would do better to post the Beatitudes. Moses was an inspired lawgiver; Christ claims to redeem. The former commands the Jews not to anger God, whereas the latter reveals the sorts of people who will actually see him.

The Beatitudes may be said to list the characteristics of the ideal Christian. Such a person is poor in spirit, meek, a mourner, a seeker of justice, merciful, clean of heart and a peacemaker willing to be persecuted in support of truth and justice. The mourner I take to be anyone sorely afflicted; perhaps this includes all who can empathize. One can be poor in spirit -- that is, detached, free from material craving -- no matter how grand one's actual worth, although the less one has or needs, the better.

In Matthew, when one of the Pharisees, putting Jesus "to the test, asked him, 'Master, which is the great commandment in the Law?' Jesus said to him, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets'." In short, Jesus reduced 10 commandments to two: honor God and love your neighbor. Instead of prohibitions, both are calls for positive action.

Jesus was a gifted pedagogue with a subtle sense of humor; he proposed less, yet demanded more. He knew how difficult it is to love another with the same degree of understanding that one reserves for oneself. Nor can one ever excuse another person's weaknesses and failures as readily as one accepts one's own. Two commandments are more difficult to obey than 10.

And just who is one's neighbor? If you expand the list beyond wife, husband, parent, siblings and the people next door, obeying Christ's second commandment becomes increasingly difficult. Loving one's neighbor is this world's simplest, yet hardest, imperative. Loving one's neighbor as oneself, one will not kill him, lie to him or about him, sleep with his wife or steal his cow…None of the great teachers posted anything. Christ, Buddha, Mohammed -- none erected monuments. Each taught by word of mouth and personal example.

Those who are eager to set up ostentatious display cases for the Ten Commandments should be compelled to memorize Matthew 22:35-40. Then they should have to write on the blackboard 500 times what may be called the 11th commandment: Thou shalt post no commandments.”

So, what are your thoughts on this issue? Do you agree or disagree with the premise of the article?


(article taken from: www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/editorial/14786377.htm)

"Fighting Terrorism Since 1492"

Recently, I was researching and reading articles related to social justice, political, and religious issues, and came across an article that I think all must read. The article is entitled “Fighting Terrorism Since 1492”, written by Nickole Fox, and addresses terrorism, politics, and religious issues that most Americans (both Christian and non-Christian) have either ignored or not addressed.

Nickole Fox states…"Since the 9/11 attacks, there has been uproar of patriotism and fear in the minds of many Americans. To many, this is a new fear, a fear that stems from being powerless at the hands of the enemy, that we no longer have control over our own destinies, and that at any given moment the terrorists could come in and challenge our sovereignty. With this fear, founded or unfounded, we fight the enemy, we defend the land. However, this fear and resistance is far from new to many people in the United States. The indigenous Nations and people of this continent have been fighting to regain control of our destinies and for an end to terrorism on our communities and identities for many years. The beginning of terrorism in America for us, Native American People, was 1492.

This terrorism has taken many forms throughout the last 500 years on this continent. From slavery and physical genocide to land theft and cultural genocide, colonial powers would stop at nothing to eliminate Native people, and to exploit the resources of this continent. The Allotment Act sectioned off Native communities and led to significant land loss to white farmers. During removal, thousands of Native people died while being taken away from their ancestral homelands, where their traditions are based. Smallpox blankets were just one of the many attempts to plague communities with deadly diseases. extermination allowed the federal government to renege on its treaty responsibilities to Native nations and to remove tribal rights to self-govern. Relocation policies promised economic opportunities in urban areas instead of supporting sovereignty by promoting economic self-sufficiency. Native American women have been sterilized against their will, a form of eugenics and population control. Currently, Uranium mines, weapons testing sites, and dumping contaminate our communities. By marginalizing the indigenous people of this nation through genocidal and assimilationist policy the United States has attempted to eradicate us through the destruction of our identities by killing us or "making us like them."

Christian boarding schools were another one of the genocidal methods used. Assimilation policy sought to "Kill the Indian, save the man" and make Indian people hate everything Indian, including themselves. Children were often stolen from their families at very young ages to attend schools across the country, far from their families and communities. Christianizing practices taught Indian children that they were sinful and that their traditions were heathen. Native languages were forbidden; children who dared to speak their language were scolded, beaten or had pins stuck into their tongues. Sexual and physical abuse also plagued these Christian run government sanctioned boarding schools. The detrimental effects of boarding schools continue today; it is rare to find a Native person today whose family has not been affected by these schools.

There is still much healing to be done…"


So, what do you think?
1. As Christ believing citizens, do we have a responsibility to be a voice to the voiceless, powerless, oppressed, and so forth…how so in this case?

2. What types of oppressions and injustices are taking place in your own community? How are/or can you be a voice to those in your own community?

3. Specifically speaking about Americans, do you think we have succumbed both politically and theologically to the greatest temptation of all: recreating God in our own image?

4. Are we created to be a unity and a diversity, designed to serve and honor one another in relational oneness, bringing about restoration?


*If you are interested in reading the complete article, you can check it out at: http://criticalmoment.org/juneaugust2004/articles/fox.html


(some info. taken from nickole fox and “living in color” by randy woodley)

Busy, Busy, Busy...

Wow, has it been over a month since I posted any memoir, anecdote, paper, article, expose, commentary, or any other depiction of thought or reason (or the lack there of)?

The last month or so, I have been traveling, visiting three Katrina sites (Bayou Le Batre, Alabama, Gulfport, Mississippi, and Kenner/New Orleans, Louisiana)…which I will be sharing in upcoming postings. We also visited friends and family in the great metropolitan towns of Marion and Noblesville, Indiana, and like always, the time spent with them was rejuvenating. In addition to traveling, all of my classes this semester have been back loaded; therefore, much of my spare time has been filled with reading, writing papers, and studying for exams. Nevertheless, it has all been good stuff, and I am really enjoying the challenges and rewards.

Well, that is a very brief snippet of what has been consuming my life for the last couple of weeks! Until next time…

"...no holiness but social holiness!"

“There is no holiness but social holiness.”—John Wesley

“…what commandment is the foremost of all?” Jesus answered, “the foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is One Lord; And you shall love the lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ “The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.”—Jesus of Nazareth

Recently, I have had numerous conversations with some Wesleyan pastors and students who have voiced some concern over holiness issues and the negative impact popular evangelicalism has had on our denomination (The Wesleyan Church) and local congregations. What is being defined as popular evangelicalism is personal holiness. Reflected in our preaching, conversations, budgets and programs; the message seems to be that personal holiness is what really counts. All the things we hold dear - personal righteousness entire sanctification, tithing, worship, discipleship, and ministry programs tend to stem from the mindset of ‘personal holiness’.

The concern that some folks have for popular evangelicalism is the under emphasis of a more holistic idea of holiness. Holiness should not only bring about personal piety, but also cause the body to counter social injustices, influence political powers to effect change, conserve the resources of God’s creation, and so forth.

I would like to open up this conversation to you, so what do you think?

1. What does an overemphasis of personal holiness say about our theology?

2. What is your definition of personal holiness? What about social holiness?

3. Is the issue of personal holiness and social holiness a both/and OR either/or issue?

4. Is the Wesleyan Church doing a good job in educating and promoting social holiness?

5. What other thoughts do you have on Social Holiness (social justice, social action, etc.) and/or Personal Holiness?

What Makes Up A Small Church?

So, "how many are you running?" "How big is your church or ministry?"

Have you ever been asked these type of questions, or better yet, have you ever been the one asking? It is quite hilarious, and sometimes sad the types of conversations that are entertained at church functions, district gatherings, or spontaneous pastoral interactions.
Furthermore, how many church growth conferences or leadership seminars have you attended? At the very least, you have received numerous amounts of flyers and brochures (both at the office and at home) promoting such events. Now I will be first to tell you that I believe in quantitative numbers. Numbers tell us many things…when something is strong and alive, people show up. Numbers can also express healthiness, success, and so forth. However, using quantitative means to define a church or ministry can be very misleading.

I believe that corporate America and the capitalist mentality have infiltrated our congregations and institutions, and as a result have made churches and leaders think that instant growth is ‘the way’ to define success and growth. You can tell where one bases their belief and definition on growth by the language they use (e.g., church is called ‘organization’).

However, I think quantitative growth does not necessarily suggest whether a church is big or small, and truthfully is a deceptive term. Therefore, in our understanding and conversation of church growth, I propose we begin using a more qualitative than quantitative language and thought. There are many numerically large churches with a small church structure. As well, I think that a numerically small church can have a large church structure, though this is rarely seen and not the norm. If you can identify with a few of these, you are probably a small church no matter what numbers you run.

*You are a small church if:
1. All the members have at least some acquaintance with all other members
2. Your church functions like a single cell
3. It is a social system with a single center or a cohesive identity
4. Your members value relationships more than a program or organization
5. You hold in highest regard people who act out their faith
6. You refer to your leaders as ‘workers’ rather than ‘leaders’
7. Tradition carries more weight than novelty
8. Older members are fiercely loyal…but often stubborn
9. Participants feel the church is the right size to sustain the kind of congregational lifestyle that nurtures them
10. The congregation accepts and appreciates ‘characters’ that are a source of both strength and difficulty.

So, what do you think?
1. Does your church have any of these identifications? Would you be considered a small church?
2. Do you ever get tired of the quantitative questions and lingo (e.g., so how ‘many’ are attending your service, etc.)? What examples can you give?
3. Considering the corporate, capitalistic culture in which most of us live, is analyzing a church on qualitative means logical and/or realistic?
4. Any other thoughts or insights?



*(key stats and info. taken from pg. 215 of “Inside a Small Church” by Anthony Pappas)

Is A Pastors "Performance Based" Salary Coming to a Church Near You?

Recently, a group of Wesleyan pastors and students at Asbury Seminary were discussing the issue of some Wesleyan churches who are considering moving towards a pastor performance based salary. There were a variety of comments made with some seeing the positives in it, while others being disgusted with the whole concept. For instance:

-If a church is in decline, should that be enough to validate a reduction of salary purely because of quantitative numbers?

-Can the pastor lose the prophetic voice because total attendance could decrease if the truth were boldly proclaimed?

-As one rewards countable numbers like baptisms or new members, how would we measure discipleship and assess spiritual growth?

-Would these bonuses also apply to staff pastors (youth, worship, and so forth)?

-Is this way of analyzing and rewarding a pastor biblical, or have we gone to far in allowing the corporate and capitalistic philosophies to enter into our churches?

So…What do you think about churches moving towards a performance based salary (i.e., church grows by 50, $1,000 bonus; church grows by 100, $2,500 bonus)?


Any thoughts, questions, or conerns?

If "My" Life Was A Movie, What Genre Would It Be?

I have always wondered, if my life was made into a movie, what type of movie would it be (Action, Drama, a Love Story)? Who would play me in the movie (Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Owen Wilson)? Would it break all kinds of records, ranking up there with 'Titanic', 'Lord of the Rings', and the like? Man, was I wrong...check it out. The Movie Of Your Life Is An Indie Flick

You do things your own way - and it's made for colorful times. Your life hasn't turned out how anyone expected, thank goodness! Your best movie matches: Clerks, Garden State, Napoleon Dynamite

Interested in seeing what genre and best movies match with 'your' life? Go ahead, click on the link below and see what genre and movies best represent you!

If Your Life Was a Movie, What Genre Would It Be?

We Should Be More Like (not unlike) The Pharisees!

Part 3—Becoming More ‘Like’ the Pharisees!

We have heard of the many disagreements between Jesus and the Pharisees, but do we really know what they believed, and furthermore, do we understand the great things they brought to our faith. Hugo Odeberg, in Pharisaism and Christianity states, “there is no essential difference between the teaching of Jesus and the doctrines of the leaders of the Pharisees, that is, the teachings of the rabbis.” Yet, the harsh words Jesus used in confronting the Pharisees have obscured their agreements. For instance, Jesus lived as a loyal Jew and accepted the authority of the Torah; he also had many friendly contacts with certain Pharisees (Matthew 23:1-2).

However, as there might be some misconceptions between Jesus’ relationship and agreement with the Pharisees, there also must be some validity to his sharp rebukes. “The error of the Pharisees and their scribes as revealed in the New Testament scriptures can only be called a tragic irony. Those who were in principle the most deeply committed to the practice of the righteousness of the Torah, whose very tradition was invented to realize that righteousness, are shown here to oppose and invalidate a commandment of God through that tradition.” In explaining His criticism, we finally see the validation for such rebuke. Jesus takes their act of righteousness to deeper level. His point is that ‘moral’ righteousness is more important than certain rituals or ceremonial purity. As a result, one can see that it was not the foundation of their doctrines he disagreed with, but rather their current ways of practicing some of these doctrines. Furthermore, much can be confirmed about Jesus’ relationship with the Pharisees:

1. “Above all others, the Pharisees were respected and admired for their serious pursuit of righteousness (Matthew 23:2-3) (perhaps this is exactly why Jesus criticized them so harshly).”

2. Scholars believe that Matthew took some of his information from Mark, who was writing to gentile Christians. Matthew, on the other hand, is addressing Jewish Christians, “who in their own debate with the synagogue, the contemporary manifestation of Pharisaic Judaism.” From this, we can presuppose that Matthew knew the strong agreement Jesus had with the Pharisees appreciation for Torah, and living righteously, yet knowing the audience in which he was writing to, he also felt it was important to stress the disagreements.

3. Notice that Luke presents the Pharisees as not all that unfriendly towards Jesus. He is their guest at table (Luke 7:36; 11:37; 14:1). According to 13:31, they warn him of Herod’s plot against him. In Acts the relationship with the Christian communities is even more positive (Acts 5:34; 15:5; 23:9). Also, individual Pharisees like Nicodemus were attracted to Jesus and His ways.

In conclusion, the Pharisees have given us much more to live for. In today’s world of individualism, materialism, and the like, the purpose of the Pharisaic way of life, obeying the Torah, and tradition, are pillars, which we need to affirm and even refer back too. Thus, the Pharisees were right in trying to keep Scripture applicable, but were wrong in their method by making ‘their’ dogmatic traditions superior or equal to the written word. Though the Pharisees honestly sought God’s will, they were conditioned by their own traditions, yet, Jesus offered a corrective to both viewpoints. The written word is authoritative, but the great fundamental principles therein take precedence and provide the standard by which it is to be interpreted and applied. Hence, “The only proper method of establishing the true difference between Christianity and Pharisaism is obviously that we seek to obtain as accurate knowledge of both as we possibly can, and it is especially important that we gain a correct knowledge of the doctrines and fundamental principles of Pharisaism. A true knowledge of Pharisaism is of fundamental importance for the protection of the unique character of Christianity.” I believe there is much to be learned from the Pharisees, a righteousness and commitment that Christ reflects, acknowledges, and one He agreed with!

So what do you think?
-Should we become more like the Pharisees?
-What Christian practices are linked to Pharisee traditions (refer to part 2 for traditions/beliefs)?
-If the heart and practice are right with God, should we refer back to some of the Pharisees traditions and ways of life (refer to part 2 for traditions/beliefs)?
-Are our thoughts of the Pharisees skewed?
-How does their way differ from the Holiness Movement (righteousness, perfection, and so forth)?

Any other questions, thoughts, or insights?



(note: some info. taken from “Pharisaism and Christianity”, “Backgrounds of Early Christianity”, and Logos)

We Should Be More Like (not unlike) The Pharisees!

Part 2: Who Were The Pharisees?

Much of what is preached or taught about the Pharisees is derived from The Gospels and Paul’s writings. Nevertheless, there are things beyond these writings that some of us do not know or even acknowledge concerning these devoted people of God. I hope that the information below will shed some light on the Pharisees’ practices, thoughts, and loyalty towards God.

-The Name Pharisee: 'Pharisee' is usually derived from the Hebrew word parush, meaning separate, but also can mean interpret, and was used primarily by outsiders. Now what we refer to as Pharisee “emerged out of the Hasidim at the time of the Maccabean revolt. After the Maccabean revolt, if one did not choose to drop out of political life and withdraw to the wilderness (like the Qumranians) one of two courses could be followed with regard to the law. First, the traditional code might be expanded to meet new circumstances and be reinterpreted in accord with new beliefs, or second, those who accepted the first policy became the Pharisees, and those who adopted the second became the Sadducees.”

-Religion/Politics: In regards to religion, politics, power, and leadership influence, before the time of Herodian rule, and during the time of Hycarnus, the historian Josephus states that the Pharisees rejected Hyrcanus’s right to be both king and priest, so he gave his allegiance to the Sadducees. According to Josephus, they became a political party who opposed their beliefs on the nation. Eventually they wrestled with the acting governing council and supplanted the priests as interpreters of the law. Interesting enough, Rabbinic literature credits them restoring the Torah at this time. Therefore, by the time, we encounter Jesus, the Roman Empire is of great influence, and the Herodian Dynasty has been established. The Pharisees, now with limited political power, focus a lot of their energies and strength on influencing the Israelite nation on a more domestic and local level. Thus, thirty years after Jesus’ resurrection, around 70 A.D., the Pharisees, take the lead in giving the Jewish people a new center of religious life apart from the temple. “The Pharisaic scholars at Jamina and at Usha after the Bar Kokhba revolt were recognized by Rome as the governing body for the internal life of the Jewish people, so the Pharisees again became a party with political power as well as religious influence. The Judaism that survived was primarily Pharisaic Judaism.” Therefore, we can gather from this that the Pharisees experienced much political and empirical change.

In addition, their focus was to preserve the Torah, God’s teachings, throughout time. Structurally they believed in mainly two things: the Torah and tradition. The Torah, which means teaching, or law, consisted primarily of the five books of Moses, and had been given to all Israel, not just to the priests, and therefore was open to all who were competent to interpret it. Overall, they saw Torah as a developing, dynamic social force; they sought to keep the law of Moses from becoming a dead ritual and to give it new meaning and life. Thus, they were open to further doctrinal developments, such as the resurrection of the body, last judgment, and rewards and punishment in the afterlife.

-History:The Pharisees believed that history is controlled by divine providence with a divine purpose, whereas the Sadducees insisted on the freedom of the individual to control his or her own life and history. The Pharisees held that the destiny of human beings and of history is determined, while each human being is allowed the choice of distinguishing between good and evil.

-The Resurrection: The Pharisees believed in a resurrection after death, as well as a life beyond this world where people are rewarded or punished according to their behaviour in this life. In this they had been greatly influenced by Persian and Hellenistic thinking.

-Eschatology:The Pharisees regarded themselves as the true and pure Israel, therefore enjoying a special relationship with God and an exclusive destiny. There would come a time when God would assert himself and restore the glory of the Davidic kingdom by placing a descendant of David on the throne. They expected this kingdom to be set up in this world, though they believed that the pious dead would rise to experience the splendour of a new era.

-Community Affairs/War: After the Hasmonaean regime had come to an end, the Pharisees, unlike the Zealots, rejected the use of power and violence. They believed that God himself would determine the political march of events and liberate his people.

Therefore, as there are many positive attributes to the Pharisees and their teachings, whether unfair or not, many scholars, preachers and the like continue to shed a negative light on them. Thus, because of some these conflicting views, I believe it is important to understand the agreements and disagreements between Jesus and the Pharisees. So, what were the agreements and disagreements between them and Jesus? How can we become more like the Pharisees, rather than less like them? We will address these questions further.

Next: Part 3—Becoming More ‘Like’ the Pharisees!

(note: some info. taken from “Backgrounds of Early Christianity” by Everett Ferguson and Libronix Library)

We Should Be More Like (not unlike) The Pharisees!

Part 1: Facing our Misconceptions

A thought of being a Pharisee at one time was a good thing. After all, if it were not for the hard work of the Pharisees, much of what we have in Torah, and in Judaism would have been lost. Unfortunately, (but not irrationally) many Christians, and the like, have labeled the Pharisees as haters, liars, and have even viewed them as evil killers of Jesus. Most of their reasoning stems from a few passages in the Gospels that express some disagreement between Jesus and the Pharisees. Yet, the majority of their assumptions is unprecedented and stem from a lack of strong Biblical and Historical teaching. Moreover, the word Pharisee has even a negative connotation in our common language. For instance, Webster’s Dictionary describes Pharisaic as hypocritical. Thus, many Christians have had to learn from Jewish scholars that “Pharisee” is not synonymous with “hypocrite.” Christian literature, sermons, and the like even slam this religious sect. Carnell, in “The Case for Biblical Christianity” describing current religiosity, states, “Unless this biblically revealed distinction between a person and his conduct is seriously accepted, misguided zealots—conservative or liberal—may end up clothing themselves with the garments of a new pharisaism. In other words, they will presume that they are righteous because they are not like others.” Nevertheless, in confronting these presuppositions and misconceptions with study and research, one can gather enough evidence to acknowledge that Jesus was in much agreement with the Pharisees.
So, who were the Pharisees? What did they believe? What were the agreements and disagreements between them and Jesus? How can we become more like the Pharisees, rather than less like them? We will address these questions further.

Next: Part 2..."Who Were The Pharisees ?"


(Note: some info. taken from: http://www.m-w.com/ and Carnell, E.J., The Case for Biblical Christianity, p. 35.)

Logos5 Youth Convention: Voice Your Thoughts...

Logos5 Grand Rapids, the Midwest Regional Wesleyan Youth Convention kicked off on Dec. 28 and ended with high energy, emotional convictions, and a challenge to over 2000 students to read the Bible everyday during the 2006 year. Not only were the students challenged to read the Word, but also the youth pastors/leaders were given resources to help guide and lead their students through this amazing endeavor. Overall, the response was tremendous. Many felt that the energetic and challenging rallies mixed with the in depth and challenging seminars brought continuity to the overall purpose of Logos5. Personally, through all aspects of the convention (rallies, seminars, small group time, and so forth) I sensed that students and adults were challenged to seek His Word, challenged to ask the right questions, and realize that they must know His Word in times of pluralism and secularism.
However, as the convention met its purpose, like with other ministries and events, there are always places to improve. Therefore, what are your thoughts? What bands, speakers, or things should we add/change to the next Wesleyan Youth Convention? What about activities, seminars, and the like…any other ideas, additions, or critiques?

I look forward to your constructive criticism, insights, and testimonies.

Also, check out http://www.logos05.com/ for further discussion!

What Shall Our Kingdom Response Be to HIV/AIDS?—Part 2

my thoughts on: “The Reason for The Church’s Vital Response to HIV/AIDS”

Many of us, I suspect, have encountered churches that have left us wondering if we ever want to be involved with the church again. Some of us have seen people and churches that identify themselves as Christians but act with even greater ungodliness than the non-Christians around. On the other hand, perhaps even more common, some of us have encountered churches that act out of self-protection or self-preservation rather than out of godly motivation. Some of us have seen churches that are so much like the culture around; we do not know what makes them distinctive from the culture. (Note that the NT addresses church problems in 1 Cor. 1, 5-9, so this is not the first time). However, God calls us to be a distinct community, a representative of Him in this World. Furthermore, let me state that this community is the people of the covenant God, as such it should be distinctively different from the world. First, it recognizes its unfinished nature -- it is still growing into, pushing forwards toward maturity; it is still growing into its mission of blessing and reaching the whole world; it is still growing as it accepts new members -- the cells are being added each day. Second, it is not the way of power and control but rather of weakness and humility. God chooses that which is weak and foolish in the eyes of the world, and he asks us to embody these ways for the world -- going the extra mile, turning the other cheek do not bring us good returns on our investment. This is demonstrated for us in the sacrifice of Christ -- we practice kindness, tenderheartedness, and forgiveness because these were first practiced towards us -- not because we could afford them but because Christ loved us.
The difference is that our culture says, “Put yourself first. Do what feels good.” Yet, Jesus says to us, “Love your neighbor, pray for your enemies, and don’t stop doing good to your brothers and sisters.” The outlook is away from ourselves and towards others. More importantly, we are called upon to sacrifice our own freedoms for others, our rights that which we might demand— why, because it is the way of Christ and it is the way of witness/evangelism.

The Church must realize that God’s People in Community, belong to the kingdom of God, and live as servants of the King, both towards their communities and towards the world. Therefore, we must have a Kingdom Response to our world.

I believe that as the Church (The People in Community), we should be in hopeful pursuit of life-giving reality in four ways, 1. as a growing body (1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4), 2. through weakness and humility (I Cor. 2:2-3), 3. in consideration of others (1 Cor. 8:13), 4. with sacrifice (1 Cor. 9), 5. and in truth with love (Eph. 4).

Moreover, we are a Community of Salvation. The Church is the Community of the Saved, and the Church of Community Serving the Savior. A byproduct of this Community (Church) is Evangelism, as showing forth the gospel (serving the kingdom). Its mission generates God’s people, who constitute as God’s people by their engagement in ‘His mission’. Therefore, the answer to Jesus’ supplication is to “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37), which He lays out for us in Matthew 25:31-46…a direct Kingdom response for this Church, at this time, during this crisis!

So, what do you think the Church’s response should be? What are ‘your’ thoughts, insights, and response to this matter? What do you know of that the Church is already doing to respond to this crisis?

For further information and study on HIV/AIDS, check out:
-www.worldhope.org
-www.one.org
-www.worldvision.org
-www.interactworldwide.org
-www.aidsalliance.org
-www.aids.org
-www.thebody.com
-www.lausanne.org

Know any other insightful resources or web sites, please share!


(note: some excerpts are taken from K.C.W. (Dr. Reese) notes)

What Shall Our Kingdom Response Be to HIV/AIDS?--Part 1

The FACTS!

December 1st was set aside as the day in which the World, universally, recognized HIV/AIDS and its pandemic. Over the entire Globe, millions of people, of all religions, races, and the like, voiced their concerns, prayers, and thoughts on this universal matter.
So far, the global AIDS epidemic has killed 25 million people, and in the United States alone, an estimated 1,039,000 to 1,185,000 are infected. UNAIDS reports that, last year saw 3.1 million AIDS deaths worldwide, and if they do not get AIDS drugs, 6 million more people will die in the next year or two. Every hour 354 people die of AIDS. That is about one person every ten seconds. That is like a Boeing 747 crashing every hour, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
Furthermore, the United Nations reported that more than 80 million Africans may die from AIDS (search) by 2025, the United Nations said in a report released Friday, and infections could soar to 90 million — or more than 10 percent of the continent's population — if more isn't done soon to fight the disease. Researchers determined that even with massive funding and better treatment, the number of Africans who will die from AIDS is likely to top 67 million in the next two decades. "What we do today will change the future," concluded the report, drawn up by some of the world's leading experts on HIV and AIDS. "These scenarios demonstrate that, while societies will have to deal with AIDS for some time to come, the extent of the epidemic's impact will depend on the responses and investment now."

Tomorrow—Part 2…my thoughts on: “The Reason for The Church’s Vital Response to HIV/AIDS”


(note: excerpts taken from foxnews.com, cnn.com, and unaids.org)

A Conversation on "The State of the 'C'hurch"

Let me first give you the setting:

Place: Applebee’s
Time: 10pm
Purpose: to eat Spicy Buffalo Wings
The Question that Unleashed the Conversation: “How does someone in the local church find true community…is small groups ‘really’ the answer”?

So, the battle began. “Where is the church going”? "What is the state of the local church"? "Are clergy, lay people, and the like aware of its situation"? "Are we adapting to the changes, welcoming its coming, or are we going to continue doing things the way we have always done them" ('always' = last 20+ years)?
Immediately, someone spoke up and said that the local church ‘will’ evolve into smaller group of communities. These small communities will encompass one large community, some will call them cells, house groups, and the like, but will all look and function in the same manner. After his statement, someone rebutted in and said that the church will become more missional and will be intentional about building relationships, and the message of Christ will come through story and testimony. As a result, churches will remain small and look more grassroots, and less ‘established’. However, another chimed in and instantly won the Sunday School Answer Award, when he suggested that the local church will not sway or look a certain way, but instead, the church will have many different faces, or as he put it, “similar to a good hearty bowl of beef stew”. There will be small groups/communities; missional churches, Mega-Churches, small churches, even internet churches, but all will be a part of the overall church. Still, as the discussion deepened, and became heated, I wondered, “where is the church ‘really’ headed”? Five, Ten, Twenty, or Thirty years from now, what will the local church look like, and how will this shape the Church?
George Barna, in his new book “Revolution” states, “That the Church in North America are less interested in attending church than in being the church. We found that there is a significant distinction in the minds of many people between the local church – with a small ‘c’ – and the universal Church – with a capital ‘C’. Revolutionaries (as he labels them) tend to be more focused on being the Church, capital C, whether they participate in a congregational church or not.” A common misconception about revolutionaries is that they are disengaging from God when they leave a local church. We found that while some people leave the local church and fall away from God altogether, there is a much larger segment of Americans who are currently leaving churches precisely because they want more of God in their life but cannot get what they need from a local church. Barna estimates that the local church is presently the primary form of faith experience and expression for about two-thirds of the nation’s adults. He projects that by 2025 the local church will lose roughly half of its current “market share” and that alternative forms of faith experience and expression will pick up the slack. Importantly, Barna’s studies do not suggest that most people will drop out of a local church to simply ignore spirituality or be freed up from the demands of church life. Although there will be millions of people who abandon the entire faith community for the usual reasons, a growing percentage of church dropouts will be those who leave a local church in order to intentionally increase their focus on faith and to relate to God through different means.”

So…

1. How does this affect the “Professional” Christian? Will the bi-vocational pastor become the norm?
2. Who holds one accountable?
3. Where does one get their theology (Books, Internet, Oprah, Bono, Jack Van Impe, the friend next door?)?
4. Will corporate worship look different…will it even be valid?
5. Where does one find community?
6. What does this mean in training future pastors, lay leaders, and the like?

*Can you think of any other implications…what are your thoughts or insights?


(Note: info. gathered from www.barna.org and friends at Applebee’s)

"The Progression of 'Youth Ministry'"...Part 3

“Youth Ministry According to John Wesley: a message for today's church"

As part 1 and 2 convey, youth ministry can be difficult to describe, define, and predict. However, in looking at the history of its impact on culture and society, we now turn to one of the greatest Practical Theologians who connected society and religion through which we will understand how the church is to adapt to today’s progression of ministry to youth.

Wesley’s teachings and foundational truths move churches beyond traditional ideas of developing programs and planning activities to addressing topics such as authentic discipleship, authentic worship, teen and adult connections, community building, faith development, and equipping youth to live as Christian disciples in their everyday lives. Wesley does not stop there, but suggests that a complete ministry to youth integrates them now (while they are still young) into the body, or what some call ‘adult church’.
Below are key elements to a ‘Wesleyan’ Youth Ministry.

A Wesleyan influenced Youth Ministry is one that:

1. Reverberates Discipleship
   -It is a “lifelong” process.
   -Challenges the pastor means of equipping, ongoing spiritual growth, and support for laypersons who engage in discipleship ministries with “all” ages.
   -In addition to hearing the Bible preached, seekers and Christians come together to study the Scripture, and support one another in living out the insights they discover in God’s Word.
2. Is a ‘church as first family’ model that believes youth are essential to the body of Christ and intentionally integrates students into the overall life of the church.
3. Teaches them spiritual disciplines in order that they may discover individually how to find God (this is in line with Wesleyan theology that says it is the grace of God, which makes possible our salvation)
4. Is Missional--Creates a method of witnessing to adolescents…regularly exposing them to other Christians who are radically living out their faith and allowing them to participate in the life of the community.

If one looks at the progression of youth ministry, they may see many ministries that are moving away from old gimmick models, the latest trends, and quick fixes in getting students to their youth groups, because they realize long-term, these ways does not work. Moreover, with a culture of students that literally has everything at the edge of their finger tips (MTV, Internet, etc.); along with the busyness of life (Athletics, Extracurricular activities, church events, and the like); in addition to the socio and domestic issues (prejudices, self-esteem, violence, divorce, etc.)…churches, pastors, and the like, have to realize that they are also very spiritual, longing for depth and authentic community. One example is looking at the influences and resources that are now ‘relevant’.

Willow Creek, Saddleback, Youth Specialties, Group, etc. are all implementing strategies and curriculum emphasizing small groups, discipleship, and student led ministry guides, and the like. Thus, reiterating and supporting John Wesley’s foundational and practical truths in training, teaching, and reaching students to belong to a community that shapes one to become more like Christ, and emphasizes in bringing others along.

A Wesleyan youth ministry is a holistic ministry that takes our students on the holistic spiritual journey that does not just last them a couple of years, but an entire lifetime!

Questions:
1. How does Wesley’s teachings influence your view on ‘how to do’ youth ministry? What is that view?
2. Do you think that in today’s progressive society, Wesley is the ‘right’ model (or good model) in basing one’s youth ministry? If not, what is?
3. How does one integrate students into the overall body of the church? Do you think this is this even important?
4. Is youth ministry becoming more compartmentalized or more holistic?
5. Scenario: If Wesley was presenting a lecture on the state of youth ministry in the church today, and already being aware of his teachings on the subject, what questions or concerns would you address?

I welcome your engaging thoughts, insights, and experiences.



(note: some info. taken from Wesley’s Works, Wesley’s Sermons, and Creating an Authentic Youth Ministry-Fashbaugh II)

"The Progression of 'Youth Ministry'"...Part 2

Take a moment and engage yourself into:

The lineage of what we know as “youth ministry” .

For over 200 years, ministry to youth has influenced students, society, and the church. What was a new thing is now an expected thing. Today, it is hard to find a church that does not have a some sort of ministry to youth.

Yet, as we journey towards the progression of youth ministry, we must first address its past and current state. Below is a quick view into the “long life” of what we call “youth ministry”:

18th/19th Century: Sunday School
-Sunday School paved the way for ‘modern’ youth ministry
-Designed to meet the needs of the unchurched, underprivileged, an outreach ‘tool’
-This is where they learned how to read (idea was to get them into Sunday ‘school’, learn how to read the Word, comprehend and know they were sinners, and turn to God for salvation).
-1851 and 1858-denominations teamed up to create the YMCA and YWCA (ran by Lay Church Members of Multi-Denominations)
-Cycle or Plan of Sunday School:
1. Evangelistic: they welcomed kids into the group
2. Teaching: taught basic scripture and biblical stories related to salvation
3. Commitment: invitation of salvation was given

-Outreach: kids are encouraged to invite others (the “Cycle” repeats)
-Purpose/Practice of Sunday School: Education and Evangelism
Sunday School gave young people ‘real’ responsibility and ‘taught’ them to reach out to others.

Late 19th Century:
-Once a month meetings began, and kids were invited to what was called “Lyceum”, which was a “serious” bible study.
-Lyceum was strictly a serious time and anything resembling ‘fellowship’ was discouraged.
-1880, Congregational minister Dr. Francis Clark started Christian Endeavor Society to challenge kids to be responsible for the larger service in the church of Christ.
-Purpose of Clark’s Christian Endeavor Society was: discipleship, emphasis on service, and outreach
-Christian Endeavor Societies grew, that he planned C.E.S. conventions: the first one drew 7 societies in 1882, 56 in 1883, and in 1887, there were over 50,000 (in over 33 states and 7 countries).
-Other denominations jumped on board—Methodists had the Epworth League (1889), Baptists had the Baptist Young People’s Union (1890), and so on.
-Every Group across Every Denomination had the same purpose: “train kids to be faithful church members in a secularized society that ridiculed the church”.

20th/21st Century: Modern Youth Ministry is “now” under the C.E. umbrella
-1930’s ministry to ‘kids’ (young people) was put under the Christian Education umbrella.
-Education was a powerful function of the church (offered stability, resources, etc.), BUT it erased its longtime tie to evangelism and service.
-The focus is now: education and fellowship (ironically today, we associate fellowship with ‘fun and games’. Early fellowship was taken from college ‘fellow groups’ know for their dedicated study.)
-Now ‘understanding’ ones faith replaced ‘conversion’ as the goal of youth ministry.
-1950’s: Fellowship groups began meeting the needs of young adults, not youth.
-1960’s: Fellowship groups almost became irrelevant (term ‘Youth Ministry’ began).
-Denominations and churches began their ‘own’ plan of youth ministry (the days of the Christian Endeavor Society were over). However, most had core criteria in their youth ministries:
1. view that youth are the church of today, not tomorrow
2. they are part of the church and ‘should’ serve the church wide responsibilities
3. should function in the ‘world’ and within the ‘church’
4. more emphasis on ‘education’ and ‘service’
5. person-centered NOT program-centered

-Today’s youth ministries have not been able to reach a consensus on an overall plan for faith growth. Churches and Youth have a hard time describing their youth group’s theological purpose. Commitment to Christ can and sometimes seems secondary.
-As a result, groups copy methods ‘they’ admire: Youth for Christ, Young Life, Saddleback, Willow Creek, or the new fad of the year (Skate Ministry, Cell Groups, YS book of the month, and/or the like).
-Some emphasis spiritual disciplines, discipleship, fun and games, big events, service, etc., which is ideal in the consumerist world of which we are a part.

Questions:
1. Where do you see the progression of youth ministry going?
2. 5 or 10 years from now (2010-2015), what does youth ministry look like?
3. Would a “Christian Endeavor Society” driven youth ministry make it in today’s youth ministry culture of influenced by the Saddleback’s/Willow Creek’s and Youth Specialties?
4. Other thoughts or insights?

I welcome your engaging thoughts, insights, and experiences.

Next: ...Part 3: "Youth Ministry According to John Wesley: a message for today's church"

(note: info. taken from www.tomorrowtoday.biz, Ward, P. (1996) Growing Up Evangelical: youthwork and the making of a subculture, and other related material).